Impact of endoscopic assessment and treatment on operative and non-operative management of acute oesophageal perforation.

BACKGROUND: Surgeons have not typically utilized an endoscopic approach for diagnosis and management of acute oesophageal perforation, mainly due to fears of increased mediastinal contamination. This study assessed the evolution of endoscopic approaches and their effect on outcomes over time in acute oesophageal perforation. METHODS: All patients with documented acute oesophageal perforation between 1990 and 2009 were enrolled prospectively in an Institutional Review Board-approved database. RESULTS: Of 81 patients who presented during the study period, 52 had upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for diagnosis alone (12 patients; 23 per cent) or as a component of acute management (40 patients; 77 per cent). Use of endoscopy increased from four of 13 patients in the first 5 years of the study to 20 of 24 patients in the final 5 years. Endoscopy was used in conjunction with surgery in 28 patients, of whom 21 underwent primary repair, three had resection, and one a diversion; 12 patients in this group had hybrid operations (combination of surgical and endoscopic management). Primary endoscopic treatment was used in 15 patients (29 per cent), most commonly involving stent placement (7). Of those having endoscopy, complication rates improved (from 3 of 4 to 8 of 20 patients), as did mean length of stay (from 21·8 to 13·4 days) between the initial and final 5 years of the study. There were two deaths (4 per cent). Of 21 patients who had both endoscopic assessment and management in the operating room, endoscopy identified additional pathology in ten, leading to a change in management plan in five patients. CONCLUSION: Endoscopy is a safe and important component of the management of acute oesophageal perforation. It provides additional information that modifies treatment, and its wider use should result in improved outcomes.

In vitro study and in vivo application of a reusable double-channel sphincterotome.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has been deemed to be a "cost-prohibitive" procedure, based upon the cumulative costs of one-time-use accessories and current reimbursement plans. One-time-use sphincterotomes comprise a significant component of that cost and, accordingly, we evaluated the disability and clinical usefulness of a recently introduced reusable double-channel sphincterotome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied a reusable 6-Fr sphincterotome at baseline and following contamination with 10(6) Bacillus stearothermophilus. Reprocessing included a unique 30-minute ultrasonic cleaning step in lieu of manual cleaning, followed by steam sterilization. Parameters evaluated included sphincterotome function, electrical integrity, and our ability to sterilize the devices for three in vitro trials. In vivo studies included patient demographics and outcomes, procedural findings, and success rates, and the mean number of times the sphincterotome was used, functional grading at time of use, and reasons for sphincterotome malfunction. RESULTS: Ten out of ten sphincterotomes maintained form, function, and electrical integrity in vitro, and all cultures were negative after sterilization. In the initial in vivo study, ten sphincterotomes were used in 50 patients (mean, 5 uses) with a 94% success rate. Reasons for sphincterotome failure included leak or breakage of the accessory port in 70%, wire fracture in 10%, incorrect wire bow in 10%, and clogged injection port in 10%. Following reconfiguration of the insertion-port polymer, an additional ten sphincterotomes were used in 110 patients (mean, 11 uses). Mechanical failure occurred primarily at the wire-insertion port, resulting in progressive friction with reuse. There were neither electrical nor infectious complications associated with reuse. CONCLUSIONS: A reusable double-channel sphincterotome is available which can theoretically be reprocessed and sterilized without the manual cleaning step of the reprocessing process. Contingent upon both provider and patient, multiple reuse can be anticipated, and contingent upon purchase price and reprocessing costs, the potential for procedural cost savings is significant.

In vitro and in vivo evaluation of a reusable double-channel sphincterotome.

BACKGROUND: To date, one reusable, double-channel sphincterotome has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the United States. Whether this device can be reprocessed easily and whether it is more durable than currently manufactured disposable sphincterotomes are uncertain. METHODS: Thirty double-channel, 20 mm, braided-wire sphincterotomes approved for multiple uses were studied in vitro/in vivo with regard to durability and sterilization. A cost analysis of reusable, disposable, and reprocessed disposable sphincterotomes was also carried out. RESULTS: Three of 10 sphincterotomes evaluated in vitro broke after 3, 4, and 8 uses. Electrical integrity was preserved after 10 uses in the remaining sphincterotomes. Nine sphincterotomes remained functional for at least 3 uses, five for 6 uses, and one for 10 uses. Culture results after inoculation demonstrated contamination with surviving organisms after manual cleaning and no growth after ethylene oxide sterilization. Sixty-one procedures were performed in vivo using 20 sphincterotomes (mean number of uses 3.1). No evidence of procedurally related infection occurred with reuse. Cost per use of this reusable sphincterotome was calculated to be $62.98; it became cost effective after 2.2 and 7.9 uses when compared with disposable and reprocessed, disposable sphincterotomes, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This reusable sphincterotome proved to be safe, easily sterilized, and electrically intact after repeated use. In vivo, however, a progressive loss of function limited the mean number of uses to 3.1. In settings that preclude reuse of reprocessed disposable accessories, this reusable sphincterotome may provide a means to decrease costs associated with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

