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

Performance of a disposable colonoscope for routine examination: Pilot randomized controlled noninferiority trial (with video)

OBJECTIVES

Reusable colonoscopes pose a risk of iatrogenic infections due to improper disinfection and maintenance, prompting the development of disposable colonoscopes. However, direct comparisons between disposable and reusable colonoscopes remain limited. This pilot study aimed to evaluate the technical performance of disposable colonoscopes compared to reusable ones for routine colon examinations.

METHODS

This randomized controlled, noninferiority study was conducted at two endoscopy centers. Patients requiring colonoscopy were randomly assigned to either the disposable or reusable colonoscope group. The primary outcome was the successful completion rate of colonoscopy between the groups, with a noninferior margin of -10%. Secondary outcomes included image characteristics, technical maneuverability, colonoscopy performance measures, and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 116 patients underwent colonoscopy (58 in each group). The successful completion rate of colonoscopy was 100% in both groups (difference: 0% [95% confidence interval -6.21% to 6.21%]), confirming noninferiority. Although the disposable colonoscope group had lower performance scorings in imaging characteristics, technical maneuverability, and longer operating time compared to the reusable colonoscope group, no significant differences were observed in cecal intubation rate, polyp detection rate, polyp characteristics, or adverse event rate. Additionally, experienced endoscopists achieved proficiency with disposable colonoscopes after approximately 10 cases, requiring minimal training.

CONCLUSION

With further technical advancements, disposable colonoscopes may serve as a safe and viable alternative to reusable colonoscopes for routine colon examinations in certain clinical scenarios.

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.

Environmental impact of single-use versus reusable gastroscopes

INTRODUCTION

The environmental impact of endoscopy is a topic of growing interest. This study aimed to compare the carbon footprint of performing an esogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) with a reusable (RU) or with a single-use (SU) disposable gastroscope.

METHODS

SU (Ambu aScope Gastro) and RU gastroscopes (Olympus, H190) were evaluated using life cycle assessment methodology (ISO 14040) including the manufacture, distribution, usage, reprocessing and disposal of the endoscope. Data were obtained from Edouard Herriot Hospital (Lyon, France) from April 2023 to February 2024. Primary outcome was the carbon footprint (measured in Kg CO2 equivalent) for both gastroscopes per examination. Secondary outcomes included other environmental impacts. A sensitivity analysis was performed to examine the impact of varying scenarios.

RESULTS

Carbon footprint of SU and RU gastroscopes were 10.9 kg CO2 eq and 4.7 kg CO2 eq, respectively. The difference in carbon footprint equals one conventional car drive of 28 km or 6 days of CO2 emission of an average European household. Based on environmentally-extended input-output life cycle assessment, the estimated per-use carbon footprint of the endoscope stack and washer was 0.18 kg CO2 eq in SU strategy versus 0.56 kg CO2 eq in RU strategy. According to secondary outcomes, fossil eq depletion was 130 MJ (SU) and 60.9 MJ (RU) and water depletion for 6.2 m3 (SU) and 9.5 m3 (RU), respectively.

CONCLUSION

For one examination, SU gastroscope have a 2.5 times higher carbon footprint than RU ones. These data will help with the logistics and planning of an endoscopic service in relation to other economic and environmental factors.

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.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

International Delphi Consensus Study on disposable single-use endoscopy: A path to clinical adoption

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Increasing infectious rate estimates and low microbiological surveillance affect safety of gastrointestinal endoscopy globally. Single use endoscopes and accessories have been claimed to improve safety, but there is lack of data on their indication and sustainability. We aimed to identify a series of best practice recommendations for the use of single use endoscopes and accessories using a modified Delphi.

