Novel single-use duodenoscope compared with 3 models of reusable duodenoscopes for ERCP: a randomized bench-model comparison

Use patterns, technical challenges, and patient selection associated with single-use duodenoscopes and duodenoscopes with single-use endcaps in the United States and Canada

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The extent of adoption, patient selection, and use patterns of single-use duodenoscopes and duodenoscopes with single-use endcaps have not yet been characterized, and large-scale assessments of endoscopist-reported function and challenges have not been reported.

METHODS

An anonymous 6-minute electronic survey assessing use and experience with single-use duodenoscopes and duodenoscopes with novel design features was distributed to U.S. and Canadian endoscopy centers, and responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

The survey was notable for a 70.2% response rate, with representation from academic (68.9%), community (18%), and veterans affairs (8.2%) centers. Most institutions used standard reprocessable duodenoscopes and duodenoscopes with single-use endcaps (34.4%) or a mix of standard reprocessable duodenoscopes, duodenoscopes with single-use endcaps, and single-use duodenoscopes (29.5%). No center used only single-use duodenoscopes. Some institutions (10.3%) planned to transition to duodenoscopes with a single-use endcap, 10.3% to a mix of single-use duodenoscopes and duodenoscopes with a single-use endcap, and 1.7% to single-use duodenoscopes alone. Challenges were reported with each type of novel duodenoscope, and selection patterns for use were characterized.

CONCLUSIONS

This first of its kind, large-scale survey of use patterns and functionality of newly introduced duodenoscopes is notable for the fairly widespread use of duodenoscopes with single-use endcaps and more limited use of single-use duodenoscopes. Both novel duodenoscope designs are associated with mechanical limitations that respondents indicate represent challenges to successful completion of ERCPs.

Single-use Duodenoscope: The Cleaner Standard

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the gold standard in the endoscopic management of biliary disease. An average of 700,000 ERCPs are performed every year, and most are performed using a reusable flexible duodenoscope. The innovation of disposable duodenoscopes has changed the dynamic in the advanced endoscopy field of study to primarily reduce or eliminate the risk of cross-contamination between patients. Many factors affect whether institutions can convert from standard reusable duodenoscopes to single-use duodenoscopes including the cost of the devices, reimbursement from insurance companies for the new devices, and the overall environmental impact. However, the reduction of cross-contamination leading to active infection in patients, environmental waste produced with high-level disinfection procedures, staff and equipment required for reprocessing, and the inability to frequently upgrade duodenoscopes for optimal performance are all factors that favor transitioning to single-use duodenoscopes. As these devices are new to the field of gastroenterology, the purpose of this review is to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of transitioning to single-use devices and a brief mention of alternative options for institutions unable to make this change.

Disposable Gastrointestinal Scopes: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopes are an essential tool in the diagnosis, screening, and treatment of gastrointestinal diseases. In 2019, the Food and Drug Administration issued a news release, recommending that duodenoscope manufacturers and health care facilities phase out fully reusable duodenoscopes with fixed endcaps in lieu of duodenoscopes that are either fully disposable or those that contain disposable endcaps. With this study, we systematically reviewed the published literature on single-use disposable gastrointestinal scopes to describe the current state of the literature and provide summary recommendations on the role of disposable gastrointestinal endoscopes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For our inclusion criteria, we searched for studies that were published in the year 2015 and afterward. We performed a literature search in PubMed using the keywords, "disposable," "reusable," "choledochoscope," "colonoscope," "duodenoscope," "esophagoscope," "gastroscope," and "sigmoidoscope." After our review, we identified our final article set, including 13 articles relating to disposable scopes, published from 2015 to 2023.

RESULTS

In this review, we show 13 articles discussing the infection rate, functionality, safety, and affordability of disposable gastrointestinal scopes in comparison to reusable gastrointestinal scopes. Of the 3 articles that discussed infection rates (by Forbes and colleagues, Ridtitid and colleagues, and Ofosu and colleagues), each demonstrated a decreased risk of infection in disposable gastrointestinal scopes. Functionality was another common theme among these articles. Six articles (by Muthusamy and colleagues, Bang and colleagues, Lisotti and colleagues, Ross and colleagues, Kang and colleagues, and Forbes and colleagues) demonstrated comparable functionality of disposable scopes to reusable scopes. The most reported functionality issue in disposable scopes was decreased camera resolution. Disposable scopes also showed comparable safety profiles compared with reusable scopes. Six articles (by Kalipershad and colleagues, Muthusamy and colleagues, Bang and colleagues, Lisotti and colleagues, Luo and colleagues, and Huynh and colleagues) showed comparable rates of AEs, whereas 1 article (by Ofosu and colleagues) demonstrated increased rates of AEs with disposable scopes. Lastly, a cost analysis was looked at in 3 of the articles. Two articles (by Larsen et al and Ross and colleagues) remarked that further research is needed to understand the cost of disposable scopes, whereas 1 article (by Kang and colleagues) showed a favorable cost analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

After a review of the literature published since the 2015 Food and Drug Administration safety communication, disposable scopes have been shown to be effective in decreasing infection risks while maintaining similar safety profiles to conventional reusable scopes. However, more research is required to compare disposable and reusable scopes in terms of functionality and cost-effectiveness.

