PDF icon PDF herunterladen
Open Access
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Journal of Digestive Endoscopy 2021; 12(03): 151-159
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1739562
Review Article

Duodenoscope-Acquired Infections: Risk Factors to Consider

Grace Thornhill
1   Infection Prevention Fellow, Boston Scientific—Endoscopy, Marlborough, Massachusetts, United States
,
Brian Dunkin
2   Chief Medical Officer, Boston Scientific—Endoscopy, Marlborough, Massachusetts, United States
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar aufeRef
  Lizenzen und Reprints
Preview

Abstract

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.

Keywords

ERCP - duodenoscope - adverse events - infection - infection risk


Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
25. Dezember 2021

© 2021. Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy of India. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Chandrasekhara V, Khashab MA, Muthusamy VR. et al ASGE Standards of Practice Committee. Adverse events associated with ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85 (01) 32-47
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Khashab MA, Chithadi KV, Acosta RD. et al ASGE Standards of Practice Committee. Antibiotic prophylaxis for GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81 (01) 81-89
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 United States Senate: Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Preventable tragedies: superbugs and how ineffective monitoring of medical device safety fails patients.. Available at: https://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Duodenoscope%20Investigation%20FINAL%20Report.pdf. Accessed June 24, 2021
  • 4 Ofstead CL, Dirlam AM Langlay, Mueller NJ, Tosh PK, Wetzler HP. Re-evaluating endoscopy-associated infection risk estimates and their implications. Am J Infect Control 2013; 41 (08) 734-736
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Ofstead CL, Buro BL, Hopkins KM, Eiland JE, Wetzler HP, Lichtenstein DR. Duodenoscope-associated infection prevention: a call for evidence-based decision making. Endosc Int Open 2020; 8 (12) E1769-E1781
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Flood A. The immunocompromised host. Available at: https://text.apic.org/toc/microbiology-and-risk-factors-for-transmission/the-immunocompromised-host. Accessed June 24, 2021
  • 7 Fiutem C. Risk factors facilitating transmission of infectious agents 2014. Available at: https://text.apic.org/toc/microbiology-and-risk-factors-for-transmission/risk-factors-facilitating-transmission-of-infectious-agents. Accessed June 24, 2021
  • 8 United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States, 2019. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/pdf/threats-report/2019-ar-threats-report-508.pdf. Accessed June 24, 2021
  • 9 United States Food and Drug Administration. The FDA is recommending transition to duodenoscopes with innovative design to enhance safety: FDA Safety Communication. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/fda-recommending-transition-duodenoscopes-innovative-designs-enhance-safety-fda-safety-communication?utm_campaign=2019-08-29%20CDRH%20Safety%20Comm%20-%20%20Recommendations%20and%20Updates%20to%20Help%20Improve%20Duodenoscope%20Reprocessing&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua#reprocessing. Accessed June 24, 2021
  • 10 Thornhill G, David M. Endoscope-associated infections: a microbiologist’s perspective on current technologies. Tech Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 21 (04) 1-12
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Nelson DB. Infectious disease complications of GI endoscopy: part I, endogenous infections. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 57 (04) 546-556
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Chan BPH, Berzin TM. The endoscopy patient as a vector and victim. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2020; 30 (04) 745-762
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Rauwers A, Kwakman JA, Vos MC, Bruno MJ. Endoscope-associated infections: a brief summary of the current state and views toward the future. Tech Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 21 (04) 150608
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Rubin ZA, Kim S, Thaker AM, Muthusamy VR. Safely reprocessing duodenoscopes: current evidence and future directions. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 3 (07) 499-508
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 15 Kim S, Russell D, Mohamadnejad M. et al Risk factors associated with the transmission of carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae via contaminated duodenoscopes. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83 (06) 1121-1129
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 16 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 (14) 1447-1455
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 17 Bianco JA, Pepe MS, Higano C, Applebaum FR, McDonald GB, Singer JW. Prevalence of clinically relevant bacteremia after upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in bone marrow transplant recipients. Am J Med 1990; 89 (02) 134-136
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 18 Tong MC, Tadros M, Vaziri H. Endoscopy in neutropenic and/or thrombocytopenic patients. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21 (46) 13166-13176
