Impact of endoprosthesis type on inflammatory response in patients undergoing endoscopic drainage of pancreatic fluid collections.

OBJECTIVE: To study the impact of endoprosthesis type on inflammatory response in patients undergoing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFC). METHODS: Patients undergoing EUS-guided PFC drainage and treated using lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) or plastic endoprostheses constituted the study cohort. The primary outcome was the presence of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) after index intervention. Secondary outcomes were persistent organ failure, new onset organ failure, duration of hospitalization, and treatment success. RESULTS: In all, 303 patients were treated using LAMS (n = 247) or plastic stents (n = 56). At 48 h postintervention, the presence of SIRS (25.0 vs. 14.2%, P = 0.047), new onset SIRS (10.0 vs. 1.8%, P = 0.017), and new organ failure (5.4 vs. 0.4%, P = 0.003) were significantly higher in the plastic stent cohort compared to LAMS. On multivariable logistic regression analysis, the use of plastic stents (odds ratio [OR] 2.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-6.0, P = 0.014), patients receiving high-acuity care (OR 5.1, 95% CI 2.5-10.4, P < 0.001) and the presence of ≥33% of necrosis (OR 4.5, 95% CI 2.0-10.0, P < 0.001) were significantly associated with the presence of SIRS or new organ failure. While there was no significant difference in treatment success (96.4 vs. 95.5%, P = 0.77), duration of hospitalization was significantly longer for the plastic stent cohort (mean [standard deviation] 12.5 [17.8] vs. 7.9 [10.1] days, P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Use of plastic stents as compared to LAMS was associated with a higher proportion of SIRS and new organ failure that prolonged hospital stay. Therefore, placement of LAMS is recommended in sick patients and those with ≥33% necrosis to minimize inflammatory response.

Treatment of walled-off necrosis using lumen-apposing metal stents versus plastic stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis of data from randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Walled-off necrosis (WON) is highly morbid disease most effectively managed by endoscopic drainage with lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) or plastic stents, with or without necrosectomy. This meta-analysis compared the clinical outcomes of patients included in randomized trials treated using LAMSs or plastic stents. METHODS: The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched to identify all data collected from randomized trials comparing LAMSs and plastic stents for the treatment of WON. The primary outcome measure was need for endoscopic necrosectomy. RESULTS: Three studies comprising 206 patients met inclusion criteria. Except for procedure duration, which was significantly shorter for LAMSs (standardized mean difference [SMD] -1.22, 95%CI -1.64 to -0.79), there was no significant difference in need for necrosectomy (38.5% vs. 41.2%; risk ratio [RR] 1.07, 95%CI 0.79-1.45), number of interventions (SMD -0.09, 95%CI -0.40 to 0.22), treatment success (90.7% vs. 94.5%; RR 0.96, 95%CI 0.87-1.06), recurrence (4.6% vs. 0.6%; RR 3.73, 95%CI 0.42-33.0), readmission (42.6% vs. 50.2%; RR 0.84, 95%CI 0.62-1.14), length of hospitalization (SMD -0.06, 95%CI -0.55 to 0.43), mortality (8.5% vs. 9.8%; RR 0.70, 95%CI 0.30-1.66), new-onset organ failure (10.6% vs. 14.6%; RR 0.72, 95%CI 0.16-3.32), bleeding (11.0% vs. 10.7%; RR 1.09, 95%CI 0.34-3.44), procedural adverse events (23.6% vs. 19.2%; RR 1.38, 95%CI 0.82-2.33), or overall costs (SMD -0.04, 95%CI -0.31 to 0.24) between LAMSs and plastic stents, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Except for procedure duration, there is no significant difference in clinical outcomes for patients with WON treated using LAMSs or plastic stents.

