Back to Search Start Over

Comparing the Safety and Efficacy of Two Commercially Available Single-Use Duodenoscopes: A Multicenter Study.

Authors :
Shahid HM
Bareket R
Tyberg A
Sarkar A
Simon A
Gurram K
Gress FG
Bhenswala P
Chalikonda D
Loren DE
Kowalski TE
Kumar A
Vareedayah AA
Abhyankar PR
Parker K
Gabr MM
Nieto J
De Latour R
Zolotarevsky M 5th
Barber J
Zolotarevsky E
Vazquez-Sequeiros E
Gaidhane M
Andalib I
Kahaleh M
Source :
Journal of clinical gastroenterology [J Clin Gastroenterol] 2023 Sep 01; Vol. 57 (8), pp. 798-803. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 Sep 01.
Publication Year :
2023

Abstract

Introduction: Single-use disposable duodenoscopes (SDD) have been developed to mitigate infectious risks related to reusable duodenoscopes. The aim of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy of the two available SDDs in the United States.<br />Methods: We conducted a comparative study of 2 SDD in consecutive ERCP procedures performed by expert endoscopists from 9 academic centers. Performance ratings, procedure details, and adverse events were collected.<br />Results: A total of 201 patients were included: 129 patients underwent ERCP with Exalt (mean age 63, Males- 66 (51%), 72 with aScope Duodeno (mean age 65, males=30 (42%). A majority of endoscopists had performed >2000 ERCPs in both groups (71% Exalt, 93% aScope Duodeno). Technical success was 92% in both groups (n=119 Exalt-group, n=66 aScope-Duodeno-group). The procedural complexity for the ERCP cases performed were: Grade 1: 35 cases (18%), Grade 2: 83 cases (41%), Grade 3: 65 cases (32%), and Grade 4: 18 cases (9%). Thirteen patients (10%) from the Exalt group and 16 patients (22%) from the aScope Duodeno group required conversion to a reusable duodenoscope. On a scale of 1 to 5, Exalt and aScope Duodeno, respectively, were rated: 2.31 versus 2.60 for location and visualization quality, 1.38 versus 1.57 for maneuverability based on papillary orientation, 1.48 versus 1.15 for suction/air control, and 2.31 versus 2.34 for elevator efficiency. None of the adverse events were related to the SDDs.<br />Conclusions: The 2 SDDs were comparable. Further ongoing enhancements to these devices will improve maneuverability and clinical effectiveness.<br />Competing Interests: A.T.: Consultant for Ninepoint Medical, Endogastric Solutions, Obalon Therapeutics. A.S. has done consulting work for US Endoscopy and Obalon Therapeutics. H.S. has done consulting work for US Endoscopy. M.K. has received grants support from Boston Scientific, Fujinon, W.L. Gore, Apollo Endosurgery, Cook Endoscopy, GI Dynamics, Merit Medical, Interscope Med, Olympus, ERBE, and MI Tech. He is a consultant for Boston Scientific and Laboratories Inc., ABBvie. None of those funding was related to this paper. The remaining authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.<br /> (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
1539-2031
Volume :
57
Issue :
8
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
Journal of clinical gastroenterology
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
35997700
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000001752