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.).

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.

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.

Revisit, Subsequent Hospitalization, Recurrent Fall, and Death Within 6 Months After a Fall Among Elderly Emergency Department Patients.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We seek to describe the risk during 6 months and specific risk factors for recurrent falls, emergency department (ED) revisits, subsequent hospitalizations, and death within 6 months after a fall-related ED presentation. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a retrospective cohort of elderly fall patients who presented to the ED from one urban teaching hospital. We included patients aged 65 years and older who had an ED fall visit in 2012. We examined the frequency and risk factors of adverse events (composite of recurrent falls, ED revisits, subsequent hospitalization, and death, selected a priori) at 6 months. RESULTS: Our study included 350 older adults. Adverse events steadily increased, from 7.7% at 7 days, 21.4% at 30 days, and 50.3% at 6 months. Within 6 months, 22.6% of patients had at least one recurrent fall, 42.6% revisited the ED, 31.1% had subsequent hospitalizations, and 2.6% died. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, psychological or sedative drug use predicted recurrent falls, ED revisits, subsequent hospitalizations, and adverse events. CONCLUSION: More than half of fall patients had an adverse event within 6 months of presenting to the ED after a fall. The risk during 6 months of these adverse events increased with psychological or sedative drug use. Larger future studies should confirm this association and investigate methods to minimize recurrent falls through management of such medications.