Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Duodenoscope-associated infections: a review

  • Review
  • Published:
European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Flexible digestive endoscopes are used for the management of various conditions with hundreds of thousands of therapeutic procedures performed worldwide each year. Duodenoscopes are indispensable tools for the delivery of minimally invasive vital care of numerous pancreaticobiliary disorders. Despite the fact that nosocomial infections after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) have always been among the most frequently cited postprocedural complications, recent emergence of duodenoscope-transmitted multiple drug-resistant bacterial infections has led to intense research and debate yet with no clearly delineated solution. Duodenoscope-transmitted nosocomial infections have become one of the most visible topics in the recent literature. Hundreds of high-impact articles have therefore been published in the last decade. This review article discusses how such infections were seen in the past and what is the current situation in both research and practice and thus tries to solve some of the unanswered questions for the future. With the persistence of nosocomial infections despite strict adherence to both manufacturer-issued reprocessing protocols and international guidelines and regulations, an urgent and proper microbiologically driven common action is needed for controlling such nosocomial worldwide threat.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kimmey MB, Burnett DA, Carr-Locke DL et al (1993) Transmission of infection by gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 39(6):885–888. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5107(93)70316-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Higa JT, Choe J, Tombs D, Gluck M, Ross AS (2018) Optimizing duodenoscope reprocessing: rigorous assessment of a culture and quarantine protocol. Gastrointest Endosc 88(2):223–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2018.02.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wang P, Xu T, Ngamruengphong S et al (2018) Rates of infection after colonoscopy and osophagogastroduodenoscopy in ambulatory surgery centers in the USA. Gut 67(9):1637–1645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Verfaille CJ, Bruno MJ, Voorintholt AF et al (2015) Withdrawal of a novel-design duodenoscope ends outbreak of a VIM-2-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Endoscopy 47(06):493–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Beilenhoff U, Biering H, Blum R et al (2018) Reprocessing of flexible endoscopes and endoscopic accessories used in gastrointestinal endoscopy: position statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates (ESGENA)–update 2018. Endoscopy 50(12):1205–1234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Calderwood AH, Day LW, Muthusamy VR et al (2018) ASGE guideline for infection control during GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 87(5):1167–1179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2017.12.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2015a) Design of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) duodenoscopes may impede effective cleaning: FDA safety communication. www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm434871.htm. Accessed Aug 2017

  8. Ross AS, Baliga C, Verma P, Duchin J, Gluck M (2015) A quarantine process for the resolution of duodenoscope-assisted transmission of multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli. Gastrointest Endosc 82:477–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2015.04.036

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nelson DB, Jarvis WR, Rutala WA, Foxx-Orenstein AE, Isenberg G, Dash GP, Alvarado CJ, Ball M, Griffin-Sobel J, Petersen C, Ball KA (2003) Multi-society guideline for reprocessing flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 24(7):532–537. https://doi.org/10.1086/502237

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Stanciu C, Sfarti C, Chiriac S, Balan GG, Trifan A (2018) A half century of endoscopic retrograde colangiopancreatography: reflections of the past, present and future. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 27(4):357–360. https://doi.org/10.15403/jgld.2014.1121.274.aha

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Higa JT, Gluck M, Ross AS (2019) Duodenoscope reprocessing. In: Ercp, 3rd edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 44–48

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Yachimski SP, Ross A (2017) The future of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Gastroenterology 153(2):338–344. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2017.06.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fumex F, Coumaros D, Napoleon B et al (2006) Similar performance but higher cholecystitis rate with covered biliary stents: results from a prospective multicenter evaluation. Endoscopy 38(8):787–792

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Andriulli A, Loperfido S, Napolitano G, Niro G, Valvano MR, Spirito F, Pilotto A, Forlano R (2007) Incidence rates of post-ERCP complications: a systematic survey of prospective studies. Am J Gastroenterol 102(8):1781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Allen JI, Allen MO, Olson MM et al (1987) Pseudomonas infection of the biliary system resulting from use of a contaminated endoscope. Gastroenterology 92(3):759–763. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-5085(87)90029-1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Keswani RN, Soper NJ (2005) Endoscopes and the “Superbug” outbreak. JAMA Surg 150(9):831–832. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2015.1255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Epstein L, Hunter JC, Arwady MA et al (2014) New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase-producing carbapenem-resistant Escherichia coli associated with exposure to duodenoscopes. JAMA 312:1447–1455. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.12720

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rubin ZA, Kim S, Thaker AM, Muthusamy VR (2018) Safely reprocessing duodenoscopes: current evidence and future directions. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 3(7):499–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-1253(18)30122-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rutala WA, Weber DJ (2016) Outbreaks of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae infections associated with duodenoscopes: what can we do to prevent infections? Am J Infect Control 44(5):e47–e51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2015.10.037

