Search

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 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.)

Background and Aims There is a lack of consensus on which GI endoscopic procedures should be performed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and which procedures could be safely deferred without having a significant impact on outcomes. Methods We selected a panel of 14 expert endoscopists. We identified 41 common indications for advanced endoscopic procedures from the ASGE Appropriate Use of GI Endoscopy guidelines. Using a modified Delphi method, we first achieved consensus on the patient-important outcome for each procedural indication. Panelists prioritized consensus patient-important outcome when categorizing each indication into one of the following 3 procedural time periods: (1) time-sensitive emergent (schedule within 1 week), (2) time-sensitive urgent (schedule within 1 to 8 weeks), and (3) non-time sensitive (defer for >8 weeks and then reassess the timing). Three anonymous rounds of voting were allowed before attempts at consensus were abandoned. Results All 14 invited experts agreed to participate in the study. The prespecified consensus threshold of 51% was achieved for assigning patient-important outcome(s) to each advanced endoscopy indication. The prespecified consensus threshold of 66.7% was achieved for 40 of 41 advanced endoscopy indications in stratifying them into 1 of 3 procedural time periods. For 12 of 41 indications, 100% consensus was achieved; for 20 of 41 indications, 75% to 99% consensus was achieved. Conclusions By using a Modified Delphi method that prioritized patient-important outcomes, we developed consensus recommendations on procedural timing for common indications for advanced endoscopy. These recommendations and the structured decision framework provided by our study can inform decision making as endoscopy services are reopened.

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.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, VLs using HD-WLE and NBI, and reported practice level data. The gold standard of VL identification was established via consensus by 5 BE experts. Our primary outcome was the rate of VL identification using HD-WLE and NBI.44/50 participants completed the study (22 academic and 22 community). Compared to the gold 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=0.041;5 surveillance endoscopies/month: Community: 85% vs Academic: 31.8%, p=0.046). Across all participants, VL detection using NBI improved significantly with a minimum of 5 surveillance endoscopies/month (area under the curve: 0.72; 95% confidence interval: 0.56- 0.85; p=0.006).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 Barrett's surveillance endoscopy are needed.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The potential for transmission of pathogenic organisms is a problem inherent to the current reusable duodenoscope design. Recent outbreaks of multidrug-resistant pathogenic organisms transmitted via duodenoscopes has brought to light the urgency of this problem. Microbiologic culturing of duodenoscopes and reprocessing with repeat high-level disinfection (HLD) or liquid chemical sterilization (LCS) have been offered as supplemental measures to enhance duodenoscope reprocessing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. This study aims to compare the efficacy of reprocessing duodenoscopes with double HLD (DHLD) versus LCS. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated 2 different modalities of duodenoscope reprocessing from October 23, 2017 to September 24, 2018. Eligible duodenoscopes were randomly segregated to be reprocessed by either DHLD or LCS. Duodenoscopes were randomly cultured after reprocessing for surveillance based on an internal protocol. RESULTS: During the study period, there were 878 post-reprocessing surveillance cultures (453 in the DHLD group and 425 in the LCS group). Of all cultures, 17 were positive for any organism (1.9%). There was no significant difference of positive cultures when comparing the duodenoscopes undergoing DHLD (8 positive cultures, 1.8%) with duodenoscopes undergoing LCS (9 positive cultures, 2.1%; P = .8). Both groups had 2 cultures that grew high-concern organisms (.5% vs .5%, P = 1.0). No multidrug-resistant organisms, including carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae, were detected. CONCLUSIONS: DHLD and LCS both resulted in a low rate of positive cultures, for all organisms and for high-concern organisms. However, neither process completely eliminated positive cultures from duodenoscopes reprocessed with 2 different supplemental reprocessing strategies.

