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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.