Risk factors associated with the transmission of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae via contaminated duodenoscopes

Development and validation of a novel prediction model for Carbapenem-resistant organism infection in a large-scale hospitalized patients

Carbapenem-resistant organism (CRO) are defined as gram-negative bacteria. The lack of safe and effective antibiotics has led to an increase in incidence rate. The purpose of this study is to establish and determine a risk nomogram to predict CRO infection in hospitalized patients. Hospitalized patients' information were collected from the electronic medical record system of hospital between January 2019 and December 2022. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we identified 131390 inpatients who met the criteria for this study. For the training cohort, the area under the curves (AUC) for predicting the CRO infection was 0.935. For the validation cohort, the AUC for predicting the CRO infection was 0.937. We have developed the first novel nomogram to predict CRO infection in hospitalized patients, which is reliable and high-performance. The nomogram performs well among hospitalized patients and has good predictive ability.

Evidence of transmission of New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae through a gastrointestinal endoscope without an elevator channel

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the source and transmission dynamics of an endoscope-associated New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase-producing Klebsiella pneumonia (NDM-KP) outbreak.

DESIGN

Epidemiological and genomic investigation.

SETTING

Academic acute care hospital in New Jersey.

PATIENTS

Five patients with active NDM-KP infection identified on clinical isolates, and four NDM-KP colonized patients identified via rectal swab screening.

RESULTS

Over a twelve-month period, nine patients were identified with NDM-KP infection or colonization. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) revealed that all of the identified cases were related by 25 mutational events or less. Seven of the cases were linked to gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures (four clinical cases and three positive screens among patients exposed to endoscopes suspected of transmission). Two cases demonstrated delayed transmission that occurred five months after the initial outbreak, likely through shared usage of a non-therapeutic gastroscope without an elevator channel.

CONCLUSIONS

Although all endoscope cultures in our investigation were negative, the epidemiological link to gastrointestinal endoscopes, the high degree of relatedness via WGS, and the identification of asymptomatic NDM-KP colonization among patients exposed to shared endoscopes make the endoscopic mode of transmission most likely. This investigation highlights the probable transmission of NDM-KP via a gastroscope without an elevator channel, observed several months after an initial outbreak. We hypothesize that persistent mechanical defects may have contributed to the delayed device-related transmission of NDM-KP.

Cost-effectiveness Analysis of Single-Use Duodenoscope Applied to Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

OBJECTIVES

Secondary infections due to transmission via the duodenoscope have been reported in up to 3% of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies. The use of single-use duodenoscopes has been suggested. We investigate the cost-effectiveness of these duodenoscopes use in cholangiopancreatography.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cost-effectiveness analysis was implemented to compare the performance of cholangiopancreatographies with reusable duodenoscopes versus single-use duodenoscopes. Effectiveness was analyzed by calculating quality-adjusted life years (QALY) from the perspective of the National Health System. Possibility of crossover from single-use to reusable duodenoscopes was considered. A willingness-to-pay of €25,000/QALY was set, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated, and deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Considering cholangiopancreatographies with single-use and reusable duodenoscopes at a cost of €2900 and €1333, respectively, and a 10% rate of single-use duodenoscopes, ICER was greater than €3,000,000/QALY. A lower single-use duodenoscope cost of €1211 resulted in an ICER of €23,583/QALY. When the unit cost of the single-use duodenoscope was €1211, a crossover rate of more than 9.5% made the use of the single-use duodenoscope inefficient.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-use duodenoscopes are cost-effective in a proportion of cholangiopancreatographies if its cost is reduced. Increased crossover rate makes single-use duodenoscope use not cost-effective.

Comparing the Safety and Efficacy of Two Commercially Available Single-Use Duodenoscopes: A Multicenter Study

INTRODUCTION

Single-use disposable duodenoscopes (SDD) have been developed to mitigate infectious risks related to reusable duodenoscopes. The aim of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy of the two available SDDs in the United States.

METHODS

We conducted a comparative study of 2 SDD in consecutive ERCP procedures performed by expert endoscopists from 9 academic centers. Performance ratings, procedure details, and adverse events were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 201 patients were included: 129 patients underwent ERCP with Exalt (mean age 63, Males- 66 (51%), 72 with aScope Duodeno (mean age 65, males=30 (42%). A majority of endoscopists had performed >2000 ERCPs in both groups (71% Exalt, 93% aScope Duodeno). Technical success was 92% in both groups (n=119 Exalt-group, n=66 aScope-Duodeno-group). The procedural complexity for the ERCP cases performed were: Grade 1: 35 cases (18%), Grade 2: 83 cases (41%), Grade 3: 65 cases (32%), and Grade 4: 18 cases (9%). Thirteen patients (10%) from the Exalt group and 16 patients (22%) from the aScope Duodeno group required conversion to a reusable duodenoscope. On a scale of 1 to 5, Exalt and aScope Duodeno, respectively, were rated: 2.31 versus 2.60 for location and visualization quality, 1.38 versus 1.57 for maneuverability based on papillary orientation, 1.48 versus 1.15 for suction/air control, and 2.31 versus 2.34 for elevator efficiency. None of the adverse events were related to the SDDs.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2 SDDs were comparable. Further ongoing enhancements to these devices will improve maneuverability and clinical effectiveness.

Disposable Duodenoscopes: Evidence and Open Issues

Duodenoscope-related infections are a major concern in medicine and GI endoscopy, especially in fragile patients. Disposable duodenoscopes seem to be the right tool to minimize the problem: a good choice for patients with many comorbidities or with a high risk of carrying multidrug resistant bacteria. Urgent endoscopy could also be a good setting for the use of single-use duodenoscopes, especially when the risk of the infection cannot be evaluated. Their safety and efficacy in performing ERCP has been proven in many studies. However, randomized clinical trials and comparative large studies with reusable scopes are lacking. Moreover, the present early stage of their introduction on the market does not allow a large economical evaluation for each health system. Thus, accurate economical and safety comparisons with cap-disposable duodenoscopes are needed. Moreover, the environmental impact of single-use duodenoscopes should be carefully evaluated, considering the ongoing climate change. In conclusion, definitive guidelines are needed to choose wisely the appropriate patients for ERCP with disposable duodenoscopes as the complete switch to single-use duodenoscopes seems to be difficult, to date. Many issues are still open, and they need to be carefully evaluated in further, larger studies.

ERCP-related adverse events: incidence, mechanisms, risk factors, prevention, and management

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a commonly performed procedure for pancreaticobiliary disease. While ERCP is highly effective, it is also associated with the highest adverse event (AE) rates of all commonly performed endoscopic procedures. Thus, it is critical that endoscopists and caregivers of patients undergoing ERCP have clear understandings of ERCP-related AEs.

