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.

Identification of visible lesions during surveillance endoscopy for Barrett's esophagus: a video-based survey study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Visible lesion (VL) detection is essential in patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE). We sought to assess the rate of VL detection by academic and community endoscopists using high-definition white-light endoscopy (HD-WLE) and narrow-band imaging (NBI) during surveillance endoscopy. METHODS: Fifty endoscopists were invited to participate in a prospective video survey study. Participants viewed 25 standardized clips of patients referred for endoscopic therapy. Participants noted identification of anatomic landmarks and VLs using HD-WLE and NBI and reported practice-level data. The criterion standard of VL identification was established by consensus of 5 BE experts. Our primary outcome was the rate of VL identification using HD-WLE and NBI. RESULTS: Forty-four of 50 participants completed the study (22 academic and 22 community). Compared with the criterion standard, participants did not identify 28% (HD-WLE) and 31% (NBI) of VLs. Community endoscopists had more experience (>5 years in practice: community 85% vs academic 54.5%, P = .041; >5 surveillance endoscopies a month: community 85% vs academic 31.8%, P = .046). Across all participants, VL detection using NBI improved significantly with a minimum of 5 surveillance endoscopies per month (area under the curve = .72; 95% confidence interval, .56-.85; P = .006). CONCLUSIONS: Despite improved endoscope resolution and availability of virtual chromoendoscopy, the overall rate of VL detection remains low. Identification of VLs using NBI may be volume dependent. Further education and training efforts focused on VL detection during BE surveillance endoscopy are needed.

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.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on New Technology and Innovation for Surveillance and Screening in Barrett's Esophagus: Expert Review.

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this best practice advice (BPA) article from the Clinical Practice Update Committee of the American Gastroenterological Association is to provide an update on advances and innovation regarding the screening and surveillance of Barrett's esophagus. METHODS: The BPA statements presented here were developed from expert review of existing literature combined with discussion and expert opinion to provide practical advice. Formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of BPAs was not the intent of this clinical practice update. This expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee (CPUC) and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the CPUC and external peer review through standard procedures of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Screening with standard upper endoscopy may be considered in individuals with at least 3 established risk factors for Barrett's esophagus (BE) and esophageal adenocarcinoma, including individuals who are male, non-Hispanic white, age >50 years, have a history of smoking, chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease, obesity, or a family history of BE or esophageal adenocarcinoma. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Nonendoscopic cell-collection devices may be considered as an option to screen for BE. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: Screening and surveillance endoscopic examination should be performed using high-definition white light endoscopy and virtual chromoendoscopy, with endoscopists spending adequate time inspecting the Barrett's segment. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: Screening and surveillance exams should define the extent of BE using a standardized grading system documenting the circumferential and maximal extent of the columnar lined esophagus (Prague classification) with a clear description of landmarks and the location and characteristics of visible lesions (nodularity, ulceration), when present. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Advanced imaging technologies such as endomicroscopy may be used as adjunctive techniques to identify dysplasia. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Sampling during screening and surveillance exams should be performed using the Seattle biopsy protocol (4-quadrant biopsies every 1-2 cm and target biopsies from any visible lesion). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Wide-area transepithelial sampling may be used as an adjunctive technique to sample the suspected or established Barrett's segment (in addition to the Seattle biopsy protocol). BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Patients with erosive esophagitis should be biopsied when concern of dysplasia or malignancy exists. A repeat endoscopy should be performed after 8 weeks of twice a day proton pump inhibitor therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Tissue systems pathology-based prediction assay may be utilized for risk stratification of patients with nondysplastic BE. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Risk stratification models may be utilized to selectively identify individuals at risk for Barrett's associated neoplasia. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Given the significant interobserver variability among pathologists, the diagnosis of BE-related neoplasia should be confirmed by an expert pathology review. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: Patients with BE-related neoplasia should be referred to endoscopists with expertise in advanced imaging, resection, and ablation. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: All patients with BE should be placed on at least daily proton pump inhibitor therapy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: Patients with nondysplastic BE should undergo surveillance endoscopy in 3 to 5 years. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 15: In patients undergoing surveillance after endoscopic eradication therapy, random biopsies should be taken of the esophagogastric junction, gastric cardia, and the distal 2 cm of the neosquamous epithelium as well as from all visible lesions, independent of the length of the original BE segment.

AGA White Paper: Challenges and Gaps in Innovation for the Performance of Colonoscopy for Screening and Surveillance of Colorectal Cancer.