Upfront endoscopic necrosectomy or step-up endoscopic approach for infected necrotising pancreatitis (DESTIN): a single-blinded, multicentre, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Although the preferred management approach for patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis is endoscopic transluminal stenting followed by endoscopic necrosectomy as step-up treatment if there is no clinical improvement, the optimal timing of necrosectomy is unclear. Therefore, we aimed to compare outcomes between performing upfront necrosectomy at the index intervention versus as a step-up measure in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis. METHODS: This single-blinded, multicentre, randomised trial (DESTIN) was done at six tertiary care hospitals (five hospitals in the USA and one hospital in India). We enrolled patients (aged ≥18 years) with confirmed or suspected infected necrotising pancreatitis with a necrosis extent of at least 33% who were amenable to endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage. By use of computer-generated permuted block randomisation (block size four), eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either upfront endoscopic necrosectomy or endoscopic step-up treatment. Endoscopists were not masked to treatment allocation, but participants, research coordinators, and the statistician were. Lumen-apposing metal stents (20 mm diameter; 10 mm saddle length) were used for drainage in both groups. In the upfront group, direct necrosectomy was performed immediately after stenting in the same treatment session. In the step-up group, direct necrosectomy or additional drainage was done at a subsequent treatment session if there was no clinical improvement (resolution of any criteria of systemic inflammatory response syndrome or sepsis or one or more organ failure and at least a 25% percentage decrease in necrotic collection size) 72 h after stenting. The primary outcome was the number of reinterventions per patient to achieve treatment success from index intervention to 6 months' follow-up, which was defined as symptom relief in conjunction with disease resolution on CT. Reinterventions included any endoscopic or radiological procedures performed for necrosectomy or additional drainage after the index intervention, excluding the follow-up procedure at 4 weeks for stent removal. All endpoints and safety were analysed by intention-to-treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05043415 and NCT04113499, and recruitment and follow-up have been completed. FINDINGS: Between Nov 27, 2019, and Oct 26, 2022, 183 patients were assessed for eligibility and 70 patients (24 [34%] women and 46 [66%] men) were randomly assigned to receive upfront necrosectomy (n=37) or step-up treatment (n=33) and included in the intention-to-treat population. At the time of index intervention, seven (10%) of 70 patients had organ failure and 64 (91%) patients had walled-off necrosis. The median number of reinterventions was significantly lower for upfront necrosectomy (1 [IQR 0 to 1] than for the step-up approach (2 [1 to 4], difference -1 [95% CI -2 to 0]; p=0·0027). Mortality did not differ between groups (zero patients in the upfront necrosectomy group vs two [6%] in the step-up group, difference -6·1 percentage points [95% CI -16·5 to 4·5]; p=0·22), nor did overall disease-related adverse events (12 [32%] patients in the upfront necrosectomy group vs 16 [48%] patients in the step-up group, difference -16·1 percentage points [-37·4 to 7·0]; p=0·17), nor procedure-related adverse events (four [11%] patients in the upfront necrosectomy group vs eight [24%] patients in the step-up group, difference -13·4 percentage points [-30·8 to 5·0]; p=0·14). INTERPRETATION: In stabilised patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis and fully encapsulated collections, an approach incorporating upfront necrosectomy at the index intervention rather than as a step-up measure could safely reduce the number of reinterventions required to achieve treatment success. FUNDING: None.

Orlando Protocol for single session ductal clearance of common bile duct stones at endosopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

OBJECTIVES: Approach to management of common bile duct stones (CBDS) by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is not standardized. We examined outcomes by applying predetermined protocol for CBDS management. METHODS: When standard extraction techniques failed at ERCP, presence of tapered bile duct and stone-duct ratio were calculated. Large balloon sphincteroplasty (LBS) and/or mechanical/single-operator cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy was performed based on presence of tapered bile duct and stone-duct mismatch. Primary outcome was single-session ductal clearance. Secondary outcome was adverse events. RESULTS: Of 409 patients treated over 16 months, 321 (78.5%) had no tapered bile duct or stone-duct mismatch, and single-session ductal clearance was achieved using standard techniques in 99.7% over median duration of 14 min (interquartile range [IQR] 9-21 min). Of 88 (21.5%) patients with difficult CBDS, tapered duct was seen in 79 (89.8%) and/or stone-duct mismatch in 36 (40.9%). Single-session ductal clearance was achieved in all 88 patients (100%) by LBS in 79 (89.8%), mechanical lithotripsy in 20 (22.7%), and single-operator cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy in 16 (18.2%) over a median duration of 29 min (IQR 17-47 min). Overall, single-session ductal clearance was achieved in 99.8% with adverse events in 17 (4.2%) that included perforation in two, postsphincterotomy bleeding in one, and mild/moderate post-ERCP pancreatitis in 14 patients. CONCLUSIONS: A predetermined protocol optimized outcomes by enabling single-session ductal clearance of CBDS with high technical success and low adverse events.