The outcomes and safety of patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography combining a single-use cholangioscope and a single-use duodenoscope: A multicenter retrospective international study

BACKGROUND

Duodenoscope-related multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) infections raise concerns. Disposable duodenoscopes have been recently introduced in the market and approved by regulatory agencies with the aim to reduce the risk of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) associated infections. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of procedures performed with single-use duodenoscopes in patients with clinical indications to single-operator cholangiopancreatoscopy.

METHODS

This is a multicenter international, retrospective study combining all patients who underwent complex biliopancreatic interventions using the combination of a single-use duodenoscope and a single-use cholangioscope. The primary outcome was technical success defined as ERCP completion for the intended clinical indication. Secondary outcomes were procedural duration, rate of cross-over to reusable duodenoscope, operator-reported satisfaction score (1 to 10) on performance rating of the single-use duodenoscope, and adverse event (AE) rate.

RESULTS

A total of 66 patients (26, 39.4% female) were included in the study. ERCP was categorized according to ASGE ERCP grading system as 47 (71.2%) grade 3 and 19 (28.8%) grade 4. The technical success rate was 98.5% (65/66). Procedural duration was 64 (interquartile range 15-189) min, cross-over rate to reusable duodenoscope was 1/66 (1.5%). The satisfaction score of the single-use duodenoscope classified by the operators was 8.6 ± 1.3 points. Four patients (6.1%) experienced AEs not directly related to the single-use duodenoscope, namely 2 post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), 1 cholangitis and 1 bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-use duodenoscope is effective, reliable and safe even in technically challenging procedures with a non-inferiority to reusable duodenoscope, making these devices a viable alternative to standard reusable equipment.

Urgent ERCP performed with single-use duodenoscope (SUD) in patients with moderate-to-severe cholangitis: Single-center prospective study

Background and study aims To assess the outcomes of urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) performed with a single-use duodenoscope (SUD) in patients with moderate-to-severe cholangitis. Patients and methods Between 2021 and 2022 consecutive patients with moderate-to-severe cholangitis were prospectively enrolled to undergo urgent ERCP with SUD. Technical success was defined as the completion of the planned procedure with SUD. Multivariate analysis was used to identify factors related to incidence of adverse events (AEs) and mortality. Results Thirty-five consecutive patients (15 female, age 81.4±6.7 years) were enrolled. Twelve (34.3%) had severe cholangitis; 26 (74.3%) had an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score ≥3. Twenty-eight patients (80.0%) had a naïve papilla. Biliary sphincterotomy and complete stone clearance were performed in 29 (82.9%) and 30 patients (85.7%), respectively; in three cases (8.6%), concomitant endoscopic ultrasound-gallbladder drainage was performed. Technical and clinical success rates were 100%. Thirty-day and 3-month mortality were 2.9% and 14.3%, respectively. One patient had mild post-ERCP pancreatitis and two had delayed bleeding. No patient or procedural variables were related to AEs. ASA score 4 and leucopenia were related to 3-month mortality; on multivariate analysis, leukopenia was the only variable independently related to 3-month mortality (odds ratio 12.8; 95% confidence interval 1.03-157.2; P =0.03). Conclusions The results of this "proof of concept" study suggest that SUD use could be considered safe and effective for urgent ERCP for acute cholangitis. This approach abolishes duodenoscope contamination from infected patients without impairing clinical outcomes.

Global prospective case series of ERCPs using a single-use duodenoscope

BACKGROUND

 The first commercialized single-use duodenoscope was cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration in December 2019. Data regarding endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) using a single-use duodenoscope are needed on a broader range of cases conducted by endoscopists with varying levels of experience in a wide range of geographic areas.

METHODS

 61 endoscopists at 22 academic centers in 11 countries performed ERCP procedures in adult patients aged ≥ 18. Outcomes included ERCP completion for the intended indication, rate of crossover to a reusable endoscope, device performance ratings, and serious adverse events (SAEs).

