Single-use duodenoscopes and duodenoscopes with disposable end caps

Contamination of Disposable Distal Cap Duodenoscopes and Detachable Elevator Duodenoscopes After Reprocessing: A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

To reduce bacterial contamination after reprocessing, various new designs of duodenoscopes have been developed to better expose the elevator complex for cleaning. We compared the rates of bacterial contamination and organic residue in disposable distal cap duodenoscopes and detachable elevator duodenoscopes after manual cleaning and high-level disinfection (HLD), as well as their cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

A total of 162 duodenoscopes were randomly assigned to either Group A (disposable distal caps; n = 81) or Group B (detachable elevator; n = 81). A total of 324 samples from the elevator were collected for culture following manual cleaning (n = 81 in each group) and HLD (n = 81 in each group), followed by the adenosine triphosphate (ATP) testing for organic residue.

RESULTS

After manual cleaning, there was no difference in bacterial contamination rates (8.6% vs. 8.6%; p = 1.00) and mean ATP levels (164.6 ± 257.5 vs. 158.1 ± 286.1 RLUs; p = 0.88) between Groups A and B. After HLD, no bacterial contamination was observed in either group and the mean ATP levels were very low with no significant difference between the two groups (30.1 ± 45.3 vs. 37.5 ± 51.9 RLUs; p = 0.68). The expense in reprocessing (excluding the scope cost) for Group A was lower (2099 USD) than Group B (3854 USD) in providing comparable scope cleanliness.

CONCLUSION

After manual cleaning, the bacterial contamination rate and organic residue levels in detachable elevator duodenoscopes and disposable distal caps duodenoscopes were comparable. No bacterial contamination was detected in either type of duodenoscope after reprocessing. Apart from the initial differences in scope cost, the disposable distal cap duodenoscope had lower cost on disposable items to have comparable disinfection result.

Biliary Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

Since inception in 1968, biliary endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has transformed into a highly effective, minimally invasive modality for the identification and treatment of a variety of biliary pathologies including benign, malignant, and iatrogenic diseases. The diagnostic role of ERCP has been largely replaced by high-quality imaging modalities including endoscopic ultrasound and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. However, there continues to be significant demand for therapeutic procedures. This article reviews the general principles of ERCP, as well as common indications, contraindications, and potential adverse events with which endoscopists and referring physicians should be familiar.

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.

Increasing Antibiotic-Resistant Infections With Inpatient Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangioscopies (ERCP) Is Associated With Higher Mortality in the United States: A Cross-sectional Cohort Study

GOALS

This study aims to investigate associated mortality with inpatient endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with and without resistant infections. The co-primary objective compares frequencies of inpatient ERCP with resistant infections to overall hospitalizations with resistant infections.

BACKGROUND

The risks of inpatient antibiotic-resistant organisms are known, but the associated mortality for inpatient ERCP is unknown. We aim to use a national database of hospitalizations and procedures to understand trends and mortality for patients with antibiotic-resistant infections during inpatient ERCP.

STUDY

The largest publicly available all-payer inpatient database in the United States (National Inpatient Sample) was used to identify hospitalizations associated with ERCPs and antibiotic-resistant infections for MRSA, VRE, ESBL, and MDRO. National estimates were generated, frequencies were compared across years, and multivariate regression for mortality was performed.

RESULTS

From 2017 to 2020, national weighted estimates of 835,540 inpatient ERCPs were generated, and 11,440 ERCPs had coincident resistant infections. Overall resistant infection, MRSA, VRE, and MDRO identified at the same hospitalization of inpatient ERCPs were associated with higher mortality (OR CI(95%): Overall: 2.2(1.77-2.88), MRSA: 1.90 (1.34-2.69), VRE: 3.53 (2.16-5.76), and MDRO: 2.52 (1.39-4.55)). While overall hospitalizations with resistant infections have been decreasing annually, there has been a yearly increase in admissions requiring ERCPs with simultaneous resistant infections ( P =0.001-0.013), as well as infections with VRE, ESBL, and MDRO ( P =0.001-0.016). Required Research Practices for Studies Using the NIS scoring was 0, or the most optimal.