METHODS/DESIGN

Consensus statements for the use of single use endoscopy and accessories were developed using a modified Delphi process, utilizing an international endoscopist expert panel of 62 experts from 33 nations. The main steps in the process were selecting the consensus group, conducting systematic literature reviews, developing statements, and anonymous voting on the statements until consensus was reached. High-risk patients were defined as those with multi-drug-resistant infections, immunosuppressive medication or chemotherapy, post-transplantation, or with severe neutropenia.

RESULTS

Of the 26 statements that were voted upon through two rounds, 17 statements reached consensus. Category 1: single use accessories (8 statements), related to defining recommendations for the use of single use accessories in all patient populations or high-risk patients. Category 2: clinical indication for single use endoscopes (9 statements), including indications to high-risk patients, protecting the endoscope apparatus and contamination measures in endoscopy units. Category 3: technical factors (4 statements), related to superior performance and technical specifications with the new innovation. Category 4: environmental issues (2 statements), concerning mechanisms that reduce the detrimental burden to the environment. Category 5: financial implications (3 statements), related to healthcare policies, cost neutrality and other financial associations of single use endoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first international initiative in determining clinical indications for single use endoscopy and accessories. The study's findings should serve as a framework for future physicians to guide future research and aid the proper evidence-based indications for the implementation of single use endoscopes in clinical practice.

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.

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.

Disposable Duodenoscopes: Evidence and Open Issues

Duodenoscope-related infections are a major concern in medicine and GI endoscopy, especially in fragile patients. Disposable duodenoscopes seem to be the right tool to minimize the problem: a good choice for patients with many comorbidities or with a high risk of carrying multidrug resistant bacteria. Urgent endoscopy could also be a good setting for the use of single-use duodenoscopes, especially when the risk of the infection cannot be evaluated. Their safety and efficacy in performing ERCP has been proven in many studies. However, randomized clinical trials and comparative large studies with reusable scopes are lacking. Moreover, the present early stage of their introduction on the market does not allow a large economical evaluation for each health system. Thus, accurate economical and safety comparisons with cap-disposable duodenoscopes are needed. Moreover, the environmental impact of single-use duodenoscopes should be carefully evaluated, considering the ongoing climate change. In conclusion, definitive guidelines are needed to choose wisely the appropriate patients for ERCP with disposable duodenoscopes as the complete switch to single-use duodenoscopes seems to be difficult, to date. Many issues are still open, and they need to be carefully evaluated in further, larger studies.

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

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

[A 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.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Newly designed duodenoscopes with disposable distal caps have been developed for better cleaning and preprocessing to reduce the risk of bacterial contamination (BC). We compared BC and organic residue of duodenoscopes with disposable distal caps and duodenoscopes with fixed distal caps after manual cleaning and high-level disinfection (HLD).

METHODS

Four hundred duodenoscopes were randomized into group A (fixed distal caps, n = 200) and group B (disposable distal caps, n = 200). After manual cleaning, samples from the elevator were submitted for culture. An adenosine triphosphate (ATP) test was performed for organic residue evaluation. Based on our previous data, ATP < 40 relative light units (RLUs) had 100% sensitivity with 100% negative predictive value to confirm no BC after reprocessing.

RESULTS

After manual cleaning, group A had a higher BC rate (14% vs 7%, P = .02), a higher proportion of duodenoscopes with ATP ≥ 40 RLUs (73.5% vs 57%, P = .001), and a higher mean of ATP level (226.6 vs 82.0 RLUs, P < .001) compared with group B. After HLD, the proportion of potential BC (ATP ≥ 40 RLUs) in group A was 2.7 times higher than group B (4% vs 1.5%, P = .13). Mean ATP level after HLD in the 2 groups was significantly lower than before the HLD procedure (group A, 24.2 vs 226.6 RLUs [P < .001]; group B, 20.4 vs 82.0 RLUs [P < .001], respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

After manual cleaning, duodenoscopes with disposable distal caps had significantly lower BC and organic residue than duodenoscopes with fixed distal caps. Only a few duodenoscopes from each group did not pass the ATP threshold after HLD.

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.