A newly designed duodenoscope with detachable distal cap significantly reduces organic residue contamination after reprocessing

Single-use accessories and endoscopes in the era of sustainability and climate change-A balancing act

Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is among the highest waste generator in healthcare facilities. The major reasons include production of large-volume non-renewable waste, use of single-use devices, and reprocessing or decontamination processes. Single-use endoscopic accessories have gradually replaced reusable devices over last two decades contributing to the rising impact of GI endoscopy on ecosystem. Several reports of infection outbreaks with reusable duodenoscopes raised concerns regarding the efficacy and adherence to standard disinfection protocols. Even the enhanced reprocessing techniques like double high-level disinfection have not been found to be the perfect ways for decontamination of duodenoscopes and therefore, paved the way for the development of single-use duodenoscopes. However, the use of single-use endoscopes is likely to amplify the net waste generated and carbon footprint of any endoscopy unit. Moreover, single-use devices challenge one of the major pillars of sustainability, that is, "reuse." In the era of climate change, a balanced approach is required taking into consideration patient safety as well as financial and environmental implications. The possible solutions to provide optimum care while addressing the impact on climate include selective use of disposable duodenoscopes and careful selection of accessories during a case. Other options include use of disposable endcaps and development of effective high-level disinfection techniques. The collaboration between the healthcare professionals and the manufacturers is paramount for the development of environmental friendly devices with low carbon footprint.

Asia-Pacific survey on green endoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Greenhouse gas emissions are the fundamental cause of global warming, with CO2 being the most contributive. Carbon reduction has been widely advocated to mitigate the climate crisis. The endoscopy unit is the third highest waste-generating department in a hospital. The awareness and acceptance of the practice of green endoscopy among healthcare workers is unclear.

METHOD

An online survey was conducted over a 5-week period from July to August 2023 in the Asia-Pacific region, which targeted endoscopists, nurses, and other healthcare professionals of the endoscopy unit. The primary outcome was the agreement to adopt green endoscopy. The secondary outcomes included views on sustainable practices, factors associated with increased acceptance of green endoscopy, the acceptance of different carbon reduction measures, and the perceived barriers to implementation.

RESULTS

A total of 259 valid responses were received. Overall, 79.5% of participants agreed to incorporate green endoscopy into their practice. Nevertheless, existing green policies were only reported by 12.7% of respondents. The level of understanding of green endoscopy is the only significant factor associated with its acceptance (odds ratio 3.10, P < 0.007). Potential barriers to implementation include healthcare cost increment, infection risk, inadequate awareness, and lack of policy and industrial support.

CONCLUSION

Green endoscopy is well accepted among healthcare workers but not widely implemented. The level of understanding is highly associated with its acceptance, highlighting the importance of education. A reliable assessment tool is needed to quantify the environmental impact of endoscopy. Further studies are needed to ascertain its benefit and cost effectiveness.

Reprocessing semicritical items: An overview and an update on the shift from HLD to sterilization for endoscopes

BACKGROUND

Semicritical medical devices are defined as items that come into contact with mucous membranes or nonintact skin (e.g., gastrointestinal endoscopes, endocavitary probes). Such medical devices require minimally high-level disinfection.

METHODS

Analyze the methods used to reprocess semicritical medical devices and identify methods and new technologies to reduce the risk of infection.

RESULTS

The reprocessing methods for semicritical medical devices is described as well as a shift from high-level disinfection to sterilization for lumened endoscopes.

CONCLUSIONS

Strict adherence to current guidelines and transition to sterilization for endoscopes is required as more outbreaks have been linked to inadequately disinfected endoscopes and other semicritical items than any other reusable medical devices.

Comparing the Safety and Efficacy of Two Commercially Available Single-Use Duodenoscopes: A Multicenter Study

INTRODUCTION

Single-use disposable duodenoscopes (SDD) have been developed to mitigate infectious risks related to reusable duodenoscopes. The aim of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy of the two available SDDs in the United States.