AREAS COVERED

This narrative review provides a comprehensive overview of the available evidence on ERCP-related AEs. For the purposes of this review, we subdivide the presentation of each ERCP-related AE according to the following clinically relevant domains: definitions and incidence, proposed mechanisms, risk factors, prevention, and recognition and management. The evidence informing this review was derived in part from a search of the electronic databases PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane, performed on 1 May 20231 May 2023.

EXPERT OPINION

Knowledge of ERCP-related AEs is critical not only given potential improvements in peri-procedural quality and related care that can ensue but also given the importance of reviewing these considerations with patients during informed consent. The ERCP community and researchers should aim to apply standardized definitions of AEs. Evidence-based knowledge of ERCP risk factors should inform patient care decisions during training and beyond.

A review of Spaulding's classification system for effective cleaning, disinfection and sterilization of reusable medical devices: Viewed through a modern-day lens that will inform and enable future sustainability

Despite advances in medicine and innovations in many underpinning fields including disease prevention and control, the Spaulding classification system, originally proposed in 1957, remains widely used for defining the disinfection and sterilization of contaminated re-usable medical devices and surgical instruments. Screening PubMed and Scopus databases using a PRISMA guiding framework generated 272 relevant publications that were used in this review. Findings revealed that there is a need to evolve how medical devices are designed, and processed by cleaning, disinfection (and/or sterilization) to mitigate patient risks, including acquiring an infection. This Spaulding Classification remains in use as it is logical, easily applied and understood by users (microbiologists, epidemiologists, manufacturers, industry) and by regulators. However, substantial changes have occurred over the past 65 years that challenge interpretation and application of this system that includes inter alia emergence of new pathogens (viruses, mycobacteria, protozoa, fungi), a greater understanding of innate and adaptive microbial tolerance to disinfection, toxicity risks, increased number of vulnerable patients and associated patient procedures, and greater complexity in design and use of medical devices. Common cited examples include endoscopes that enable non- or minimal invasive procedures but are highly sophisticated with various types of materials (polymers, electronic components etc), long narrow channels, right angle and heat-sensitive components and various accessories (e.g., values) that can be contaminated with high levels of microbial bioburden and patient tissues after use. Contaminated flexible duodenoscopes have been a source of several significant infection outbreaks, where at least 9 reported cases were caused by multidrug resistant organisms [MDROs] with no obvious breach in processing detected. Despite this, there is evidence of the lack of attention to cleaning and maintenance of these devices and associated equipment. Over the last few decades there is increasing genomic evidence of innate and adaptive resistance to chemical disinfectant methods along with adaptive tolerance to environmental stresses. To reduce these risks, it has been proposed to elevate classification of higher-risk flexible endoscopes (such as duodenoscopes) from semi-critical [contact with mucous membrane and intact skin] to critical use [contact with sterile tissue and blood] that entails a transition to using low-temperature sterilization modalities instead of routinely using high-level disinfection; thus, increasing the margin of safety for endoscope processing. This timely review addresses important issues surrounding use of the Spaulding classification system to meet modern-day needs. It specifically addresses the need for automated, robust cleaning and drying methods combined with using real-time monitoring of device processing. There is a need to understand entire end-to-end processing of devices instead of adopting silo approaches that in the future will be informed by artificial intelligence and deep-learning/machine learning. For example, combinational solutions that address the formation of complex biofilms that harbour pathogenic and opportunistic microorganisms on the surfaces of processed devices. Emerging trends are addressed including future sustainability for the medical devices sector that can be enabled via a new Quintuple Helix Hub approach that combines academia, industry, healthcare, regulators, and society to unlock real world solutions.

[A systematic analysis of nosocomial outbreaks of nosocomial infections after gastrointestinal endoscopy]

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and colonoscopy (CLN) come with a potential risk of pathogen transmission. Unfortunately, up to now data on the causes and the distribution of pathogens is rather sparse.We performed a systematic review of the medical literature using the Worldwide Outbreak Database, the PubMed, and Embase. We then checked so-retrieved articles for potential sources of the outbreak, the spectrum of pathogens, the attack rates, mortality and infection control measures.In total 73 outbreaks (EGD: 24, ERCP: 42; CLN: 7) got included. The corresponding attack rates were 3.5%, 7.1% and 12.8% and mortality rates were 6.3%, 12.7% and 10.0% respectively. EGD was highly associated with transmission of enterobacteria including a large proportion of multi-drug resistant strains. ERCP led primarily to transmission of non-fermenting gram-negative rods. The most frequent cause was human failure during reprocessing regardless of the type of endoscope.Staff working in the field of endoscopy should always be aware of the possibility of pathogen transmission in order to detect and terminate those events at the early most time point. Furthermore, proper ongoing education of staff involved in the reprocessing and maintenance of endoscopes is crucial. Single-use devices may be an alternative option and lower the risk of pathogen transmission, but on the downside may also increase costs and waste.

Effect of Disposable Elevator Cap Duodenoscopes on Persistent Microbial Contamination and Technical Performance of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: The ICECAP Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Infection transmission following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) can occur due to persistent contamination of duodenoscopes despite high-level disinfection to completely eliminate microorganisms on the instrument.

Objective

To determine (1) contamination rates after high-level disinfection and (2) technical performance of duodenoscopes with disposable elevator caps compared with those with standard designs.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this parallel-arm multicenter randomized clinical trial at 2 tertiary ERCP centers in Canada, all patients 18 years and older and undergoing ERCP for any indication were eligible.

Intervention

The intervention was use of duodenoscopes with disposable elevator caps compared with duodenoscopes with a standard design.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Coprimary outcomes were persistent microbial contamination of the duodenoscope elevator or channel, defined as growth of at least 10 colony-forming units of any organism or any growth of gram-negative bacteria following high-level disinfection (superiority outcome), and technical success of ERCP according to a priori criteria (noninferiority outcome with an a priori noninferiority margin of 7%), assessed by blinded reviewers.

Results

From December 2019 to February 2022, 518 patients were enrolled (259 disposable elevator cap duodenoscopes, 259 standard duodenoscopes). Patients had a mean (SD) age of 60.7 (17.0) years and 258 (49.8%) were female. No significant differences were observed between study groups, including in ERCP difficulty. Persistent microbial contamination was detected in 11.2% (24 of 214) of standard duodenoscopes and 3.8% (8 of 208) of disposable elevator cap duodenoscopes (P = .004), corresponding to a relative risk of 0.34 (95% CI, 0.16-0.75) and number needed to treat of 13.6 (95% CI, 8.1-42.7) to avoid persistent contamination. Technical success using the disposable cap scope was noninferior to that of the standard scope (94.6% vs 90.7%, P = .13). There were no differences between study groups in adverse events and other secondary outcomes.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, disposable elevator cap duodenoscopes exhibited reduced contamination following high-level disinfection compared with standard scope designs, without affecting the technical performance and safety of ERCP.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04040504.

Prevention of device-related infections in patients with cancer: Current practice and future horizons

Over the past several years, multifaceted advances in the management of cancer have led to a significant improvement in survival rates. Throughout patients' oncological journeys, they will likely receive one or more implantable devices for the administration of fluids and medications as well as management of various comorbidities and complications related to cancer therapy. Infections associated with these devices are frequent and complex, often necessitating device removal, increasing health care costs, negatively affecting quality of life, and complicating oncological care, usually leading to delays in further life-saving cancer therapy. Herein, the authors comprehensively review multiple evidence-based recommendations along with best practices, expert opinions, and novel approaches for the prevention of diverse device-related infections. The authors present many general principles for the prevention of these infections followed by specific device-related recommendations in a systematic manner. The continuous involvement and meaningful cooperation between regulatory entities, industry, specialty medical societies, hospitals, and infection control-targeted interventions, along with primary care and consulting health care providers, are all vital for the sustained reduction in the incidence of these preventable infections.

Pathogenic Drug Resistant Fungi: A Review of Mitigation Strategies

Fungal pathogens cause significant human morbidity and mortality globally, where there is a propensity to infect vulnerable people such as the immunocompromised ones. There is increasing evidence of resistance to antifungal drugs, which has significant implications for cutaneous, invasive and bloodstream infections. The World Health Organization (WHO) published a priority list of fungal pathogens in October 2022, thus, highlighting that a crisis point has been reached where there is a pressing need to address the solutions. This review provides a timely insight into the challenges and implications on the topic of antifungal drug resistance along with discussing the effectiveness of established disease mitigation modalities and approaches. There is also a need to elucidate the cellular and molecular mechanisms of fungal resistance to inform effective solutions. The established fungal decontamination approaches are effective for medical device processing and sterilization, but the presence of pathogenic fungi in recalcitrant biofilms can lead to challenges, particularly during cleaning. Future design ideas for implantable and reusable medical devices should consider antifungal materials and appropriates for disinfection, and where it is relevant, sterilization. Preventing the growth of mycotoxin-producing fungi on foods through the use of appropriate end-to-end processes is advisable, as mycotoxins are recalcitrant and challenging to eliminate once they have formed.

Green endoscopy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), Joint Accreditation Group (JAG) and Centre for Sustainable Health (CSH) joint consensus on practical measures for environmental sustainability in endoscopy

GI endoscopy is highly resource-intensive with a significant contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and waste generation. Sustainable endoscopy in the context of climate change is now the focus of mainstream discussions between endoscopy providers, units and professional societies. In addition to broader global challenges, there are some specific measures relevant to endoscopy units and their practices, which could significantly reduce environmental impact. Awareness of these issues and guidance on practical interventions to mitigate the carbon footprint of GI endoscopy are lacking. In this consensus, we discuss practical measures to reduce the impact of endoscopy on the environment applicable to endoscopy units and practitioners. Adoption of these measures will facilitate and promote new practices and the evolution of a more sustainable specialty.

Assessment of postmanual cleaning adenosine triphosphate tests to prevent the use of contaminated duodenoscopes and linear echoendoscopes: the DETECT study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We investigated whether the use of postmanual cleaning adenosine triphosphate (ATP) tests lowers the number of duodenoscopes and linear echoendoscopes (DLEs) contaminated with gut flora.

METHODS

In this single-center before-and-after study, DLEs were ATP tested after cleaning. During the control period, participants were blinded to ATP results: ATP-positive DLEs were not recleaned. During the intervention period, ATP-positive DLEs were recleaned. DLEs underwent microbiologic sampling after high-level disinfection (HLD) with participants blinded to culture results.

RESULTS

Using 15 endoscopes of 5 different DLE types, we included 909 procedures (52% duodenoscopes, 48% linear echoendoscopes). During the intervention period, the absolute rate of contamination with gut flora was higher (16% vs 21%). The main analysis showed that contamination was less likely to occur in the intervention period (odds ratio, .32; 95% credible interval [CI], .12-.85). A secondary analysis showed that this effect was based on 1 particular duodenoscope type (estimated probability, 39% [95% CI, 18%-64%] vs 9% [95% CI, 2%-21%]), whereas no effect was seen in the other 4 DLE types. In detail, of the 4 duodenoscopes of this type, 2 had lower contamination rates (69% vs 39% and 36% vs 10%). During the control period, both these duodenoscopes had multiple episodes with ongoing contamination with the same microorganism that ended weeks before the start of the intervention period (ie, they were not terminated by ATP testing).

CONCLUSIONS

Postmanual cleaning ATP tests do not reduce post-HLD gut flora contamination rates of DLEs. Hence, postcleaning ATP tests are not suited as a means for quality control of endoscope reprocessing.

Epidemiology and clinical characteristics of infection/colonization due to carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales in neonatal patients

Background

The aim of this study was to elucidate the epidemiological features of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacterales (CPE) in the pediatric and neonatal patients, to describe clinical characteristics of neonatal patients with CPE infections, and to assess risk factors for neonatal rectal colonization with CPE.

Results

A total of 439 carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) isolates recovered from 367 infant patients were characterised, including 397 isolates of Klebsiella pneumoniae (KP) and 42 isolates of Escherichia coli (EC). Carbapenemase gene blaNDM-1 was the most commonly detected, accounting for 86.56% (n = 380), followed by blaKPC-2 (9.11%, 40) and blaIMP-4 (4.33%, 19). MLST analysis showed 17 different STs detected within CPKP isolates, with ST20, ST2068, ST36 and ST17 being the most frequently isolated types. Eleven STs were identified within CPEC isolates, with ST325 being the dominant types. Eight isolates of NDM-1 producing KP, belonging to ST23, were identified as having hypervirulent traits. The main infections caused by CPE were pneumonia (n = 90) and sepsis (n = 16). All infected patients received monotherapy, with meropenem and ciprofloxacin being the most commonly used antibiotics. All pneumonia patients were cured or improved after treatment. Of the 16 patients with sepsis, 9 were cured or improved, 3 died, and 4 abandoned treatment without any clinical improvement. The rectal prevalences of CPE in the 0–3 days old (DO), the 4–28 DO, and the 29 DO-1 year old groups were decreased from 15.31%, 27.37% and 14.29% in the first stool screening period to 11.78%, 19.59% and 4.07% in the second stool screening period, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that cesarean section, acidosis, respiration failure, gastric lavage and enema were independent risk factors for rectal colonization in the 0–3 DO group, whereas cesarean section, cephalosporins, gastric lavage and residence in rural area were independently associated with rectal colonization in the 4–28 DO group. The implementation of a series of evidence-based control measures eventually contained the CPE transmission.

Conclusions

Continued vigilance, epidemiological studies, and multimodal infection prevention strategies are urgently needed due to frequent importations.

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy-Associated Infections: Update on an Emerging Issue

Over 17.7 million gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures are performed annually, contributing to 68% of all endoscopic procedures in the United States. Usually, endoscopic procedures are low risk, but adverse events may occur, including cardiopulmonary complications, bleeding, perforation, pancreatitis, cholangitis, and infection. Infections after the GI endoscopies most commonly result from the patient's endogenous gut flora. Although many studies have reported infection after GI endoscopic procedures, a true estimate of the incidence rate of post-endoscopy infection is lacking. In addition, the infection profile and causative organisms have evolved over time. In recent times, multi-drug-resistant microorganisms have emerged as a cause of outbreaks of endoscope-associated infections (EAI). In addition, lapses in endoscope reprocessing have been reported, with some but not all outbreaks in recent times. This systematic review summarizes the demographical, clinical, and management data of EAI events reported in the literature. A total of 117 articles were included in the systematic review, with the majority reported from North America and Western Europe. The composite infection rate was calculated to be 0.2% following GI endoscopic procedures, 0.8% following ERCP, 0.123% following non-ERCP upper GI endoscopic procedures, and 0.073% following lower GI endoscopic procedures. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the most common culprit organism, followed by other Enterobacteriaceae groups of organisms and Gram-positive cocci. We have also elaborated different prevention methods such as antimicrobial prophylaxis, adequate sterilization methods for reprocessing endoscopes, periodic surveillance, and current evidence supporting their utilization. Finally, we discuss disposable endoscopes, which could be an alternative to reprocessing to minimize the chances of EAIs with their effects on the environmental and financial situation.

Duodenoscope-Acquired Infections: Risk Factors to Consider

In the wake of highly publicized duodenoscope-associated outbreaks caused by multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO), a herculean effort was made to understand the conditions that led to these transmission events. Although there is now a clearer picture on how these outbreaks happened, there are still significant data gaps when it comes to understanding the rate of duodenoscope-acquired infections (DAIs), especially in nonoutbreak situations. Recent publications indicate that DAIs are still occurring and suggest that infection rates are higher than currently believed. Given this data gap, it is important to identify those patient populations that are most at risk of postprocedure infection, so that appropriate infection control measures may be implemented. Although those patients receiving antibiotic prophylaxis are most at risk for infection, there are additional risk factors that should be considered. For the purposes of this review, risk factors for infection were divided into three broad categories as follows: (1) those that increase patient susceptibility to infection, (2) those related to the endoscopic procedure, and (3) those factors that put reusable duodenoscope inventories at risk of contamination. Infection risk is a complex interaction between the immune status of the patient, the characteristics of the infectious agent (antibiotic sensitivity, virulence factors, and epidemiology), and the environment of care. Because of this complexity, any assessment of the risk of infection should be performed on a case-by-case basis. There is a dearth of information on infection risk for those patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatograpy (ERCP), especially in the context of the development and implementation of new device technology, and new endoscopic procedures that are increasing in complexity. This narrative review was developed using the Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms to perform an electronic search in PubMed with the goal of generating a summary of the patient, procedural, and duodenoscope-associated factors that increase the risk of infection in patients undergoing ERCP. This review provides practical information regarding the segmentation of ERCP patients by infection risk, so that endoscopists can make informed decisions about the risk benefits of using enhanced duodenoscope technologies in the care of their patients.

Single-use duodenoscopes: where are we and where are we going?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Given the growing concerns about infection transmission from use of contaminated reusable duodenoscopes, technological advancements have been made that vary from modifications of existing designs to development of single-use devices.

RECENT FINDINGS

To circumvent mechanical limitations that preclude access to critical areas of a duodenoscope to perform thorough cleaning and disinfection, single-use disposable duodenoscopes have been developed. A thorough assessment of this technology is limited by the minimal published data that is currently available. This opinion assesses the current technical functionality of these devices, potential for further improvements, implications for healthcare economics and the future of gastrointestinal endoscopy.

SUMMARY

Currently available data suggest that majority of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures can be safely performed using single-use duodenoscopes. The ability to improve technical functionality, incorporate futuristic technology and secure financial reimbursement from insurance carriers will largely define the future prospects of this recent innovation.

Epidemiology, risk factors, and prediction score of carbapenem resistance among inpatients colonized or infected with 3rd generation cephalosporin resistant Enterobacterales

In this study, we determined the incidence and risk factors of Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) acquisition in inpatients with 3rd generation cephalosporin-resistant (3GCR) Enterobacterales at a tertiary-care hospital in Lebanon, and suggested a risk prediction score for it. This is a retrospective matched case–control study of inpatients with 3GCR Enterobacterales that are carbapenem resistant (cases) versus those with carbapenem-sensitive isolates (controls). Data analysis was performed on IBM SPSS program, version 23.0 (Armonk, NY, USA: IBM Corp.). Categorical variables were compared between cases and controls through bivariate analysis and those with statistical significance (P < 0.05) were included in the forward stepwise multiple logistic regression analysis. To develop the CRE acquisition risk score, variables that maintained statistical significance in the multivariate model were assigned a point value corresponding to the odds ratio (OR) divided by the smallest OR identified in the regression model, and the resulting quotient was multiplied by two and rounded to the nearest whole number. Summation of the points generated by the calculated risk factors resulted in a quantitative score that was assigned to each patient in the database. Predictive performance was determined by assessing discrimination and calibration. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were calculated for different cutoffs of the score. The incidence of CRE acquisition significantly increased with time from 0.21 cases/1000 patient-days (PD) in 2015 to 1.89 cases/1000PD in 2019 (r² = 0.789, P = 0.041). Multivariate analysis of matched data revealed that the history of cerebrovascular disease (OR 1.96; 95% CI 1.04–3.70; P = 0.039), hematopoietic cells transplantation (OR 7.75; 95% CI 1.52–39.36; P = 0.014), presence of a chronic wound (OR 3.38; 95% CI 1.73–6.50; P < 0.001), endoscopy done during the 3 months preceding the index hospitalization (OR 2.96; 95% CI 1.51–4.73; P = 0.01), nosocomial site of acquisition of the organism in question (OR 2.68; 95% CI 1.51–4.73; P = 0.001), and the prior use of meropenem within 3 months of CRE acquisition (OR 5.70; 95% CI 2.61–12.43; P < 0.001) were independent risk factors for CRE acquisition. A risk score ranging from 0 to 25 was developed based on these independent variables. At a cut-off of ≥ 5 points, the model exhibited a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of 64.5%, 85.8%, 82%, 70.7% and 75%, respectively. We also showed that only meropenem consumption intensity and CRE acquisition incidence density showed a strong positive correlation(r = 0.798, P = 0.106), unlike imipenem (r = − 0.868, P = 0.056) and ertapenem (r = 0.385, P = 0.522). Patients with a score of ≥ 5 points in our model were likely to acquire CRE. Only meropenem was associated with CRE carriage. Our proposed risk prediction score would help target surveillance screening for CRE amongst inpatients at the time of hospital admission and properly guide clinicians on using anti-CRE therapy.

