Cargando…

Duodenoscope-associated infection prevention: A call for evidence-based decision making

Background  Recent outbreaks of duodenoscope-associated multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) have brought attention to the infection risk from procedures performed with duodenoscopes. Prior to these MDRO outbreaks, procedures with duodenoscopes were considered safe and low risk for exogenous infect...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ofstead, Cori L., Buro, Brandy L., Hopkins, Krystina M., Eiland, John E., Wetzler, Harry P., Lichtenstein, David R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2020
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7671768/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33269310
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-1264-7173
_version_ 1783610991482765312
author Ofstead, Cori L.
Buro, Brandy L.
Hopkins, Krystina M.
Eiland, John E.
Wetzler, Harry P.
Lichtenstein, David R.
author_facet Ofstead, Cori L.
Buro, Brandy L.
Hopkins, Krystina M.
Eiland, John E.
Wetzler, Harry P.
Lichtenstein, David R.
author_sort Ofstead, Cori L.
collection PubMed
description Background  Recent outbreaks of duodenoscope-associated multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) have brought attention to the infection risk from procedures performed with duodenoscopes. Prior to these MDRO outbreaks, procedures with duodenoscopes were considered safe and low risk for exogenous infection transmission, provided they were performed in strict accordance with manufacturer instructions for use and multisociety reprocessing guidelines. The attention and efforts of the scientific community, regulatory agencies, and the device industry have deepened our understanding of factors responsible for suboptimal outcomes. These include instrument design, reprocessing practices, and surveillance strategies for detecting patient and instrument colonization. Various investigations have made it clear that current reprocessing methods fail to consistently deliver a pathogen-free instrument. The magnitude of infection transmission has been underreported due to several factors. These include the types of organisms responsible for infection, clinical signs presenting in sites distant from ERCP inoculation, and long latency from the time of acquisition to infection. Healthcare providers remain hampered by the ill-defined infectious risk innate to the current instrument design, contradictory information and guidance, and limited evidence-based interventions or reprocessing modifications that reduce risk. Therefore, the objectives of this narrative review included identifying outbreaks described in the peer-reviewed literature and comparing the findings with infections reported elsewhere. Search strategies included accessing peer-reviewed articles, governmental databases, abstracts for scientific conferences, and media reports describing outbreaks. This review summarizes current knowledge, highlights gaps in traditional sources of evidence, and explores opportunities to improve our understanding of actual risk and evidence-based approaches to mitigate risk.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7671768
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Georg Thieme Verlag KG
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76717682020-12-01 Duodenoscope-associated infection prevention: A call for evidence-based decision making Ofstead, Cori L. Buro, Brandy L. Hopkins, Krystina M. Eiland, John E. Wetzler, Harry P. Lichtenstein, David R. Endosc Int Open Background  Recent outbreaks of duodenoscope-associated multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) have brought attention to the infection risk from procedures performed with duodenoscopes. Prior to these MDRO outbreaks, procedures with duodenoscopes were considered safe and low risk for exogenous infection transmission, provided they were performed in strict accordance with manufacturer instructions for use and multisociety reprocessing guidelines. The attention and efforts of the scientific community, regulatory agencies, and the device industry have deepened our understanding of factors responsible for suboptimal outcomes. These include instrument design, reprocessing practices, and surveillance strategies for detecting patient and instrument colonization. Various investigations have made it clear that current reprocessing methods fail to consistently deliver a pathogen-free instrument. The magnitude of infection transmission has been underreported due to several factors. These include the types of organisms responsible for infection, clinical signs presenting in sites distant from ERCP inoculation, and long latency from the time of acquisition to infection. Healthcare providers remain hampered by the ill-defined infectious risk innate to the current instrument design, contradictory information and guidance, and limited evidence-based interventions or reprocessing modifications that reduce risk. Therefore, the objectives of this narrative review included identifying outbreaks described in the peer-reviewed literature and comparing the findings with infections reported elsewhere. Search strategies included accessing peer-reviewed articles, governmental databases, abstracts for scientific conferences, and media reports describing outbreaks. This review summarizes current knowledge, highlights gaps in traditional sources of evidence, and explores opportunities to improve our understanding of actual risk and evidence-based approaches to mitigate risk. Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2020-12 2020-11-17 /pmc/articles/PMC7671768/ /pubmed/33269310 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-1264-7173 Text en The Author(s). 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 commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License, which permits unrestricted reproduction and distribution, for non-commercial purposes only; and use and reproduction, but not distribution, of adapted material for non-commercial purposes only, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Ofstead, Cori L.
Buro, Brandy L.
Hopkins, Krystina M.
Eiland, John E.
Wetzler, Harry P.
Lichtenstein, David R.
Duodenoscope-associated infection prevention: A call for evidence-based decision making
title Duodenoscope-associated infection prevention: A call for evidence-based decision making
title_full Duodenoscope-associated infection prevention: A call for evidence-based decision making
title_fullStr Duodenoscope-associated infection prevention: A call for evidence-based decision making
title_full_unstemmed Duodenoscope-associated infection prevention: A call for evidence-based decision making
title_short Duodenoscope-associated infection prevention: A call for evidence-based decision making
title_sort duodenoscope-associated infection prevention: a call for evidence-based decision making
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7671768/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33269310
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-1264-7173
work_keys_str_mv AT ofsteadcoril duodenoscopeassociatedinfectionpreventionacallforevidencebaseddecisionmaking
AT burobrandyl duodenoscopeassociatedinfectionpreventionacallforevidencebaseddecisionmaking
AT hopkinskrystinam duodenoscopeassociatedinfectionpreventionacallforevidencebaseddecisionmaking
AT eilandjohne duodenoscopeassociatedinfectionpreventionacallforevidencebaseddecisionmaking
AT wetzlerharryp duodenoscopeassociatedinfectionpreventionacallforevidencebaseddecisionmaking
AT lichtensteindavidr duodenoscopeassociatedinfectionpreventionacallforevidencebaseddecisionmaking