CONCLUSIONS

Inpatient ERCPs have increasing coincident resistant infections and are associated with higher mortality. These rising infections during ERCP highlight the importance of endoscopy suite protocols and endoscopic infection control devices.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Single-Use Duodenoscope Applied to Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

OBJECTIVES

Secondary infections due to transmission via the duodenoscope have been reported in up to 3% of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies. The use of single-use duodenoscopes has been suggested. We investigate the cost-effectiveness of these duodenoscopes use in cholangiopancreatography.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis was implemented to compare the performance of cholangiopancreatographies with reusable duodenoscopes versus single-use duodenoscopes. Effectiveness was analyzed by calculating quality-adjusted life years (QALY) from the perspective of the National Health System. Possibility of crossover from single-use to reusable duodenoscopes was considered. A willingness-to-pay of €25,000/QALY was set, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated, and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Considering cholangiopancreatographies with single-use and reusable duodenoscopes at a cost of €2900 and €1333, respectively, and a 10% rate of single-use duodenoscopes, ICER was greater than €3,000,000/QALY. A lower single-use duodenoscope cost of €1211 resulted in an ICER of €23,583/QALY. When the unit cost of the single-use duodenoscope was €1211, a crossover rate of more than 9.5% made the use of the single-use duodenoscope inefficient.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-use duodenoscopes are cost-effective in a proportion of cholangiopancreatographies if its cost is reduced. Increased crossover rate makes single-use duodenoscope use not cost-effective.

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.

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.

Cannulation rates and technical performance evaluation of commericially available single-use duodenoscopes for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Single use duodenoscopes were developed to reduce the risk of infection transmission from contaminated reusable duodenoscopes. To this end, we examined various biliary interventions using single use duodenoscopes in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

METHODS

Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception through Aug 2022 to identify studies reporting on the performance of single use duodenoscopes for ERCP.

RESULTS

Seven articles were included in the final analysis that included 642 patients (318 males). The Exalt Model D duodenoscope was used in most cases (88.8%) followed by the aScope Duodeno (11.2%) for ERCP. Most ERCPs had a complexity grade of 2 (n = 303) and 3 (n = 198). The pooled cumulative rate of successful cannulation was 95% (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 93-96%, I2=0%, P = 0.46). Sphincterotomy was successfully performed in all cases. The pooled cumulative rate of PEP was 2% (95% CI: 0.4-3.4%, I2=0%, P = 0.80). The pooled cumulative rate of total adverse events was 7% (95% CI: 4-10%, I2=47%, P = 0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis show that single use duodenoscopes are associated with high cannulation rates, technical performance, and safety profile.

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.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound endoscope reprocessing: Variables impacting contamination risk

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate variables that affect risk of contamination for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound endoscopes.

DESIGN

Observational, quality improvement study.

SETTING

University medical center with a gastrointestinal endoscopy service performing ∼1,000 endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and ∼1,000 endoscopic ultrasound endoscope procedures annually.

METHODS

Duodenoscope and linear echoendoscope sampling (from the elevator mechanism and instrument channel) was performed from June 2020 through September 2021. Operational changes during this period included standard reprocessing with high-level disinfection with ethylene oxide gas sterilization (HLD-ETO) was switched to double high-level disinfection (dHLD) (June 16, 2020-July 15, 2020), and duodenoscopes changed to disposable tip model (March 2021). The frequency of contamination for the co-primary outcomes were characterized by calculated risk ratios.

RESULTS

The overall pathogenic contamination rate was 4.72% (6 of 127). Compared to duodenoscopes, linear echoendoscopes had a contamination risk ratio of 3.64 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-19.1). Reprocessing using HLD-ETO was associated with a contamination risk ratio of 0.29 (95% CI, 0.06-1.54). Linear echoendoscopes undergoing dHLD had the highest risk of contamination (2 of 18, 11.1%), and duodenoscopes undergoing HLD-ETO and the lowest risk of contamination (0 of 53, 0%). Duodenoscopes with a disposable tip had a 0% contamination rate (0 of 27).

CONCLUSIONS

We did not detect a significant reduction in endoscope contamination using HLD-ETO versus dHLD reprocessing. Linear echoendoscopes have a risk of contamination similar to that of duodenoscopes. Disposable tips may reduce the risk of duodenoscope contamination.

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.