Background and Aims Surveillance endoscopy is recommended after endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) for Barrett’s esophagus (BE) because of the risk of recurrence. Currently recommended biopsy protocols are based on expert opinion and consist of sampling visible lesions followed by random 4-quadrant biopsy sampling throughout the length of the original BE segment. Despite this protocol, some recurrences are not visibly identified. We aimed to identify the anatomic location and histology of recurrences after successful EET with the goal of developing a more efficient and evidence-based surveillance biopsy protocol. Methods We performed an analysis of a large multicenter database of 443 patients who underwent EET and achieved complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia (CE-IM) from 2005 to 2015. The endoscopic location of recurrence relative to the squamocolumnar junction (SCJ), visible recurrence identified during surveillance endoscopy, and time to recurrence after CE-IM were assessed. Results Fifty patients with BE recurrence were studied in the final analysis. Seventeen patients (34%) had nonvisible recurrences. In this group, biopsy specimens demonstrating recurrence were taken from within 2 cm of the SCJ in 16 of these 17 patients (94%). Overall, 49 of 50 recurrences (98%) occurred either within 2 cm of the SCJ or at the site of a visible lesion. Late recurrences (>1 year) were more likely to be visible than early ( Conclusions Recurrence after EET detected by random biopsy sampling is identified predominately in the distal esophagus and occurs earlier than visible recurrences. As such, we suggest a modified biopsy protocol with targeted sampling of visible lesions followed by random biopsy sampling within 2 cm of the SCJ to optimize detection of recurrence after EET. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02634645.)

Endoscopy units face numerous challenges because of rising demand, increased operational costs, and declining reimbursement. These conditions have led to a critical need to maximize the operational cost-efficiency of these units. Several key factors can affect the cost-efficiency of an endoscopy unit, and the 4 key areas discussed in this article are managing capital costs, efficient use of disposables, improving unit efficiency, and creating a positive culture and establishing strong unit leadership. Areas on which to focus to achieve the greatest results will vary based on specific unit characteristics, but initial efforts should aim to improve operations by focusing on 1 to 2 key areas that ideally have been identified by an internal needs assessment. Although such efforts can be arduous and need to be sustained, they can result in significant benefits to patients, endoscopy unit staff, and healthcare organizations.

Ruben D. Acosta, MD, Neena S. Abraham, MD, MSCE, FASGE (invited content expert, ad-hoc member), Vinay Chandrasekhara, MD, Krishnavel V. Chathadi, MD, Dayna S. Early, MD, FASGE, Mohamad A. Eloubeidi, MD, MHS, FASGE, John A. Evans, MD, Ashley L. Faulx, MD, FASGE, Deborah A. Fisher, MD, MHS, FASGE, Lisa Fonkalsrud, BSN, RN, CGRN, Joo Ha Hwang, MD, PhD, FASGE, Mouen A. Khashab, MD, Jenifer R. Lightdale, MD, MPH, FASGE, V. Raman Muthusamy, MD, FASGE, Shabana F. Pasha, MD, John R. Saltzman, MD, FASGE, Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, FASGE, Amandeep K. Shergill, MD, Amy Wang, MD, Brooks D. Cash, MD, FASGE, previous Committee Chair, John M. DeWitt, MD, FASGE, Chair

Background and Aims Guidelines recommend systematic biopsy sampling in Barrett's esophagus (BE) to reduce sampling error. Adherence to this biopsy sampling protocol has been suggested as a quality indicator; however, estimates of adherence are not available. Using a national registry, we assessed adherence and identified predictors of adherence to biopsy sampling protocols. Methods We analyzed data from the GI Quality Improvement Consortium Registry that included procedure indication, demographics, endoscopy, and pathology results. Patients with an indication of BE screening/surveillance or an endoscopic finding of BE were included. Adherence to the Seattle protocol was assessed by dividing BE length by number of pathology jars, with a ratio ≤2.0 with rounding down (lenient definition) or rounding up (stringent definition) for odd BE lengths considered adherent. Variables associated with adherence were assessed using generalized estimating equations to control for clustering within individual physicians. Results Of 786,712 EGDs assessed, 58,709 (7.5%) EGDs in 53,541 patients met inclusion criteria (mean age, 61.3 years; 60.4% men; 90.2% white; mean BE length, 2.3 cm). When the lenient and stringent definitions for adherence were used, 87.8% and 82.7% of EGDs were adherent, respectively. Increasing BE length was the most significant predictor of nonadherence (odds ratio, .69; 95% confidence interval, .67-.71). Other predictors were increasing age, male gender, increasing American Society of Anesthesiologists class, and practice location. Performance of EGD by nongastroenterologist physicians was associated with nonadherence (odds ratio, .07; 95% confidence interval, .06-.10). Conclusions Nearly 20% of endoscopies performed in BE patients were not adherent to the Seattle protocol. As BE length increases, endoscopists become less compliant with odds of nonadherence increasing by 31% with every 1-cm increase in length.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Residual fluid within endoscope working channels after reprocessing may promote growth of pathogens. Current reprocessing guidelines therefore recommend endoscope drying with administration of forced filtered air; however, the duration and modality of administered air are not specified. The new DriScope Aid device enables automated administration of filtered air at controlled pressure through all internal endoscope channels. We systematically compared, for the first time, the impact of manual drying and automated drying on retained working channel fluid and bioburden after reprocessing. METHODS: We assessed for residual working channel fluid after reprocessing and/or drying by using the SteriCam borescope. Drying was performed either manually (forced filtered air) or was automated (DriScope Aid) for either 5 or 10 minutes. Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) bioluminescence testing was performed on working channel rinsates after drying, to evaluate for residual bioburden. RESULTS: Significantly more fluid droplets were evident after manual drying (4.55 ± 6.14) than with automated device-facilitated drying for either 5 minutes (0.83 ± 1.29; P = .007) or 10 minutes (0 ± 0; P = .001). ATP bioluminescence values were higher for manual drying compared with automated drying at 48 hours (P = .001) and 72 hours (P = .014) after reprocessing. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate significantly fewer water droplets and delayed ATP bioluminescence values within endoscope working channels after automated drying compared with manual drying. In particular, virtually no retained fluid was evident within endoscope working channels after automated drying for 10 minutes. These findings support recommendations for automation of as many reprocessing steps as possible. Automated drying may decrease the risk of transmission of infection related to endoscopy. (Gastrointest Endosc 2019;89:124–32.)

Background and Aims Visual inspection of the instrument channel has been proposed as a quality assurance step during endoscope reprocessing. However, the nature and severity of findings in a broad array of endoscopes (gastroscopes, colonoscopes, duodenoscopes, and echoendoscopes) after systemic implementation of an inspection protocol remain unknown. In addition, a study using borescope inspection in upper endoscopes and colonoscopes raised concerns about persistent simethicone residue despite full reprocessing. Methods A pilot inspection study using a prototype borescope (SteriCam Inspection Scope; SteriView Inc, San Rafael, Calif) was performed on routinely used endoscopes after high-level disinfection, manual forced-air dry of the instrument channel, and overnight vertical storage. Video recordings 1.5 to 2 minutes in duration were reviewed for visible moisture, debris, discoloration, scratches, channel shredding (scratches that result in strips or filaments of the channel lining protruding into the lumen), and visible evidence of biofilm or simethicone residue. Results A total of 97 inspections of 59 endoscopes were reviewed. The most common finding was scratches, seen in 51 devices (86%). Channel shredding was found in 35 devices (59%). Intrachannel debris was identified in 22 (23%) of the 97 inspections. No moisture was seen (0%) in the 74 inspections performed after forced-air dry and overnight vertical storage compared with moisture in 5 of 18 inspections (28%) performed after storage alone. No visual evidence of biofilm or simethicone residue was discovered despite its frequent use in our unit. Conclusion Internal defects of the instrument channel appear to occur frequently. Manual forced-air drying of the channel appears to be highly effective in eliminating moisture compared with overnight hang drying alone. Video inspection of the endoscope channel may be useful to audit reprocessing performance and to identify damaged endoscopes.

