Disposable versus reusable gastroscope in observation and endoscopic mucosal resection performance: a non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS Conventional reusable endoscopes incur significant expenses in the form of purchase, maintenance, reprocessing, and disinfection. Reprocessing is frequently ineffective even following the use of high-level disinfectants (HLDs). Disposable gastroscopy might be a strategy to decrease infectious outbreaks associated with reusable endoscope. The aim of this study was to analyze and evaluate the performance, efficiency and safety in gastroscopy observation and subsequent potential EMR procedure via the disposable gastroscope in a clinical setting. METHODS Patients who required gastroscopies and met the criteria were recruited to this prospective, open-label, non-inferiority study. After obtaining the written informed content, the enrolled subjects selected themselves independently to the disposable group or reusable group. The primary measure was to evaluate the acceptable image quality and whether the disposable endoscope devices could meet the basic clinical demands with a noninferiority margin of -8%. The second measures were to analyze and evaluate the image conditions, accepted endoscopic maneuverability, efficiency and safety of observation and advanced potential EMR procedure. Appropriate statistical methods were conducted via PASS software and SAS 9.4. A two-tailed P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS A total of 90 individuals (the number of those in disposable group and reusable group was both 45) were recruited to this study. The success rate of acceptable image quality via photographing iconic anatomical sites between two groups was 100.0% (45/45, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.9213,1.0000) and the lower limit of the 95%CI (-7.8654%, 7.8654%) was larger than the noninferiority margin of -8% (Newcombe-Wilson score method). Significant differences were showed in the measures of image conditions (image acquisition, image quality, brightness, contrast and sharpness) and accepted endoscopic maneuverability (endoscopy body rigidity). No significant differences were observed in the field of knob operation, sharp angle adaptability, and the auxiliary features including air supply, water supply and suction. In terms of efficiency, the total operating time, insertion time and withdrawal time were longer in the disposable group. The En-bloc resection rate of those observed polyps and required to EMR procedure due to relatively larger diameter (5mm-15mm) was the same 100% in both groups (26/26 vs 23/23, 95%CI: 0.8713,1.0000). Nevertheless, the procedure time of EMR for each polyp was significantly longer in the disposable group. This study showed no intraoperative bleeding, delayed bleeding, perforation or other study-related adverse events among 90 patients. No dramatic fluctuations in vital signs were showed in perioperative period. CONCLUSIONS In consideration of the efficiency, efficacy and safety evaluation, the disposable gastroscopes might represent an alternative to conventional reusable gastroscopes in routine examination and endoscopic mucosal resection.