aScope Gastro Large Supporting Evidence
There are many reasons why choosing a single-use gastroscope is beneficial — to the clinician, to the practice and, ultimately, to the patient. The evidence below explores the many health outcomes such as contamination and infection, and organizational impact. Open one of the sections below to review full text and abstracts with links to their initial publication and research.
Select Publication Category
Contamination and Infection
Disposable Gastrointestinal Scopes: A Systematic Review
Udine et al.
Disposable scopes have been shown to be effective in decreasing infection risks while maintaining similar safety profiles to conventional reusable scopes.
2024
Read abstract
Resistant Infections Linked to Gastroscopes — Is theConcern Sufficiently Recognized?
Muscarella
The risk of gastroscope-related “superbug” infections may not be sufficiently recognized in the U.S. and additional updated measures may be necessary to enhance gastroscope safety.
2023
Read full text
Borescope Examination and Microbial Culture Results of Endoscopes In a Tertiary Care Hospital Led to Changes In Storage Protocols to Improve Patient Safety
Wallace et al.
Borescope evaluations and microbial culturing should be conducted frequently to ensure safe endoscopy procedures. 22% of reprocessed GI scopes had positive microbial cultures.
2023
Read full text
The Utility of Lighted Magnification mand Borescopes For Visual Inspection of Flexible Endoscopes
Ofstead et al.
Visual inspection with magnification and borescopes identified actionable defects that could interfere with processing effectiveness in 100% of endoscopes.
2023
Read full text
Contamination of Flexible Endoscopes and Associated Infections: A Comprehensive Review and Analysis of FDA Adverse Event Reports
Muscarella
When comparing the number of adverse reports submitted to the FDA in 2021 to those submitted in 2014 satisfying this analysis’s inclusion criteria, gastroscopes displayed the most significant increase of any of the studied endoscope types, rising from 13 to 1,135 reports, or by approximately 8,630%.
2022
Read full text
Gastrointestinal endoscope contamination rates - elevators are not only to blame: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Goyal et al.
28.22% of reprocessed gastroscopes were found to be contaminated.
2022
Read full text
Analysis of the air/water channels of gastrointestinal endoscopies as a risk factor for the transmission of microorganisms among patients
Riberio et al.
Microorganism growth was detected in 70% (42 of 60) of the samples collected in the air/water channels of gastroscopes. These findings indicate that many air/water channels were still contaminated after reprocessing, representing a risk of cross-transmission of microorganisms among patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic examinations.
2021
Read full text
Gastrointestinal Endoscope Contamination Rate Beyond The Elevator: A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis Based On European Data
Larsen et al.
18.16% of patient-ready GI scopes may be contamined when used in patients.
2021
Read abstract
Stated Contamination Rates Associated With Reusable Colonoscopes And Gastroscopes Amongst European Endoscopists: A Survey-Based Investigation
Larsen et al.
The average contamination rate for reusable gastroscopes was found to be 10.2%. 25.9% of physicians were unaware of the reporcessing setup at their endoscopy unit.
2021
Read abstract
Outbreak of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Infections from a Contaminated Gastroscope Detected by Whole Genome Sequencing Surveillance
Sundermann et al.
Whole genome sequencing (WGS) surveillance combined with a machine-learning algorithm of the health record reviews identified a previously undetected outbreak of gastroscope-associated P. aeruginosa infections. Three infections could have been prevented if the machine-learning algorithm had been running in real time.
2020
Read full text
High-quality endoscope reprocessing decreases endoscope contamination
Decristoforo et al.
3.3% of reprocessed gastroscopes were found to contaminated. This rate is considered low compared with results from other European countries possibly due to the high quality of endoscope reprocessing, drying and storage.
2018
Read full text
Rates of infection after colonoscopy and osophagogastroduodenoscopy in ambulatory surgery centers in the USA
Wang et al.
The postendoscopic infection per 1000 procedures within 7 days was found to be 3.0 per 1000 for EGDs.
2018
Read full text
Microbiologic assessment of flexible gastrointestinal endoscope reprocessing using a pump assisted sampling technique: an investigation involving all endoscopy units in Tianjin, China
Ji et al.
36 out of 72 (50%) samples from reprocessed gastroscopes were contaminated. Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, Acinetobacter lwoffii and Stenotrophomonas maltophilia were the most common bacteria detected.
2018
Read full text
Measures to improve microbial quality surveillance of gastrointestinal endoscopes, Endoscopy
Sailou et al.
From January 2008 to June 2015, microbiological tests of 762 gastrointestinal endoscopes were performed. A total of 264 endoscope tests (34.6%) showed a level of contamination higher than the target (<25 colony-forming units [CFUs]).
2015
Read full text
Surveillance cultures of samples obtained from biopsy channels and automated endoscope reprocessors after high-level disinfection of gastrointestinal endoscopes
Chiu et al.
32 out of 300 (10.7%) samples obtained from the biopsy channels of gastroscopes were positive.
2012
Read full text
Organizational Impact
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Volume, Efficiency, and Safety Issues: A Case Report
Hoffman and Cool
Endoscopy centers don't always adhere to the recommended reprocessing steps. As the endoscopy world evolves, facilities will need to weigh their options to ensure not only that patients’ needs are met, but they are doing so in a safe manner by either restructuring their endoscope scope processes or shifting to new technologies such as single-use endoscopes.
2024
Read abstract
Single-Use vs. Reusable Endoscope Reprocessing: A Staff Survey on Safety and Effectiveness
Haislip et al.
Reprocessing reusable endoscopes continues to grow more laborious as updated guidelines add new processes to ensure appropriate disinfection prior to next patient use and adoption of single-use endoscopes may reduce the workflow burden on reprocessing staff and increase confidence in workplace safety.
2023
Read abstract
Survey-Based Investigation Of Potential Organizational Issues Associated With Reusable Colonoscopes And Gastroscopes in Europe
Larsen et al.
13% of physciains "often" had to wait for a gastroscope to become availble prior to a procedure.
2021
Read abstract
Clinical Performance
Articulation of Single-Use and Reusable Therapeutic Gastroscopes
Pradhan et al.
The aScope Gastro Large provided 28.9% and 46.6% better backwards and forward articulation without tools than the reusable therapeutic gastroscopes in the study. Because single-use scopes do not undergo the same degradation as reusables in angulation, they may help physicians feel more confident and may allow them to treat patients more effectively.
2024
Read abstract
Single-Use vs Reusable Therapeutic Gastroscope Suctioning Ability
Goodman et al.
The Ambu aScope Gastro Large’s suctioning is more efficient and consistent than an industry leading RUTG, as seen by the substantial difference in time required to suction under the same parameters.
2024
Read abstract
Performance Metrics of a Novel Single-Use Therapeutic Gastroscope
Marino et al.
The aScope Gastro Large had a high procedure completion rate and received high ratings in all 22 categories measured. The excellent therapeutic performance measured by the study demonstrates that the aScope Gastro Large may be a suitable alternative to RTGs.
2024
Read abstract
Reprocessing
Costs involved in compliance with new endoscope reprocessing guidelines
Hoffman and Cool
The additional steps outlined in the new AAMI reprocessing standards represent incremental costs of approximately $60 and an additional 24 minutes per reprocessing cycle. As more single-use endoscopes enter the market, facilities should consider the impact they may have on offsetting delays and/or increasing costs.
2024
Read full-text