In vitro evaluation of integrity and sterilization of single-use argon beam plasma coagulation probes.

OBJECTIVE: Argon plasma coagulation probes (APC) are currently marketed in the United States as single-use items, and may constitute a significant per-procedure expense. It is unknown whether these probes can be sterilized after endoscopic use and if electrical integrity can be maintained after reprocessing. METHODS: Ten probes (2.3 mm diameter, 220 cm length) manufactured by ERBE Inc., (Marietta, GA) were studied using the ERBE APC 300 at 60 watts. Baseline coagulation depth was measured by coagulating a piece of beefsteak for 60 s. Probes were contaminated with 10(6) Bacillus subtilis spores, cultured, and manually cleaned. Culturing involved introducing 10 cc sterile water through the probes; water was filtered, plated onto blood agar, and incubated for 48 h. After ethylene oxide (ETO), the probes were cultured to determine sterilization. Finally, the per-procedure cost of each probe was assessed. RESULTS: Ten of 10 probes completed 10 testing sessions. One probe split at the proximal end but remained functionally intact. Electrical integrity remained intact for all 10 sessions. All probes grew too numerous to count colonies of B. subtilis after inoculation and no B. subtilis was detected after ETO sterilization. Assuming 10 uses clinically, a total per-procedure equipment cost would approximate $24.00, whereas per-procedure probe cost would equal $42.66 if only five uses were obtained in vivo. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of manual cleaning and ETO sterilization consistently sterilized APC probes. Ninety percent of the probes showed no sign of physical deterioration and 100% maintained their electrical activity after 10 uses. APC probes can potentially be safely and effectively reused up to 10 times, and a significant procedural savings is possible with reuse.

Reuse of disposable sphincterotomes for diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a one-year prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Although previous studies have documented that single-channel sphincterotomes can be sterilized and used up to 10 times, no studies have prospectively evaluated the reuse of disposable sphincterotomes. METHODS: Five- and six-French double-channel sphincterotomes marketed as one-time-use only were manually cleaned, sterilized with ethylene oxide, and used up to 10 times. Over a 1-year period, total number of uses as a cannulation or cutting device, reason for sphincterotome dysfunction, possible infectious complications were evaluated, and cost-savings associated with reuse were evaluated. RESULTS: The mean number of times sphincterotomes could be used in our institution was 3.4; a broken or stiff cutting wire was the main reason for discard. There were two infectious complications during the study period. Both were experienced by patients with unrelieved obstruction treated with new sphincterotomes. Contingent on the method used, total savings related to sphincterotome reuse was approximately $66,000. CONCLUSIONS: Double-channel sphincterotomes marketed as one-time-use items can be reused safely when properly cleaned. Reuse was associated with significant cost savings in our institution.

Comparison of conventional and wire mesh expandable prostheses and surgical bypass in patients with malignant esophagorespiratory fistulas.

BACKGROUND: Patients who present with malignant esophagorespiratory fistula continue to provide a significant palliative challenge to gastroenterologists and surgeons. METHODS: This retrospective series reviewed 29 patients treated with conventional prostheses (13 patients), expandable wire mesh-coated prostheses (12 patients), and surgical bypass with esophageal exclusion (4 patients) between 1982 and 1995. RESULTS: Improvement in dysphagia scores were comparable in all three groups. Fistula occlusion was more successful with expandable prostheses (92%) compared conventional prostheses (77%); however, reinterventions were required more commonly with expandable prostheses, which were also significantly more expensive on a unit cost basis. In selected patients in whom prosthesis placement either was inappropriate or failed, surgical bypass and esophageal exclusion was undertaken. These patients demonstrated good palliation with minimal morbidity and no mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Both conventional and expandable prostheses are safe and reasonably straightforward treatment modalities for patients with esophagorespiratory fistulas. Because of ease of insertion and large luminal diameter, expandable metal prostheses will see increasing use in treatment of these difficult patients; however, conventional prostheses will remain a good alternative, especially in patients with extrinsic esophageal compression. When stent placement is either unsuccessful or inadvisable, physiologically fit patients can undergo surgical bypass and esophageal exclusion with good palliation and minimal morbidity and mortality.