In 2018, the American Gastroenterological Association's Center for GI Innovation and Technology convened a consensus conference, entitled "Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance: Role of Emerging Technology and Innovation to Improve Outcomes." The conference participants, which included more than 60 experts in colorectal cancer, considered recent improvements in colorectal cancer screening rates and polyp detection, persistent barriers to colonoscopy uptake, and opportunities for performance improvement and innovation. This white paper originates from that conference. It aims to summarize current patient- and physician-centered gaps and challenges in colonoscopy, diagnostic and therapeutic challenges affecting colonoscopy uptake, and the potential use of emerging technologies and quality metrics to improve patient outcomes.

Threshold evaluation for optimal number of endoscopic treatment sessions to achieve complete eradication of Barrett's metaplasia.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) is the standard of care for Barrett's esophagus (BE)-associated neoplasia. Previous data suggest the mean number of EET sessions required to achieve complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM) is 3. This study aimed to define the threshold of EET sessions required to achieve CE-IM. METHODS: The TREAT-BE Consortium is a multicenter outcomes cohort including prospectively enrolled patients with BE undergoing EET. All patients achieving CE-IM were included. Demographic, endoscopic, and histologic data were recorded at treatment onset along with treatment details and surveillance data. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to define a threshold of EET sessions, with 95 %CI, required to achieve CE-IM. A secondary analysis examined predictors of incomplete response to EET using multiple logistic regression and recurrence rates. RESULTS: 623 patients (mean age 65.2 [SD 11.6], 79.6 % male, 86.5 % Caucasian) achieved CE-IM in a mean of 2.9 (SD 1.7) EET sessions (median 2) and a median total observation period of 2.7 years (interquartile range 1.4-5.0). After three sessions, 73 % of patients achieved CE-IM (95 %CI 70 %-77 %). Age (odds ratio [OR] 1.25, 95 %CI 1.05-1.50) and length of BE (OR 1.24, 95 %CI 1.17-1.31) were significant predictors of incomplete response. CONCLUSION: The current study found that a threshold of three EET sessions would achieve CE-IM in the majority of patients. Alternative therapies and further diagnostic testing should be considered for patients who do not have significant response to EET after three sessions.

Acceptability and Adequacy of a Non-endoscopic Cell Collection Device for Diagnosis of Barrett's Esophagus: Lessons Learned.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic screening for Barrett's esophagus (BE) is common, costly, and underperformed in at-risk people. A non-endoscopic cell collection device can be used to collect esophageal cells, enabling BE screening. AIMS: This study assessed the acceptability and adequacy of a commercial non-endoscopic cell collection device in a US population. METHODS: Six sites enrolled patients with confirmed BE or heartburn/regurgitation for ≥ 6 months. Patients underwent administration of the device, consisting of a sponge encapsulated in a capsule. The capsule dwelled in the stomach for 7.5 min and was retracted via an attached suture. An adequate sample was ≥ 1 columnar cell by H&E staining. Sample quality was rated using a 0-5 scale, with 0 = no columnar cells and 5 = plentiful groups. Trefoil Factor 3 (TFF3) staining was performed. Accuracy was assessed using esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)/biopsy as the gold standard. RESULTS: Of 191 patients, 99.5% successfully swallowed the device. Overall sample adequacy was 91% (171/188), with 84% (158/188) high quality. The detachment rate was 2/190 (1%). Overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the assay with TFF3 staining were 76%, 77%, and 76%. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for ≥ 3 cm BE were 86%, 77%, and 82%. Asked if willing to repeat the procedure, 93% would, and 65% indicated a preference for the device over EGD. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a high rate of sample adequacy and promising acceptability of this non-endoscopic sampling device in a US population. Diagnostic characteristics suggest that non-endoscopic assessment of BE deserves further development as an alternative to endoscopy.

State of Evidence in Minimally Invasive Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux: Findings of a Scoping Review.

