Defining standards for fluoroscopy in gastrointestinal endoscopy using Delphi methodology

Abstract

Background and study aims Use of fluoroscopy in gastrointestinal endoscopy is an essential aid in advanced endoscopic interventions. However, it also raises concerns about radiation exposure. This study aimed to develop consensus-based statements for safe and effective use of fluoroscopy in gastrointestinal endoscopy, prioritizing the safety and well-being of healthcare workers and patients.

Methods A modified Delphi approach was employed to achieve consensus over three rounds of surveys. Proposed statements were generated in Round 1. In the second round, panelists rated potential statements on a 5-point scale, with consensus defined as ≥80% agreement. Statements were subsequently prioritized in Round 3, using a 1 (lowest priority) to 10 (highest priority) scale.

Results Forty-six experts participated, consisting of 34 therapeutic endoscopists and 12 endoscopy nurses from six continents, with an overall 45.6% female representation (n = 21). Forty-three item statements were generated in the first round. Of these, 31 statements achieved consensus after the second round. These statements were categorized into General Considerations (n = 6), Education (n = 10), Pregnancy (n = 4), Family Planning (n = 2), Patient Safety (n = 4), and Staff Safety (n = 5). In the third round, accepted statements received mean priority scores ranging from 7.28 to 9.36, with 87.2% of statements rated as very high priority (mean score ≥ 9).

Conclusions This study presents consensus-based statements for safe and effective use of fluoroscopy in gastrointestinal endoscopy, addressing the well-being of healthcare workers and patients. These consensus-based statements aim to mitigate risks associated with radiation exposure while maintaining benefits of fluoroscopy, ultimately promoting a culture of safety in healthcare settings.

Keywords

Pancreatobiliary (ERCP/PTCD) - Cholangioscopy - Quality and logistical aspects - Delphi technique - Fluoroscopy - Radiation - Gastrointestinal endoscopy