METHODS

We conducted a comparative study of 2 SDD in consecutive ERCP procedures performed by expert endoscopists from 9 academic centers. Performance ratings, procedure details, and adverse events were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 201 patients were included: 129 patients underwent ERCP with Exalt (mean age 63, Males- 66 (51%), 72 with aScope Duodeno (mean age 65, males=30 (42%). A majority of endoscopists had performed >2000 ERCPs in both groups (71% Exalt, 93% aScope Duodeno). Technical success was 92% in both groups (n=119 Exalt-group, n=66 aScope-Duodeno-group). The procedural complexity for the ERCP cases performed were: Grade 1: 35 cases (18%), Grade 2: 83 cases (41%), Grade 3: 65 cases (32%), and Grade 4: 18 cases (9%). Thirteen patients (10%) from the Exalt group and 16 patients (22%) from the aScope Duodeno group required conversion to a reusable duodenoscope. On a scale of 1 to 5, Exalt and aScope Duodeno, respectively, were rated: 2.31 versus 2.60 for location and visualization quality, 1.38 versus 1.57 for maneuverability based on papillary orientation, 1.48 versus 1.15 for suction/air control, and 2.31 versus 2.34 for elevator efficiency. None of the adverse events were related to the SDDs.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2 SDDs were comparable. Further ongoing enhancements to these devices will improve maneuverability and clinical effectiveness.

Disposable Duodenoscopes: Evidence and Open Issues

Duodenoscope-related infections are a major concern in medicine and GI endoscopy, especially in fragile patients. Disposable duodenoscopes seem to be the right tool to minimize the problem: a good choice for patients with many comorbidities or with a high risk of carrying multidrug resistant bacteria. Urgent endoscopy could also be a good setting for the use of single-use duodenoscopes, especially when the risk of the infection cannot be evaluated. Their safety and efficacy in performing ERCP has been proven in many studies. However, randomized clinical trials and comparative large studies with reusable scopes are lacking. Moreover, the present early stage of their introduction on the market does not allow a large economical evaluation for each health system. Thus, accurate economical and safety comparisons with cap-disposable duodenoscopes are needed. Moreover, the environmental impact of single-use duodenoscopes should be carefully evaluated, considering the ongoing climate change. In conclusion, definitive guidelines are needed to choose wisely the appropriate patients for ERCP with disposable duodenoscopes as the complete switch to single-use duodenoscopes seems to be difficult, to date. Many issues are still open, and they need to be carefully evaluated in further, larger studies.

Green endoscopy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), Joint Accreditation Group (JAG) and Centre for Sustainable Health (CSH) joint consensus on practical measures for environmental sustainability in endoscopy

GI endoscopy is highly resource-intensive with a significant contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and waste generation. Sustainable endoscopy in the context of climate change is now the focus of mainstream discussions between endoscopy providers, units and professional societies. In addition to broader global challenges, there are some specific measures relevant to endoscopy units and their practices, which could significantly reduce environmental impact. Awareness of these issues and guidance on practical interventions to mitigate the carbon footprint of GI endoscopy are lacking. In this consensus, we discuss practical measures to reduce the impact of endoscopy on the environment applicable to endoscopy units and practitioners. Adoption of these measures will facilitate and promote new practices and the evolution of a more sustainable specialty.

Bacterial contamination and organic residue after reprocessing in duodenoscopes with disposable distal caps compared with duodenoscopes with fixed distal caps: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Newly designed duodenoscopes with disposable distal caps have been developed for better cleaning and preprocessing to reduce the risk of bacterial contamination (BC). We compared BC and organic residue of duodenoscopes with disposable distal caps and duodenoscopes with fixed distal caps after manual cleaning and high-level disinfection (HLD).

METHODS

Four hundred duodenoscopes were randomized into group A (fixed distal caps, n = 200) and group B (disposable distal caps, n = 200). After manual cleaning, samples from the elevator were submitted for culture. An adenosine triphosphate (ATP) test was performed for organic residue evaluation. Based on our previous data, ATP < 40 relative light units (RLUs) had 100% sensitivity with 100% negative predictive value to confirm no BC after reprocessing.

RESULTS

After manual cleaning, group A had a higher BC rate (14% vs 7%, P = .02), a higher proportion of duodenoscopes with ATP ≥ 40 RLUs (73.5% vs 57%, P = .001), and a higher mean of ATP level (226.6 vs 82.0 RLUs, P < .001) compared with group B. After HLD, the proportion of potential BC (ATP ≥ 40 RLUs) in group A was 2.7 times higher than group B (4% vs 1.5%, P = .13). Mean ATP level after HLD in the 2 groups was significantly lower than before the HLD procedure (group A, 24.2 vs 226.6 RLUs [P < .001]; group B, 20.4 vs 82.0 RLUs [P < .001], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

After manual cleaning, duodenoscopes with disposable distal caps had significantly lower BC and organic residue than duodenoscopes with fixed distal caps. Only a few duodenoscopes from each group did not pass the ATP threshold after HLD.