BACKGROUNDS & AIMS: Endoscopic management of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is being employed increasingly. The aim of this scoping review was to assess the volume of available evidence on the benefits of endoscopic and minimally invasive surgical therapies for GERD. METHODS: criteria were used to perform an extensive literature search of data regarding the reported benefit of endoscopic therapies in GERD. Randomized controlled studies were utilized when available; however, data from observational studies were also reviewed. RESULTS: A formal review of evidence was performed in 22 studies. Inclusion and exclusion criteria and study duration were noted and tabulated. Assessment of outcomes was based on symptoms and objective criteria reported by investigators. Reported outcomes for the interventions were tabulated under the heading of subjective (symptom scores, quality of life metrics, and change in proton pump inhibitor use) and objective metrics (pH parameters, endoscopic signs, and lower esophageal sphincter pressure changes). Adverse events were noted and tabulated. The majority of studies showed symptomatic and objective improvement of GERD with the device therapies. Adverse events were minimal. However, normalization of acid exposure occurred in about 50% of patients and, for some modalities, long-term durability is uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review revealed that the endoluminal and minimally invasive surgical devices for GERD therapy are a promising alternative to proton pump inhibitor therapy. Their place in the treatment algorithm for GERD will be better defined when important clinical parameters, especially durability of effect, are better understood.

Interventional Endoscopic Ultrasound: Current Status and Future Directions.

The evolution of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) from a diagnostic to a therapeutic procedure has resulted in a paradigm shift toward endoscopic management of disease states that previously required percutaneous or surgical approaches. The past few years have seen additional techniques and devices that have enabled endoscopists to expand its diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities. Some of these techniques initially were reported more than a decade ago; however, with further device development and refinement in techniques there is potential for expanding the application of these techniques and new technologies to a broader group of interventional gastroenterologists. Lack of formalized training, devices, and prospective data regarding their use in addition to a scarcity of guidelines on implementation of these technologies into clinical practice are contributing factors impeding the growth of the field of interventional EUS. In April 2019, the American Gastroenterological Association's Center for Gastrointestinal Innovation and Technology conducted its annual Tech Summit and a key session focused on interventional EUS. This article is a White Paper generated from the conference, discusses the published literature pertaining to the topic of interventional EUS, and outlines a proposed framework for the implementation of interventional EUS techniques into clinical practice. Three primary areas of interventional EUS are addressed: (1) EUS-guided access; (2) EUS-guided tumor ablation; and (3) endohepatology. There was general agreement among participants on several key components. The introduction of these novel interventions requires better tools, more data on safety/outcomes, and improved training for endoscopists. Participants also agreed that widespread implementation and use of these techniques will require support from Gastrointestinal Societies and other key stakeholders including payers. Continued work by the Gastrointestinal Societies and manufacturers to provide training programs, appropriate equipment/work environments, and policies that motivate endoscopists to adopt new techniques is essential for growing the field of interventional EUS.

Racial Disparities in Adherence to Quality Indicators in Barrett's Esophagus: An Analysis Using the GIQuIC National Benchmarking Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Racial disparities in outcomes in esophageal adenocarcinoma are well established. Using a nationwide registry, we aimed to compare clinical and endoscopic characteristics of blacks and whites with Barrett's esophagus (BE) and adherence to defined quality indicators. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Gastrointestinal Quality Improvement Consortium Registry between January 2012 and December 2019. Patients who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy with an indication of BE screening or surveillance, or an endoscopic finding of BE, were included. Adherence to recommended endoscopic surveillance intervals of 3-5 years for nondysplastic BE and adherence to Seattle biopsy protocol were assessed. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to assess variables associated with adherence. RESULTS: A total of 100,848 esophagogastroduodenoscopies in 84,789 patients met inclusion criteria (blacks-3,957 and whites-96,891). Blacks were less likely to have histologically confirmed BE (34.3% vs 51.7%, P < 0.01), had shorter BE lengths (1.61 vs 2.35 cm, P < 0.01), and were less likely to have any dysplasia (4.3% vs 7.1%, P < 0.01). Although whites were predominantly male (62.2%), about half of blacks with BE were female (53.0%). Blacks with nondysplastic BE were less likely to be recommended appropriate surveillance intervals (OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.68-0.89). Adherence rates to the Seattle protocol were modestly higher among blacks overall (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.04-1.20), although significantly lower among blacks with BE segments >6 cm. DISCUSSION: The use of sex as a risk factor for BE screening may be inappropriate among blacks. Fewer blacks were recommended appropriate surveillance intervals, and blacks with longer segment BE were less likely to undergo Seattle biopsy protocol.