RESULTS

 Among 551 patients, 236 (42.8 %) were aged > 65, 281 (51.0 %) were men, and 256 (46.5 %) had their procedure as an inpatient. ERCPs included 196 (35.6 %) with American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy complexity of grades 3-4. A total of 529 ERCPs (96.0 %) were completed: 503 (91.3 %) using only the single-use duodenoscope, and 26 (4.7 %) with crossover to a reusable endoscope. There were 22 ERCPs (4.0 %) that were not completed, of which 11 (2.0 %) included a crossover and 11 (2.0 %) were aborted cases (no crossover). Median ERCP completion time was 24.0 minutes. Median overall satisfaction with the single-use duodenoscope was 8.0 (scale of 1 to 10 [best]). SAEs were reported in 43 patients (7.8 %), including 17 (3.1 %) who developed post-ERCP pancreatitis.

CONCLUSIONS

 In academic medical centers over a wide geographic distribution, endoscopists with varying levels of experience using the first marketed single-use duodenoscope had good ERCP procedural success and reported high performance ratings for this device.

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.

Single-use duodenoscopes compared with reusable duodenoscopes in patients carrying multidrug-resistant microorganisms: a break-even cost analysis

Background and study aims  Single-use duodenoscopes can prevent transmission of microorganisms through contaminated reusable duodenoscopes. Concerns regarding their economic and environmental impact impede the transition to single-use duodenoscopes. This study investigated the costs associated with two scenarios in which single-use duodenoscopes are used in patients carrying multidrug-resistant microorganisms (MDROs). Methods  Break-even costs for single-use duodenoscopes were calculated for two scenarios in which patients were screened for MDRO carriage before undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Only direct costs related to the endoscopy were taken into consideration. In Scenario 1, patients were screened through microbiological culturing with a lag time in receiving the test result. In Scenario 2, screening was performed using GeneXpert analysis providing a rapid read-out. Calculations were performed using data from a Dutch tertiary care center and also with US healthcare data. Results  In the Dutch situation, single-use duodenoscopes needed to be priced at a maximum of € 140 to € 250 to break-even. In the US analyses, break-even costs varied widely, depending on the duodenoscope-associated infection costs used, ERCP volume, and infection risk. The break-even costs in Scenario 1 ranged between $78.21 and $2,747.54 and in Scenario 2, between $248.89 and $2,209.23. Conclusions  This study showed that a crossover scenario in which single-use duodenoscopes are only used in patients carrying MDROs could be an economically viable alternative to a complete transition to single-use duodenoscopes. In the Dutch setting, single-use duodenoscopes need to be priced much lower than in the United States to reach a per-procedure cost that is comparable with a scenario using reusable duodenoscopes exclusively.

A prospective, multicenter, clinical study of duodenoscope contamination after reprocessing

OBJECTIVE

Several clinical procedures utilize duodenoscopes, which are processed for reuse after the procedures are completed. However, infection outbreaks due to improper duodenoscope processing occur frequently. To address this, we aimed to assess the contamination rates of duodenoscopes after reprocessing in nonoutbreak settings.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Prospective study in 16 clinical sites in the United States.

METHODS

We sampled and cultured reprocessed duodenoscopes following the FDA/CDC/ASM guideline; "Duodenoscope Surveillance Sampling and Culturing - Reducing the Risks of Infection." High-concern (HC) organisms were those highly associated with disease, including gram-negative rods, Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus lugdunensis, β-hemolytic Streptococcus, Enterococcus spp, and yeasts. We evaluated duodenoscopes with ≥1 CFU of organisms after reprocessing. The reprocessing environments were also sampled and cultured.

RESULTS

We assessed 859 newer-model (NM) duodenoscopes (TJF-Q180V) and 850 older-model (OM) duodenoscopes (TJF-160F/VF); of these, 35 NM samples (4.1%) and 56 OM samples (6.6%) were contaminated with HC organisms. We detected and classified the HC organisms as gastrointestinal (45.4%), human origin (16.7%), environmental (24.1%), waterborne (13.0%), and unidentified (0.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

We detected an overall HC contamination rate of 5.3% in nonoutbreak settings. Although the relationship between endoscopic contamination and the occurrence of infections remains unclear, attempts should continue to be made to further reduce contamination rates. Additional improvements to the manufacturer's instructions for use, human factors during the reprocessing procedure, ongoing training programs, cleanliness of reprocessing environments, and the design of the distal end of the duodenoscope should be considered.