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 19 Dumonceau J-M, Kapral C, Aabakken L. et al ERCP-related adverse events: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2020; 52 (02) 127-149
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 20 Allison MC, Sandoe JA T, Tighe R, Simpson IA, Hall RJ, Elliott TSJ. Endoscopy Committee of the British Society of Gastroenterology. Antibiotic prophylaxis in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gut 2009; 58 (06) 869-880
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 21 Fishman JA. Infection in organ transplantation. Am J Transplant 2017; 17 (04) 856-879
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 22 Baganate F, Beal EW, Tumin D. et al Early mortality after liver transplantation: Defining the course and the cause. Surgery 2018; 164 (04) 694-704
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 23 Fagiuoli S, Colli A, Bruno R. et al 2011 AISF Single Topic Group. Management of infections pre- and post-liver transplantation: report of an AISF consensus conference. J Hepatol 2014; 60 (05) 1075-1089
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 24 Alferink LJM, Oey RC, Hansen BE. et al The impact of infections on delisting patients from the liver transplantation waiting list. Transpl Int 2017; 30 (08) 807-816
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 25 Reddy KR, O’Leary JG, Kamath PS. et al North American Consortium for the Study of End-Stage Liver Disease. High risk of delisting or death in liver transplant candidates following infections: results from the North American Consortium for the Study of End-Stage Liver Disease. Liver Transpl 2015; 21 (07) 881-888
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 26 Kwakman JA, Erler NS, Vos MC, Bruno MJ. Risk evaluation of duodenoscope-associated infections in the Netherlands calls for a heightened awareness of device-related infections: a systematic review. Endoscopy 2021
  • 27 Mallery JS, Baron TH, Dominitz JA. et al Standards of Practice Committee. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Complications of ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 57 (06) 633-638
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 28 Du M, Suo J, Liu B, Xing Y, Chen L, Liu Y. Post-ERCP infection and its epidemiological and clinical characteristics in a large Chinese tertiary hospital: a 4-year surveillance study. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2017; 6: 131
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 29 Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S. et al Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Engl J Med 1996; 335 (13) 909-918
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 30 Kwon C-I, Lehman GA. Mechanisms of biliary plastic stent occlusion and efforts at prevention. Clin Endosc 2016; 49 (02) 139-146
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 31 Motte S, Deviere J, Dumonceau J-M, Serruys E, Thys J-P, Cremer M. Risk factors for septicemia following endoscopic biliary stenting. Gastroenterology 1991; 101 (05) 1374-1381
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 32 Brock AS, Steed LL, Freeman J, Garry B, Malpas P, Cotton P. Endoscope storage time: assessment of microbial colonization up to 21 days after reprocessing. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81 (05) 1150-1154
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 33 Fejkeh MP, Phan J, Marya NB, Kim S, Rubin Z, Muthusamy R. Getting to zero: enhanced reprocessing and future directions. Tech Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 21: 150626
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 34 Thosani N, Zubarik RS, Kochar R. et al Prospective evaluation of bacteremia rates and infectious complications among patients undergoing single-operator choledochoscopy during ERCP. Endoscopy 2016; 48 (05) 424-431
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 35 Sethi A, Chen YK, Austin GL. et al ERCP with cholangiopancreatoscopy may be associated with higher rates of complications than ERCP alone: a single-center experience. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73 (02) 251-256
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 36 Loor MM, Morancy JD, Glover JK, Beilman GJ, Statz CL. Single-setting endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and cholecystectomy improve the rate of surgical site infection. Surg Endosc 2017; 31 (12) 5135-5142
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 37 Kovaleva J, Peters FT, van der Mei HC, Degener JE. Transmission of infection by flexible gastrointestinal endoscopy and bronchoscopy. Clin Microbiol Rev 2013; 26 (02) 231-254
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 38 Dirlam Langlay AM, Ofstead CL, Mueller NJ, Tosh PK, Baron TH, Wetzler HP. Reported gastrointestinal endoscope reprocessing lapses: the tip of the iceberg. Am J Infect Control 2013; 41 (12) 1188-1194
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 39 Reuken PA, Torres D, Baier M. et al Risk factors for multi-drug resistant pathogens and failure of empiric first-line therapy in acute cholangitis. PLoS One 2017; 12 (01) e0169900
