Siddiqui, Uzma D.

Background The first commercialized single-use duodenoscope was cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration in December 2019. Data regarding endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) using a single-use duodenoscope are needed on a broader range of cases conducted by endoscopists with varying levels of experience in a wide range of geographic areas. Methods 61 endoscopists at 22 academic centers in 11 countries performed ERCP procedures in adult patients aged ≥ 18. Outcomes included ERCP completion for the intended indication, rate of crossover to a reusable endoscope, device performance ratings, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Results Among 551 patients, 236 (42.8 %) were aged > 65, 281 (51.0 %) were men, and 256 (46.5 %) had their procedure as an inpatient. ERCPs included 196 (35.6 %) with American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy complexity of grades 3–4. A total of 529 ERCPs (96.0 %) were completed: 503 (91.3 %) using only the single-use duodenoscope, and 26 (4.7 %) with crossover to a reusable endoscope. There were 22 ERCPs (4.0 %) that were not completed, of which 11 (2.0 %) included a crossover and 11 (2.0 %) were aborted cases (no crossover). Median ERCP completion time was 24.0 minutes. Median overall satisfaction with the single-use duodenoscope was 8.0 (scale of 1 to 10 [best]). SAEs were reported in 43 patients (7.8 %), including 17 (3.1 %) who developed post-ERCP pancreatitis. Conclusions In academic medical centers over a wide geographic distribution, endoscopists with varying levels of experience using the first marketed single-use duodenoscope had good ERCP procedural success and reported high performance ratings for this device.

Abstract Background and study aims Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is a new technology available for evaluation of indeterminate biliary strictures. It allows under-the-surface visualization and preliminary studies have confirmed standardized characteristics associated with malignancy. The aim of this study is to evaluate the first interobserver agreement in identifying previously agreed upon OCT criteria and diagnosing of malignant versus benign disease. Patients and methods Fourteen endoscopists were asked to review an atlas of reference clips and images of eight criteria derived from expert consensus A total of 35 de-identified video clips were then evaluated for presence of the eight criteria and for final diagnosis of malignant versus benign using the atlas as reference Intraclass correlation (ICC) analysis was done to evaluate interrater agreement. Results Clips of 23 malignant lesions and 12 benign lesions were scored. Excellent interobserver agreement was seen with dilated hypo-reflective structures (0.85) and layering effacement (0.89); hyper-glandular mucosa (0.76), intact layering (0.81), and onion-skin layering (0.77); fair agreement was seen with scalloping (0.58), and thickened epithelium (0.4); poor agreement was seen with hyper-reflective surface (0.36). The diagnostic ICC for both neoplastic (0.8) and non-neoplastic (0.8) was excellent interobserver agreement. The overall diagnostic accuracy was 51 %, ranging from 43 % to 60 %. Conclusions Biliary OCT is a promising new modality for evaluation of indeterminate biliary strictures. Interobserver agreement ranged from fair to almost perfect on eight previously identified criteria. Interobserver agreement for malignancy diagnosis was substantial (0.8). Further studies are needed to validate this data.

INTRODUCTION: Gastroenterologists at all levels of practice benefit from formal mentoring. Much of the current literature on mentoring in gastroenterology is based on expert opinion rather than data. In this study, we aimed to identify gender-related barriers to successful mentoring relationships from the mentor and mentee perspectives. METHODS: A voluntary, web-based survey was distributed to physicians at 20 academic institutions across the United States. Overall, 796 gastroenterology fellows and faculty received the survey link, with 334 physicians responding to the survey (42% response rate), of whom 299 (90%; 129 women and 170 men) completed mentorship questions and were included in analysis. RESULTS: Responses of women and men were compared. Compared with men, more women preferred a mentor of the same gender (38.6% women vs 4.2% men, P < 0.0001) but less often had one (45.5% vs 70.2%, P < 0.0001). Women also reported having more difficulty finding a mentor (44.4% vs 16.0%, P < 0.0001) and more often cited inability to identify a mentor of the same gender as a contributing factor (12.8% vs 0.9%, P = 0.0004). More women mentors felt comfortable advising women mentees about work-life balance (88.3% vs 63.8%, P = 0.0005). Nonetheless, fewer women considered themselves effective mentors (33.3% vs 52.6%, P = 0.03). More women reported feeling pressured to mentor because of their gender (39.5% vs 0.9% of men, P < 0.0001). Despite no gender differences, one-third of respondents reported negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their ability to mentor and be mentored. DISCUSSION: Inequities exist in the experiences of women mentees and mentors in gastroenterology, which may affect career advancement and job satisfaction.