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2015) Interim duodenoscope surveillance protocol. www.cdc.gov/hai/organisms/cre/cre-duodenoscope-sur veillance-protocol.html. Accessed Aug 2015

  21. The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology (2018) Scoping the problem: endoscopy-associated infections. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 3(7):445. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-1253(18)30168-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2015b) Supplemental measures to enhance reprocessing: FDA safety communication. www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm454766.htm. Accessed Aug 2017

  23. Tokar JL, Allen JI, Kochman ML (2015) Getting to zero: reducing the risk for duodenoscope-related infections. Ann Intern Med 163(11):873–874. https://doi.org/10.7326/M15-1719

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Reiner S (2008) Investigation of a cluster of genomically identical Pseudomonas aeruginosa blood isolates following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in a gastroenterology laboratory: 2: 00-2: 15 pm Publication Number 202. Am J Infect Control 1(36):5

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kovaleva J, Meessen NE, Peters FT, Been MH, Arends JP, Borgers RP, Degener JE (2009) Is bacteriologic surveillance in endoscope reprocessing stringent enough? Endoscopy 41(10):913–916

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Alrabaa SF, Nguyen P, Sanderson R, Baluch A, Sandin RL, Kelker D, Karlapalem C, Thompson P, Sams K, Martin S, Montero J (2013) Early identification and control of carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae, originating from contaminated endoscopic equipment. Am J Infect Control 41(6):562–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sanderson R, Braithwaite L, Ball L, Ragan P, Eisenstein L (2010) An outbreak of carbapenemresistant Klebsiella pneumoniae infections associated with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures at a hospital. Am J Infect Control 38:e141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Carbonne A, Thiolet JM, Fournier S, Fortineau N, Kassis-Chikhani N, Boytchev I, Aggoune M, Seguier JC, Senechal H, Tavolacci MP, Coignard B (2010) Control of a multi-hospital outbreak of KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae type 2 in France, September to October 2009. Eurosurveillance 15(48):19734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Cristina ML, Spagnolo AM, Ottria G, Sartini M, Orlando P, Perdelli F, Group GH (2011) Spread of multidrug carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii in different wards of an Italian hospital. Am J Infect Control 39(9):790–794

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Aumeran C, Poincloux L, Souweine B, Robin F, Laurichesse H, Baud O, Bommelaer G, Traoré O (2010) Multidrug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae outbreak after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Endoscopy 42(11):895–899

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Naas T, Cuzon G, Babics A, Fortineau N, Boytchev I, Gayral F, Nordmann P (2010) Endoscopy-associated transmission of carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae producing KPC-2 β-lactamase. J Antimicrob Chemother 65(6):1305–1306

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Espasa-Soley M, Fernandez I, Oteo J, Sanchez-Fresquet X, Falgueras L, Vindel A, Capilla S, Piriz M, Sanfeliu I, Navarro G, Campos J (2012) A nosocomial outbreak of a carbapenem-resistantKlebsiella pneumoniaeST-663 producing OXA-48 and CTX-M-15 related to a duodenoscope contamination. Clin Microbiol Infect 18

  33. Marsh JW, Krauland MG, Nelson JS, Schlackman JL, Brooks AM, Pasculle AW, Shutt KA, Doi Y, Querry AM, Muto CA, Harrison LH (2015) Genomic epidemiology of an endoscope-associated outbreak of Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)-producing K. pneumoniae. PLoS One 10(12):e0144310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. McCool S, Querry A, Muto C (2014) High level disinfection failure in gastrointestinal scopes with elevator channels—is it time to switch to ethylene oxide (ETO) sterilization? ID Week. Philadelphia, PA

  35. Wendorf KA, Kay M, Baliga C, Weissman SJ, Gluck M, Verma P, D’Angeli M, Swoveland J, Kang MG, Eckmann K, Ross AS (2015) Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography–associated ampC Escherichia coli outbreak. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 36(6):634–642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kola A, Piening B, Pape UF, Veltzke-Schlieker W, Kaase M, Geffers C, Wiedenmann B, Gastmeier P (2015) An outbreak of carbapenem-resistant OXA-48–producing Klebsiella pneumonia associated to duodenoscopy. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 4(1):8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Smith ZL, Oh YS, Saeian K, Edmiston CE, Khan AH, Massey BT, Dua KS (2015) Transmission of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae during ERCP: time to revisit the current reprocessing guidelines. Gastrointest Endosc 81(4):1041–1045