Single-use duodenoscope for ERCP performed by endoscopists with a range of experience in procedures of variable complexity.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Expert endoscopists previously reported ERCP outcomes for the first commercialized single-use duodenoscope. We aimed to document usability of this device by endoscopists with different levels of ERCP experience. METHODS: Fourteen "expert" (>2000 lifetime ERCPs) and 5 "less-expert" endoscopists performed consecutive ERCPs in patients without altered pancreaticobiliary anatomy. Outcomes included ERCP completion for the intended indication, rate of crossover to another endoscope, device performance ratings, and serious adverse events. RESULTS: Two hundred ERCPs including 81 (40.5%) with high complexity (American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy grades 3-4) were performed. Crossover rate (11.3% vs 2.5%, P = .131), ERCP completion rate (regardless of crossovers) (96.3% vs 97.5%, P = .999), median ERCP completion time (25.0 vs 28.5 minutes, P = .130), mean cannulation attempts (2.8 vs 2.8, P = .954), and median overall satisfaction with the single-use duodenoscope (8.0 vs 8.0 [range, 1.0-10.0], P = .840) were similar for expert versus less-expert endoscopists, respectively. The same metrics were similar by procedural complexity except for shorter median completion time for grades 1 to 2 versus grades 3 to 4 (P < .001). Serious adverse events were reported in 13 patients (6.5%). CONCLUSIONS: In consecutive ERCPs including high complexity procedures, endoscopists with varying ERCP experience had good procedural success and reported high device performance ratings. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04223830.).

Recovery of endoscopy services in the era of COVID-19: recommendations from an international Delphi consensus.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on provision of endoscopy services globally as staff and real estate were repurposed. As we begin to recover from the pandemic, a cohesive international approach is needed, and guidance on how to resume endoscopy services safely to avoid unintended harm from diagnostic delays. The aim of these guidelines is to provide consensus recommendations that clinicians can use to facilitate the swift and safe resumption of endoscopy services. An evidence-based literature review was carried out on the various strategies used globally to manage endoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic and control infection. A modified Delphi process involving international endoscopy experts was used to agree on the consensus statements. A threshold of 80% agreement was used to establish consensus for each statement. 27 of 30 statements achieved consensus after two rounds of voting by 34 experts. The statements were categorised as pre-endoscopy, during endoscopy and postendoscopy addressing relevant areas of practice, such as screening, personal protective equipment, appropriate environments for endoscopy and infection control precautions, particularly in areas of high disease prevalence. Recommendations for testing of patients and for healthcare workers, appropriate locations of donning and doffing areas and social distancing measures before endoscopy are unique and not dealt with by any other guidelines. This international consensus using a modified Delphi method to produce a series of best practice recommendations to aid the safe resumption of endoscopy services globally in the era of COVID-19.

Clinical Evaluation of a Single-Use Duodenoscope for Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Disposable, single-use duodenoscopes might reduce outbreaks of infections associated with endoscope reuse. We tested the feasibility, preliminary safety, and performance of a new single-use duodenoscope in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). METHODS: We conducted a case-series study of the outcomes of ERCP with a single-use duodenoscope from April through May 2019 at 6 academic medical centers. We screened consecutive patients (18 years and older) without alterations in pancreaticobiliary anatomy and enrolled 73 patients into the study. Seven expert endoscopists performed roll-in maneuvers (duodenoscope navigation and visualization of duodenal papilla only) in 13 patients and then ERCPs in the 60 other patients. Outcomes analyzed included completion of ERCP for the intended clinical indication, crossover from a single-use duodenoscope to a reusable duodenoscope, endoscopist performance ratings of the device, and serious adverse events (assessed at 72 hours and 7 days). RESULTS: Thirteen (100%) roll-in maneuver cases were completed using the single-use duodenoscope. ERCPs were of American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy procedural complexity grade 1 (least complex; 7 patients [11.7%]), grade 2 (26 patients [43.3%]), grade 3 (26 patients [43.3%]), and grade 4 (most complex; 1 patient [1.7%]). Fifty-eight ERCPs (96.7%) were completed using the single-use duodenoscope only and 2 ERCPs (3.3%) were completed using the single-use duodenoscope followed by crossover to a reusable duodenoscope. Median overall satisfaction was 9 out of 10. Three patients developed post-ERCP pancreatitis, 1 patient had post-sphincterotomy bleeding, and 1 patient had worsening of a preexisting infection and required rehospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: In a case-series study, we found that expert endoscopists can complete ERCPs of a wide range of complexity using a single-use duodenoscope for nearly all cases. This alternative might decrease ERCP-related risk of infection. Clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT03701958.

AGA White Paper: Roadmap for the Future of Colorectal Cancer Screening in the United States.