Single-use duodenoscopes are an efficient tool for emergency ERCP in real life

Background  Biliary tract emergencies are managed with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) using duodenoscopes, which are reusable devices that require high-level disinfection to minimize risk of cross-contamination. Recent reports about newly developed single-use duodenoscopes (SUDs) suggest equivalent performance with reusable duodenoscopes, but the effectiveness of SUDs in emergency ERCP has not yet been studied. Patients and methods  We conducted a prospective case series of emergency ERCP procedures using SUDs (EXALT model D-Boston Scientific, United States) in a real-life, tertiary care setting without any possibility of using a back-up reusable duodenoscope. Results  Twenty-one emergent ERCPs (acute cholangitis 48%, severe jaundice 38 %, others 14 %) were performed in 19 patients (mean age 49.5±15 years). Almost all procedures (20 of 21; 95 %) were technically and clinically successful, whereas selective cannulation failed in one case. Among the successful ERCPs, five (24 %) were achieved by a novice operator. The image was often considered skewed toward yellow tones (48 %), whereas stiffness and pushability for stent insertion were found suboptimal in 5 % of the procedures, without any impact on procedure success. Conclusions  SUDs are effective and appropriate devices for emergent situations in real life even in non-expert hands and even if a regular duodenoscope is unavailable as a backup.

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.

Transcystic Choledochoscopy Utilizing a Disposable Choledochoscope: How We Do It

BACKGROUND

Biliary disease is common occurrence and can make up a large portion of the practice of a general surgeon. Choledocholithasis is a common entity amongst those with biliary disease. Although modern trends favor endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and other imaging modalities for the diagnosis and management of choledocholithiasis, laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) is likely underutilized.

METHODS

A literature summary utilizing a PUBMED search was performed to provide an up-to-date account regarding the latest data on LCBDE. A video identifying and explaining the critical components of a LBCDE procedure is provided.

RESULTS

LCBDE is an underutilized procedure which offers equivalent clinical outcomes compared with ERCP along with a shorter length of stay and reduced costs. LCBDE is also noted to be an effective option for common bile duct stones in the setting of altered anatomy, such as a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass.

CONCLUSION

Although modern trends favor ERCP and other imaging modalities for the diagnosis and management of choledocholithiasis, LCBDE is likely underutilized by surgeons. LCBDE can provide many benefits to patients including avoidance of additional procedures, shorter length of stay, higher success rates, and less costs. Out video should act is a guide for those surgeons interested in implementation LCBDE in their practice.

Reducing the environmental footprint of gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) Position Statement

Climate change and the destruction of ecosystems by human activities are among the greatest challenges of the 21st century and require urgent action. Health care activities significantly contribute to the emission of greenhouse gases and waste production, with gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy being one of the largest contributors. This Position Statement aims to raise awareness of the ecological footprint of GI endoscopy and provides guidance to reduce its environmental impact. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) outline suggestions and recommendations for health care providers, patients, governments, and industry. MAIN STATEMENTS 1: GI endoscopy is a resource-intensive activity with a significant yet poorly assessed environmental impact. 2: ESGE-ESGENA recommend adopting immediate actions to reduce the environmental impact of GI endoscopy. 3: ESGE-ESGENA recommend adherence to guidelines and implementation of audit strategies on the appropriateness of GI endoscopy to avoid the environmental impact of unnecessary procedures. 4: ESGE-ESGENA recommend the embedding of reduce, reuse, and recycle programs in the GI endoscopy unit. 5: ESGE-ESGENA suggest that there is an urgent need to reassess and reduce the environmental and economic impact of single-use GI endoscopic devices. 6: ESGE-ESGENA suggest against routine use of single-use GI endoscopes. However, their use could be considered in highly selected patients on a case-by-case basis. 7: ESGE-ESGENA recommend inclusion of sustainability in the training curricula of GI endoscopy and as a quality domain. 8: ESGE-ESGENA recommend conducting high quality research to quantify and minimize the environmental impact of GI endoscopy. 9: ESGE-ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy companies assess, disclose, and audit the environmental impact of their value chain. 10:  ESGE-ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy should become a net-zero greenhouse gas emissions practice by 2050.

Disposable versus reusable gastroscopes: a prospective randomized noninferiority trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Disposable gastroscopes have recently been developed to eliminate the risk of infection transmission from contaminated reusable gastroscopes. We compared the performance of disposable and reusable gastroscopes in patients undergoing gastroscopy.

METHODS

Patients requiring gastroscopy were randomized to either the disposable or reusable digital gastroscope group. The primary endpoint was the success rate of photographing customary anatomic sites, with a noninferiority margin of -8%. Secondary endpoints were technical performance factors such as gastroscope imaging quality, maneuverability, gastroscopy completion rate, device failure/defect rate, operating time, and safety. Data were analyzed using the Newcombe-Wilson score method and Fisher exact 2-tailed t test.