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Du M, Suo J, Liu B, Xing Y, Chen L, Liu Y (2017) Post-ERCP infection and its epidemiological and clinical characteristics in a large Chinese tertiary hospital: a 4-year surveillance study. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 6(1):131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ross J (2017) Electronic and microbiological detection, investigation, and surveillance for potential hospital-acquired device associated infections at ERCP. InOpen Forum Infect Dis 4:S174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Coffey K, Shenoy ES, Platt MY, Zhao X, Li N, Pecora N, Allard M, Rosenberg E, Bry L, Hooper D (2017) Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography associated with ceftriaxone-resistant Escherichia coli bloodstream infections: looking for hay in a haystack. InOpen Forum Infect Dis 4(1):S173–S174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Humphries RM, Yang S, Kim S, Muthusamy VR, Russell D, Trout AM, Zaroda T, Cheng QJ, Aldrovandi G, Uslan DZ, Hemarajata P (2017) Duodenoscope-related outbreak of a carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae identified using advanced molecular diagnostics. Clin Infect Dis 65(7):1159–1166

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Kim S, Russell D, Mohamadnejad M, Makker J, Sedarat A, Watson RR, Yang S, Hemarajata P, Humphries R, Rubin Z, Muthusamy VR (2016) Risk factors associated with the transmission of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae via contaminated duodenoscopes. Gastrointest Endosc 83(6):1121–1129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Qiu L, Zhou Z, Liu Q, Ni Y, Zhao F, Cheng H (2015) Investigating the failure of repeated standard cleaning and disinfection of a Pseudomonas aeruginosa–infected pancreatic and biliary endoscope. Am J Infect Control 43(8):e43–e46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Bourigault C, Le Gallou F, Bodet N, Musquer N, Juvin ME, Corvec S, Ferronnière N, Wiesel S, Gournay J, Birgand G, Le Rhun M (2018) Duodenoscopy: an amplifier of cross-transmission during a carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae outbreak in a gastroenterology pathway. J Hosp Infect 99(4):422–426

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Robertson P, Smith A, Anderson M, Stewart J, Hamilton K, McNamee S, Curran ET (2017) Transmission of Salmonella enteritidis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography because of inadequate endoscope decontamination. Am J Infect Control 45(4):440–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Akinbobola AB, Sherry L, Mckay WG, Ramage G, Williams C (2017) Tolerance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in in-vitro biofilms to high-level peracetic acid disinfection. J Hosp Infect 97(2):162–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2017.06.024

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Bridier A, Dubois-Brissonnet F, Greub G, Thomas V, Briandet R (2011) Dynamics of the action of biocides in Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 55(6):2648–2654. https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.01760-10

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Jawad A, Heritage J, Snelling AM, Gascoyne-Binzi DM, Hawkey PM (1996) Influence of relative humidity and suspending menstrua of survival of Acinetobacter spp. on dry surfaces. J Clin Microbiol 34(12):2881–2887

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Williams AP, Avery LM, Kilham K, Jones DL (2005) Persistence of Escherichia coli O157 on farm surfaces under different environmental conditions. J Appl Microbiol 98(5):1075–1083. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2004.02530.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Kramer A, Schwebke I, Kampf G (2006) How long do nosocomial pathogens persist on inanimate surfaces? A systematic review. BMC Infect Dis 6(130). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-6-130

  51. Neely AN (2000) A survey of gram-negative bacteria survival on hospital fabrics and plastics. J Burn Care Res 21(6):523–527. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004630-200021060-00009

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Chhaya R, Bhatwadekar K (2015) Microbial bio-film and unpredictable trouble on medical devices. Int J Appl Basic Med Res 5(3):83–93

    Google Scholar 

  53. Balsamo AC, Graziano KU, Schneider RP, Antunes Junior M, Lacerda RA (2012) Removing biofilm from endoscope: evaluation of disinfection methods currently used. Rev Esc Enferm USP 46:91–98. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0080-62342012000700014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Otter JA, Vickery K, Walker JT et al (2015) Surface-attached cells, biofilms and biocide susceptibility: implications for hospital cleaning and disinfection. J Hosp Infect 89(1):16–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2014.09.008

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Chino T, Nukui Y, Morishita Y, Moriya K (2017) Morphological bactericidal fast-acting effects of peracetic acid, a high-level disinfectant, against Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms in tubing. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 6(1):122. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-017-0281-1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Kovaleva J, Degener JE, Van der Mei HC (2010) Mimicking disinfection and drying of biofilms in contaminated endoscopes. J Hosp Infect 76(4):345–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2010.07.008

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Kovaleva J (2017) Endoscope drying and its pitfalls. J Hosp Infect 97(4):319–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2017.07.012

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Ren-Pei W, Hui-Jun X, Ke Q, Dong W, Xing N, Zhao-Shen L (2014) Correlation between the growth of bacterial biofilm in flexible endoscopes and endoscope reprocessing methods. Am J Infect Control 42(11):1203–1206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2014.07.029

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Brock AS, Steed LL, Freeman J, Garry B, Malpas P, Cotton P (2015) Endoscope storage time: assessment of microbial colonization up to 21 days after reprocessing. Gastrointest Endosc 81(5):1150–1154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2014.09.053

