Per-oral cholangioscopy in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis: a 12-month follow-up study.

Background and study aims Patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) have a 9% to 20% lifetime incidence of cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). Per-oral cholangioscopy (POCS) added to endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) could potentially improve detection of CCA occurrence. We prospectively assessed POCS identification of 12-month CCA incidence in PSC patients undergoing ERC. Patients and methods Consecutive patients with PSC, an indication for ERC, and no prior liver transplantation were enrolled. During the index procedure, POCS preceded planned therapeutic maneuvers. The primary endpoint was ability for POCS visualization with POCS-guided biopsy to identify CCA during 12-month follow-up. Secondary endpoints included ability of ERC/cytology to identify CCA, repeat ERC, liver transplantation, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Results Of 42 patients enrolled, 36 with successful cholangioscope advancement were analyzed. Patients had a mean age 43.5±15.6 years and 61% were male. Three patients diagnosed with CCA had POCS visualization impressions of benign/suspicious/suspicious, and respective POCS-guided biopsy findings of suspicious/positive/suspicious for malignancy at the index procedure. The three CCA cases had ERC visualization impressions of benign/benign/suspicious, and respective cytology findings of atypical/atypical/suspicious for malignancy. No additional patients were diagnosed with CCA during median 11.5-month follow-up. Twenty-three repeat ERCs (5 including POCS) were performed in 14 patients. Five patients had liver transplantation, one after CCA diagnosis and four after benign cytology at the index procedure. Three patients (7.1%) had post-ERC pancreatitis. No SAEs were POCS-related. Conclusions In PSC patients, POCS visualization/biopsy and ERC/cytology each identified three cases of CCA. Some patients had a repeat procedure and none experienced POCS-related SAEs.

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.

Performance of a new single-use bronchoscope versus a marketed single-use comparator: a bench study.

BACKGROUND: Single-use flexible bronchoscopes eliminate cross contamination from reusable bronchoscopes and are cost-effective in a number of clinical settings. The present bench study aimed to compare the performance of a new single-use bronchoscope (Boston Scientific EXALT Model B) to a marketed single-use comparator (Ambu aScope 4), each in slim, regular and large diameters. METHODS: Three bronchoscopy tasks were performed: water suction and visualization, "mucus" mass (synthetic mucoid mixture) suctioned in 30 s, and "mucus" plug (thicker mucoid mixture) suction. Suction ability, task completion times, and subjective ratings of visualization and overall performance on a scale of one to 10 (best) were compared. All bronchoscopy tasks were completed by 15 physicians representing diversity in specialization including pulmonary, interventional pulmonary, critical care, anesthesia, and thoracic surgery. Each physician utilized the six bronchoscope versions with block randomization by bronchoscope and task. RESULTS: Aspirated mean mass of "mucus" using EXALT Model B Regular was comparable to that for an aScope 4 Large (41.8 ± 8.3 g vs. 41.5 ± 5.7 g respectively, p = 0.914). In comparisons of scopes with the same outer diameter, the aspirated mean mass by weight of water and "mucus" was significantly greater for EXALT Model B than for aScope 4 (p < 0.001 for all three diameters). Mean ratings for visualization attributes were significantly better for EXALT Model B compared to aScope 4 (p-value range 0.001-0.029). CONCLUSION: A new single-use bronchoscope provided strong suction capability and visualization compared to same-diameter marketed single-use comparators in a bench model simulation.

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.).

Using single-operator cholangioscopy for endoscopic evaluation of indeterminate biliary strictures: results from a large multinational registry.

BACKGROUND: Peroral cholangioscopy (POCS) of indeterminate biliary strictures aims to achieve a diagnosis through visual examination and/or by obtaining targeted biopsies under direct visualization. In this large, prospective, multinational, real-life experience of POCS-guided evaluation of indeterminate biliary strictures, we evaluated the performance of POCS in this difficult-to-manage patient population. METHODS: This prospective registry enrolled patients, with indeterminate biliary strictures across 20 centers in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. The primary end points were the ability to visualize the lesion, obtain histological sampling when intended, and an assessment of the diagnostic accuracy of POCS for malignant strictures. Patients were followed for 6 months after POCS or until a definitive malignant diagnosis was made, whichever occurred first. RESULTS: 289 patients underwent 290 POCS procedures with intent to biopsy in 182 cases. The stricture/filling defect was successfully visualized in 286/290 (98.6 %), providing a visual diagnostic impression in 253/290 (87.2 %) and obtaining adequate biopsies in 169/182 (92.9 %). Procedure-related adverse events occurred in 5/289 patients (1.7 %). POCS influenced patient management principally by elucidating filling defects or the causes of bile duct stricture or dilation. The visual impression of malignancy showed 86.7 % sensitivity, 71.2 % specificity, 65.8 % positive and 89.4 % negative predictive value, and 77.2 % overall accuracy compared with final diagnosis. Histological POCS-guided samples showed 75.3 % sensitivity, 100 % specificity, 100 % positive and 77.1 % negative predictive value, and 86.5 % overall accuracy. CONCLUSION: In this large, real-life, prospective series, POCS was demonstrated to be an effective and safe intervention guiding the management of patients with indeterminate biliary strictures.

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.

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.