RESULTS

Of 110 patients, 55 were treated using disposable gastroscopes and 55 using reusable gastroscopes. The success rate for capturing images of customary anatomic sites was 100% in both groups. The average imaging quality score was significantly lower (37.02 ± 3.09 vs 39.47 ± 1.92, P < .001) and the operating time significantly longer (P < .001) in the disposable gastroscope group. No significant differences in maneuverability, gastroscopy completion rate, device failure/defect rate, operating time, or safety were found between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the overall safety profile and similar technical performance, disposable gastroscopes represent an alternative to reusable gastroscopes for routine examination, bedside first aid, and some certain circumstances.

Single-use duodenoscopes for the prevention of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography -related cross-infection - from bench studies to clinical evidence

BACKGROUND

Several strategies have been implemented to reduce or abolish the life-threatening risk of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-related multidrug-resistant infections due to duodenoscopes contaminations; among those strategies, serial microbiologic tests, thorough reprocessing schedules, and use of removable scope cap have been adopted, but the potential cross-infection risk was not eliminated.

AIM

To review available evidence in the field of single-use duodenoscopes (SUD) use for ERCP.

METHODS

An overview on ongoing clinical studies was also performed to delineate which data will become available in the next future.

RESULTS

One bench comparative study and four clinical trials performed with EXALT model-D (Boston Scientific Corp., United States) have been identified. Of them, one is a randomized controlled trial, while the other three studies are prospective single-arm, cross-over studies. Pooled technical success rate (4 studies, 368 patients) was 92.9% [95% confidence interval (CI): 89.9-95.5; I 2: 11.8%]. Pooled serious adverse event (4 studies, 381 patients) rate was 5.9% [3.7%-8.5%; I 2: 0.0%].

CONCLUSION

Although few clinical trials are available, evidence is concordant in identifying an absolute feasibility and safety and feasibility for SUD use for ERCP. The expertise and quality of evidence in this field are going to be improved by further large clinical trials;data on cost-effectiveness and environmental impact will be needed for a worldwide spread of SUD use for ERCP.

Contaminated flexible endoscopes: Review of impact of channel sampling methods on culture results and recommendations for root-cause analysis

Recently, infection transmission risk associated with contaminated, patient-ready flexible endoscopes has attracted attention. Outbreaks of multidrug-resistant organisms resulting in infection and/or colonization have been particularly concerning. Recent CDC and FDA recommendations focus on reducing "exogenous" infection transmission and specifically recommend that endoscopy sites have quality systems in place for endoscope reprocessing. Another key recommendation is the culture of patient-ready endoscopes to detect contamination with organisms of concern. Remaining gaps in the guidelines include ensuring that optimal endoscope-channel sample methods are used and ensuring effective root-cause analysis and remediation when contamination is detected. In this review, we summarize the critical aspects of endoscope sample collection and present a practical approach to root-cause analysis and remedial action plans.

Cost utility analysis of strategies for minimizing risk of duodenoscope-related infections

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms by duodenoscopes during ERCP is problematical. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently recommended transitioning away from reusable fixed-endcap duodenoscopes to those with innovative device designs that make reprocessing easier, more effective, or unnecessary. Partially disposable (PD) duodenoscopes with disposable endcaps and fully disposable (FD) duodenoscopes are now available. We assessed the relative cost of approaches to minimizing infection transmission, taking into account duodenoscope-transmitted infection cost.

METHODS

We developed a Monte Carlo analysis model in R (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) with a multistate trial framework to assess the cost utility of various approaches: single high-level disinfection (HLD), double HLD, ethylene oxide (EtO) sterilization, culture and hold, PD duodenoscopes, and FD duodenoscopes. We simulated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) lost by duodenoscope-transmitted infection and factored this into the average cost for each approach.

RESULTS

At infection transmission rates <1%, PD duodenoscopes were most favorable from a cost utility standpoint in our base model. The FD duodenoscope minimizes the potential for infection transmission and is more favorable from a cost utility standpoint than use of reprocessable duodenoscopes after single or double HLD at all infection rates, EtO sterilization for infection rates >.32%, and culture and hold for infection rates >.56%. Accounting for alternate scenarios of variation in hospital volume, QALY value, post-ERCP lifespan, and environmental cost shifted cost utility profiles.

CONCLUSIONS

Our model indicates that PD duodenoscopes represent the most favorable option from a cost utility standpoint for ERCP, with anticipated very low infection transmission rates and a low-cost disposable element. These data underscore the importance of cost calculations that account for the potential for infection transmission and associated patient morbidity/mortality.