A cost-effective approach to the patient with peptic ulcer bleeding.

The average hospital cost to manage patients hospitalized at Virginia Mason Hospital who bleed from a peptic ulcer is approximately $5000 per patient in our series of 30 patients. Because there are 150,000 admissions per year in the United States for peptic ulcer bleeding, the total hospital cost can be estimated to be $750 million. The actual cost may be higher because our 30 patients had minimal complications and were discharged on average in less than 4 days. The majority of hospital cost is incurred by the intensive care unit or the hospital nursing floor. There is a close to linear relation between the length of stay and the total hospital cost. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is a major advance in the treatment of peptic ulcer bleeding. It can provide significant cost savings by identifying some patients with bleeding peptic ulcers who have clean bases on endoscopy who are then eligible for prompt discharge from the hospital. In addition, endoscopic thermal therapy (with multipolar electrocautery or heater probe) and injection therapy cost less than $50 in incremental cost and can reduce further bleeding by 43%, reduce the need for urgent surgery by 63%, and reduce the mortality rate by 60%. Some patients still require urgent surgical intervention, which is substantially more costly than endoscopic hemostasis but is highly effective. Preliminary studies show promise in predicting further bleeding, with clinical scoring systems such as the Baylor Bleeding Score and with the use of Doppler ultrasonography. Better prediction of further bleeding should guide the choice of durable hemostasis early in the hospitalization. Additional studies should clarify the role of NSAID avoidance and H. pylori eradication in the long-term prevention of recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding.

Disposable versus reusable biopsy forceps: a prospective evaluation of costs.

BACKGROUND: Disposable biopsy forceps have been heavily marketed as cost-effective, convenient, and safer to use than conventional forceps. METHODS: In an attempt to define whether disposable or reusable biopsy forceps were cheaper to use, we prospectively evaluated the purchase price, number of uses, repair record, and cleaning costs of all reusable biopsy forceps used in the outpatient endoscopy unit of a large multispecialty clinic. RESULTS: Over a 12-month period, 1581 biopsy sessions were undertaken. Seventeen of 119 forceps required $1890 in repairs over the study period (an average of $1.20 per biopsy session). Cleaning costs, including technician processing and steam autoclave, approximated $3.46 per use, increasing to $5.61 per use if glutaraldehyde soak was substituted for steam autoclave. CONCLUSIONS: Assuming a sixfold difference in purchase price between reusable and disposable forceps, and a per-use repair and cleaning cost of $1.20 and $3.46, respectively, reusable biopsy forceps became cost-effective after seven uses in our institution.

Reusable biopsy forceps: a cost-effective measure for the endoscopy suite.

Some healthcare practitioners have recommended the use of disposable medical accessories as standard practice. Advantages of using disposable medical equipment include the potential for infection prevention, convenience, and decreased reprocessing and storage costs. Disadvantages of reusable accessories include the initial cost, "down time" required for repair and, most importantly, the potential for spreading infection. In this study, the investigators provide a cost analysis of reusable biopsy forceps for a 12-month period from April 1993 through March 1994. This prospective, descriptive study evaluated purchase price, number of uses, repair history, and cleaning costs for reusable biopsy forceps used in the endoscopy unit of a large multi-specialty clinic. Results of the study revealed that the reusable biopsy forceps became cost-effective after seven uses.

Esophageal dilation can be done safely using selective fluoroscopy and single dilating sessions.

Maxims for safe esophageal dilation have included recommendations to use fluoroscopy in all instances and to limit dilation sessions to 2-mm increments. We reviewed a 34-month experience of all esophageal dilations undertaken at a large multispecialty clinic to define adherence to these recommendations and to delineate whether deviation was associated with significant complications. Four hundred thirty-two patients underwent 716 courses of esophageal dilation during this time, 92% of whom had benign disease. Eighty-nine percent of patients were dilated with polyvinyl dilators (Savary/American) and only 8% of these patients required fluoroscopic monitoring for the bougienage. Seventy-eight percent of the dilating sessions for patients without achalasia were undertaken using either a single large dilator (> or = 45 Fr) or employed incremental dilator sizes > 2 mm (6 Fr) in a single session. There was a single perforation in 662 nonachalasia dilations and this was a consequence of attempted placement of an esophageal endoprosthesis. We conclude that use of guide wire technology and newer dilating techniques do away with the need for routine fluoroscopic control. Moreover, single large dilators or dilator increments > 2 mm may be safely used, contingent on endoscopic stricture assessment.