Analysis of reported adverse events related to single-use duodenoscopes and duodenoscopes with detachable endcaps

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Single-use duodenoscopes and duodenoscopes with detachable/disposable caps emerged in the market to mitigate the risk of ERCP-related infections. We aimed to investigate adverse events associated with these devices occurring after U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval.

METHODS

We analyzed postmarketing surveillance data from the FDA Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database from July 2018 to June 2021.

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-five reports comprising 201 device issues and 118 patient adverse events were identified from July 2018 through June 2021. Most device issues related to the single-use duodenoscope were due to optical problems (7 reports). Other reported device issues included difficulty in advancing the duodenoscope (2 reports), fluid leak (2 reports), and use-of-device problems (2 reports). Among the duodenoscopes with detachable/disposable caps, most device issues were related to bacterial contamination (53 reports), followed by issues with device use (31 reports), detachment/separation of the device (25 reports), and crack/dent in device material (16 reports). Overall, the most frequently reported patient adverse events were tissue injury (63 reports), perforation (8 reports), and bleeding (7 reports). Ninety reports of microbial contamination of duodenoscopes with detachable/disposable caps were identified, of which Pseudomonas aeruginosa was most common.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from the MAUDE database highlight patient and device adverse events that endoscopists should be aware of in using single-use duodenoscopes and duodenoscopes with detachable/disposable caps. Whereas these devices mitigate the risk of transmitting infection, they are associated with additional device-associated adverse events.

Gastrointestinal endoscope contamination rates - elevators are not only to blame: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Duodenoscopes that are contaminated due to inadequate reprocessing are well-documented. However, studies have demonstrated poor reprocessing of other kinds of endoscopes as well, including echoendoscopes, gastroscopes, and colonoscopes. We estimated the contamination rate beyond the elevator of gastrointestinal endoscopes based on available data. Methods  We searched PubMed and Embase from January 1, 2010 to October 10, 2020, for studies investigating contamination rates of reprocessed gastrointestinal endoscopes. A random-effects model was used to calculate the contamination rate of patient-ready gastrointestinal endoscopes. Subgroup analyses were conducted to investigate differences among endoscope types, countries, and colony-forming unit (CFU) thresholds. Results  Twenty studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, including 1,059 positive cultures from 7,903 samples. The total contamination rate was 19.98 % ± 0.024 (95 % confidence interval [Cl]: 15.29 %-24.68 %; I ²  = 98.6 %). The contamination rates of colonoscope and gastroscope channels were 31.95 % ± 0.084 and 28.22 % ± 0.076, respectively. Duodenoscope channels showed a contamination rate of 14.41 % ± 0.029. The contamination rates among studies conducted in North America and Europe were 6.01 % ± 0.011 and 18.16% ± 0.053 %, respectively. The contamination rate among studies using a CFU threshold > 20 showed contamination of 30.36 % ± 0.094, whereas studies using a CFU threshold < 20 showed a contamination rate of 11 % ± 0.026. Conclusions  On average, 19.98 % of reprocessed gastrointestinal endoscopes may be contaminated when used in patients and varies between different geographies. These findings highlight that the elevator mechanism is not the only obstacle when reprocessing reusable endoscopes; therefore, guidelines should recommend more surveillance of the endoscope channels as well.

GIE Editorial Board top 10 topics: advances in GI endoscopy in 2020

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy's Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Editorial Board reviewed a systematic literature search of original endoscopy-related articles published during 2020 in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and 10 other high-impact medical and gastroenterology journals. Votes from each individual board member were tallied to identify a consensus list of the 10 most significant topic areas in GI endoscopy over the calendar year of study using 4 criteria: significance, novelty, impact on national health, and impact on global health. The 10 areas identified were as follows: artificial intelligence in endoscopy, coronavirus disease 2019 and GI practice, third-space endoscopy, lumen-apposing metal stents, single-use duodenoscopes and other disposable equipment, endosonographic needle technology and techniques, endoscopic closure devices, advances in GI bleeding management, improvements in polypectomy techniques, and bariatric endoscopy. Each board member contributed a summary of important articles relevant to 1 to 2 topic areas, leading to a collective summary that is presented in this document of the "top 10" endoscopic advances of 2020.