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Singh H, Duerksen DR, Schultz G, Reidy C, DeGagne P, Olson N, Nugent Z, Bernard KA, Alfa MJ (2018) Impact of cleaning monitoring combined with channel purge storage on elimination of Escherichia coli and environmental bacteria from duodenoscopes. Gastrointest Endosc 88(2):292–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2018.02.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. da Costa Luciano C, Olson N, DeGagne P, Franca R, Tipple AFV, Alfa M (2016) A new buildup biofilm model that mimics accumulation of material in flexible endoscope channels. J Microbiol Methods 127:224–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mimet.2016.06.022

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Chapman CG, Siddiqui UD, Manzano M, Konda VJ, Murillo C, Landon EM, Waxman I (2017) Risk of infection transmission in curvilinear array echoendoscopes: results of a prospective reprocessing and culture registry. Gastrointest Endosc 85(2):390–397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2016.07.049

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Naryzhny I, Silas D, Chi K (2016) Impact of ethylene oxide gas sterilization of duodenoscopes after a carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae outbreak. Gastrointest Endosc 84(2):259–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2016.01.055

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Thaker AM, Kim S, Sedarat A, Watson RR, Muthusamy VR (2018) Inspection of endoscope instrument channels after reprocessing using a prototype borescope. Gastrointest Endosc 88(4):612–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2018.04.2366

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Hervé RC, Keevil CW (2016) Persistent residual contamination in endoscope channels; a fluorescence epimicroscopy study. Endoscopy 48(07):609–616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Rauwers AW, Voor AF, Buijs JG, de Groot W, Hansen BE, Bruno MJ, Vos MC (2018) High prevalence rate of digestive tract bacteria in duodenoscopes: a nationwide study. Gut 67(9):1637–1645. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2017-315082

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Azimirad M, Alebouyeh M, Sadeghi A, Khodamoradi E, Aghdaei HA, Mohammad Alizadeh AH, Zali MR (2019) Bioburden and transmission of pathogenic bacteria through elevator channel during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: application of multiple-locus variable-number tandem-repeat analysis for characterization of clonal strains. Expert Rev Med Devices 16(5). https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2019.1604215

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Spaulding EH (1968) Chemical disinfection of medical and surgical materials. In: Lawrence C, Block SS (eds) Disinfection, sterilization, and prezervation. Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia, pp 517–531

    Google Scholar 

  69. Almario CV, May FP, Shaheen NJ, Murthy R, Gupta K, Jamil LH, Lo SK, Spiegel BM (2015) Cost utility of competing strategies to prevent endoscopic transmission of carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae. Am J Gastroenterol 110(12):1666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Snyder GM, Wright SB, Smithey A et al (2017) Randomized comparison of 3 high-level disinfection and sterilization procedures for duodenoscopes. Gastroenterology 153(4):1018–1025. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2017.06.052

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2015c) Brief summary of the gastroenterology and urology devices panel meeting, May 14–15. www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Medicaldevices/MedicalDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/gastroenterology-UrologyDevicesPanel/UCM447407.pdf. Accessed Aug 2017

  72. Alfa MJ, Fatima I, Olson N (2013) Validation of adenosine triphosphate to audit manual cleaning of flexible endoscope channels. Am J Infect Control 41(3):245–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2012.03.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Olafsdottir LB, Wright SB, Smithey A, Heroux R, Hirsch EB, Chen A, Lane B, Sawhney MS, Snyder GM (2017) Adenosine triphosphate quantification correlates poorly with microbial contamination of duodenoscopes. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 38(6):678–684. https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2017.58

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Barakat MT, Girotra M, Huang RJ, Banerjee S (2018) Scoping the scope: endoscopic evaluation of endoscope working channels with a new high-resolution inspection endoscope (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 87(4):601–611. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2018.01.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Mager R, Kurosch M, Höfner T, Frees S, Haferkamp A, Neisius A (2018) Clinical outcomes and costs of reusable and single-use flexible ureterorenoscopes: a prospective cohort study. Urolithiasis 46(6):587–593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00240-018-1042-1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Grigore T. Popa, University of Medicine and Pharmacy of Iași, Iași, Romania

    Gheorghe G. Balan, Catalin Victor Sfarti, Stefan Andrei Chiriac & Anca Trifan

  2. Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, St. Spiridon Emergency Hospital of Iași, Iași, Romania

    Carol Stanciu

Authors
  1. Gheorghe G. Balan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Catalin Victor Sfarti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stefan Andrei Chiriac
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Carol Stanciu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anca Trifan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catalin Victor Sfarti.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Balan, G.G., Sfarti, C.V., Chiriac, S.A. et al. Duodenoscope-associated infections: a review. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 38, 2205–2213 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-019-03671-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10096-019-03671-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation