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

APAGE Position Statements on Green and Sustainability in Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The APAGE Position Statements aimed to provide guidance to healthcare practitioners on clinical practices aligned with climate sustainability.

METHODS

A taskforce convened by APAGE proposed provisional statements. Twenty-two gastroenterologists from the Asian Pacific region participated in online voting and consensus was assessed through an anonymized and iterative Delphi process.

RESULTS

There were five sections that addressed the rationale for climate action, the importance of adopting principles of waste management, clinical practice, gastrointestinal endoscopy, and issues related to advocacy and research. Sixteen statements achieved consensus and included the following: 1. APAGE recommends adopting prompt measures to reduce the carbon footprint of clinical practice due to the importance of climate action and its health cobenefits. 5. APAGE recommends adherence to professional clinical guidelines to optimize clinical care delivery in gastroenterology and hepatology to avoid the environmental impact of unnecessary procedures and tests. 8. APAGE recommends an emphasis on health promotion, disease prevention, and appropriate screening and surveillance, when resources are available, to reduce the environmental impact of managing more advanced diseases that require more intensive resources. 12. APAGE recommends that technological advances in endoscopic imaging and artificial intelligence, when available, be used to improve the precision of endoscopic diagnosis to reduce the risk of missed lesions and need for unnecessary biopsies. 13. APAGE recommends against the routine use of single-use endoscopes.

CONCLUSION

The position statements provide guidance to healthcare practitioners on clinical practices in gastroenterology, hepatology, and endoscopy that promote climate sustainability.

Complications of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

Up to 1 in 6 patients will experience an unplanned hospitalization after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), largely for the evaluation and management of adverse events. Therefore, a commitment to the prevention, early recognition, and effective rescue of complications related to ERCP is critical toward improving outcomes. ERCP is most often complicated by acute pancreatitis, bleeding, infection, or perforation, although myriad other adverse events may occur. The prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis has been the area of greatest interest and progress in the last decade, but the application of evidence-based prophylactic measures remains inconsistent. Innovations in stent, hemostasis, and perforation closure technology now allow effective and efficient endoscopic management of several important nonpancreatitis complications. Overall, our ability to prevent and treat ERCP-related adverse events has improved substantially, amplifying the importance of a high level of suspicion for and a thorough understanding of these events.

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.

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.

Climate Sustainability as a Catalyst for Quality and Excellence in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Narrative Review

The significant contribution of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to global warming and the resultant negative impact on health is well established. Within the hospital setting, the endoscopy center has been ranked third-after the operating theater complex and intensive care unit-in terms of the volume of hazardous medical waste generated. Such regulated medical waste cannot be recycled, and the disposal process results in higher costs and a larger carbon footprint. There have been clarion calls to reduce the number of endoscopic procedures as a means of reducing GHG emissions. Previous studies have demonstrated the carbon footprint of inappropriate endoscopic procedures. However, endoscopy is an important diagnostic and therapeutic tool that has been shown to be cost-effective. A focus simply on reduction in procedural case volume alone raises the unintended consequences of inequitable access to endoscopy for those in need. A more nuanced approach that is aligned with the innate sense of healthcare professional aspirations and pride, in terms of seeking quality and clinical excellence, should be considered. An evidence-based approach, with a focus on quality and efficiency, as well as appropriate and timely use of new technology, will serve as a catalyst for positive behavioral change toward quality procedures and excellence. This will improve patient satisfaction, increase professional expertise and pride, and reduce carbon footprint through minimization of inappropriate and avoidable repeat procedures.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

DISCUSSION

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

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.

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.

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.

The 2022 top 10 list of endoscopy topics in medical publishing: an annual review by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Editorial Board

Using a systematic literature search of original articles published during 2022 in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and other high-impact medical and gastroenterology journals, the 10-member Editorial Board of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy composed a list of the 10 most significant topic areas in GI endoscopy during the study year. Each Editorial Board member was directed to consider 3 criteria in generating candidate lists-significance, novelty, and global impact on clinical practice-and subject matter consensus was facilitated by the Chair through electronic voting. The 10 identified areas collectively represent advances in the following endoscopic spheres: artificial intelligence, endoscopic submucosal dissection, Barrett's esophagus, interventional EUS, endoscopic resection techniques, pancreaticobiliary endoscopy, management of acute pancreatitis, endoscopic environmental sustainability, the NordICC trial, and spiral enteroscopy. Each board member was assigned a consensus topic area around which to summarize relevant important articles, thereby generating this précis of the "top 10" endoscopic advances of 2022.

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.

Perspectives on research needs in healthcare epidemiology and antimicrobial stewardship: what's on the horizon - Part I

In this overview, we articulate research needs and opportunities in the field of infection prevention that have been identified from insights gained during operative infection prevention work, our own research in healthcare epidemiology, and from reviewing the literature. The 10 areas of research need are: 1) transmissions and interruptions, 2) personal protective equipment and other safety issues in occupational health, 3) climate change and other crises, 4) device, diagnostic, and antimicrobial stewardship, 5) implementation and de-implementation, 6) health care outside the acute care hospital, 7) low- and middle-income countries, 8) networking with the "neighbors", 9) novel research methodologies, and 10) the future state of surveillance. An introduction and chapters 1-5 are presented in part I of the article, and chapters 6-10 and the discussion in part II. There are many barriers to advancing the field, such as finding and motivating the future IP workforce including professionals interested in conducting research, a constant confrontation with challenges and crises, the difficulty of performing studies in a complex environment, the relative lack of adequate incentives and funding streams, and how to disseminate and validate the often very local quality improvement projects. Addressing research gaps now (i.e., in the postpandemic phase) will make healthcare systems more resilient when facing future crises.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.