Single Use (disposable) Duodenoscope: Recent Development and Future

Unlike simple forward-viewing endoscopes such as gastroscope or colonoscope, duodenoscope houses much more complex design to fulfil its function. This design differences leave duodenoscopes more prone to contamination from inadequate disinfection process and potential dissemination of pathogens. Recent reports on dissemination of infection through the duodenoscope mandated an overhaul of duodenoscope utilization including development of a disposable duodenoscope. This article reviews the current state of disposable duodenoscope development, including reported early efficacy as well as its future direction and utilization.

Education, training, and knowledge of infection control among endoscopy technicians and nurses

Our survey of 88 endoscopy technicians and nurses to determine their experience, training, and knowledge of infection control found that few personnel (<15%) received formal training in endoscope reprocessing or infection prevention before or after joining an endoscopy unit. While self-reported confidence in endoscope reprocessing was high (9 out of 10), knowledge of best practices in this regard lagged (average assessment score of 62%).

Equivalent performance of single-use and reusable duodenoscopes in a randomised trial

OBJECTIVE

Single-use duodenoscopes have been recently developed to eliminate risk of infection transmission from contaminated reusable duodenoscopes. We compared performances of single-use and reusable duodenoscopes in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

DESIGN

Patients with native papilla requiring ERCP were randomised to single-use or reusable duodenoscope. Primary outcome was comparing number of attempts to achieve successful cannulation of desired duct. Secondary outcomes were technical performance that measured duodenoscope manoeuvrability, mechanical-imaging characteristics and ability to perform therapeutic interventions, need for advanced cannulation techniques or cross-over to alternate duodenoscope group to achieve ductal access and adverse events.

RESULTS

98 patients were treated using single-use (n=48) or reusable (n=50) duodenoscopes with >80% graded as low-complexity procedures. While median number of attempts to achieve successful cannulation was significantly lower for single-use cohort (2 vs 5, p=0.013), ease of passage into stomach (p=0.047), image quality (p<0.001), image stability (p<0.001) and air-water button functionality (p<0.001) were significantly worse. There was no significant difference in rate of cannulation, adverse events including mortality (one patient in each group), need to cross-over or need for advanced cannulation techniques to achieve ductal access, between cohorts. On multivariate logistic regression analysis, only duodenoscope type (single-use) was associated with less than six attempts to achieve selective cannulation (p=0.012), when adjusted for patient demographics, procedural complexity and type of intervention.

CONCLUSION

Given the overall safety profile and similar technical performance, single-use duodenoscopes represent an alternative to reusable duodenoscopes for performing low-complexity ERCP procedures in experienced hands.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT04143698.

Device profile of the EXALT Model D single-use duodenoscope for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: overview of its safety and efficacy

Introduction: The management of pancreaticobiliary disorders relies heavily on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, which is performed with a duodenoscope. Bacterial colonization of reusable duodenoscopes leading to subsequent infectious outbreaks is well recognized and remains an issue despite efforts to optimize best practices in high-level disinfection. The EXALT Model D duodenoscope (EXALT) (Boston Scientific Corporation, Marlborough, MA) is a single-use device, designed to achieve technical equivalency with reusable devices while eliminating the potential for device-related outbreaks.Areas covered: This review covers the challenges associated with reprocessing duodenoscopes and the development of duodenoscope-related infections, with an emphasis on the use of single-use duodenoscopes as a potential solution to this issue.Expert Opinion: Duodenoscope-related infections are an increasingly recognized problem. Infectious outbreaks harm patients, significantly affect providers and medical centers, and can erode patient trust in the health-care system. Single-use duodenoscopes eliminate both the risk of device-related infection transmission and the need for burdensome duodenoscope reprocessing. In clinical evaluations, the EXALT device has demonstrated an equivalent technical performance and provider satisfaction compared to reusable duodenoscopes. Increasing use of this device will clarify how it compares to reusable duodenoscopes in a variety of clinical settings among endoscopists of varying skills levels.

Double high-level disinfection versus liquid chemical sterilization for reprocessing of duodenoscopes used for ERCP: a prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The potential for transmission of pathogenic organisms is a problem inherent to the current reusable duodenoscope design. Recent outbreaks of multidrug-resistant pathogenic organisms transmitted via duodenoscopes has brought to light the urgency of this problem. Microbiologic culturing of duodenoscopes and reprocessing with repeat high-level disinfection (HLD) or liquid chemical sterilization (LCS) have been offered as supplemental measures to enhance duodenoscope reprocessing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. This study aims to compare the efficacy of reprocessing duodenoscopes with double HLD (DHLD) versus LCS.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated 2 different modalities of duodenoscope reprocessing from October 23, 2017 to September 24, 2018. Eligible duodenoscopes were randomly segregated to be reprocessed by either DHLD or LCS. Duodenoscopes were randomly cultured after reprocessing for surveillance based on an internal protocol.

RESULTS

During the study period, there were 878 post-reprocessing surveillance cultures (453 in the DHLD group and 425 in the LCS group). Of all cultures, 17 were positive for any organism (1.9%). There was no significant difference of positive cultures when comparing the duodenoscopes undergoing DHLD (8 positive cultures, 1.8%) with duodenoscopes undergoing LCS (9 positive cultures, 2.1%; P = .8). Both groups had 2 cultures that grew high-concern organisms (.5% vs .5%, P=1.0). No multidrug-resistant organisms, including carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae, were detected.