The exact cutoff value at which pancreatic cyst fluid carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level distinguishes pancreatic mucinous cystic neoplasms (MCNs) from pancreatic nonmucinous cystic neoplasms (NMCNs) is unclear. The aim of this multicenter retrospective study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of cyst fluid CEA levels in differentiating between MCNs and NMCNs.Consecutive patients who underwent EUS with FNA at 3 tertiary care centers were identified. Patients with histologic confirmation of cyst type based on surgical specimens served as the criterion standard for this analysis. Demographic characteristics, EUS morphology, FNA fluid, and cytology results were recorded. Multivariate logistic regression analysis to identify predictors of MCNs was performed. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated for CEA levels.A total of 226 patients underwent surgery (mean age, 61 years, 96% white patients, 39% female patients) of whom 88% underwent Whipple's procedure or distal pancreatectomy. Based on surgical histopathology, there were 150 MCNs and 76 NMCNs cases. The median CEA level was 165 ng/mL. The area under the ROC curve for CEA levels in differentiating between MCNs and NMCNs was 0.77 (95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.84, P.01) with a cutoff of 105 ng/mL, demonstrating a sensitivity and specificity of 70% and 63%, respectively. The cutoff value of 192 ng/mL yielded a sensitivity of 61% and a specificity of 77% and would misdiagnose 39% of MCN cases.Cyst fluid CEA levels have a clinically suboptimal accuracy level in differentiating MCNs from NMCNs. Future studies should focus on novel cyst fluid markers to improve risk stratification of pancreatic cystic neoplasms.

Background Plastic stents in patients with biliary obstruction caused by pancreatic adenocarcinoma are typically exchanged at 3-month intervals. Plastic stents may have reduced durability in patients receiving chemotherapy. Objective To determine the duration of plastic biliary stent patency in patients undergoing chemotherapy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Design Retrospective, multicenter cohort study. Setting Three tertiary academic referral centers. Patients A total of 173 patients receiving downstaging chemotherapy for locally advanced or borderline resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma from 1996 to 2013. Interventions Placement of 10F or larger plastic biliary stents. Main Outcome Measurements Primary outcome was overall duration of stent patency. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of premature stent exchange (because of cholangitis or jaundice) and hospitalization rates. Results A total of 233 plastic stents were placed, and the overall median duration of stent patency was 53 days (interquartile range [IQR] 25–99 days). Eighty-seven stents were removed at the time of surgical resection, and 63 stents were exchanged routinely per protocol. The remaining 83 stent exchanges were performed for worsening liver function test results, jaundice, or cholangitis, representing a 35.6% rate of premature stent exchange. The median stent patency duration in the premature stent exchange group was 49 days (IQR 25–91 days) with a 44.6% hospitalization rate. The overall rate of cholangitis was 15.0% of stent exchanges, occurring a median of 56 days after stent placement (IQR 26–89 days). Limitations Retrospective study. Conclusions Plastic biliary stents placed during chemotherapy/chemoradiation for pancreatic adenocarcinoma have a shorter-than-expected patency duration, and a substantial number of patients will require premature stent exchange. Consideration should be given to shortening the interval for plastic biliary stent exchange.

We recommend that endoscopy in children be performed by pediatric-trained endoscopists whenever possible. We recommend that adult-trained endoscopists coordinate their services with pediatricians and pediatric specialists when they are needed to perform endoscopic procedures in children. We recommend that endoscopy be performed within 24 hours in symptomatic pediatric patients with known or suspected ingestion of caustic substances. We recommend emergent foreign-body removal of esophageal button batteries, as well as 2 or more rare-earth neodymium magnets. We recommend that procedural and resuscitative equipment appropriate for pediatric use should be readily available during endoscopic procedures. We recommend that personnel trained specifically in pediatric life support and airway management be readily available during sedated procedures in children. We recommend the use of endoscopes smaller than 6 mm in diameter in infants and children weighing less than 10 kg. We recommend the use of standard adult duodenoscopes for performing ERCP in children who weigh at least 10 kg. We recommend the placement of 12F or 16F percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tubes in children who weigh less than 50 kg.