Cargando…

Rate and impact of duodenoscope contamination: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Multiple infection outbreaks have been linked to contaminated duodenoscopes worldwide. However, the contamination rate of patient-ready duodenoscopes varies highly amongst published studies testing this subject. We aimed to estimate the contamination rate of reprocessed patient-ready duo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Larsen, Sara, Russell, Rasmus Vinther, Ockert, Lotte Klinten, Spanos, Stephen, Travis, Helena Strømstad, Ehlers, Lars Holger, Mærkedahl, Anders
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7486302/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32954234
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100451
_version_ 1783581311088197632
author Larsen, Sara
Russell, Rasmus Vinther
Ockert, Lotte Klinten
Spanos, Stephen
Travis, Helena Strømstad
Ehlers, Lars Holger
Mærkedahl, Anders
author_facet Larsen, Sara
Russell, Rasmus Vinther
Ockert, Lotte Klinten
Spanos, Stephen
Travis, Helena Strømstad
Ehlers, Lars Holger
Mærkedahl, Anders
author_sort Larsen, Sara
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Multiple infection outbreaks have been linked to contaminated duodenoscopes worldwide. However, the contamination rate of patient-ready duodenoscopes varies highly amongst published studies testing this subject. We aimed to estimate the contamination rate of reprocessed patient-ready duodenoscopes for endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) based on currently available data. METHODS: We searched the PubMed and Embase databases from January 1, 2010 until March 10, 2020, for citations investigating contamination rates of reprocessed patient-ready duodenoscopes. Studies not assessing other types of endoscopes than duodenoscopes were excluded from the analysis. Study eligibility and data extraction was evaluated by three reviewers independently. A random-effects model (REM) based on the proportion distribution was used to calculate the pooled total contamination rate of reprocessed patient-ready duodenoscopes. Subgroup analyses were carried out to assess contamination rates when using different reprocessing methods by comparing single high-level disinfection (HLD) with double HLD and ethylene oxide (EtO) gas sterilization. Additionally, we investigated the contamination rate between studies conducted following an outbreak compared to non-outbreak-initiated studies. FINDINGS: We identified 15 studies that fulfilled the inclusion, which included 925 contaminated duodenoscopes from 13,112 samples. The calculated total weighted contamination rate was 15.25% ± 0.018 (95% confidence interval [Cl]: 11.74% - 18.75%). The contamination rate after only using HLD was 16.14% ± 0.019 (95% Cl: 12.43% - 19.85%) and after using either dHLD or EtO the contamination rate decreased to 9.20% ± 0.025 (95% Cl: 4.30% - 14.10%). Studies conducted following an outbreak (n=4) showed a 5.72% ± 0.034 (95% Cl: 0.00% - 12.43%) contamination rate, and non-outbreak-initiated studies (n=11) revealed a contamination rate of 21.50% ± 0.031 (95% Cl: 15.35% - 27.64%). INTERPRETATION: This is the first meta-analysis to estimate the contamination rate of patient-ready duodenoscopes used for ERCP. Based on the available literature, our analysis demonstrates that there is a 15.25% contamination rate of reprocessed patient-ready duodenoscopes. Additionally, the analysis indicates that dHLD and EtO reprocessing methods are superior to single HLD but still not efficient in regards to cleaning the duodenoscopes properly. Furthermore, studies conducted following an outbreak did not entail a higher contamination rate compared to non-outbreak-initiated studies. FUNDING: The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7486302
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74863022020-09-17 Rate and impact of duodenoscope contamination: A systematic review and meta-analysis Larsen, Sara Russell, Rasmus Vinther Ockert, Lotte Klinten Spanos, Stephen Travis, Helena Strømstad Ehlers, Lars Holger Mærkedahl, Anders EClinicalMedicine Research Paper BACKGROUND: Multiple infection outbreaks have been linked to contaminated duodenoscopes worldwide. However, the contamination rate of patient-ready duodenoscopes varies highly amongst published studies testing this subject. We aimed to estimate the contamination rate of reprocessed patient-ready duodenoscopes for endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) based on currently available data. METHODS: We searched the PubMed and Embase databases from January 1, 2010 until March 10, 2020, for citations investigating contamination rates of reprocessed patient-ready duodenoscopes. Studies not assessing other types of endoscopes than duodenoscopes were excluded from the analysis. Study eligibility and data extraction was evaluated by three reviewers independently. A random-effects model (REM) based on the proportion distribution was used to calculate the pooled total contamination rate of reprocessed patient-ready duodenoscopes. Subgroup analyses were carried out to assess contamination rates when using different reprocessing methods by comparing single high-level disinfection (HLD) with double HLD and ethylene oxide (EtO) gas sterilization. Additionally, we investigated the contamination rate between studies conducted following an outbreak compared to non-outbreak-initiated studies. FINDINGS: We identified 15 studies that fulfilled the inclusion, which included 925 contaminated duodenoscopes from 13,112 samples. The calculated total weighted contamination rate was 15.25% ± 0.018 (95% confidence interval [Cl]: 11.74% - 18.75%). The contamination rate after only using HLD was 16.14% ± 0.019 (95% Cl: 12.43% - 19.85%) and after using either dHLD or EtO the contamination rate decreased to 9.20% ± 0.025 (95% Cl: 4.30% - 14.10%). Studies conducted following an outbreak (n=4) showed a 5.72% ± 0.034 (95% Cl: 0.00% - 12.43%) contamination rate, and non-outbreak-initiated studies (n=11) revealed a contamination rate of 21.50% ± 0.031 (95% Cl: 15.35% - 27.64%). INTERPRETATION: This is the first meta-analysis to estimate the contamination rate of patient-ready duodenoscopes used for ERCP. Based on the available literature, our analysis demonstrates that there is a 15.25% contamination rate of reprocessed patient-ready duodenoscopes. Additionally, the analysis indicates that dHLD and EtO reprocessing methods are superior to single HLD but still not efficient in regards to cleaning the duodenoscopes properly. Furthermore, studies conducted following an outbreak did not entail a higher contamination rate compared to non-outbreak-initiated studies. FUNDING: The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Elsevier 2020-07-15 /pmc/articles/PMC7486302/ /pubmed/32954234 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100451 Text en © 2020 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Research Paper
Larsen, Sara
Russell, Rasmus Vinther
Ockert, Lotte Klinten
Spanos, Stephen
Travis, Helena Strømstad
Ehlers, Lars Holger
Mærkedahl, Anders
Rate and impact of duodenoscope contamination: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title Rate and impact of duodenoscope contamination: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Rate and impact of duodenoscope contamination: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Rate and impact of duodenoscope contamination: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Rate and impact of duodenoscope contamination: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Rate and impact of duodenoscope contamination: A systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort rate and impact of duodenoscope contamination: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Research Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7486302/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32954234
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100451
work_keys_str_mv AT larsensara rateandimpactofduodenoscopecontaminationasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT russellrasmusvinther rateandimpactofduodenoscopecontaminationasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT ockertlotteklinten rateandimpactofduodenoscopecontaminationasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT spanosstephen rateandimpactofduodenoscopecontaminationasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT travishelenastrømstad rateandimpactofduodenoscopecontaminationasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT ehlerslarsholger rateandimpactofduodenoscopecontaminationasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT mærkedahlanders rateandimpactofduodenoscopecontaminationasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis