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.

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.

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.

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.

The evolution of endoscopic therapy for Barrett's esophagus.

Barrett's esophagus is the condition in which a metaplastic columnar epithelium replaces the stratified squamous epithelium that normally lines the distal esophagus. The condition develops as a consequence of chronic gastroesophageal reflux disease and predisposes the patient to the development of esophageal adenocarcinoma. The diagnosis and management of Barrett's esophagus have undergone dramatic changes over the years and continue to evolve today. Endoscopic eradication therapy has revolutionized the management of dysplastic Barrett's esophagus and early esophageal adenocarcinoma by significantly reducing the morbidity and mortality associated with the prior gold standard of therapy, esophagectomy. The purpose of this review is to highlight current principles in the management and endoscopic treatment of this disease.

Economic burden of enhanced practices of duodenoscopes reprocessing and surveillance: balancing risk and cost containment.

Background and study aims Recent outbreaks attributed to contaminated duodenoscopes have led to the development of enhanced surveillance and reprocessing techniques (enhanced-SRT) aimed at minimizing cross-contamination. Common enhanced-SRT include double high-level disinfection (HLD), ethylene oxide (EtO) gas sterilization, and culture-based monitoring of reprocessed scopes. Adoption of these methods adds to the operational costs and we aimed to assess its economic impact to an institution. Methods We compared the estimated costs of three enhanced-SRT versus single-HLD using data from two institutions. We examined the cost of capital measured as scope inventory and frequency of scope use per unit time, the constituent reprocessing costs required on a per-cycle basis, and labor & staffing needs. The economic impact attributable to enhanced-SRT was defined as the difference between the total cost of enhanced-SRT and single HLD. Results Compared to single HLD, adoption of double HLD increased the costs approximately by 47 % ($80 vs $118). Similarly, culture and quarantine and EtO sterilization increased costs by 160 % and 270 %, respectively ($80 vs $208 and $296). Enhanced-SRT introduced significant scope downtime due to prolonged techniques, necessitating a 3.4-fold increase in the number of scopes needed to maintain procedural volume. The additional annual budget required to implement enhanced-SRT approached $406,000 per year in high-volume centers. Conclusions While enhanced-SRT may reduce patient risk of exposure to contaminated duodenoscopes, it significantly increases the cost of performing ERCP. Future innovation should focus on approaches that can ensure patient safety while maintaining the ability to perform ERCP in a cost-effective manner.

The role of endoscopic ultrasound in evaluating patients with bile duct dilation of unclear etiology.

OBJECTIVE: Bile duct dilation (BDD) of unclear etiology is a common indication for further imaging via endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). We aimed to assess the yield of EUS in determining BDD etiology in patients with prior non-diagnostic imaging studies. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed at a single, tertiary-care university hospital for patients referred for EUS for BDD with or without pancreatic duct dilation (PDD). EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) was performed if a focal lesion was identified. Cases with an etiology of BDD diagnosed or strongly suggested by prior imaging were excluded. EUS findings believed to represent a structural cause for BDD included a wide range of pancreaticobiliary and luminal pathology as well as patients' clinical factors. RESULTS: In total, 307 patients were identified. Findings to explain BDD were found by EUS in 213 patients for a diagnostic yield of 69.4%. Patients with jaundice were significantly more likely to receive a diagnosis by EUS than those without (78.8% vs 55.3%, P < 0.01). Notably, 8.1% of patients with normal liver function test (LFT) had a EUS-diagnosed malignancy. Patients' age, narcotic use, concurrent PDD and prior cholecystectomy did not appear to influence the EUS yield. CONCLUSIONS: EUS continues to play a substantial role in evaluating BDD of unclear etiology, most notably in patients with jaundice. In addition, given that 8.1% of asymptomatic patients without jaundice or abnormal LFT had malignancy diagnosed on EUS, the use of EUS for BDD of unclear etiology remains warranted.

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.).

Device profile of the EXALT Model D single-use duodenoscope for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: overview of its safety and efficacy.

Introduction: The management of pancreaticobiliary disorders relies heavily on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, which is performed with a duodenoscope. Bacterial colonization of reusable duodenoscopes leading to subsequent infectious outbreaks is well recognized and remains an issue despite efforts to optimize best practices in high-level disinfection. The EXALT Model D duodenoscope (EXALT) (Boston Scientific Corporation, Marlborough, MA) is a single-use device, designed to achieve technical equivalency with reusable devices while eliminating the potential for device-related outbreaks.Areas covered: This review covers the challenges associated with reprocessing duodenoscopes and the development of duodenoscope-related infections, with an emphasis on the use of single-use duodenoscopes as a potential solution to this issue.Expert Opinion: Duodenoscope-related infections are an increasingly recognized problem. Infectious outbreaks harm patients, significantly affect providers and medical centers, and can erode patient trust in the health-care system. Single-use duodenoscopes eliminate both the risk of device-related infection transmission and the need for burdensome duodenoscope reprocessing. In clinical evaluations, the EXALT device has demonstrated an equivalent technical performance and provider satisfaction compared to reusable duodenoscopes. Increasing use of this device will clarify how it compares to reusable duodenoscopes in a variety of clinical settings among endoscopists of varying skills levels.

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.