Abstract:Over the last two decades, technological innovations have completely changed the diagnostic and therapeutic work-up of several diseases involving the small bowel. The introduction of small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) first, and later of device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE), has not only allowed a direct and accurate study of the small-bowel mucosa, but also enabled the implementation of effective endoscopic therapy. Although DAE is currently acknowledged as an established tool to study and treat small-bowel lesions, most of the available evidence comes from small series, primarily collected in tertiary centers, where procedures are performed by experienced endoscopists on highly selected patients, this strongly limits the generalizability of the available data. Besides, there is a paucity of large-scale real-life data on DAE, with just a handful of retrospective surveys collecting self-reported outcomes [1] [2] or analyses of administrative databases [3]. Last, but not least, studies focused on performance measures are still lacking. In the current issue of Endoscopy , Shiha et al. [4] present a comprehensive analysis of DAE procedures registered in the National Endoscopy Database, a large database of endoscopy procedures populated by data automatically extracted from the endoscopy reporting systems at endoscopy services in the UK. A total of 2005 DAEs carried out in 1663 adult patients across twelve enteroscopy centers in the UK between January 2017 and December 2022 were analyzed. Performance measures were calculated, and the results were compared with the quality benchmarks outlined by the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) [5]. "the current study confirms that device-assisted enteroscopy is an effective endoscopic procedure, because the majority of the ESGE quality thresholds were met. In detail, the technical success rate was remarkably high (98.0%), with overall diagnostic and therapeutic yields of 70.0% and 42.6%, respectively." The authors deserve praise for providing a reliable snapshot of the performance of DAE in everyday clinical practice. What lesson can we learn from this? First, the current study confirms that DAE is an effective endoscopic procedure, because the majority of the ESGE quality thresholds were met. In detail, the technical success rate was remarkably high (98.0%), with overall diagnostic and therapeutic yields of 70.0% and 42.6%, respectively. Moreover, therapeutic interventions were technically successful in 96.6% of cases. These results highlight the importance of a rigorous patient selection process. In fact, most procedures (98.1%) were performed for appropriate indications, many patients received a previous diagnostic test (either SBCE or dedicated small-bowel cross-sectional imaging), and the diagnostic yield was significantly higher for DAE performed in accordance with internationally approved indications. Second, this study sweeps away the general belief that DAE is a potentially hazardous procedure owing to various technique-related risks, difficult therapeutic maneuvers, and prolonged sedation. Indeed, the present study strongly emphasizes the excellent safety profile of DAE, as major adverse events occurred in only 0.6% of procedures, a figure which is far below the ESGE minimum standard threshold. Third, despite some methodological study limitations in defining the ideal DAE sedation regimen (e.g. data about sedation regimen according to the insertion route, patient age, and ASA status were missing), the study results unequivocally suggest that this procedure should no longer be routinely performed with patients under conscious sedation. Of note, 6% of DAEs performed in the subset of patients receiving conscious sedation (about one-third of all procedures) were interrupted early, despite the administration of high dose of benzodiazepines and opioids. In addition, patient comfort measured by the endoscopist was significantly greater in patients receiving deep sedation than in those undergoing DAE with conscious sedation. Along with the abovementioned take-home messages, the current study also helps in identifying areas for further improvement and raises important practical and organizational issues for both physicians and national healthcare providers. Concerning areas for improvement, the documentation of procedure extent was available in less than 80% of DAEs and a tattoo was placed at the point of maximum insertion in only 34.5% of cases and close to a detected lesion in 78.0% of procedures. While these interventions might seem of limited clinical relevance when compared with DAE diagnostic performance or complex therapeutic interventions, we should keep in mind that precise documentation of the extent of the inspected small bowel represents a key issue when dealing with small-bowel disorders. In fact, this plays a crucial role in planning -Abstract Truncated-

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

Randomized Comparison of 3 High-Level Disinfection and Sterilization Procedures for Duodenoscopes

Single-use Duodenoscope

Initial Experience with Duodenoscopes with Single-Use End Caps in Pediatric Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: Infection Prevention Comes at a Cost.

Effect of Disposable Elevator Cap Duodenoscopes on Persistent Microbial Contamination and Technical Performance of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: The ICECAP Randomized Clinical Trial

International Delphi Consensus Study on disposable single-use endoscopy: A path to clinical adoption

Prospective Randomized Trial of Single-Use vs Reusable Cystoscope for Ureteral Stent Removal

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Single-Use Duodenoscope Applied to Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

Time Efficiency and Performance of Single-Use vs Reusable Cystoscopes: A Randomized Benchtop and Simulated Clinical Assessment

Single-use gastroscopes: evolution, revolution, or involution?

Performance of a new single-use bronchoscope versus a marketed single-use comparator: a bench study

Disposable versus reusable gastroscope: a prospective randomized non-inferiority trial

Environmental footprint and material composition comparison of single-use and reusable duodenoscopes

Double balloon enteroscopy versus single balloon enteroscopy: A comparative study

Clinical evaluation of a novel single-use therapeutic gastroscope: a pilot feasibility study

Efficacy and Safety of Single-Balloon Versus Double-Balloon Enteroscopy: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis.

Disposable Gastrointestinal Scopes: A Systematic Review

Comparison of utility and organizational impact of reusable and single-use rhinolaryngoscopes in a tertiary otorhinolaryngology department

A multicenter, retrospective study of a through-the-needle injection-capable electrosurgical knife for endoscopic submucosal dissection

Device-assisted enteroscopy: take-home messages and open issues from everyday clinical practice

Comparative analysis of CO2 laser and ultracision harmonic scalpel for endoscopic treatment of Zenker's diverticulum using a propensity score: A retrospective observational study