Advanced trainee perceptions of disposable duodenoscopes and disposable endcaps: results of a nationwide survey

INTRODUCTION

Disposable duodenoscopes and duodenoscopes with disposable endcaps are being used in clinical practice to reduce or eliminate the risk of transmitting infections. The study aim was to assess perceptions and experiences regarding the use of these duodenoscopes among advanced endoscopy fellows in a nationally representative sample.

METHODS

A 17-item electronic survey was sent to 74 advanced endoscopy training programs. The survey was completed by 50 participants and their responses were included for analysis.

RESULTS

Most participants were from academic training programs (82.7%) and identified as being in their 7th year of post graduate training (92%; PGY-7). Participants performed an average of 414 ERCPs. 29% reported difficulty with cannulation using disposable duodenoscopes versus 15.7% with duodenoscopes with disposable endcaps (vs. standard duodenoscope). 96% of trainees perceived disposable duodenoscopes as not cost effective and 92% stated they would not use this device during independent practice. 100% of trainees stated that they would use duodenoscopes with disposable endcaps during independent practice. For their most challenging cases, 90% of trainees preferred using standard reprocessable duodenoscopes while no trainee indicated they would prefer using a disposable duodenoscope in this scenario. 82% of participants stated that disposable duodenoscopes and disposable endcaps should be used exclusively or preferentially for high-risk patients citing cost, functionality, and concerns regarding environmental impact.

DISCUSSION

Advanced endoscopy fellows perceive disposable duodenoscopes as impacting technical maneuverability. Concerns about functionality, cost effectiveness and environmental impact are barriers to adoption.

Assessment of the Learning Curve for a Single-Use Disposable Duodenoscope

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In response to documented duodenoscope-related infectious outbreaks of multidrug-resistant organisms, the Food and Drug Administration has recommended a transition to duodenoscopes with innovative designs, including duodenoscopes with disposable components or fully disposable duodenoscopes. We aim to characterize the learning curve (LC) for a single-use disposable duodenoscope.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database from 31 patients who underwent ERCP by a single, experienced operator using the EXALT Model D® (Boston Scientific, Marlborough) disposable duodenoscope at a single tertiary referral center. The LC for this device was described by the number of cases needed to achieve proficiency using cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis. Number of attempts to cannulate and time to cannulate the desired duct were assessed as separate endpoints. The overall mean number of attempts and overall mean time to cannulation were used as the target values in the respective CUSUM analyses. Proficiency was defined as the number of procedures where an inflection point was reached in the CUSUM graph. This observation indicates improving operator performance as shown by a decrease in the number of attempts and shortening of cannulation time after the defined number of procedures.

RESULTS

Overall, 31 patients underwent ERCP using the EXALT Model D disposable duodenoscope by a single experienced endoscopist. 6 (19%) patients had a native papilla and the majority of these procedures were classified as ASGE complexity level 2 or above. The procedure was completed using solely the disposable duodenoscope in 27 patients (87%), while a reusable duodenoscope was required for procedure completion in 4 patients (13%). The cross-overs were distributed evenly across the performance period. Procedure-related adverse events included: post-ERCP pancreatitis (3%), bleeding (3%) and no perforations. In the analyses of both endpoints, an inflection of the CUSUM curves is achieved at 10 cases, indicating sustained reduction of cannulation attempts and time to cannulation.

CONCLUSION

Among experienced pancreaticobiliary endoscopists, approximately 10 ERCPs is the threshold whereby procedure-related factors including cannulation success and procedural time improves. Procedure-related adverse events are consistent with those expected with reusable duodenoscopes. The need to cross-over from single-use duodenoscope to reusable duodenoscope did not appear to be related to the learning curve, as they were evenly distributed across the study period. These results can be used to guide adoption of single-use duodenoscopes into clinical practice.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: Current practice and future research

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has evolved from a primarily diagnostic to therapeutic procedure in hepatobiliary and pancreatic disease. Most commonly, ERCPs are performed for choledocholithiasis with or without cholangitis, but improvements in technology and technique have allowed for management of pancreatic duct stones, benign and malignant strictures, and bile and pancreatic leaks. As an example of necessity driving innovation, the new disposable duodenoscopes have been introduced into practice. With the advantage of eliminating transmissible infections, they represent a paradigm shift in quality improvement within ERCP. With procedures becoming more complicated, the necessity for anesthesia involvement and safety of propofol use and general anesthesia has become better defined. The improvements in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) have allowed for direct bile duct access and EUS facilitated bile duct access for ERCP. In patients with surgically altered anatomy, selective cannulation can be performed with overtube-assisted enteroscopy, laparoscopic surgery assistance, or the EUS-directed transgastric ERCP. Cholangioscopy and pancreatoscopy use has become ubiquitous with defined indications for large bile duct stones, indeterminate strictures, and hepatobiliary and pancreatic neoplasia. This review summarizes the recent advances in infection prevention, quality improvement, pancreaticobiliary access, and management of hepatobiliary and pancreatic diseases. Where appropriate, future research directions are included in each section.