ReviewBMJ open gastroenterology2019
Use of ethylene-oxide gas sterilisation to terminate multidrug-resistant bacterial outbreaks linked to duodenoscopes.
Review in BMJ open gastroenterology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current management status of cleaning and disinfection for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2024Pooled it
- Gastrointestinal Endoscopy-Associated Infections: Update on an Emerging Issue.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2022Pooled it
- Direct application of non-thermal plasma technology for the elimination of biofilm from endoscope channels.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Cold Atmospheric Pressure Plasma Solutions for Sustainable Food Packaging.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Performance of a single-use gastroscope for esophagogastroduodenoscopy: Prospective evaluation.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- Efficient deactivation of aerosolized pathogens using a dielectric barrier discharge based cold-plasma detergent in environment device for good indoor air quality.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Cleaning of in-hospital flexible endoscopes: Limitations and challenges.Revista latino-americana de enfermagem · 2022Article
- Economic burden of enhanced practices of duodenoscopes reprocessing and surveillance: balancing risk and cost containment.Endoscopy international open · 2021Article
- Recent Advances in Endoscope Disinfection: Where Do We Stand in the COVID era?Techniques and innovations in gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2021Review
- Duodenoscope-associated infection prevention: A call for evidence-based decision making.Endoscopy international open · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCleaning and high-level disinfection have been the standard in the USA and other countries for reprocessing flexible endoscopes, including duodenoscopes and other types of gastrointestinal endoscopes. For decades, this practice has been a cornerstone for infection prevention in the endoscopic setting. However, amid recent reports associating the use of duodenoscopes with infections and outbreaks of carbapenem-resistant
objectivesTo review and evaluate the adequacy of current reprocessing practices for preventing duodenoscopes from transmitting CRE and related MDROs.
methodsThe MEDLINE/PubMed database was searched to identify published cases associating confirmed (or suspected) infections of CRE or a related MDRO with exposure to a duodenoscope since 2012, when duodenoscopes became a recognised risk factor for the transmission of CRE. The Internet was also searched to identify news articles and other reports documenting eligible cases occurring during this same timeframe but not identified during the MEDLINE database's search. The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) medical device database was queried to identify regulatory reports describing these same types of cases, also recorded since 2012. The clinical and reprocessing details of each eligible case were reviewed to identify (when possible): (a) the reprocessing method (e.g., high-level disinfection) performed at the time of the infections, (b) whether the facility's compliance with the manufacturer's reprocessing instructions was confirmed, and (c) the measure(s) or corrective action(s) the facility implemented to prevent additional multidrug-resistant infections.
resultsSeventeen cases in the USA and six in other countries (primarily Europe) associating infections (and colonizations) of CRE or a related MDRO with exposure to a duodenoscope were reviewed. Fourteen of these 23 outbreaks were caused by CRE, and six by a related MDRO. Two of these six latter cases identified
conclusionsThis study's findings suggest current reprocessing practices may not always be sufficiently effective to prevent a duodenoscope from transmitting CRE and related MDROs, at least in some circumstances including an outbreak setting. Factors this review identifed that may contribute to the device remaining contaminated after reprocessing include the device's design; breaches of recommended reprocessing guidelines (eg, inadequate manual cleaning, delayed reprocessing or improper device storage); damage to the device; lacking servicing, maintenance or repair; and/or the presence of biofilms. Measures that can mitigate the impact of these and other reprocessing challenges and reduce, if not eliminate, the risk of transmission of CRE or a related MDRO by a duodenoscope include the use of EO gas sterilization (or another comparably effective process or method). In 2015, the FDA suggested healthcare facilities consider performing at least one of four supplemental measures, which include EO gas sterilisation, to improve the effectiveness of duodenoscope reprocessing. Whether the FDA and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention might reclassify duodenoscopes as
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.