Risk evaluation of duodenoscope-associated infections in the Netherlands calls for a heightened awareness of device-related infections: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The risk of exogenous infections from endoscopic procedures is often cited as almost negligible (1 infection in 1.8 million procedures); however, this risk is based on older literature and does not seem to match the number of infectious outbreaks due to contaminated duodenoscopes reported after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Using Dutch data, we aimed to estimate the minimum risk of duodenoscope-associated infection (DAI) and colonization (DAC) in patients undergoing ERCP.

METHODS

A systematic literature search identified all DAI outbreaks in the Netherlands reported between 2008 and 2019. Included cases were confirmed by molecular matching of patient and duodenoscope cultures. Risk ratios were calculated based on the total number of ERCPs performed during the study period.

RESULTS

Three outbreaks were reported and published between 2008 and 2018, including 21 confirmed DAI cases and 52 confirmed DAC cases. The estimated number of ERCPs performed during the same period was 181 209-227 006. The calculated minimum estimated DAI risk was approximately 0.01 % and the minimum estimated DAC risk was 0.023 %-0.029 %.

CONCLUSIONS

The estimated risk of DAI in Dutch ERCP practice was at least 180 times higher than previously published risk estimates. The actual risk is likely to be (much) higher due to underreporting of infections caused by multidrug-resistant organisms and sensitive bacteria. Greater awareness by healthcare personnel involved in endoscopy and endoscope cleaning is required, as well as innovative technical solutions to contain and ultimately eliminate DAIs.

Contamination Rates in Duodenoscopes Reprocessed Using Enhanced Surveillance and Reprocessing Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Multiple outbreaks of multidrug-resistant organisms have been reported worldwide due to contaminated duodenoscopes. In 2015, the United States Food and Drug Administration recommended the following supplemental enhanced surveillance and reprocessing techniques (ESRT) to improve duodenoscope disinfection: (1) microbiological culture, (2) ethylene oxide sterilization, (3) liquid chemical sterilant processing system, and (4) double high-level disinfection. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the impact of ESRT on the contamination rates.

METHODS

A thorough and systematic search was performed across several databases and conference proceedings from inception until January 2021, and all studies reporting the effectiveness of various ESRTs were identified. The pooled contamination rates of post-ESRT duodenoscopes were estimated using the random effects model.

RESULTS

A total of seven studies using various ESRTs were incorporated in the analysis, which included a total of 9,084 post-ESRT duodenoscope cultures. The pooled contamination rate of the post-ESRT duodenoscope was 5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.3%-10.8%, inconsistency index [I2]=97.97%). Pooled contamination rates for high-risk organisms were 0.8% (95% CI: 0.2%-2.7%, I2=94.96).

CONCLUSION

While ESRT may improve the disinfection process, a post-ESRT contamination rate of 5% is not negligible. Ongoing efforts to mitigate the rate of contamination by improving disinfection techniques and innovations in duodenoscope design to improve safety are warranted.

Evaluation of the performances of a single-use duodenoscope: Prospective multi-center national study

OBJECTIVES

A single-use duodenoscope (SUD) has been recently developed to overcome issues with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-related cross-infections. The aim was to evaluate SUD safety and performance in a prospective multi-centre study.

METHODS

All consecutive patients undergoing ERCP in six French centers were prospectively enrolled. All procedures were performed with the SUD; in case of ERCP failure, operators switched to a reusable duodenoscope. Study outcomes were the successful completion of the procedure with SUD, safety and operators' satisfaction based on a VAS 0-10 and on 22 qualitative items. The study protocol was approved by French authorities and registered (ID-RCB: 2020-A00346-33). External companies collected the database and performed statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Sixty patients (34 females, median age 65.5 years old) were enrolled. Main indications were bile duct stones (41.7%) and malignant biliary obstruction (26.7%). Most ERCP were considered ASGE grade 2 (58.3%) or 3 (35.0%). Fifty-seven (95.0%) procedures were completed using the SUD. Failures were unrelated to SUD (one duodenal stricture, one ampullary infiltration, and one tight biliary stricture) and could not be completed with reusable duodenoscopes. Median operators' satisfaction was 9 (7-9). Qualitative assessments were considered clinically satisfactory in a median of 100% of items and comparable to a reusable duodenoscope in 97.9% of items. Three patients (5%) reported an adverse event. None was SUD-related.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a SUD allows ERCP to be performed with an optimal successful rate. Our data show that SUD could be used for several ERCP indications and levels of complexity.

Single-use duodenoscope for ERCP performed by endoscopists with a range of experience in procedures of variable complexity

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Expert endoscopists previously reported ERCP outcomes for the first commercialized single-use duodenoscope. We aimed to document usability of this device by endoscopists with different levels of ERCP experience.

METHODS

Fourteen "expert" (>2000 lifetime ERCPs) and 5 "less-expert" endoscopists performed consecutive ERCPs in patients without altered pancreaticobiliary anatomy. Outcomes included ERCP completion for the intended indication, rate of crossover to another endoscope, device performance ratings, and serious adverse events.

RESULTS

Two hundred ERCPs including 81 (40.5%) with high complexity (American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy grades 3-4) were performed. Crossover rate (11.3% vs 2.5%, P = .131), ERCP completion rate (regardless of crossovers) (96.3% vs 97.5%, P = .999), median ERCP completion time (25.0 vs 28.5 minutes, P = .130), mean cannulation attempts (2.8 vs 2.8, P = .954), and median overall satisfaction with the single-use duodenoscope (8.0 vs 8.0 [range, 1.0-10.0], P = .840) were similar for expert versus less-expert endoscopists, respectively. The same metrics were similar by procedural complexity except for shorter median completion time for grades 1 to 2 versus grades 3 to 4 (P < .001). Serious adverse events were reported in 13 patients (6.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

In consecutive ERCPs including high complexity procedures, endoscopists with varying ERCP experience had good procedural success and reported high device performance ratings. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04223830.).

Current State and Future of Infection Prevention in Endoscopy

Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy units tend to be busy environments in which numerous categories of staff provide moderately complex procedural care to high volumes of patients. The prevention of infections of both patients and staff is a never-ending endeavor for both inpatient and outpatient environments. Necessary considerations must address patient-to-staff, staff-to-patient, environmental, and device-related transmission of infection. In addition to the typical environmental and interpersonal infection risks present in all medical environments, the major concern within the endoscopy suite relates to contamination and potential transmission via reusable devices and endoscopes. Our understanding of this ever-present issue has evolved over time and has become a major focus of scrutiny in the past 5 years. This significant problem has stimulated guidance and ingenuity by regulators, investigators, and industry. Most recently, the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 to 21 has also added significant burdens to our infection control efforts in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

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.

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.

Single Use (disposable) Duodenoscope: Recent Development and Future

Unlike simple forward-viewing endoscopes such as gastroscope or colonoscope, duodenoscope houses much more complex design to fulfil its function. This design differences leave duodenoscopes more prone to contamination from inadequate disinfection process and potential dissemination of pathogens. Recent reports on dissemination of infection through the duodenoscope mandated an overhaul of duodenoscope utilization including development of a disposable duodenoscope. This article reviews the current state of disposable duodenoscope development, including reported early efficacy as well as its future direction and utilization.

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.

Single-use duodenoscopes and duodenoscopes with disposable end caps

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Multidrug-resistant infectious outbreaks associated with duodenoscopes have been documented internationally. Single-use duodenoscopes, disposable distal ends, or distal end cap sealants could eliminate or reduce exogenous patient-to-patient infection associated with ERCP.

METHODS

This document reviews technologies that have been developed to help reduce or eliminate exogenous infections because of duodenoscopes.

RESULTS

Four duodenoscopes with disposable end caps, 1 end sheath, and 2 disposable duodenoscopes are reviewed in this document. The evidence regarding their efficacy in procedural success rates, reduction of duodenoscope bacterial contamination, clinical outcomes associated with these devices, safety, and the financial considerations are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Several technologies discussed in this document are anticipated to eliminate or reduce exogenous infections during endoscopy requiring a duodenoscope. Although disposable duodenoscopes can eliminate exogenous ERCP-related risk of infection, data regarding effectiveness are needed outside of expert centers. Additionally, with more widespread adoption of these new technologies, more data regarding functionality, medical economics, and environmental impact will accrue. Disposable distal end caps facilitate duodenoscope reprocessing; postmarketing surveillance culture studies and real-life patient infection analyses are important areas of future research.

Double high-level disinfection versus liquid chemical sterilization for reprocessing of duodenoscopes used for ERCP: a prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The potential for transmission of pathogenic organisms is a problem inherent to the current reusable duodenoscope design. Recent outbreaks of multidrug-resistant pathogenic organisms transmitted via duodenoscopes has brought to light the urgency of this problem. Microbiologic culturing of duodenoscopes and reprocessing with repeat high-level disinfection (HLD) or liquid chemical sterilization (LCS) have been offered as supplemental measures to enhance duodenoscope reprocessing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. This study aims to compare the efficacy of reprocessing duodenoscopes with double HLD (DHLD) versus LCS.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated 2 different modalities of duodenoscope reprocessing from October 23, 2017 to September 24, 2018. Eligible duodenoscopes were randomly segregated to be reprocessed by either DHLD or LCS. Duodenoscopes were randomly cultured after reprocessing for surveillance based on an internal protocol.