The impact of OSHA regulations on nursing care cost and compliance.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires health care facilities to protect employees from bloodborne pathogens. One of the mandates is to provide personal protective equipment (PPE) to employees at no cost to the employee. In this article, the authors explore the cost and compliance of implementing the new OSHA regulations for nursing staff assisting with colonoscopies over a 6-month period. The data were collected on a total of 461 procedures. The cost of implementing PPE for the nursing staff was $2.98 per procedure. The PPE available for the nursing staff included goggles, splash-proof gown, face mask, shoe covers, and latex gloves. The total cost of implementing the new regulations for the nursing staff assisting with colonoscopies was $2,747.56 and was projected to cost approximately $50,000 yearly if implemented for all GI procedures in the institution. Staff compliance rates for the five pieces of PPE ranged from 6.5 to 97.8%.

The impact of disposable equipment on room fee reimbursement for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

Disposable equipment is widely used in many gastroenterologic procedures. Such equipment decreases risks of cross contamination, is convenient, and decreases the processing, storage, and cost of reusable equipment. However, disposable equipment has a far-reaching environmental impact. Most disposable equipment must be handled as infectious waste. Moreover, cumulative costs associated with disposable equipment may be quite high. In this study, the authors attempted to delineate the percentage of room fee reimbursement spent on disposable equipment. The procedure selected for the study was Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Two hundred forty-eight procedures were surveyed over a 6-month period between September 1992 and February 1993, and the total cost of each procedure was calculated. Reimbursement figures for diagnostic and therapeutic ERCPs were obtained for Medicare, contracted providers, and private payors. The percentage of room fee reimbursement monies used for disposable equipment for diagnostic ERCPs ranged from 5.8 to 12.8%. For disposable equipment in therapeutic ERCPs the percentage of room fee reimbursement monies ranged from 40.5 to 59.7%. Combining both diagnostic and therapeutic ERCPs, the percentage of room fee reimbursement to defray the cost of disposable equipment was 42.4%. Disposable equipment costs are a large portion of the room fee reimbursement. leaving potentially inadequate revenues for salaries, general upkeep of equipment, and capital to buy new or replace aging equipment.

Prospective evaluation of costs of disposable accessories in diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP.

Procedural (room fee) reimbursement from insurance payers is usually fixed for individual endoscopic procedures and may not include the costs of disposable equipment. This study estimated costs of disposable items used in ERCP procedures and calculated the percentage of total reimbursement spent on such equipment. A total of 248 ERCPs were performed in a 5-month study period, 192 (77%) of which were therapeutic. Total reimbursement was estimated to be $112,262 ($452 per procedure) and total disposable equipment costs were $47,195 ($190 per procedure), or 42% of total reimbursement. Disposable instrument costs in diagnostic ERCP approximated 13% of those associated with therapeutic ERCP, and the latter costs in turn utilized more than 60% of Medicare/Medicaid room fee reimbursement. This reimbursement may be inadequate to cover both disposable instrument costs and other procedural expenses, such as admit-recovery costs, nursing assistance, expenses related to endoscope purchase and capitalization, and equipment cleaning or sterilization. Our data suggest the need for either re-usable endoscopic accessories or adequate compensation to cover disposable instrument costs.

Long-term follow-up in patients who have undergone balloon dilation for gastric outlet obstruction.

Although balloon dilation for gastric outlet obstruction has supplanted vagotomy plus drainage or resective therapy in some institutions, there are no long-term data which demonstrate what percentage of patients ultimately requires surgical intervention. Of 23 evaluable patients treated with hydrostatic balloon dilation in our institution, 70% were asymptomatic at a mean follow-up of 2.5 years. Five patients required surgery--one for acute perforation and the other four for symptoms of continued obstruction, despite one to three additional attempts at dilation. Only three of seven patients with previous gastric resection had a satisfactory long-term result. Whereas endoscopic therapy initially cost one tenth to one fifth that of surgical intervention, such figures do not factor for loss of productivity, on the one hand, or potential need for chronic H2 blockade, on the other. Despite instruction to the contrary, only 6 of 15 (40%) active patients continue acid-suppressive therapy. We conclude that balloon dilation remains a viable alternative for selected patients with gastric outlet obstruction.