• References

• 1 Badawy MK, Henely-Smith E, Hasmat S. Radiation exposure to staff during fluoroscopic endoscopic procedures. DEN Open 2023; 3: e234
• 2 Baumann F, Katzen BT, Carelsen B. et al. The effect of realtime monitoring on dose exposure to staff within an interventional radiology setting. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2015; 38: 1105-1111
• 3 Bjarnason TA, Rees R, Kainz J. et al. COMP Report: A survey of radiation safety regulations for medical imaging x-ray equipment in Canada. J Appl Clin Med Phys 2020; 21: 10-19
• 4 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Radiation in Healthcare: Imaging Procedures. 2021;
• 5 Oakley PA, Harrison DE. Death of the ALARA radiation protection principle as used in the medical sector. Dose Response 2020; 18: 1559325820921641
• 6 Yoo TS, Wait JM, Thompson T. et al. Quantifying radiation doses in common endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography scenarios: an evaluation of radiation safety measures in a real-world environment. Perm J 2023; 27: 88-93
• 7 Takenaka M, Hosono M, Rehani MM. et al. Comparison of radiation exposure between endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage and transpapillary drainage by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for pancreatobiliary diseases. Dig Endosc 2022; 34: 579-586
• 8 Hayashi S, Takenaka M, Kogure H. et al. A follow-up questionnaire survey 2022 on radiation protection among 464 medical staff from 34 endoscopy-fluoroscopy departments in Japan. DEN Open 2023; 3: e227
• 9 Bang JY, Hough M, Hawes RH. et al. Use of artificial intelligence to reduce radiation exposure at fluoroscopy-guided endoscopic procedures. Am J Gastroenterol 2020; 115: 555-561
• 10 Kachaamy T, Harrison E, Pannala R. et al. Measures of patient radiation exposure during endoscopic retrograde cholangiography: beyond fluoroscopy time. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21: 1900-1906
• 11 Özütemiz C, Rykken JB. Lumbar puncture under fluoroscopy guidance: a technical review for radiologists. Diagn Interv Radiol 2019; 25: 144-156
• 12 Boix J, Lorenzo-Zúñiga V. Radiation dose to patients during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 3: 140-144
• 13 Vanzant D, Mukhdomi J. Safety of fluoroscopy in patient, operator, and technician. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2023
• 14 Barakat MT, Gugig R, Imperial J. et al. Fluoroscopy Time during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography performed for children and adolescents is significantly higher with low-volume endoscopists. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2021; 72: 244-249
• 15 Hayashi S, Takenaka M, Hosono M. et al. Diagnostic reference levels for fluoroscopy-guided gastrointestinal procedures in Japan from the REX-GI Study: A nationwide multicentre prospective observational study. Lancet Reg Health West Pac 2022; 20: 100376
• 16 Dumonceau J-M, Garcia-Fernandez FJ, Verdun FR. et al. Radiation protection in digestive endoscopy: European Society of Digestive Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 408-421
• 17 Kwok K, Hasan N, Duloy A. et al. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy radiation and fluoroscopy safety in GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 94: 685-697.e4
• 18 Federal Guidance Report No 14: Radiation Protection Guidance for Diagnostic and Interventional X-Ray Procedures.
• 19 Jowhari F, Hopman WM, Hookey L. A simple ergonomic measure reduces fluoroscopy time during ERCP: A multivariate analysis. Endosc Int Open 2017; 5: E172-E178
• 20 Pawa S, Kwon RS, Fishman DS. et al. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of ergonomics for prevention of endoscopy-related injury: summary and recommendations. Gastrointest Endosc 2023; 98: 482-491
• 21 Walsh CM, Qayed E, Aihara H. et al. Core curriculum for ergonomics in endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 93: 1222-1227
• 22 Pedrosa MC, Farraye FA, Shergill AK. et al. Minimizing occupational hazards in endoscopy: personal protective equipment, radiation safety, and ergonomics. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 227-235
• 23 Chen J-H, Wang H-P. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography training and education. Dig Endosc 2024; 36: 74-85
• 24 Johnson G, Webster G, Boškoski I. et al. Curriculum for ERCP and endoscopic ultrasound training in Europe: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Position Statement. Endoscopy 2021; 53: 1071-1087
• 25 Jorgensen J, Kubiliun N, Law JK. et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): core curriculum. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83: 279-289
• 26 Siau K, Webster G, Wright M. et al. Attitudes to radiation safety and cholangiogram interpretation in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP): a UK survey. Frontline Gastroenterol 2021; 12: 550-556
• 27 Son BK, Lee KT, Kim JS. et al. Lack of radiation protection for endoscopists performing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Korean J Gastroenterol 2011; 58: 93-99
• 28 Tang S-J, Mayo MJ, Rodriguez-Frias E. et al. Safety and utility of ERCP during pregnancy. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 453-461
• 29 Gupta R, Tandan M, Lakhtakia S. et al. Safety of therapeutic ERCP in pregnancy - an Indian experience. Indian J Gastroenterol 2005; 24: 161-163
• 30 Kahaleh M, Hartwell GD, Arseneau KO. et al. Safety and efficacy of ERCP in pregnancy. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 60: 287-292
• 31 Tham TCK, Vandervoort J, Wong RCK. et al. Safety of ERCP during pregnancy. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 308-311
• 32 Yu JX, Berzin TM, Enestvedt B. et al. Gender disparities in advanced endoscopy fellowship. Endosc Int Open 2021; 9: E338-E342
• 33 Wah TM, Belli AM. The interventional radiology (IR) gender gap: A prospective online survey by the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE). Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2018; 41: 1241-1253
• 34 Yong CM, Abnousi F, Rzeszut AK. et al. Sex differences in the pursuit of interventional cardiology as a subspecialty among cardiovascular fellows-in-training. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2019; 12: 219-228
• 35 Winkler J, Moser R. Biases in future-oriented Delphi studies: A cognitive perspective. Technolog Forecasting Social Change 2016; 105: 63-76