Amount of contamination on the face shield of endoscopists during upper endoscopy between patients in two positions: A randomized study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic, esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) has been recognized as an aerosol-generating procedure. This study aimed to systematically compare the degree of face shield contamination between endoscopists who performed EGD on patients lying in the left lateral decubitus (LL) and prone positions.

METHODS

This is a randomized trial in patients scheduled for EGD between April and June 2020. Eligible 212 patients were randomized with 1:1 allocation. Rapid adenosine triphosphate test was used to determine contamination level using relative light units of greater than 200 as a cutoff value. All eligible patients were randomized to lie in either the LL or prone position during EGD. The primary outcome was the rate of contamination on the endoscopist's face shield.

RESULTS

The majority of patients were female (63%), with a mean age of 60 ± 13 years. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. There was no face shield contamination after EGD in either group. The number of coughs in the LL group was higher than the prone group (1.38 ± 1.8 vs 0.89 ± 1.4, P = 0.03). The mean differences in relative light units on the face shield before and after EGD in the LL and prone groups were 9.9 ± 20.9 and 4.1 ± 6 (P = 0.008), respectively.

CONCLUSION

As measured by the adenosine triphosphate test, performing diagnostic EGD does not lead to contamination on the face shield of the endoscopist. However, placing patients in the prone position may further mitigate the risk.

Device profile of the EXALT Model D single-use duodenoscope for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: overview of its safety and efficacy

Introduction: The management of pancreaticobiliary disorders relies heavily on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, which is performed with a duodenoscope. Bacterial colonization of reusable duodenoscopes leading to subsequent infectious outbreaks is well recognized and remains an issue despite efforts to optimize best practices in high-level disinfection. The EXALT Model D duodenoscope (EXALT) (Boston Scientific Corporation, Marlborough, MA) is a single-use device, designed to achieve technical equivalency with reusable devices while eliminating the potential for device-related outbreaks.Areas covered: This review covers the challenges associated with reprocessing duodenoscopes and the development of duodenoscope-related infections, with an emphasis on the use of single-use duodenoscopes as a potential solution to this issue.Expert Opinion: Duodenoscope-related infections are an increasingly recognized problem. Infectious outbreaks harm patients, significantly affect providers and medical centers, and can erode patient trust in the health-care system. Single-use duodenoscopes eliminate both the risk of device-related infection transmission and the need for burdensome duodenoscope reprocessing. In clinical evaluations, the EXALT device has demonstrated an equivalent technical performance and provider satisfaction compared to reusable duodenoscopes. Increasing use of this device will clarify how it compares to reusable duodenoscopes in a variety of clinical settings among endoscopists of varying skills levels.

Recent Advances in Endoscope Disinfection: Where Do We Stand in the COVID era?

Over 16 million cases worldwide, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has profoundly affected healthcare as we know it. Given reports of gastrointestinal involvement and viral shedding in the stool, it is unsurprising there are concerns that endoscopic equipment may be a potential vector of viral transmission. Here, we provide an overview of existing practices for endoscope reprocessing, recent developments in the field, and challenges in the COVID-19 environment. Current multi-society guidelines do not advise any change to endoscope disinfection protocols but emphasize strict adherence to recommended practices. However, endoscopy reprocessing staff may benefit from supplemental personal protective equipment measures, especially in high risk situations. Because thorough endoscope reprocessing is highly operator dependent, adequate training of personnel is critical for proper manual cleaning and disinfection of endoscopes that have potential to harbor virus. Bacterial contamination of duodenoscopes has caused outbreaks of infection from multidrug-resistant organisms, highlighting vulnerable areas. The emphasis of current studies is on optimization of disinfection and drying, minimization of simethicone use, and on quality control of endoscope reprocessing with sampling and microbiological culturing. Recent advances include novel approaches to endoscope sterilization, infection barrier methods, and design of partially or fully disposable duodenoscopes. Overall, the available data indicate that, when correctly executed, current reprocessing practices are sufficient in preventing SARS-COV-2 transmission.