Economic burden of enhanced practices of duodenoscopes reprocessing and surveillance: balancing risk and cost containment

Abstract

Background and study aims Recent outbreaks attributed to contaminated duodenoscopes have led to the development of enhanced surveillance and reprocessing techniques (enhanced-SRT) aimed at minimizing cross-contamination. Common enhanced-SRT include double high-level disinfection (HLD), ethylene oxide (EtO) gas sterilization, and culture-based monitoring of reprocessed scopes. Adoption of these methods adds to the operational costs and we aimed to assess its economic impact to an institution.

Methods We compared the estimated costs of three enhanced-SRT versus single-HLD using data from two institutions. We examined the cost of capital measured as scope inventory and frequency of scope use per unit time, the constituent reprocessing costs required on a per-cycle basis, and labor & staffing needs. The economic impact attributable to enhanced-SRT was defined as the difference between the total cost of enhanced-SRT and single HLD.

Results Compared to single HLD, adoption of double HLD increased the costs approximately by 47 % ($80 vs $118). Similarly, culture and quarantine and EtO sterilization increased costs by 160 % and 270 %, respectively ($80 vs $208 and $296). Enhanced-SRT introduced significant scope downtime due to prolonged techniques, necessitating a 3.4-fold increase in the number of scopes needed to maintain procedural volume. The additional annual budget required to implement enhanced-SRT approached $406,000 per year in high-volume centers.

Conclusions While enhanced-SRT may reduce patient risk of exposure to contaminated duodenoscopes, it significantly increases the cost of performing ERCP. Future innovation should focus on approaches that can ensure patient safety while maintaining the ability to perform ERCP in a cost-effective manner.

Publication History

Received: 12 March 2021

Accepted: 11 May 2021

Article published online:
23 August 2021

• References

• 1 Safety Communications > Design of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) Duodenoscopes May Impede Effective Cleaning: FDA Safety Communication. US Food and Drug Administration. http://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170722213105/https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm434871.htm
• 2 Gastmeier P, Vonberg RP. Klebsiella spp. in endoscopy-associated infections: We may only be seeing the tip of the iceberg. Infection 2014; 42: 15-21
• 3 Epstein L, Hunter JC, Arwady MA. et al. New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase-producing carbapenem-resistant escherichia coli associated with exposure to duodenoscopes. JAMA 2014; 312: 1447-1455
• 4 Aumeran C, Poincloux L, Souweine B. et al. Multidrug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae outbreak after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 895-899
• 5 Wendorf KA, Kay M, Baliga C. et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-associated AmpC Escherichia coli outbreak. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015; 36: 634-642
• 6 Verfaillie CJ, Bruno MJ, Holt AFVIT. et al. Withdrawal of a novel-design duodenoscope ends outbreak of a VIM-2-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 493-502
• 7 Safety Communications > Supplemental Measures to Enhance Duodenoscope Reprocessing: FDA Safety Communication. US Food and Drug Administration. http://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170722150658/https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm454766.htm
• 8 FDA Executive Summary: Reducing the Risk of Infection from Reprocessed Duodenoscopes. US Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/media/132187/download
• 9 Ross AS, Baliga C, Verma P. et al. A quarantine process for the resolution of duodenoscope-associated transmission of multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 82: 477-483
• 10 Rauwers W, 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
• 11 Larsen S, Russell RV, Ockert LK. et al. Rate and impact of duodenoscope contamination: A systematic review and meta-analysis. E Clin Med 2020; 25: 100451
• 12 522 Postmarket Surveillance Studies Database (Pentax). Stand: 24.02.2021 https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMA/pss.cfm?t_id=355&c_id=3727
• 13 522 Postmarket Surveillance Studies Database (Olympus). Stand: 24.02.2021 https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMA/pss.cfm?t_id=354&c_id=3726
• 14 Haugen S. Duodenoscope sampling and culturing protocols duodenoscope surveillance sampling and culturing protocols. Stand: 18.12.2020 https://www.fda.gov/media/111081/download
• 15 Urgent safety notification important updated labeling information: new reprocessing instructions for the olympus tjf-q180v duodenoscope. 2015 Stand: 26.10.2020 https://medical.olympusamerica.com/sites/default/files/pdf/150326_TJF-Q180V_Customer_letter.pdf
• 16 Petersen BT, Cohen J, Hambrick RD. et al. Multisociety guideline on reprocessing flexible GI endoscopes: 2016 update. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 282-294.e1
• 17 Ma GK, Pegues DA, Kochman ML. et al. Implementation of a systematic culturing program to monitor the efficacy of endoscope reprocessing: outcomes and costs. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 104-109.e3
• 18 Barakat M, Ghosh S, Banerjee S. 775 cost utility analysis comparing duodenoscope reprocessing/sterilization, novel duodenoscopes with disposable endcaps and fully disposable duodenoscopes. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91: AB67-AB68
• 19 Rutala WA, Weber DJ. ERCP scopes: what can we do to prevent infections?. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015; 36: 643-648
• 20 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
• 21 Haney PE, Raymond BA, Lewis LC. Ethylene oxide. an occupational health hazard for hospital workers. AORN J 1990; 51: 480-486
• 22 Kovaleva J, Peters FTM, Van Der Mei HC. et al. Transmission of infection by flexible gastrointestinal endoscopy and bronchoscopy. 2013;
• 23 Muscarella LF. Use of ethylene-oxide gas sterilisation to terminate multidrug-resistant bacterial outbreaks linked to duodenoscopes. BMJ Open Gastroenterol 2019; 6: e000282
• 24 Alvarado CJ, Stolz SM, Maki DG. Nosocomial infections from contaminated endoscopes: A flawed automated endoscope washer. An investigation using molecular epidemiology. Am J Med 1991; 91: 272-280
• 25 Cryan EMJ, Falkiner FR, Mulvihill TE. et al. Pseudomonas aeruginosa cross-infection following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. J Hosp Infect 1984; 5: 371-376
• 26 Rutala WA, Weber DJ. Gastrointestinal endoscopes a need to shift from disinfection to sterilization?. JAMA 2014; 312: 1405-1406
• 27 Higa JT, Choe J, Tombs D. et al. Optimizing duodenoscope reprocessing: rigorous assessment of a culture and quarantine protocol. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 88: 223-229
• 28 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
• 29 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
• 30 The FDA is Recommending Transition to Duodenoscopes with Innovative Designs to Enhance Safety: FDA Safety Communication | FDA. US Food and Drug Administration. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/fda-recommending-transition-duodenoscopes-innovative-designs-enhance-safety-fda-safety-communication