Clinical Endoscopy

The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (대한소화기내시경학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Contamination Rates in Duodenoscopes Reprocessed Using Enhanced Surveillance and Reprocessing Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

  • Shivanand Bomman (Digestive Disease Institute, Virginia Mason Medical Center) ;
  • Munish Ashat (Indiana University Health) ;
  • Navroop Nagra (Digestive Disease Institute, Virginia Mason Medical Center) ;
  • Mahendran Jayaraj (University of Nevada) ;
  • Shruti Chandra (Mayo Clinic) ;
  • Richard A Kozarek (Digestive Disease Institute, Virginia Mason Medical Center) ;
  • Andrew Ross (Digestive Disease Institute, Virginia Mason Medical Center) ;
  • Rajesh Krishnamoorthi (Digestive Disease Institute, Virginia Mason Medical Center)
  • Received : 2021.08.03
  • Accepted : 2021.08.26
  • Published : 2022.01.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background/Aims: Multiple outbreaks of multidrug-resistant organisms have been reported worldwide due to contaminated duodenoscopes. In 2015, the United States Food and Drug Administration recommended the following supplemental enhanced surveillance and reprocessing techniques (ESRT) to improve duodenoscope disinfection: (1) microbiological culture, (2) ethylene oxide sterilization, (3) liquid chemical sterilant processing system, and (4) double high-level disinfection. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the impact of ESRT on the contamination rates. Methods: A thorough and systematic search was performed across several databases and conference proceedings from inception until January 2021, and all studies reporting the effectiveness of various ESRTs were identified. The pooled contamination rates of post-ESRT duodenoscopes were estimated using the random effects model. Results: A total of seven studies using various ESRTs were incorporated in the analysis, which included a total of 9,084 post-ESRT duodenoscope cultures. The pooled contamination rate of the post-ESRT duodenoscope was 5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.3%-10.8%, inconsistency index [I2]=97.97%). Pooled contamination rates for high-risk organisms were 0.8% (95% CI: 0.2%-2.7%, I2=94.96). Conclusions: While ESRT may improve the disinfection process, a post-ESRT contamination rate of 5% is not negligible. Ongoing efforts to mitigate the rate of contamination by improving disinfection techniques and innovations in duodenoscope design to improve safety are warranted.

Keywords

References

  1. FDA. Reducing the risk of infection from reprocessed duodenoscopes. [Internet]. Silver Spring: FDA; c2019 [cited 2021 Oct 13]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/132187/download.
  2. Murray P, Member R. Health, Education, Labor, Pensions Committee. Preventable tragedies: superbugs and how ineffective monitoring of medical device safety fails patients. [Internet]. United States Senate Minority Staff Report; c2016 [cited 2021 Oct 13]. Available from: https://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Duodenoscope%20Investigation%20FINAL%20Report.pdf.
  3. FDA. Design of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) duodenoscopes may impede effective cleaning: FDA safety communication [Internet]. Silver Spring: FDA; c2015 [cited 2021 Oct 13]. Available from: http://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170722213105/ https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm434871.htm.
  4. FDA. Supplemental measures to enhance duodenoscope reprocessing: FDA safety communication [Internet]. Silver Spring: FDA; c2015 [cited 2021 Oct 13]. Available from: http://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170722150658/https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm454766.htm.
  5. FDA. 522 Postmarket Surveillance Studies Database [Internet]. Silver Spring: FDA; c2016 [cited 2021 Oct 13]. Available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMA/pss.cfm?t_id=355&c_id=3727.
  6. FDA. 522 Postmarket Surveillance Studies Database [Internet]. Silver Spring: FDA; c2016 [cited 2021 Oct 13]. Available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMA/pss.cfm?t_id=354&c_id=3726.
  7. Rauwers AW, Voor In 't Holt AF, Buijs JG, et al. High prevalence rate of digestive tract bacteria in duodenoscopes: a nationwide study. Gut 2018;67:1637-1645.
  8. Ross AS, Baliga C, Verma P, Duchin J, Gluck M. A quarantine process for the resolution of duodenoscope-associated transmission of multidrug-resistant escherichia coli. Gastrointest Endosc 2015;82:477-483.
  9. Mark JA, Underberg K, Kramer RE. Results of duodenoscope culture and quarantine after manufacturer-recommended cleaning process. Gastrointest Endosc 2020;91:1328-1333.
  10. Bartles RL, Leggett JE, Hove S, et al. A randomized trial of single versus double high-level disinfection of duodenoscopes and linear echoendoscopes using standard automated reprocessing. Gastrointest Endosc 2018;88:306-313.e2.
  11. Gromski MA, Sieber MS, Sherman S, Rex DK. Double high-level disinfection versus liquid chemical sterilization for reprocessing of duodenoscopes used for ERCP: a prospective randomized study. Gastrointest Endosc 2021;93:927-931.
  12. Higa JT, Choe J, Tombs D, Gluck M, Ross AS. Optimizing duodenoscope reprocessing: rigorous assessment of a culture and quarantine protocol. Gastrointest Endosc 2018;88:223-229.
  13. Naryzhny I, Silas D, Chi K. Impact of ethylene oxide gas sterilization of duodenoscopes after a carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae outbreak. Gastrointest Endosc 2016;84:259-262.
  14. Rex DK, Sieber M, Lehman GA, et al. A double-reprocessing high-level disinfection protocol does not eliminate positive cultures from the elevators of duodenoscopes. Endoscopy 2018;50:588-596.
  15. Snyder GM, Wright SB, Smithey A, et al. Randomized comparison of 3 high-level disinfection and sterilization procedures for duodenoscopes. Gastroenterology 2017;153:1018-1025.
  16. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC. Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [Internet]. London: Cochrane; c2011 [updated 2011 Mar]. Available from: http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/.
  17. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:264-269, W64.
  18. Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 2010;25:603-605.
  19. FDA/CDC/ASM Working Group on Duodenoscope Culturing. Duodenoscope surveillance sampling and culturing protocols [Internet]. Silver Spring: FDA; c2018 [cited 2021 Oct 13]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/111081/download.
  20. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1986;7:177-188.
  21. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence--inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:1294-1302.
  22. FDA. The FDA continues to remind facilities of the importance of following duodenoscope reprocessing instructions: FDA safety communication [Internet]. Silver Spring: FDA; c2019 [cited 2021 Oct 13]; Available from: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/fda-continues-remind-facilities-importance-following-duodenoscope-reprocessing-instructions-fda.
  23. Larsen S, Russell RV, Ockert LK, et al. Rate and impact of duodenoscope contamination: a systematic review and meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine 2020;25:100451.
  24. FDA. The FDA is recommending transition to duodenoscopes with innovative designs to enhance safety: FDA Safety Communication [Internet]. Silver Spring: FDA; c2019 [cited 2021 Oct 13]; Available from: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/fda-recommending-transition-duodenoscopes-innovative-designs-enhance-safety-fda-safety-communication.
  25. Pasricha PJ, Miller S, Carter F, Humphries R. Novel and effective disposable device that provides 2-way protection to the duodenoscope from microbial contamination. Gastrointest Endosc 2020;92:199-208.
  26. Ross AS, Bruno MJ, Kozarek RA, et al. Novel single-use duodenoscope compared with 3 models of reusable duodenoscopes for ERCP: a randomized bench-model comparison. Gastrointest Endosc 2020;91:396-403.
  27. Bang JY, Hawes R, Varadarajulu S. Equivalent performance of single-use and reusable duodenoscopes in a randomised trial. Gut 2021;70:838-844.