Sripathi R. Kethu

Endoscopic hemostatic devices

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. Evidence-based methodology is used, with a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (US 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 September 2008 for articles related to endoscopic hemostatic devices by using the keywords ‘‘multipolar electrocautery,’’ ‘‘bipolar electrocautery,’’ ‘‘heater probe,’’ ‘‘hemostatic grasper,’’ ‘‘argon plasma coagulator,’’ ‘‘injection needle,’’ ‘‘endoloop,’’ ‘‘clip,’’ paired with ‘‘complication,’’ ‘‘perforation,’’ ‘‘peptic ulcer disease,’’ ‘‘gastric antral vascular ectasia,’’ ‘‘Dieulafoy lesion,’’ ‘‘Mallory-Weiss tear,’’ ‘‘radiation induced angioectasias,’’ ‘‘diverticular bleeding,’’ ‘‘angiodysplasia,’’ and ‘‘postpolypectomy bleeding.’’ 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, requir-

Confocal laser endomicroscopy

©2014 Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana An independent licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, without permission from Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana. Page 1 of 11 Applies to all products administered or underwritten by Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana and its subsidiary, HMO Louisiana, Inc.(collectively referred to as the “Company”), unless otherwise provided in the applicable contract. Medical technology is constantly evolving, and we reserve the right to review and update Medical Policy periodically.

Overtube use in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

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. Evidence-based methodology is used, with a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic, and a MAUDE (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 March 2009 for articles related to overtube use in GI endoscopy by using the keywords overtube, intubation, enteral access, enteroscopy, and foreign bodies, paired with endoscopy, gastrointestinal. Practitioners should continue to monitor the medical literature for subsequent data about the efficacy, safety, and socioeconomic aspects of these technologies. 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.

Biliary and pancreatic stone extraction devices

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. Evidence-based methodology is employed by using a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (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 February 2009 for articles related to endoscopy in patients with pancreatic and biliary stones requiring removal, by using the keywords choledocholithiasis, pancreaticolithiasis, stone, and extraction paired with ERCP, endoscopy, and gastrointestinal. 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. Biliary and pancreatic duct stones are a major cause of morbidity. Choledocholithiasis, if left untreated, can lead to pain, cholangitis, gallstone pancreatitis, and secondary sclerosing cholangitis. Pancreatic stones, most commonly

Endoscopic retrieval devices

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. Evidence-based methodology is used, with a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (US 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. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through September 2008 using the keywords ‘‘retrieval,’’ ‘‘retrieval device,’’ ‘‘extraction,’’ ‘‘endoscopic,’’ ‘‘gastrointestinal endoscopy,’’ and ‘‘foreign body.’’ The Science Direct search engine (www.ScienceDirect.com) was also used with the search terms ‘‘retrieval’’ and ‘‘foreign body.’’ The MAUDE database (http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/ cfMAUDE/TextSearch.cfm) was searched using text search mode for ‘‘retrieval,’’ ‘‘retrieval device,’’ and ‘‘foreign body.’’ 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. 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.

Enhanced ultrasound imaging

The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) Technology Committee provides reviews of emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on 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 peer-reviewed manuscripts, 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 one or two 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.