[A systematic analysis of nosocomial outbreaks of nosocomial infections after gastrointestinal endoscopy]

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and colonoscopy (CLN) come with a potential risk of pathogen transmission. Unfortunately, up to now data on the causes and the distribution of pathogens is rather sparse.We performed a systematic review of the medical literature using the Worldwide Outbreak Database, the PubMed, and Embase. We then checked so-retrieved articles for potential sources of the outbreak, the spectrum of pathogens, the attack rates, mortality and infection control measures.In total 73 outbreaks (EGD: 24, ERCP: 42; CLN: 7) got included. The corresponding attack rates were 3.5%, 7.1% and 12.8% and mortality rates were 6.3%, 12.7% and 10.0% respectively. EGD was highly associated with transmission of enterobacteria including a large proportion of multi-drug resistant strains. ERCP led primarily to transmission of non-fermenting gram-negative rods. The most frequent cause was human failure during reprocessing regardless of the type of endoscope.Staff working in the field of endoscopy should always be aware of the possibility of pathogen transmission in order to detect and terminate those events at the early most time point. Furthermore, proper ongoing education of staff involved in the reprocessing and maintenance of endoscopes is crucial. Single-use devices may be an alternative option and lower the risk of pathogen transmission, but on the downside may also increase costs and waste.

Transmission of oral microbiota to the biliary tract during endoscopic retrograde cholangiography

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) possesses a translocation risk of microbes to the biliary system. We studied bile contamination during ERC and its impact on patients' outcome in a real-life-situation.

METHODS

Ninety-nine ERCs were analyzed and microbial samples were taken from the throat before and from bile during ERC and from irrigation fluid of the duodenoscope before and after ERC.

RESULTS

91.2% of cholangitis patients had detectable microbes in the bile (sensitivity 91%), but the same was true for 86.2% in the non-cholangitis group. Bacteroides fragilis (p=0.015) was significantly associated with cholangitis. In 41.7% of ERCs with contaminated endoscopes these microbes were found in the bile after the procedure. Analysis of duodenoscopes' irrigation liquid after ERC matched the microbial bile analysis of these patients in 78.8%. Identical microbial species were in throat and in bile samples of the same ERC in 33% of all cases and in 45% in the non-cholangitis group. Transmission of microbes to the biliary tract did not result in more frequent cholangitis, longer hospital stays, or worse outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

During ERC bile samples are regularly contaminated with microbes of the oral cavity but it did not affect clinical outcome.

Effect of Disposable Elevator Cap Duodenoscopes on Persistent Microbial Contamination and Technical Performance of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: The ICECAP Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Infection transmission following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) can occur due to persistent contamination of duodenoscopes despite high-level disinfection to completely eliminate microorganisms on the instrument.

Objective

To determine (1) contamination rates after high-level disinfection and (2) technical performance of duodenoscopes with disposable elevator caps compared with those with standard designs.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this parallel-arm multicenter randomized clinical trial at 2 tertiary ERCP centers in Canada, all patients 18 years and older and undergoing ERCP for any indication were eligible.

Intervention

The intervention was use of duodenoscopes with disposable elevator caps compared with duodenoscopes with a standard design.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Coprimary outcomes were persistent microbial contamination of the duodenoscope elevator or channel, defined as growth of at least 10 colony-forming units of any organism or any growth of gram-negative bacteria following high-level disinfection (superiority outcome), and technical success of ERCP according to a priori criteria (noninferiority outcome with an a priori noninferiority margin of 7%), assessed by blinded reviewers.

Results

From December 2019 to February 2022, 518 patients were enrolled (259 disposable elevator cap duodenoscopes, 259 standard duodenoscopes). Patients had a mean (SD) age of 60.7 (17.0) years and 258 (49.8%) were female. No significant differences were observed between study groups, including in ERCP difficulty. Persistent microbial contamination was detected in 11.2% (24 of 214) of standard duodenoscopes and 3.8% (8 of 208) of disposable elevator cap duodenoscopes (P = .004), corresponding to a relative risk of 0.34 (95% CI, 0.16-0.75) and number needed to treat of 13.6 (95% CI, 8.1-42.7) to avoid persistent contamination. Technical success using the disposable cap scope was noninferior to that of the standard scope (94.6% vs 90.7%, P = .13). There were no differences between study groups in adverse events and other secondary outcomes.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, disposable elevator cap duodenoscopes exhibited reduced contamination following high-level disinfection compared with standard scope designs, without affecting the technical performance and safety of ERCP.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04040504.

Prevention of device-related infections in patients with cancer: Current practice and future horizons

Over the past several years, multifaceted advances in the management of cancer have led to a significant improvement in survival rates. Throughout patients' oncological journeys, they will likely receive one or more implantable devices for the administration of fluids and medications as well as management of various comorbidities and complications related to cancer therapy. Infections associated with these devices are frequent and complex, often necessitating device removal, increasing health care costs, negatively affecting quality of life, and complicating oncological care, usually leading to delays in further life-saving cancer therapy. Herein, the authors comprehensively review multiple evidence-based recommendations along with best practices, expert opinions, and novel approaches for the prevention of diverse device-related infections. The authors present many general principles for the prevention of these infections followed by specific device-related recommendations in a systematic manner. The continuous involvement and meaningful cooperation between regulatory entities, industry, specialty medical societies, hospitals, and infection control-targeted interventions, along with primary care and consulting health care providers, are all vital for the sustained reduction in the incidence of these preventable infections.

ERCP with single-use disposable duodenoscopes in four different set-ups

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has until now always been performed using a reusable non-sterile duodenoscope. The introduction of the new single-use disposable duodenoscope makes it possible to perform perioperative transgastric and rendezvous ERCP in an almost sterile manner. It also eliminates the risk of patient-to-patient transmission of infection in non-sterile settings. We present four patients who underwent different types of ERCP using a sterile single-use duodenoscope. This case report aims to demonstrate the use and the many potential advantages of the new disposable single-use duodenoscope in both sterile and non-sterile settings.

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.

Good Practices on Endoscope Reprocessing in Italy: Findings of a Nationwide Survey

Background: Correct reprocessing and microbiological surveillance on endoscopes are fundamental for preventing the transmission of multi-drug resistant strains and device-related infections. Methods: A questionnaire with three domains was created: (1) centre characteristics; (2) endoscope reprocessing procedures; and (3) application of microbiological surveillance. Nurses working in endoscopic units across Italy were invited to anonymously fill out the questionnaire on the SurveyMonkey platform between November 2021 and February 2022. Results: A total of 82 out of 132 endoscopic centres participated in the survey, with at least one centre from each Italian region. Data found different concerns regarding the current practice of both reprocessing and microbiological surveillance. According to respondents, the training on reprocessing was performed through theoretical training and only in 10% of centres; the microbiological surveillance was regularly performed in 59% of centres; and sampled endoscopes were not excluded for use in 31% of centres performing the surveillance until the outcome was pending, and when positive, 72% maintained them in quarantine until a successive negative result. Conclusions: Reprocessing and microbiological surveillance currently present several criticisms along the endoscopic centres in Italy. Our survey highlights the need for the correct application of the national recommendations in each endoscopic centre to prevent the potential transmission of endoscope-related infections.

Risk factors for infections after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): a retrospective cohort analysis of US Medicare Fee-For-Service claims, 2015-2021

OBJECTIVE

Contaminated reprocessed duodenoscopes pose a serious threat to patients in the endoscopy unit. Despite manufacturer changes to reprocessing guidelines, 20% of reprocessed duodenoscopes meet criteria for quarantine-level contamination based on microbiological or ATP testing. We aimed to examine risk factors for postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) infection.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort analysis.

SETTING

US Medicare Fee-For-Service claims (2015-2021) and all-payer data (2017).

PARTICIPANTS

In the Medicare data, 823 575 ERCP procedures were included. The all-payer five-state data, 16 609 procedures were included.

INTERVENTIONS

ERCP was identified by Current Procedural Terminology and International Classification of Disease (ICD) procedure codes. We identified inpatient infections using ICD diagnosis codes.

OUTCOME MEASURES

A logistic regression model predicted risk factors for infections occurring within 7-day and 30-day periods following ERCP. 7-day and 30-day all-cause hospitalisations and post-ERCP pancreatitis were also examined.

RESULTS

Post-ERCP infection occurred within 3.5% of 7-day and 7.7% of 30-day periods in Medicare. Disposable duodenoscopes were billed in 711 procedures, with 1.4% (n=10, 7-day) and 3.5% (n=25, 30-day) post-ERCP infections. Urgent ERCPs were the strongest risk factor for infections in the 7-day period (OR 3.3, 95% CI 3.2 to 3.4). Chronic conditions, sex (male), age (older) and race (non-white) were also risk factors. In the all-payer five-state data, fewer infections (2.4%, 7 days) were observed. No difference arose between Medicare and other payers for 7-day period infections (OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.7 to 1.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Urgent ERCPs, patient chronic conditions and patient demographics are post-ERCP infection risk factors. Patients with infection risk factors should be targeted for specialised infection control prevention measures, including disposable duodenoscopes.