Impact of Slim Linear Echoendoscope on the Practice of EUS.

BACKGROUND: Standard linear echoendoscopes have a large distal tip and bending radius, which can preclude adequate examination in some patients. OBJECTIVE: We examined the impact of having available slim linear echoendoscopes (SLE) on our endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: As a quality improvement measure, data on the need for the use of SLE were documented in 2000 consecutive procedures performed over a 10-month period from February to November 2022. When examination using a standard size echoendoscope failed due to technical limitations, the procedure was reattempted in the same session using a SLE. The main outcome was the impact of SLE, which was defined as the establishment of a new diagnosis or if findings altered treatment plan. RESULTS: A complete EUS examination failed in 23 of 2000 procedures (1.15%, 95% CI, 0.73-1.72%) performed using standard size echoendoscope (14 male, median age 73 y [IQR 66 to 79]). The examination was technically successful when using SLE in 22 of 23 (95.6%) patients. SLE impacted clinical management in all 22 patients (100%) by establishing tissue diagnosis in 19 and/or altering subsequent treatment plan in 5. Adverse event of transient hypoxia was observed in one patient (4.3%). CONCLUSIONS: A very experienced EUS team required SLE in 1.1% of consecutive examinations. Our findings suggest that when used, 95% of patients benefitted as it had a significant impact on their clinical management.

Basic and Advanced Biliary Cannulation: How Do I Do It?

Successful biliary cannulation of a native papilla is usually the rate-limiting step toward a successful ERCP. Standard cannulation techniques usually succeed, particularly when utilizing the wire-guided technique. There are, however, a myriad of confirmations of the major papilla as well as anatomic variants and certain pathologies which can make cannulation exceedingly difficult. For these cases, advanced cannulation techniques and techniques termed "access sphincterotomy" have been developed which should allow successful cannulation in >90% of cases. This article should help all those performing ERCP to improve their cannulation rate.

Validation of the Orlando Protocol for endoscopic management of pancreatic fluid collections in the era of lumen-apposing metal stents.

OBJECTIVES: Although lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are being increasingly used in lieu of plastic stents, the clinical approach to endoscopic management of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) is poorly standardized. We compared outcomes of approaches over two time intervals, initially using plastic stents and later integrating LAMS. METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational, before-after study of prospectively collected data on consecutive patients with symptomatic PFCs managed over two time periods. In the initial period (January 2010-January 2015) endoscopic treatment was undertaken with plastic stents and in the later period (February 2015-August 2020) by integration of LAMS with selective use of plastic stents. The treatment strategy in both periods were tailored to size, extent, type of PFC and stepwise response to intervention. The main outcome was treatment success, defined as resolution of PFC and presenting symptoms at 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 160 patients were treated with plastic stents and 227 patients were treated using an integrated LAMS approach. Treatment success was significantly higher for the integrated approach compared to using only plastic stents (95.6 vs. 89.4%; P = 0.018), which was confirmed to be predictive of treatment success on multivariable logistic regression analysis (odds ratio 2.7, 95% confidence interval 1.1-6.4; P = 0.028). CONCLUSIONS: A structured approach integrating LAMS with selective use of plastic stents improved treatment success in patients with PFCs compared to an approach using only plastic stents.

Spinal pain and major depression in a military cohort: bias analysis of dependent misclassification in electronic medical records.

