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

Ji Young Bang, Robert Hawes, Shyam Varadarajulu, Ji Young Bang, Robert Hawes, Shyam Varadarajulu

Abstract

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.

Keywords: endoscopic retrograde pancreatography; therapeutic endoscopy.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: JYB: Consultant for Olympus America Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation. SV: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Olympus America Inc, Covidien, Creo Medical. RH: Consultant for Boston Scientific Corporation, Olympus America Inc, Covidien, Creo Medical, Nine Points Medical, Cook Medical.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The EXALT Model D (Boston scientific Corporation, Marlborough, Massachusetts, USA) single-use duodenoscope with EXALT processor.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials flow diagram of patients recruited for participation in the randomised trial.
Figure 3
Figure 3
(A) Single-use duodenoscope enface to the major duodenal papilla on endoscopic view. (B) Endoscopic image showing the position of the single-use duodenoscope in relation to the major papilla and (C) the corresponding fluoroscopic image. (D) Bile duct stone extraction via the major duodenal papilla as seen on endoscopic view and (E) the corresponding fluoroscopic image (note the relatively straight-scope position).

References

    1. Rauwers AW, Voor In 't Holt AF, Buijs JG, et al. . High prevalence rate of digestive tract bacteria in duodenoscopes: a nationwide study. Gut 2018;67:1637–45. 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-315082
    1. Kim S, Russell D, Mohamadnejad M, et al. . Risk factors associated with the transmission of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae via contaminated duodenoscopes. Gastrointest Endosc 2016;83:1121–9. 10.1016/j.gie.2016.03.790
    1. Verfaillie CJ, Bruno MJ, Voor in 't Holt AF, et al. . Withdrawal of a novel-design duodenoscope ends outbreak of a VIM-2-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Endoscopy 2015;47:493–502. 10.1055/s-0034-1391886
    1. Ross AS, Baliga C, Verma P, et al. . A quarantine process for the resolution of duodenoscope-associated transmission of multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli. Gastrointest Endosc 2015;82:477–83. 10.1016/j.gie.2015.04.036
    1. Naryzhny I, Silas D, Chi K. Impact of ethylene oxide gas sterilization of duodenoscopes after a carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae outbreak. Gastrointest Endosc 2016;84:259–62. 10.1016/j.gie.2016.01.055
    1. US Food and Drug Administration: Medical Devices; Medical Device Safety; Safety Communications . The FDA continues to remind facilities of the importance of following duodenoscope reprocessing instructions: FDA safety communication, 2019. Available: [Accessed 12 Apr 2019].
    1. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, Khashab MA, Chithadi KV, et al. . Antibiotic prophylaxis for Gi endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015;81:81–9. 10.1016/j.gie.2014.08.008
    1. Bang JY, Rösch T, Robalino Gonzaga ES, et al. . Su1513 technical evaluation of duodenoscope performance using a newly developed assessment tool. Gastrointest Endosc 2020;91:AB358. 10.1016/j.gie.2020.03.2228
    1. Cotton PB, Eisen G, Romagnuolo J, et al. . Grading the complexity of endoscopic procedures: results of an ASGE Working Party. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;73:868–74. 10.1016/j.gie.2010.12.036
    1. Chandrasekhara V, Khashab MA, Muthusamy VR, et al. . Adverse events associated with ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 2017;85:32–47. 10.1016/j.gie.2016.06.051
    1. NIH . National cancer Institute common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) v5.0. Available:
    1. Elmunzer BJ, Serrano J, Chak A, et al. . Rectal indomethacin alone versus indomethacin and prophylactic pancreatic stent placement for preventing pancreatitis after ERCP: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2016;17:120. 10.1186/s13063-016-1251-2
    1. Testoni PA, Mariani A, Aabakken L, et al. . Papillary cannulation and sphincterotomy techniques at ERCP: European Society of gastrointestinal endoscopy (ESGE) clinical guideline. Endoscopy 2016;48:657–83. 10.1055/s-0042-108641
    1. Liao W-C, Angsuwatcharakon P, Isayama H, et al. . International consensus recommendations for difficult biliary access. Gastrointest Endosc 2017;85:295–304. 10.1016/j.gie.2016.09.037
    1. Buxbaum J, Leonor P, Tung J, et al. . Randomized trial of Endoscopist-Controlled vs. Assistant-Controlled wire-guided cannulation of the bile duct. Am J Gastroenterol 2016;111:1841–7. 10.1038/ajg.2016.268
    1. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S, Sturdivant RX. Applied logistic regression. 3rd edn. John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2013.
    1. Afifi A, May S, Donatello RA, et al. . Practical multivariate analysis. 6th edn. Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, 2020.
    1. Montori VM, Guyatt GH. Intention-To-Treat principle. CMAJ 2001;165:1339–41.
    1. Sedgwick P. Intention to treat analysis versus per protocol analysis of trial data. BMJ 2015;350:h681. 10.1136/bmj.h681
    1. Rauwers AW. Voor In 't Holt AF, Buijs JG, et al. High prevalence rate of digestive tract bacteria in duodenoscopes: a nationwide study. Gut 2018;67:1637–45.
    1. Alrabaa SF, Nguyen P, Sanderson R, et al. . Early identification and control of carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae, originating from contaminated endoscopic equipment. Am J Infect Control 2013;41:562–4. 10.1016/j.ajic.2012.07.008
    1. Bang JY, Sutton B, Hawes R, et al. . Concept of disposable duodenoscope: at what cost? Gut 2019;68:1915–7. 10.1136/gutjnl-2019-318227

Source: PubMed

3
订阅