CONCLUSIONS

DHLD and LCS both resulted in a low rate of positive cultures, for all organisms and for high-concern organisms. However, neither process completely eliminated positive cultures from duodenoscopes reprocessed with 2 different supplemental reprocessing strategies.

Duodenoscope-associated infection prevention: A call for evidence-based decision making

Background  Recent outbreaks of duodenoscope-associated multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) have brought attention to the infection risk from procedures performed with duodenoscopes. Prior to these MDRO outbreaks, procedures with duodenoscopes were considered safe and low risk for exogenous infection transmission, provided they were performed in strict accordance with manufacturer instructions for use and multisociety reprocessing guidelines. The attention and efforts of the scientific community, regulatory agencies, and the device industry have deepened our understanding of factors responsible for suboptimal outcomes. These include instrument design, reprocessing practices, and surveillance strategies for detecting patient and instrument colonization. Various investigations have made it clear that current reprocessing methods fail to consistently deliver a pathogen-free instrument. The magnitude of infection transmission has been underreported due to several factors. These include the types of organisms responsible for infection, clinical signs presenting in sites distant from ERCP inoculation, and long latency from the time of acquisition to infection. Healthcare providers remain hampered by the ill-defined infectious risk innate to the current instrument design, contradictory information and guidance, and limited evidence-based interventions or reprocessing modifications that reduce risk. Therefore, the objectives of this narrative review included identifying outbreaks described in the peer-reviewed literature and comparing the findings with infections reported elsewhere. Search strategies included accessing peer-reviewed articles, governmental databases, abstracts for scientific conferences, and media reports describing outbreaks. This review summarizes current knowledge, highlights gaps in traditional sources of evidence, and explores opportunities to improve our understanding of actual risk and evidence-based approaches to mitigate risk.

The Endoscopy Patient as a Vector and Victim

Patient and procedural factors can increase the risk of infectious adverse events during endoscopy. Prophylactic antibiotic use must be judicious and individualized in the era of antibiotic resistance. New and emerging procedures require high-quality studies to elucidate appropriate risk profiles.

Duodenoscope as a Vector for Transmission

Elevator-based endoscope-related infections from patient cross-contamination is a multifactorial problem related to device design, maintenance, and function, with additional risk incurred from a high-level disinfection process that lacks quality controls. This article reviews the historical context for these outbreaks, technical aspects of scope design contributing to this risk, and innovations in endoscope technology that have the potential to overcome these shortcomings. Also reviewed are interim solutions and the data that support use of some of these interventions. Still needed are a validated manufacturer-recommended schedule for routine duodenoscope and echoendoscope maintenance with reprocessing protocols that can be implemented in endoscopy units.

Remote video auditing in the endoscopy unit for evaluation of duodenoscope reprocessing in a tertiary care center

BACKGROUND : A significant proportion of duodenoscope-transmitted infections have resulted from errors related to reprocessing. Remote video auditing (RVA) is a tool that can monitor reprocessing compliance but it has not been previously evaluated in a tertiary care setting. The aims of this study were to evaluate: 1) RVA feasibility in a tertiary care setting (defined as the ability to audit every step of duodenoscope reprocessing without delaying the next procedure due to unavailability of duodenoscopes); and 2) the use of RVA as a compliance monitoring tool. METHODS : This was a prospective study at a tertiary care center. A video camera with offsite monitoring was installed in March 2018. Auditors delivered a compliance score after each procedure. The duodenoscope was not used until it passed the audit. Feasibility and compliance data were collected from April 2018 to August 2019 after a 1-month run-in phase. Both per-step compliance and overall 100 % compliance rates were measured. RESULTS : Of 743 duodenoscope reprocessing procedures, 32 666 individual steps were audited and 99.9 % of the steps were fully viewable. The mean time per audit was 38.3 minutes, the mean duodenoscope turnover time was 76.1 minutes, and there were no delays to the next procedure due to unavailability of duodenoscopes. The per-step compliance rate was 99.5 % but the overall 100 % compliance rate was 90.3 %. CONCLUSIONS : The use of RVA in duodenoscope reprocessing was feasible and promoted sustained high-level compliance in a tertiary care center.

A newly designed duodenoscope with detachable distal cap significantly reduces organic residue contamination after reprocessing

BACKGROUND

A newly designed duodenoscope with detachable distal cap may reduce bacterial contamination by allowing better access to the elevator. We compared bacterial contamination and organic residue evaluated by rapid adenosine triphosphate (ATP) test and culture from duodenoscopes with detachable vs. fixed distal caps after high-level disinfection (HLD).

METHODS

During December 2018-April 2019, 108 used newly designed duodenoscopes were enrolled. In group A (n = 54), the distal cap of the duodenoscope was detached before manual cleaning. In group B (n = 54), the distal cap was not detached. After HLD, samples were collected from the elevator, submitted for culture, and evaluated using the ATP test, using the cutoff value of 40 relative light units (RLUs).

RESULTS

After HLD, the proportion of potential bacterial contamination and organic residue in group A was significantly lower than in group B (37.0 % vs. 75.9 %; P  < 0.001; relative risk 0.49, 95 % confidence interval 0.33-0.71), and also confirmed by median ATP values (45.2 vs. 141.0 RLU; P  < 0.001). In group B, one sample culture was positive for nonpathogenic bacteria. Pathogenic bacteria were not found in any culture from either group.

CONCLUSIONS

The detachable distal cap was more effective at eliminating bacterial contamination and reducing organic residue than a fixed cap. Nonpathogenic bacteria were detected in the fixed cap group after reprocessing. The ATP test with 40 RLU cutoff is a practical method to ensure the cleanliness of duodenoscope reprocessing without the need to wait for bacterial culture results.

Nationwide risk analysis of duodenoscope and linear echoendoscope contamination

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Contaminated duodenoscopes and linear echoendoscopes (DLEs) pose a risk for infectious outbreaks. To identify DLEs and reprocessing risk factors, we combined the data from the previously published nationwide cross-sectional PROCESS 1 study (Prevalence of contamination of complex endoscopes in the Netherlands) with the follow-up PROCESS 2 study.