The American Gastroenterological Association's Center for Gastrointestinal Innovation and Technology convened a consensus conference in December 2018, entitled, "Colorectal Cancer Screening and Surveillance: Role of Emerging Technology and Innovation to Improve Outcomes." The goal of the conference, which attracted more than 60 experts in screening and related disciplines, including the authors, was to envision a future in which colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and surveillance are optimized, and to identify barriers to achieving that future. This White Paper originates from that meeting and delineates the priorities and steps needed to improve CRC outcomes, with the goal of minimizing CRC morbidity and mortality. A one-size-fits-all approach to CRC screening has not and is unlikely to result in increased screening uptake or desired outcomes owing to barriers stemming from behavioral, cultural, and socioeconomic causes, especially when combined with inefficiencies in deployment of screening technologies. Overcoming these barriers will require the following: efficient utilization of multiple screening modalities to achieve increased uptake; continued development of noninvasive screening tests, with iterative reassessments of how best to integrate new technologies; and improved personal risk assessment to better risk-stratify patients for appropriate screening testing paradigms.

Recurrence Is Rare Following Complete Eradication of Intestinal Metaplasia in Patients With Barrett's Esophagus and Peaks at 18 Months.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There have been few studies describing the long-term durability of complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM) in patients with Barrett's esophagus (BE)-related neoplasia who received endoscopic eradication therapy (EET). Data are needed to guide surveillance interval protocols and identify patients at risk for recurrence. We assessed the rate of recurrence of intestinal metaplasia and dysplasia, histologic features, and outcomes after recurrence of CE-IM, and identified factors associated with recurrence. METHODS: We performed a prospective study of 807 patients with BE who underwent EET, which produced CE-IM, at 4 tertiary-care referral centers, from January 2013 to October 2018. Kaplan-Meier estimates of cumulative incidence rates (IR) of recurrence were calculated for up to 5 years following CE-IM and were stratified by baseline level of histology. Density estimates of recurrence were used to determine the change in the rate of recurrence over time. We conducted logistic regression analysis to identify factors associated with recurrence. RESULTS: Intestinal metaplasia recurred in 121 patients (15%; IR, 5.2/100 person-years), and dysplasia recurred in 41 patients (5.1%; IR, 1.8/100 person-years), after a median follow-up time of 2317 person-years. The rate of recurrence was not constant and the time to any recurrence converged to a normal distribution; recurrences peaked at 1.6 y after patients had CE-IM. Baseline high-grade dysplasia or intramucosal cancer (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.19), presence of reflux symptoms (aOR, 12.1) or hiatal hernia (aOR, 13.8), and number of sessions required to achieve CE-IM (aOR, 1.8) were associated with recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective study of a large cohort of patients with BE undergoing EET, we found a low rate of recurrence after CE-IM. The rate of recurrence peaked at 1-2 y after CE-IM. These findings indicate that aggressive surveillance might not be necessary more than 1 y after CE-IM and should be considered in surveillance guidelines. Clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT02634645.

An Analysis of the GIQuIC Nationwide Quality Registry Reveals Unnecessary Surveillance Endoscopies in Patients With Normal and Irregular Z-Lines.

INTRODUCTION: Population-based estimates of adherence to Barrett's esophagus (BE) guidelines are not available. Using a national registry, we assessed surveillance intervals for patients with normal and irregular Z-lines based on the presence or absence of intestinal metaplasia (IM) and among patients with suspected or confirmed BE. METHODS: We analyzed data from the GI Quality Improvement Consortium Registry. Endoscopy data, including procedure indication, demographics, endoscopy and histology findings, and recommendations for further endoscopy, were assessed from January 2013 through December 2019. Patients with an indication of BE screening or surveillance or an endoscopic finding of BE were included. Biopsy and surveillance practices were assessed based on the length of columnar epithelium (0 cm, <1 cm, 1-3 cm, and >3 cm) and diagnosis based on histology findings. RESULTS: A total of 1,907,801 endoscopies were assessed; 135,704 endoscopies (7.1%) performed in 114,894 patients met the inclusion criteria (men 61.4%, Whites 91%, and mean age of 61.7 years [SD 12.5]). Among patients with normal Z-lines, surveillance endoscopy was recommended for 81% of patients with IM and 20% of individuals without IM. Among patients with irregular Z-lines, surveillance endoscopy was recommended for 81% with IM and 24% without IM. Approximately 30% of patients with confirmed nondysplastic BE (lengths 1-3 and >3 cm) had recommended surveillance intervals of <3 years. DISCUSSION: An analysis of data from a nationwide quality registry demonstrated that patients without BE are receiving recommendations for surveillance endoscopies and many patients with nondysplastic BE are reexamined too soon.