RESULTS

During the study period, there were 878 post-reprocessing surveillance cultures (453 in the DHLD group and 425 in the LCS group). Of all cultures, 17 were positive for any organism (1.9%). There was no significant difference of positive cultures when comparing the duodenoscopes undergoing DHLD (8 positive cultures, 1.8%) with duodenoscopes undergoing LCS (9 positive cultures, 2.1%; P = .8). Both groups had 2 cultures that grew high-concern organisms (.5% vs .5%, P=1.0). No multidrug-resistant organisms, including carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae, were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

DHLD and LCS both resulted in a low rate of positive cultures, for all organisms and for high-concern organisms. However, neither process completely eliminated positive cultures from duodenoscopes reprocessed with 2 different supplemental reprocessing strategies.

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.

Duodenoscope as a Vector for Transmission

Elevator-based endoscope-related infections from patient cross-contamination is a multifactorial problem related to device design, maintenance, and function, with additional risk incurred from a high-level disinfection process that lacks quality controls. This article reviews the historical context for these outbreaks, technical aspects of scope design contributing to this risk, and innovations in endoscope technology that have the potential to overcome these shortcomings. Also reviewed are interim solutions and the data that support use of some of these interventions. Still needed are a validated manufacturer-recommended schedule for routine duodenoscope and echoendoscope maintenance with reprocessing protocols that can be implemented in endoscopy units.

Remote video auditing in the endoscopy unit for evaluation of duodenoscope reprocessing in a tertiary care center

BACKGROUND : A significant proportion of duodenoscope-transmitted infections have resulted from errors related to reprocessing. Remote video auditing (RVA) is a tool that can monitor reprocessing compliance but it has not been previously evaluated in a tertiary care setting. The aims of this study were to evaluate: 1) RVA feasibility in a tertiary care setting (defined as the ability to audit every step of duodenoscope reprocessing without delaying the next procedure due to unavailability of duodenoscopes); and 2) the use of RVA as a compliance monitoring tool. METHODS : This was a prospective study at a tertiary care center. A video camera with offsite monitoring was installed in March 2018. Auditors delivered a compliance score after each procedure. The duodenoscope was not used until it passed the audit. Feasibility and compliance data were collected from April 2018 to August 2019 after a 1-month run-in phase. Both per-step compliance and overall 100 % compliance rates were measured. RESULTS : Of 743 duodenoscope reprocessing procedures, 32 666 individual steps were audited and 99.9 % of the steps were fully viewable. The mean time per audit was 38.3 minutes, the mean duodenoscope turnover time was 76.1 minutes, and there were no delays to the next procedure due to unavailability of duodenoscopes. The per-step compliance rate was 99.5 % but the overall 100 % compliance rate was 90.3 %. CONCLUSIONS : The use of RVA in duodenoscope reprocessing was feasible and promoted sustained high-level compliance in a tertiary care center.

Clinical Evaluation of a Single-Use Duodenoscope for Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Disposable, single-use duodenoscopes might reduce outbreaks of infections associated with endoscope reuse. We tested the feasibility, preliminary safety, and performance of a new single-use duodenoscope in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

METHODS

We conducted a case-series study of the outcomes of ERCP with a single-use duodenoscope from April through May 2019 at 6 academic medical centers. We screened consecutive patients (18 years and older) without alterations in pancreaticobiliary anatomy and enrolled 73 patients into the study. Seven expert endoscopists performed roll-in maneuvers (duodenoscope navigation and visualization of duodenal papilla only) in 13 patients and then ERCPs in the 60 other patients. Outcomes analyzed included completion of ERCP for the intended clinical indication, crossover from a single-use duodenoscope to a reusable duodenoscope, endoscopist performance ratings of the device, and serious adverse events (assessed at 72 hours and 7 days).

RESULTS

Thirteen (100%) roll-in maneuver cases were completed using the single-use duodenoscope. ERCPs were of American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy procedural complexity grade 1 (least complex; 7 patients [11.7%]), grade 2 (26 patients [43.3%]), grade 3 (26 patients [43.3%]), and grade 4 (most complex; 1 patient [1.7%]). Fifty-eight ERCPs (96.7%) were completed using the single-use duodenoscope only and 2 ERCPs (3.3%) were completed using the single-use duodenoscope followed by crossover to a reusable duodenoscope. Median overall satisfaction was 9 out of 10. Three patients developed post-ERCP pancreatitis, 1 patient had post-sphincterotomy bleeding, and 1 patient had worsening of a preexisting infection and required rehospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

In a case-series study, we found that expert endoscopists can complete ERCPs of a wide range of complexity using a single-use duodenoscope for nearly all cases. This alternative might decrease ERCP-related risk of infection. Clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT03701958.