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 40 Humphries RM, Yang S, Kim S. et al Duodenoscope-related outbreak of a carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae identified using advanced molecular diagnostics. Clin Infect Dis 2017; 65 (07) 1159-1166
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 41 Wendorf KA, Kay M, Baliga C. et al Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-associated AmpC Escherichia coli outbreak. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015; 36 (06) 634-642
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 42 Baggs J, Jernigan JA, Halpin AL, Epstein L, Hatfield KM, McDonald LC. Risk of subsequent sepsis within 90 days after a hospital stay by type of antibiotic exposure. Clin Infect Dis 2018; 66 (07) 1004-1012
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 43 Olafsdottir LB, Wright SB, Smithey A. et al Adenosine triphosphate quantification correlates poorly with microbial contamination of duodenoscopes. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017; 38 (06) 678-684
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 44 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 (02) 223-229
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 45 Smith ZL, Oh YS, Saeian K. et al Transmission of carbapenem- resistant Enterobacteriaceae during ERCP: time to revisit the current reprocessing guidelines. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81 (04) 1041-1045
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 46 Thornhill G, Talapa L, Wallace C. An approach to improving the quality and consistency of flexible GI endoscope reprocessing. Available at: https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/ 1086141O/improving-the-quality-of-flexible-gi-endoscope- reprocessing.pdf. Accessed September 20 2021
  • 47 Logan LK, Weinstein RA. The epidemiology of carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae: the impact and evolution of a global menace. J Infect Dis 2017; 215 (suppl_1) S28-S36
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 48 Martin RM, Bachman MA. Colonization, infection, and the accessory genome of Klebsiella pneumoniae. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2018; 8: 4
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 49 United States Food and Drug Administration. Design of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) duodenoscopes may impede effective cleaning: FDA safety communication 2015 Available at: http://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170722213105/https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm434871.htm. Accessed June 24, 2021
  • 50 Alfa MJ, Singh H, Nugent Z. et al Simulated-use polytetrafluoroethylene biofilm model: repeated rounds of complete reprocessing lead to accumulation of organic debris and viable bacteria. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017; 38 (11) 1284-1290
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 51 Alfa MJ. Medical instrument reprocessing: current issues with cleaning and cleaning monitoring. Am J Infect Control 2019; 47S: A10-A16
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 52 Thaker AM, Kim S, Sedarat A, Watson RR, Muthusamy VR. Inspection of endoscope instrument channels after reprocessing using a prototype borescope. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 88 (04) 612-619
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 53 Ofstead CL, Wetzler HP, Snyder AK, Horton RA. Endoscope reprocessing methods: a prospective study on the impact of human factors and automation. Gastroenterol Nurs 2010; 33 (04) 304-311
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 54 Ofstead CL, Hopkins KM, Eiland JE, Wetzler HP. Widespread clinical use of simethicone, insoluble lubricants, and tissue glue during endoscopy: a call to action for infection preventionists. Am J Infect Control 2019; 47 (06) 666-670
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 55 Alfa MJ, Singh H. Impact of wet storage and other factors on biofilm formation and contamination of patient-ready endoscopes: a narrative review. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91 (02) 236-247
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 56 Ofstead CL, Heymann OL, Quick MR, Eiland JE, Wetzler HP. Residual moisture and waterborne pathogens inside flexible endoscopes: evidence from a multisite study of endoscope drying effectiveness. Am J Infect Control 2018; 46 (06) 689-696
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 57 United States Food and Drug Administration. 522 postmarket surveillance studies database. Available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMA/pss.cfm?t_id=353&c_id=3725. Accessed June 24, 2021
  • 58 United States Food and Drug Administration. 522 postmarket surveillance studies database. Available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMA/pss.cfm?t_id=355&c_id=3727. Accessed June 24, 2021
  • 59 United States Food and Drug Administration. 522 Postmarket Surveillance Studies database. Available at: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMA/pss.cfm?t_id=354&c_id=3726. Accessed June 24, 2021
  • 60 Wang P, Xu T, Ngamruengphong S, Makary MA, Kalloo A, Hutfless S. Rates of infection after colonoscopy and osophagogastroduodenoscopy in ambulatory surgery centres in the USA. Gut 2018; 67 (09) 1626-1636
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar