Klaus T. Gottlieb

Wireless capsule endoscopy

Over the last decade, WCE has established itself as a valuable test for imaging the small intestine. It is a safe and relatively easy procedure to perform that can provide valuable information in the diagnosis of small-bowel conditions. Its applications still remain limited within the esophagus and colon. Future developments may include improving visualization within the esophagus and developing technologies that may allow manipulation of the capsule within the GI tract and biopsy capabilities.

Tissue adhesives: cyanoacrylate glue and fibrin sealant

The ASGE Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, performing a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported adverse events of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the “related articles” feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the Committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through August 2012 for relevant articles by using the key words cyanoacrylate, cyanoacrylate glue, cyanoacrylate and gastroenterology, cyanoacrylate and endoscopy, fibrin glue, fibrin sealant, tissue glue and endoscopy. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

Effects of meperidine on the pancreatic and biliary sphincter

BACKGROUND Opioids are traditionally avoided during sphincter of Oddi manometry because of indirect evidence suggesting that these agents cause sphincter of Oddi spasm. This study was undertaken to determine the direct effects of meperidine on the biliary and pancreatic sphincter. METHODS Forty-seven patients were prospectively evaluated by sphincter of Oddi manometry in the conventional retrograde fashion. Manometry was initially performed with intravenous diazepam sedation alone. The manometry was repeated 3 to 5 minutes after meperidine was administered. RESULTS The basal sphincter pressure of the biliary sphincter, pancreatic sphincter, and the combined sphincter group were not significantly altered by meperidine. Concordance (normal versus abnormal) between the basal sphincter pressure before and after meperidine was seen in 44 of 47 patients (94%). Meperidine produced a significant increase in the pancreatic, biliary, and combined sphincter phasic frequency and a significant decrease in the phasic duration. The pancreatic and combined sphincter phasic pressures were significantly reduced following meperidine administration. Seventeen manometry tracings (36%) were believed to be qualitatively better after meperidine, while only four (8.5%; p < .001) were qualitatively better with diazepam alone. CONCLUSION Meperidine can be used for additional analgesia during sphincter of Oddi manometry if the basal sphincter pressure is the parameter used to determine therapy.

Equipment for pediatric endoscopy.

d f o 2 u t b f p t The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidencebased methodology is used by performing a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the “related articles” feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the governing board of the ASGE. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through June 2011 for articles related to endoscopy in pediatric patients by using the key words pediatric, children, infants, endoscopy, colonoscopy, gastrointestinal bleeding, single balloon enteroscopy, double balloon enteroscopy, capsule endoscopy, biopsy, esophageal strictures, dilation, endoscopic ultrasound, and ERCP. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

Methods of luminal distention for colonoscopy

w e r i n t a d The ASGE Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidencebased methodology is used, performing a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported adverse events of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the “related articles” feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the Committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through February 2012 for relevant articles by using the key words “colonoscopy,” “insufflation,” “air,” “carbon dioxide,” and “water.” Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

Emerging technologies for endoscopic hemostasis

e s o P s m p a o p d a a o The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Technology Committee provides reviews of emerging endoscopic technologies that have the potential to affect the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, with MEDLINE and PubMed literature searches to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic. Because many topics have a limited number of peerreviewed articles, abstracts from scientific meetings are used to supplement the review. The reports focus on the current status of the technologies, areas in need of further research, and barriers to incorporation into the mainstream practice of GI endoscopy. Reports on Emerging Technologies are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. These reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Reports on Emerging Technologies are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

Tools for endoscopic stricture dilation

To promote the appropriate use of new or emerging endoscopic technologies and those technologies that have an impact on endoscopic practice, the ASGE Technology Committee presents relevant information to practicing physicians in the form of technology reviews. Evidence-based methodology is used whereby a MEDLINE literature search is performed to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic, a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search is performed to identify the reported complications of a given technology, and both are supplemented by accessing the “related articles” feature of PubMed and by scrutiny of pertinent references cited in the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking; in such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinion are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Reviews are drafted by 1 or 2 committee members, reviewed in significant detail by the committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. When financial guidance is appropriate, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through August 2012 for articles related to dilation by using the keywords “endoscopic dilation,” “bougie dilators,” “balloon dilators,” “esophageal strictures,” “anastomotic strictures,” “inflammatory bowel strictures,” “pancreatic strictures,” “biliary strictures,” “colonic strictures,” “achalasia,” “pyloric stenosis,” and “self-expanding metal stents.” Practitioners should continue to monitor the medical literature for subsequent data about the efficacy, safety, and socioeconomic aspects of these technologies.

Technology status evaluation reportElectrosurgical generators

The ASGE Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, performing a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the “related articles” feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the Committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through August 2012 for articles related to endoscopy by using the key words electrosurgical generators, electrosurgical generator units, electrosurgery and endoscopy, current and endoscopy, Endocut, argon plasma coagulation, complications and endoscopy, monopolar and endoscopy, bipolar and endoscopy, and a variety of related searches. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.

Esophageal Function Testing

Esophageal functional testing comprises assessments of esophageal motility and reflux, for the diagnosis of esophageal motility disorders and acid and nonacid reflux in gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Testing is accomplished using a catheter-based esophageal manometry system, as well as catheter-based and capsule-based pH and impedance systems.

Enhanced imaging in the GI tract: spectroscopy and optical coherence tomography

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Technology Committee provides reviews of new or emerging endoscopic technologies that have the potential to have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, using a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent preclinical and clinical studies on the topic, and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported adverse events of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the “related articles” feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through February 2013 by using the keywords spectroscopy, optical coherence tomography, Raman spectroscopy, gastrointestinal, Barrett’s esophagus, pancreas, bile ducts, and colon. Reports on Emerging Technologies are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. These reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Reports on Emerging Technologies are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.