Duodenoscope as a Vector for Transmission

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.

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.

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.

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; I²: 11.8%]. Pooled serious adverse event (4 studies, 381 patients) rate was 5.9% [3.7%-8.5%; I²: 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.