METHODS

We invited all 74 Dutch DLE centers to sample ≥2 duodenoscopes during PROCESS 1, and all duodenoscopes as well as linear echoendoscopes during PROCESS 2. The studies took place 1 year after another. Local staff sampled each DLE at ≤6 sites according to uniform methods explained by online videos. We used 2 contamination definitions: (1) any microorganism with ≥20 colony-forming units (CFU)/20 mL (AM20) and (2) presence of microorganisms with GI or oral origin, independent of CFU count (MGOs). We assessed the factors of age and usage by performing an analysis of pooled data of both PROCESS studies; additional factors including reprocessing characteristics were only recorded in PROCESS 2.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven percent of all Dutch centers (72 of 74; PROCESS 1, 66; PROCESS 2, 61) participated in one of the studies, sampling 309 duodenoscopes and 64 linear echoendoscopes. In total, 54 (17%) duodenoscopes and 8 (13%) linear echoendoscopes were contaminated according to the AM20 definition. MGOs were detected on 47 (15%) duodenoscopes and 9 (14%) linear echoendoscopes. Contamination was not age or usage dependent (all P values ≥.27) and was not shown to differ between the reprocessing characteristics (all P values ≥.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In these nationwide studies, we found that DLE contamination was independent of age and usage. These results suggest that old and heavily used DLEs, if maintained correctly, have a similar risk for contamination as new DLEs. The prevalence of MGO contamination of ∼15% was similarly high for duodenoscopes as for linear echoendoscopes, rendering patients undergoing ERCP and EUS at risk for transmission of microorganisms.

Results of duodenoscope culture and quarantine after manufacturer-recommended cleaning process

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Outbreaks of infections transmitted by duodenoscopes have prompted changes to duodenoscope cleaning protocols. However, little is known about effectiveness of clinical cleaning practices. We present culture data after duodenoscope manufacturer-recommended high-level disinfection (HLD) and quarantine.

METHODS

Our institution adopted a combination of manufacturer-recommended cleaning with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-recommended culture and quarantine in 2015. Duodenoscopes (models TJF-Q180V, TJF-160, and PJF-160; Olympus, Center Valley, Penn, USA) underwent HLD according to the manufacturer's reprocessing manual protocols after use. Two culture specimens were then obtained using a sterile brush from the distal tip, including elevator mechanism, and by flushing sterile water through the working channel. Duodenoscopes were quarantined until cultures resulted. Positive cultures were defined as >10 colony-forming units (CFUs) of low-concern organisms or any CFUs of high-concern organisms according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations. If either culture specimen was positive, the process was repeated until cultures were negative. Data were collected from December 2015 to July 2018.

RESULTS

There were 140 instances of duodenoscope cleaning with 280 specimens. Twenty-eight of 234 (12%) initial culture specimens (18% of cultured duodenoscopes) were positive. Five of 36 (14%) second cultures were positive. Two of 8 (25%) third cultures were positive. Ninety-eight percent of organisms cultured were gram positive. In 8 instances both culture methods (brushing and flush) were positive; otherwise, only 1 method was positive. In 11 instances (8%) duodenoscopes were removed from quarantine before final culture results. No patient had infections related to ERCP.

CONCLUSIONS

Eighteen percent of duodenoscopes had a positive culture after initial HLD. Only 3% were gram-negative bacteria. Repeated HLD was 86% and 75% effective at eliminating initial and repeat positive cultures, respectively. Initial HLD per manufacturer recommendations is not always effective at eliminating bacterial contamination. Additional steps are necessary to decrease risks of duodenoscope-transmitted infections.

Challenges in achieving effective high-level disinfection in endoscope reprocessing

Endoscope reprocessing is often ineffective, and microbes frequently remain on endoscopes after the use of high-level disinfectants (HLDs). Several factors impact reprocessing effectiveness, including non-adherence to guidelines, use of damaged endoscopes, use of insoluble products during endoscopy, insufficient cleaning, contaminated rinse water, and inadequate drying before storage. Our team suspected that issues with HLD chemistries and monitoring could also contribute to reprocessing failures. We conducted a mixed-methods analysis of published literature, our interviews with frontline personnel, and evidence from our previous studies. The evidence showed that reusable HLDs commonly failed tests for minimum effective concentration (MEC) before their maximum usage periods. MEC tests also detected failures associated with single-use HLDs that did not fully deploy. These failures were due to product issues, process complexities, and personnel non-adherence with guidelines and manufacturer instructions. HLDs will likely continue to be used for the foreseeable future. More research is needed to assess real-world practice patterns related to the high-level disinfection step and MEC testing and to establish more realistic usage periods for reusable HLD chemistries. Manufacturers and researchers should evaluate the ability of technological solutions and engineered safeguards to overcome human error. Recognition of the need for quality improvement is growing, and infection preventionists should take action to build on this momentum and collaborate with manufacturers, endoscopists, and reprocessing personnel to improve the effectiveness of high-level disinfection.

Duodenoscope-associated infections: a review

Flexible digestive endoscopes are used for the management of various conditions with hundreds of thousands of therapeutic procedures performed worldwide each year. Duodenoscopes are indispensable tools for the delivery of minimally invasive vital care of numerous pancreaticobiliary disorders. Despite the fact that nosocomial infections after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) have always been among the most frequently cited postprocedural complications, recent emergence of duodenoscope-transmitted multiple drug-resistant bacterial infections has led to intense research and debate yet with no clearly delineated solution. Duodenoscope-transmitted nosocomial infections have become one of the most visible topics in the recent literature. Hundreds of high-impact articles have therefore been published in the last decade. This review article discusses how such infections were seen in the past and what is the current situation in both research and practice and thus tries to solve some of the unanswered questions for the future. With the persistence of nosocomial infections despite strict adherence to both manufacturer-issued reprocessing protocols and international guidelines and regulations, an urgent and proper microbiologically driven common action is needed for controlling such nosocomial worldwide threat.

Independent root-cause analysis of contributing factors, including dismantling of 2 duodenoscopes, to investigate an outbreak of multidrug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Worldwide, an increasing number of duodenoscope-associated outbreaks are reported. The high prevalence rate of contaminated duodenoscopes puts patients undergoing ERCP at risk of exogenous transmission of microorganisms. The contributing factors of the duodenoscope design to contamination are not well understood. This article reports on the investigation after the outbreak of a multidrug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae (MRKP) related to 2 Olympus TJF-Q180V duodenoscopes.

METHODS

We conducted a contact patient screening and microbiologic laboratory database search. Reprocessing procedures were audited, and both duodenoscopes were fully dismantled to evaluate all potential contamination factors. Outcomes were reviewed by an experienced independent expert.

RESULTS

In total, 102 patients who had undergone an ERCP procedure from January to August 2015 were invited for screening. Cultures were available of 81 patients, yielding 27 MRKP-infected or -colonized patients. Ten patients developed an MRKP-related active infection. The 2 duodenoscopes had attack rates (the number of infected or colonized cases/number of exposed persons) of 35% (17/49) and 29% (7/24), respectively. Identical MRKP isolates were cultured from channel flushes of both duodenoscopes. The review revealed 4 major abnormalities: miscommunication about reprocessing, undetected damaged parts, inadequate repair of duodenoscope damage, and duodenoscope design abnormalities, including the forceps elevator, elevator lever, and instrumentation port sealing.