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.

The Carbon Footprint of Single-Use Flexible Cystoscopes compared to Reusable Cystoscopes

INTRODUCTION

Single-use devices for endourological procedures are becoming more popular. The environmental impact of single-use instruments is relatively unknown. This study aimed to compare the carbon footprint of single-use versus reusable flexible cystoscopes based on waste production and estimated carbon emissions.

METHODS

An analysis of the solid waste produced when using the aScope™ 4Cysto (Ambu®) single-use flexible cystoscope compared to the reusable Cysto-Nephro Videoscope CYF-VA2 (Olympus®) was performed. The solid waste generated was measured (grams) and recorded as either recyclable, landfill or contaminated, and CO2 produced by disposal, manufacture and cleaning was calculated.

RESULTS

40 flexible cystoscopies (20 single-use and 20 reusable) were analysed. Median total weight of waste produced was 622g (IQR621-651) for the single-use cystoscope compared to 671.5g (IQR659-677.5) for the reusable cystoscope (p<0.0001). More waste was disposed of by incineration after single-use than reusable cystoscopy (496g [IQR495-525] vs 415g [IQR403-421.5], p<0.0001). However, more waste went to landfill after reusable cystoscopy (256g±0 vs 126g±0, p<0.0001). There was no difference in weight of waste produced based on the indication for cystoscopy (p=0.1570). A total of 2.41kg of CO2 (IQR 2.40-2.44) was produced per case for the single-use flexible cystoscope compared with 4.23kg of CO2 (IQR 4.22-4.24) for the reusable cystoscope (p<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Environmental accountability is essential in modern healthcare. This study highlights that disposable flexible cystoscopes have a significantly lower impact on the environment in terms of carbon footprint and landfill. We propose that environmental impact studies should be a routine part of device development for a sustainable future.

The present and future of gastroenterology and hepatology: an international SWOT analysis (the GASTROSWOT project)

GASTROSWOT is a strategic analysis of the current and projected states of the different subspecialties in gastroenterology that aims to provide guidance for research, clinical, and financial planning in gastroenterology. We executed a consensus-based international strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis. Four general coordinators, six field coordinators, and 12 experts participated in the study. SWOTs were provided for the following fields: neurogastroenterology, functional gastrointestinal disorders, and upper gastrointestinal diseases; inflammatory bowel disease; pancreatology and biliary diseases; endoscopy; gastrointestinal oncology; and hepatology. The GASTROSWOT analysis highlights the following in the current state of the field of gastroenterology: the incidence and complexity of several gastrointestinal diseases, including malignancies, are increasing; the COVID-19 pandemic has affected patient care on several levels; and with the advent of technical innovations in gastroenterology, a well trained workforce and strategic planning are required to optimise health-care utilisation. The analysis calls attention to the following in the future of gastroenterology: artificial intelligence and the use of big data will speed up discovery and smarter health-care provision in the field; the growth and diversification of gastroenterological specialties will improve specialised care for patients, but could promote fragmentation of care and health system inefficiencies; and furthermore, thoughtful planning is needed to reach an effective balance between the need for subspecialists and the value of general gastroenterology services.

Disposable duodenoscopes. Is healthcare system affordability the main hindrance?

The performance of an endoscopic procedure involves introducing an endoscope through the mouth or the anus, which may potentially lead to lethal infection. The risk increases when complex and difficult-to-clean scopes are used, as in the case of duodenoscopes. Side-viewing duodenoscopes are complex in design, with the camera and working channel exit located on one side of the endoscope's distal end, and with an elevator nail also located at this point for catheter redirection. This complex design may facilitate the presence of blind areas not easy to access for cleaning, resulting in suboptimal disinfection of the duodenoscope and therefore a higher risk of bacterial infection. This is of particular importance in particularly vulnerable patients like those who are immunosuppressed (e.g., transplanted patients) or have a malignant disease and are receiving chemotherapy. Moreover, in the era of ¨superbugs¨, like carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, infection outbreaks related to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) have been reported with a significant mortality rate.

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.