BACKGROUND: Spinal pain and major depression are prevalent conditions in adult populations and are particularly impactful in the military. However, the temporal relationship between these two conditions remains poorly understood. METHODS: Using data extracted from electronic medical records, we assessed the association between incident diagnoses of spinal pain and major depression in a cohort of 48,007 Canadian Armed Forces personnel followed from January 2017 to August 2018. We used multivariate Poisson regression to measure the association between the period prevalence of these two conditions. We used probabilistic bias modelling to correct our estimates for misclassification of spinal pain and major depression. RESULTS: After correcting for misclassification with probabilistic bias modelling, subjects newly diagnosed with spinal pain during the study period were 1.41 times (95% interval 1.25, 1.59) more likely also to be diagnosed with incident major depression, and personnel newly diagnosed with major depression were 1.28 times (95% interval 1.17, 1.39) more likely also to be diagnosed with spinal pain, compared to undiagnosed counterparts of the same age and sex. Without bias corrections, we would have overestimated the magnitude of the association between major depression and spinal pain by a factor of approximately 2.0. CONCLUSION: Our results highlight a moderate and bi-directional association between two of the most prevalent disorders in military populations. Our results also highlight the importance of correcting for misclassification in electronic medical record data research.

Endoscopic biliary drainage for malignant distal biliary obstruction: Which is better - endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or endoscopic ultrasound?

Presently, following endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biopsy, an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with transpapillary stenting is performed for palliation of malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO). However, technical failure and postprocedure pancreatitis are limitations to ERCP. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) after a failed ERCP has a 90% technical success rate and has been shown to be superior when compared to percutaneous methods, making EUS an increasingly recognized option for biliary drainage. Supporting this approach, findings from recently concluded randomized trials suggest that the safety profile and technical outcomes for EUS-BD are comparable or even superior to that of ERCP for primary biliary decompression in patients with MDBO. Also, EUS-BD is increasingly being utilized in patients with altered surgical anatomy in lieu of percutaneous techniques and balloon-assisted enteroscopy. A growing body of evidence supports the notion that, in the future, EUS may become the primary modality by which biliary decompression is undertaken in the majority of patients with MDBO. The roadmap to this eventuality may require further optimization of procedural techniques, technological innovations, and cost reduction.

Expert consensus on endoscopic papillectomy using a Delphi process.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Consensus regarding an optimal algorithm for endoscopic treatment of papillary adenomas has not been established. We aimed to assess the existing degree of consensus among international experts and develop further concordance by means of a Delphi process. METHODS: Fifty-two international experts in the field of endoscopic papillectomy were invited to participate. Data were collected between August and December 2019 using an online survey platform. Three rounds were conducted. Consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement. RESULTS: Sixteen experts (31%) completed the full process, and consensus was achieved on 47 of the final 79 statements (59%). Diagnostic workup should include at least an upper endoscopy using a duodenoscope (100%) and biopsy sampling (94%). There should be selected use of additional abdominal imaging (75%-81%). Patients with (suspected) papillary malignancy or over 1 cm intraductal extension should be referred for surgical resection (76%). To prevent pancreatitis, rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs should be administered before resection (82%) and a pancreatic stent should be placed (100%). A biliary stent is indicated in case of ongoing bleeding from the papillary region (76%) or concerns for a (micro)perforation after resection (88%). Follow-up should be started 3 to 6 months after initial papillectomy and repeated every 6 to 12 months for at least 5 years (75%). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first step in developing an international consensus-based algorithm for endoscopic management of papillary adenomas. Surprisingly, in many areas consensus could not be achieved. These aspects should be the focus of future studies.

Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Colonic Mucosal Neoplasia and Evaluation of Long-Term Recurrence: A Single-Center Experience of 500 Cases.

OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) is an alternative to surgery for the treatment of large laterally spreading lesions. Residual or recurrent adenoma is a major limitation. This study aimed to quantify early and late recurrences and to assess its associated risk factors. METHODS: The study was a single-center, multiendoscopist, longitudinal study conducted between January 1, 2013 and April 26, 2017. A total of 480 patients with 500 polyps who underwent an endoscopic resection were included. Surveillance colonoscopy (SC) was performed at 4 to 6 months (SC1) and 16 to 18 months (SC2). RESULTS: At SC1, early recurrence was noted in 77 of 354 (21.8%) lesions; 76 (98.7%) were treated endoscopically. The remaining 277 of 354 (78.2%) lesions had no recurrence at SC1; only 41 lesions (15%) were followed up at SC2. Recurrence at SC2 was found in 4 lesions (9.8%), all of which were treated endoscopically. Lesion size >40 mm was associated with recurrence. Recurrence at both SC1 and SC2 was successfully treated endoscopically in 78 of 81 lesions (96.3%). CONCLUSIONS: EMR is an effective, minimally invasive technique for the treatment of large laterally spreading lesions. Although recurrence is a concern, its risk is low (21.8% on SC1 and 9.8% on SC2) and was managed endoscopically in 96.3% cases on follow-up endoscopy.

Comparing Needles and Methods of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy to Optimize Specimen Quality and Diagnostic Accuracy for Patients With Pancreatic Masses in a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Given the lack of procedure standardization, findings vary from analyses of pancreatic tissues collected by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy. It is not clear which needle and technique yield the best specimen for analysis. We compared the specimen quality and accuracy of diagnoses made from samples collected by fine-needle biopsy needles using different collection techniques. METHODS: Patients found to have pancreatic masses during imaging (n = 129) were assigned randomly to groups from whom pancreatic tissue samples were collected by reverse-bevel, Menghini-tip, franseen, or fork-tip needles. A second randomization determined the technical sequence of biopsies in each patient (suction, no suction, and stylet retraction). Two independent pathologists, blinded to the type of needle and sampling technique, analyzed all the samples. Final diagnoses of malignancy were made based on surgical resection, death from cancer progression, or findings from radiology or clinical follow-up evaluations (reference standard). The primary objective was to compare the cellularity of the samples collected, defined as the proportion of core tissue in the biopsy sample. Secondary objectives were to compare the accuracy of diagnoses made from biopsy samples and identify factors associated with high cellularity. RESULTS: One-hundred and nine patients had a final diagnosis of malignancy (84.5%) and 20 patients had benign disease (15.5%). Samples collected by fork-tip or franseen needles had significantly higher cellularity than samples collected by reverse-bevels or Menghini-tip needles (P < .001). Neoplasias were identified with greater than 90% accuracy using samples collected by fork-tip or franseen needles (P < .001 compared with other needles). On multivariable regression analysis, use of franseen needles (odds ratio [OR], 4.42; 95% CI, 2.58-7.58; P < .001) or fork-tip needles (OR, 3.86; 95% CI, 2.24-6.64; P < .001), stylet retraction (OR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.21-3.72; P = .008), no suction (OR, 2.74; 95% CI, 1.57-4.80; P < .001), and pancreatic mass larger than 3 cm (OR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.21-3.05; P = .005) were associated with high cellularity of the sample. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with suspected pancreatic cancer, samples with the highest degree of cellularity in a single biopsy, resulting in a diagnostic accuracy of 90% of higher, were collected by fine-needle biopsy using the franseen or fork-tip needle. Clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT04085055.