CONCLUSIONS

Outbreaks are associated with a combination of factors, including duodenoscope design issues, repair issues, improper cleaning, and systemic monitoring of contamination. To eliminate future duodenoscope-associated infections, a multipronged approach is required, including clear communication by all parties involved, a reliable servicing market, stringent surveillance measures, and eventually new duodenoscope designs and reprocessing procedures with a larger margin of safety.

What's new in reprocessing endoscopes: Are we going to ensure "the needs of the patient come first" by shifting from disinfection to sterilization?

Millions of gastrointestinal endoscopes are performed each year in the United States. Gastrointestinal endoscopes become highly contaminated during use (ie, internal channels contain 7-10-log₁₀ enteric microorganisms). Currently, endoscopes (eg, bronchoscopes and gastrointestinal endoscopes) are classified as semicritical items because they contact intact mucous membranes and most commonly undergo cleaning followed by high-level disinfection, which may result in as little as a 6-log₁₀ reduction of microorganisms. Therefore, and not surprisingly, in recent years there have been multiple reports that have documented that endoscopes, especially duodenoscopes, frequently remain contaminated with bacterial pathogens after proper cleaning and disinfection. Multiple outbreaks of multidrug-resistant organisms from contaminated duodenoscopes have resulted in substantial death and morbidity. Because duodenoscopes commonly contact nonintact mucous membranes and sterile tissue, such endoscopes should be considered critical items. We propose that to ensure patient safety, we follow the Spaulding scheme and move from high-level disinfection to sterilization of reusable endoscopes or use an alternative diagnostic/therapeutic method (eg, disposable sterile endoscopes).

Australian infection control in endoscopy consensus statements on carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae

Outbreaks of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae clinical infections related to endoscopic transmission are well documented. The high morbidity and mortality associated with these infections emphasizes the need to reassess endoscopic reprocessing protocols. The Gastroenterological Society of Australia established a multi-society committee to formulate evidence-based consensus statements on the prevention and management of endoscopic transmission of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. A literature search was undertaken utilizing the MEDLINE database. Further references were sourced from published paper bibliographies. Nine statements were formulated. Using the Delphi methodology, the statements were initially reviewed electronically by the committee members and subsequently at a face-to-face meeting in Melbourne, Australia. After further discussion, four additional sub-statements were added resulting in a total of 13 statements. Each statement was assessed for level of evidence, recommendation grade and the voting on recommendation was recorded. For a statement to be accepted, five out of six committee members had to "accept completely" or "accept with some reservation." All 13 statements achieved consensus agreement. Eleven statements achieved 100% "accepted completely." Two statements were 83% "accepted completely" and 17% "accepted with some reservation." Of particular significance, automated flexible endoscope reprocessors were mandated for high-level disinfection, and the use of forced-air drying cabinets was mandated for endoscope storage. These evidence-based statements encourage preventative strategies with the aim of ensuring the highest possible standards in flexible endoscope reprocessing thereby optimizing patient safety. They must be considered in addition to the broader published guidelines on infection control in endoscopy.

Safely reprocessing duodenoscopes: current evidence and future directions

Highly publicised outbreaks of various infections related to the use of duodenoscopes have increased public awareness of the once arcane and largely ignored subject of endoscope reprocessing. Since 2015, national professional societies, multiple federal agencies, and even the US Senate have written reports and guidelines on duodenoscope reprocessing. However, their recommendations are sometimes contradictory and difficult to implement, and new research on the topic is published regularly which further complicates the situation. With this flood of new and sometimes contradictory information, clinicians can feel confused about how to assure the safety of their patients undergoing duodenosocopy. This Review summarises the most salient current research on duodenoscope-associated outbreaks and reprocessing, and aims to provide clinicians with practical information applicable to their practice.

Worldwide practices on flexible endoscope reprocessing

Background

Endoscopy related infections represent an important threat for healthcare systems worldwide. Recent outbreaks of infections with multidrug resistant micro-organisms have highlighted the problems of contaminated endoscopes. Endoscopes at highest risk for contamination have intricate mechanisms, multiple internal channels and narrow lumens that are especially problematic to clean. In light of raised awareness about the necessity for meticulous reprocessing of all types of endoscopes, a call for international collaboration is needed. An overview is presented on current practices for endoscope reprocessing in facilities worldwide.

Method

An electronic survey was developed and disseminated by the International Society for Antimicrobials and Chemotherapy. The survey consisted of 50 questions aimed at assessing the reprocessing of flexible endoscopes internationally. It covered three core elements: stakeholder involvement, assessment of perceived risks, and reprocessing process.

Results

The survey received a total of 165 completed responses from 39 countries. It is evident that most facilities, 82% (n = 136), have a standard operating procedure. There is, however a lot of variation within the flexible endoscope reprocessing practices observed. The need for regular training and education of reprocessing practitioners were identified by 50% (n = 83) of the respondents as main concerns that need to be addressed in order to increase patient safety in endoscope reprocessing procedures.

Conclusion

This international survey on current flexible endoscope reprocessing identified a large variation for reprocessing practices among different health care facilities/countries. A standardised education and training programme with a competency assessment is essential to prevent reprocessing lapses and improve patient safety.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13756-018-0446-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

An update on gastrointestinal endoscopy-associated infections and their contributing factors

INTRODUCTION

During clinical use, gastrointestinal endoscopes are grossly contaminated with patient's native flora. These endoscopes undergo reprocessing to prevent infectious transmission upon future use. Endoscopy-associated infections and outbreaks have been reported, with a recent focus on the transmission of multi-drug resistant organisms. This review aims to provide an update on endoscopy-associated infections, and the factors contributing to their occurrence.

METHODS

PubMed, ScienceDirect, and CINAHL were searched for articles describing gastrointestinal endoscopy-associated infections and outbreaks published from 2008 to 2018. Factors contributing to their occurrence, and the outcomes of each outbreak were also examined.

RESULTS

This review found 18 articles, 16 of which described duodenoscope-associated infections, and the remaining two described colonoscope- and gastroscope-associated infection respectively. Outbreaks were reported from the United States, France, China, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. The causative organisms reported were Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli and Salmonella enteritidis.

CONCLUSIONS

A number of factors, including lapses in reprocessing, biofilm formation, endoscope design issues and endoscope damage, contribute to gastrointestinal endoscopy associated infection. Methods of improving endoscope reprocessing, screening for contamination and evaluating endoscope damage may be vital to preventing future infections and outbreaks.