Tips and pearls on running an endoscopy unit in a cost-efficient manner.

Endoscopy units face numerous challenges because of rising demand, increased operational costs, and declining reimbursement. These conditions have led to a critical need to maximize the operational cost-efficiency of these units. Several key factors can affect the cost-efficiency of an endoscopy unit, and the 4 key areas discussed in this article are managing capital costs, efficient use of disposables, improving unit efficiency, and creating a positive culture and establishing strong unit leadership. Areas on which to focus to achieve the greatest results will vary based on specific unit characteristics, but initial efforts should aim to improve operations by focusing on 1 to 2 key areas that ideally have been identified by an internal needs assessment. Although such efforts can be arduous and need to be sustained, they can result in significant benefits to patients, endoscopy unit staff, and healthcare organizations.

Triaging advanced GI endoscopy procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic: consensus recommendations using the Delphi method.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There is a lack of consensus on which GI endoscopic procedures should be performed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and which procedures could be safely deferred without having a significant impact on outcomes. METHODS: We selected a panel of 14 expert endoscopists. We identified 41 common indications for advanced endoscopic procedures from the ASGE Appropriate Use of GI Endoscopy guidelines. Using a modified Delphi method, we first achieved consensus on the patient-important outcome for each procedural indication. Panelists prioritized consensus patient-important outcome when categorizing each indication into one of the following 3 procedural time periods: (1) time-sensitive emergent (schedule within 1 week), (2) time-sensitive urgent (schedule within 1 to 8 weeks), and (3) non-time sensitive (defer for >8 weeks and then reassess the timing). Three anonymous rounds of voting were allowed before attempts at consensus were abandoned. RESULTS: All 14 invited experts agreed to participate in the study. The prespecified consensus threshold of 51% was achieved for assigning patient-important outcome(s) to each advanced endoscopy indication. The prespecified consensus threshold of 66.7% was achieved for 40 of 41 advanced endoscopy indications in stratifying them into 1 of 3 procedural time periods. For 12 of 41 indications, 100% consensus was achieved; for 20 of 41 indications, 75% to 99% consensus was achieved. CONCLUSIONS: By using a Modified Delphi method that prioritized patient-important outcomes, we developed consensus recommendations on procedural timing for common indications for advanced endoscopy. These recommendations and the structured decision framework provided by our study can inform decision making as endoscopy services are reopened.

Novel single-use duodenoscope compared with 3 models of reusable duodenoscopes for ERCP: a randomized bench-model comparison.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Multidrug-resistant infectious outbreaks associated with duodenoscope reuse have been documented internationally. A single-use endoscope could eliminate exogenous patient-to-patient infection associated with ERCP. METHODS: We conducted a comparative bench simulation study of a new single-use and 3 models of reusable duodenoscopes on a synthetic anatomic bench model. Four ERCP tasks were performed: guidewire locking (single-use and 1 reusable duodenoscope only), plastic stent placement and removal, metal stent placement and removal, and basket sweeping. The study schedule included block randomization by 4 duodenoscopes, 4 tasks, and 2 anatomic model ERCP stations. Ability to complete tasks, task completion times, and subjective ratings of overall performance, navigation/pushability, tip control, and image quality on a scale of 1 (worst) to 10 (best) were compared among duodenoscopes. RESULTS: All 4 ERCP tasks (total 14 subtasks) were completed by 6 expert endoscopists using all 4 duodenoscopes, with similar task completion times (median, 1.5-8.0 minutes per task) and overall performance ratings by task (median, 8.0-10.0). Navigation/pushability ratings were lower for the single-use duodenoscope than for the 3 reusable duodenoscopes (median, 8.0, 10.0, 9.0, and 9.0, respectively; P < .01). Tip control ratings were similar among all the duodenoscopes (median, 9.0-10.0; P = .77). Image quality ratings were lower for 1 reusable duodenoscope compared with the single-use and other 2 reusable duodenoscopes (median, 8.0, 9.0, 9.0, and 9.0, respectively; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: A new single-use duodenoscope was used to simulate 4 ERCP tasks in an anatomic model, with performance ratings and completion times comparable with 3 models of reusable duodenoscopes.