Outcomes of a Structured, Stepwise Approach to Endoscopic Necrosectomy.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Despite the increasing number of procedures being performed, there is no consensus on the optimal approach to performing direct endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN), which is a labor-intensive, nonstandardized intervention. We prospectively validated the usefulness of a predefined, structured, stepwise approach to DEN with the objective of improving procedural efficiency and resource use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective study of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis who after endoscopic transluminal drainage did not have clinical improvement and required DEN. The study was undertaken in 2 phases. Phase I was a retrospective analysis of interventions performed using an unstructured, conventional approach. Median of 3 necrosectomy sessions (range, 2 to 3) were required to achieve 80% treatment success in 20 patients. On the basis of these observations, a structured approach that included 3 steps (debridement, necrosis extraction, and irrigation) was developed and validated prospectively in phase II in 39 patients. The main outcome was to compare procedural efficiency defined as a number of necrosectomy sessions to achieve treatment success. RESULTS: Although there was no significant difference in treatment success (phase I=80.0 vs. phase II=94.9%, P=0.17), the procedure was more efficient in phase II [median session, 2 (interquartile range=1 to 3) vs. 3 (interquartile range=2 to 3); P=0.003]. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that a structured, stepwise approach was associated with fewer necrosectomy sessions to achieve treatment success (odds ratio=4.7; 95% confidence interval=1.5-15.0; P=0.008) when adjusted for patient demographics, lab parameters, and disease characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: By decreasing the number of necrosectomy sessions, a structured, stepwise approach to endoscopic necrosectomy seems to improve procedural efficiency.

Equivalent performance of single-use and reusable duodenoscopes in a randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: Single-use duodenoscopes have been recently developed to eliminate risk of infection transmission from contaminated reusable duodenoscopes. We compared performances of single-use and reusable duodenoscopes in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). DESIGN: Patients with native papilla requiring ERCP were randomised to single-use or reusable duodenoscope. Primary outcome was comparing number of attempts to achieve successful cannulation of desired duct. Secondary outcomes were technical performance that measured duodenoscope manoeuvrability, mechanical-imaging characteristics and ability to perform therapeutic interventions, need for advanced cannulation techniques or cross-over to alternate duodenoscope group to achieve ductal access and adverse events. RESULTS: 98 patients were treated using single-use (n=48) or reusable (n=50) duodenoscopes with >80% graded as low-complexity procedures. While median number of attempts to achieve successful cannulation was significantly lower for single-use cohort (2 vs 5, p=0.013), ease of passage into stomach (p=0.047), image quality (p<0.001), image stability (p<0.001) and air-water button functionality (p<0.001) were significantly worse. There was no significant difference in rate of cannulation, adverse events including mortality (one patient in each group), need to cross-over or need for advanced cannulation techniques to achieve ductal access, between cohorts. On multivariate logistic regression analysis, only duodenoscope type (single-use) was associated with less than six attempts to achieve selective cannulation (p=0.012), when adjusted for patient demographics, procedural complexity and type of intervention. CONCLUSION: Given the overall safety profile and similar technical performance, single-use duodenoscopes represent an alternative to reusable duodenoscopes for performing low-complexity ERCP procedures in experienced hands. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT04143698.

Prospective evaluation of an assessment tool for technical performance of duodenoscopes.

OBJECTIVE: While single-use and detachable-tip duodenoscopes have been recently developed to overcome risks of infection transmission, there are no reliable tools to objectively assess their technical performance. We evaluated the reliability and validity of a newly developed tool to assess the technical performance of reusable duodenoscopes. METHODS: An assessment tool was developed to measure duodenoscope performance based on three distinct criteria: maneuverability, mechanical/imaging characteristics and ability to perform requisite interventions. The assessment tool was tested prospectively on duodenoscopes used in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures at nine academic medical centers over a 6-month period. The main outcome was reliability of the duodenoscope assessment tool, which was estimated using Cronbach's coefficient alpha (α). The secondary outcome was validity of the assessment tool. RESULTS: The assessment tool evaluated technical performance of reusable duodenoscopes in 1080 ERCP procedures. Indications were biliary in 92.8% and pancreatic in 7.2% procedures. The overall Cronbach's coefficient α for maneuverability was 0.81, assessment of mechanical/imaging characteristics was 0.92, and ability to perform requisite interventions was 0.87. On multiple linear regression analysis, prolonged procedure duration, older patient age and pancreatic interventions were significantly positively associated with higher (worse) scores. CONCLUSIONS: The newly developed assessment tool appears reliable and valid for evaluating the technical performance of duodenoscopes. Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04004533.