ArticleEClinicalMedicine2025
Preprocedural screening for multidrug-resistant organisms in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: an international, multicentre, cross-sectional observational study.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Gut colonization with multidrug-resistant organisms in hospitalized patients with gastrointestinal illness: A single-centre, cross-sectional study.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) carries a risk of patient-to-patient transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) via contaminated duodenoscopes. Data on preprocedural MDRO carriage are limited and essential for guiding targeted prevention strategies, including the potential use of single-use duodenoscopes. This study assessed MDRO carriage among patients undergoing ERCP across four countries. Methods: In this international, multicentre, cross-sectional observational study, adults undergoing ERCP in tertiary care centres in the Netherlands, India, Italy, and the United States were screened for MDROs using preprocedural rectal and throat-nose swabs. Consecutive adult patients (aged ≥18 years) undergoing ERCP, regardless of indication, were eligible for inclusion. Exclusion criteria included cases in which ERCP was not performed, a duodenoscope was not used, or the rectal swab was not collected. MDROs screened included extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Findings: Between Jan 22, 2022, and Oct 09, 2024, 1244 patients were enrolled, of whom 798 (64.1%) were male and 446 (35.9%) were female. Among all participants, 462 (37.1%, 95% CI 34.5-39.9) carried an MDRO. Prevalence was highest in India (290/349, 83.1%, 78.8-86.7) and lowest in the Netherlands (37/343, 10.8%, 7.9-14.5), with intermediate rates in Italy (66/209, 31.5%, 25.7-38.2) and the United States (69/343, 20.1%, 16.2-24.7). MDRO species and resistance mechanisms varied by country. ESBL-E were most prevalent in India (245/349, 70.2%, 65.2-74.8) compared with Italy (42/209, 20.1%, 15.2-26.0), the Netherlands (35/343, 10.2%, 7.4-13.9), and the United States (15/343, 4.4%, 2.7-7.1) (p < 0.001). CPE were detected in 82/349 (23.5%, 19.4-28.2) patients in India but were uncommon in Italy (8/209, 3.8%, 1.9-7.4), rare in the United States (3/343, 0.9%, 0.3-2.5), and nearly absent in the Netherlands (1/343, 0.3%, 0.0-1.6) (p < 0.001). CPPA was only detected in 1/349 (0.3%, 0-1.6) patient in India, with none in the other centres (p = 0.46). Resistant Acb-complex was only detected in 1/209 (0.5%, 0-2.7) patient in Italy (p = 0.18). VRE was most frequent in the United States (37/343, 10.8%, 7.9-14.5), followed by Italy (20/209, 9.6%, 6.3-14.3) and India (26/349, 7.4%, 5.1-10.7), and was not detected in the Netherlands (p < 0.001). MRSA was detected primarily in the United States (27/343, 7.9%, 5.5-11.2), with lower prevalence in Italy (6/209, 2.9%, 1.3-6.1), India (5/349, 1.4%, 0.6-3.3), and the Netherlands (1/343, 0.3%, 0.0-1.6) (p < 0.001). Significant risk factors for MDRO carriage included country of inclusion, with higher odds observed in India (aOR 99.14, 95% CI: 48.21-203.86, p < 0.001) and Italy (aOR 6.58, 95% CI: 3.57-12.14, p < 0.001) compared with the Netherlands (reference), while the association for the United States was not statistically significant (aOR 1.61, 95% CI: 0.82-3.14, p = 0.17). Other significant risk factors were chronic lung disease (aOR 1.75, 95% CI:1.07-2.86, p = 0.025), congestive heart failure (aOR 2.20, 95% CI: 1.33-3.64, p = 0.002), and prior use of penicillins (aOR 1.66, 95% CI: 1.05-2.63, p = 0.031). Interpretation: This study shows global heterogeneity in MDRO carriage among patients undergoing ERCP, reflecting underlying differences in antimicrobial resistance, healthcare infrastructure, and infection control practices. Strategies to prevent endoscope-associated transmission should therefore be tailored to local resistance patterns rather than adopting a universal approach. Preprocedural screening and targeted infection prevention strategies should be integrated within broader, region-specific infection control frameworks. The study's limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings, including restriction to tertiary care centres, incomplete enrolment data, and inter-site variability in patient characteristics and microbiological methods, which may affect generalisability. Nevertheless, the results provide a robust foundation for developing targeted, evidence-based interventions and for future research evaluating the clinical value, cost-effectiveness, and sustainability of preprocedural screening and infection prevention policies across diverse healthcare settings. Funding: Boston Scientific International and Copan Italia SpA.
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.