Duodenoscope-Associated Infections: Update on an Emerging Problem

  • M. Rubayat Rahman
  • Abhilash Perisetti
  • Roxana Coman
  • Pardeep Bansal
  • Rajiv Chhabra
  • Hemant GoyalEmail author


The duodenoscope is among the most complex medical instruments that undergo disinfection between patients. Transmission of infection by contaminated scopes has remained a challenge since its inception. Notable risk factors for pathogen transmission include non-adherence to disinfection guidelines, encouragement of biofilm deposition due to complex design and surface defects and contaminated automated endoscope reprocessors. The most common infections following endoscopy are endogenous infections involving the patient’s own gut flora. Exogenous infections, on the other hand, are associated with contaminated scopes and can theoretically be prevented by effective reprocessing. Pseudomonas aeruginosa is currently the most common organism isolated from contaminated endoscopes. Of note, reports of multidrug-resistant duodenoscopy-associated outbreaks have surfaced recently, many of which occurred despite adequate reprocessing. The FDA and CDC currently recommend comprehensive cleaning followed with at least high-level disinfection for reprocessing of flexible GI endoscopes. Reports of duodenoscope-related outbreaks despite compliance with established guidelines have prompted professional and government bodies to revisit existing guidelines and offer supplementary recommendations for duodenoscope processing. For the purposes of this review, we identified reports of duodenoscope-associated infections from 2000 till date. For each outbreak, we noted the organisms isolated, the number of cases reported, any possible explanations of contamination, and the measures undertaken to end each outbreak. We have also attempted to present an overview of recent developments in this rapidly evolving field.


Duodenoscopes Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography Infection Contamination 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declared that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Petersen BT, Cohen J, Hambrick RD, et al. Multisociety guideline on reprocessing flexible GI endoscopes: 2016 update. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;85:282–294.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Preventable tragedies: Superbugs and How Ineffective Monitoring of Medical Device Safety Fails Patients. U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee; 2016.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nelson DB, Barkun AN, Block KP, et al. Technology status evaluation report. Transmission of infection by gastrointestinal endoscopy. May 2001. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;54:824–828.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kovaleva J, Peters FT, van der Mei HC, Degener JE. Transmission of infection by flexible gastrointestinal endoscopy and bronchoscopy. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2013;26:231–254.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rutala WA, Weber DJ, Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee. Guideline for disinfection and sterilization in healthcare facilities. 2008. Available from: Accessed 15 Jan 2018.
  6. 6.
    Spaulding EH, Gröschel DH. Hospital disinfectants and antiseptics. Manual of clinical microbiology. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology; 1974:852–857.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Spach DH, Silverstein FE, Stamm WE. Transmission of infection by gastrointestinal endoscopy and bronchoscopy. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118:117–128.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Banerjee S, Shen B, Nelson DB, et al. Infection control during GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;67:781–790.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Standards of infection prevention in reprocessing flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes. Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates; 2015.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garner JS, Favero MS. CDC guidelines for the prevention and control of nosocomial infections. Guideline for handwashing and hospital environmental control, 1985. Supersedes guideline for hospital environmental control published in 1981. Am J Infect Control. 1986;14:110–129.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brief summary of the gastroenterology and urology devices panel meeting. Food and Drug Administration; May, 2015.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Muscarella LF. High-level disinfection or “sterilization” of endoscopes? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 1996;17:183–187.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Design of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) duodenoscopes may impede effective cleaning: FDA safety communication. Food and Drug Administration; 2015.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cowen AE. Infection and endoscopy: who infects whom? Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl. 1992;192:91–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kovaleva J, Meessen NE, Peters FT, et al. Is bacteriologic surveillance in endoscope reprocessing stringent enough? Endoscopy. 2009;41:913–916.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ross AS, Baliga C, Verma P, Duchin J, Gluck M. A quarantine process for the resolution of duodenoscope-associated transmission of multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;82:477–483.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Costerton JW, Lewandowski Z, Caldwell DE, Korber DR, Lappin-Scott HM. Microbial biofilms. Annu Rev Microbiol. 1995;49:711–745.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pajkos A, Vickery K, Cossart Y. Is biofilm accumulation on endoscope tubing a contributor to the failure of cleaning and decontamination? J Hosp Infect. 2004;58:224–229.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ophir T, Gutnick DL. A role for exopolysaccharides in the protection of microorganisms from desiccation. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1994;60:740–745.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Donlan RM, Costerton JW. Biofilms: survival mechanisms of clinically relevant microorganisms. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2002;15:167–193.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vickery K, Pajkos A, Cossart Y. Removal of biofilm from endoscopes: evaluation of detergent efficiency. Am J Infect Control. 2004;32:170–176.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Marion-Ferey K, Pasmore M, Stoodley P, Wilson S, Husson GP, Costerton JW. Biofilm removal from silicone tubing: an assessment of the efficacy of dialysis machine decontamination procedures using an in vitro model. J Hosp Infect. 2003;53:64–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Moses FM, Lee JS. Current GI endoscope disinfection and QA practices. Dig Dis Sci. 2004;49:1791–1797. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schaefer MK, Jhung M, Dahl M, et al. Infection control assessment of ambulatory surgical centers. JAMA. 2010;303:2273–2279.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dirlam Langlay AM, Ofstead CL, Mueller NJ, Tosh PK, Baron TH, Wetzler HP. Reported gastrointestinal endoscope reprocessing lapses: the tip of the iceberg. Am J Infect Control. 2013;41:1188–1194.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Desilets D, Kaul V, Tierney WM, et al. Automated endoscope reprocessors. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72:675–680.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Alfa MJ, DeGagne P, Olson N, Fatima I. EVOTECH endoscope cleaner and reprocessor (ECR) simulated-use and clinical-use evaluation of cleaning efficacy. BMC Infect Dis. 2010;10:200.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    McDonnell G, Ehrman M, Kiess S. Effectiveness of the SYSTEM 1E Liquid Chemical Sterilant Processing System for reprocessing duodenoscopes. Am J Infect Control. 2016;44:685–688.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Allen JI, Allen MO, Olson MM, et al. Pseudomonas infection of the biliary system resulting from use of a contaminated endoscope. Gastroenterology. 1987;92:759–763.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Alvarado CJ, Stolz SM, Maki DG. Nosocomial infections from contaminated endoscopes: a flawed automated endoscope washer. An investigation using molecular epidemiology. Am J Med. 1991;91:272S-80S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fraser VJ, Jones M, Murray PR, Medoff G, Zhang Y, Wallace RJ. Contamination of flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopes with Mycobacterium chelonae linked to an automated bronchoscope disinfection machine. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1992;145:853–855.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kressel AB, Kidd F. Pseudo-outbreak of Mycobacterium chelonae and Methylobacterium mesophilicum caused by contamination of an automated endoscopy washer. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2001;22:414–418.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schelenz S, French G. An outbreak of multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection associated with contamination of bronchoscopes and an endoscope washer-disinfector. J Hosp Infect. 2000;46:23–30.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Information about Automated Endoscope Reprocessors (AERs) and FDA’s Evaluation. Food and Drug Administration.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Srinivasan A. Epidemiology and prevention of infections related to endoscopy. Curr Infect Dis Rep. 2003;5:467–472.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Leung JW, Ling TK, Chan RC, et al. Antibiotics, biliary sepsis, and bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc. 1994;40:716–721.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rerknimitr R, Fogel EL, Kalayci C, Esber E, Lehman GA, Sherman S. Microbiology of bile in patients with cholangitis or cholestasis with and without plastic biliary endoprosthesis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2002;56:885–889.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nelson DB, Muscarella LF. Current issues in endoscope reprocessing and infection control during gastrointestinal endoscopy. World J Gastroenterol. 2006;12:3953–3964.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rutala WA, Weber DJ. Outbreaks of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae infections associated with duodenoscopes: what can we do to prevent infections? Am J Infect Control. 2016;44:e47–e51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Supplemental measures to enhance duodenoscope reprocessing: FDA safety communication. Food and drug administration; 2015.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Reprocessing medical devices in health care settings: validation methods and labeling guidance for industry and Food and Drug Administration staff. Food and drug administration; 2015.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Interim Protocol for Healthcare Facilities Regarding Surveillance for Bacterial Contamination of Duodenoscopes after Reprocessing. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Urayama S, Kozarek RA, Sumida S, Raltz S, Merriam L, Pethigal P. Mycobacteria and glutaraldehyde: is high-level disinfection of endoscopes possible? Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;43:451–456.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bradley CR, Babb JR. Endoscope decontamination: automated vs. manual. J Hosp Infect. 1995;30:537–542.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Muscarella LF. Automatic flexible endoscope reprocessors. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2000;10:245–257.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Alfa MJ, Singh H, Duerksen DR, et al. Improper positioning of the elevator lever of duodenoscopes may lead to sequestered bacteria that survive disinfection by automated endoscope reprocessors. Am J Infect Control. 2018;46:73–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Alfa MJ, Sitter DL. In-hospital evaluation of contamination of duodenoscopes: a quantitative assessment of the effect of drying. J Hosp Infect. 1991;19:89–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Muscarella LF. Inconsistencies in endoscope-reprocessing and infection-control guidelines: the importance of endoscope drying. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101:2147–2154.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Pineau L, Villard E, Duc DL, Marchetti B. Endoscope drying/storage cabinet: interest and efficacy. J Hosp Infect. 2008;68:59–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Grandval P, Hautefeuille G, Marchetti B, Pineau L, Laugier R. Evaluation of a storage cabinet for heat-sensitive endoscopes in a clinical setting. J Hosp Infect. 2013;84:71–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Osborne S, Reynolds S, George N, Lindemayer F, Gill A, Chalmers M. Challenging endoscopy reprocessing guidelines: a prospective study investigating the safe shelf life of flexible endoscopes in a tertiary gastroenterology unit. Endoscopy. 2007;39:825–830.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Rejchrt S, Cermák P, Pavlatová L, McKová E, Bures J. Bacteriologic testing of endoscopes after high-level disinfection. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;60:76–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Vergis AS, Thomson D, Pieroni P, Dhalla S. Reprocessing flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes after a period of disuse: is it necessary? Endoscopy. 2007;39:737–739.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ingram J, Gaines P, Kite R, Morgan M, Spurling S, Winsett RP. Evaluation of medically significant bacteria in colonoscopes after 8 weeks of shelf life in open air storage. Gastroenterol Nurs. 2013;36:106–111.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Brock AS, Steed LL, Freeman J, Garry B, Malpas P, Cotton P. Endoscope storage time: assessment of microbial colonization up to 21 days after reprocessing. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81:1150–1154.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Schmelzer M, Daniels G, Hough H. Safe storage time for reprocessed flexible endoscopes: a systematic review. JBI Database Syst Rev Implement Rep. 2015;13:187–243.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Brief summary of the gastroenterology and urology devices panel meeting, May, 2015. Food and Drug Administration.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Deva AK, Vickery K, Zou J, et al. Detection of persistent vegetative bacteria and amplified viral nucleic acid from in-use testing of gastrointestinal endoscopes. J Hosp Infect. 1998;39:149–157.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Moses FM, Lee J. Surveillance cultures to monitor quality of gastrointestinal endoscope reprocessing. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98:77–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Tunuguntla A, Sullivan MJ. Monitoring quality of flexible endoscope disinfection by microbiologic surveillance cultures. Tenn Med. 2004;97:453–456.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Beilenhoff U, Neumann CS, Rey JF, et al. ESGE-ESGENA guideline for quality assurance in reprocessing: microbiological surveillance testing in endoscopy. Endoscopy. 2007;39:175–181.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Beilenhoff U, Neumann CS, Rey JF, et al. ESGE-ESGENA Guideline: cleaning and disinfection in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Endoscopy. 2008;40:939–957.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Taylor A, Jones D, Everts R. Infection Control in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 3rd ed. Victoria, Australia: Gastroenterological Society of Australia, Australia Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Association, and Gastroenterological Nurses College of Australia; 2010.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Interim Protocol for Healthcare Facilities Regarding Surveillance for Bacterial Contamination of Duodenoscopes after Reprocessing. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; March 2015.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Duodenoscope Surveillance Sampling & Culturing: Reducing the risks of Infection. Food and Drug Administration; February, 2018.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Fraser TG, Reiner S, Malczynski M, Yarnold PR, Warren J, Noskin GA. Multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa cholangitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: failure of routine endoscope cultures to prevent an outbreak. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2004;25:856–859.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Alfa MJ, Fatima I, Olson N. Validation of adenosine triphosphate to audit manual cleaning of flexible endoscope channels. Am J Infect Control. 2013;41:245–248.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Alfa MJ, Olson N, Murray BL. Comparison of clinically relevant benchmarks and channel sampling methods used to assess manual cleaning compliance for flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes. Am J Infect Control. 2014;42:e1–e5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Obee PC, Griffith CJ, Cooper RA, Cooke RP, Bennion NE, Lewis M. Real-time monitoring in managing the decontamination of flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes. Am J Infect Control. 2005;33:202–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Komanduri S, Abu Dayyeh BK, Bhat YM, et al. Technologies for monitoring the quality of endoscope reprocessing. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;80:369–373.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Rutala WA, Weber DJ. ERCP scopes: what can we do to prevent infections? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015;36:643–648.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Rubin ZA, Murthy RK. Outbreaks associated with duodenoscopes: new challenges and controversies. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2016;29:407–414.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Chapman CG, Siddiqui UD, Manzano M, et al. Risk of infection transmission in curvilinear array echoendoscopes: results of a prospective reprocessing and culture registry. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017;85:390-7.e1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Rex DK, Sieber M, Lehman GA, et al. A double-reprocessing high-level disinfection protocol does not eliminate positive cultures from the elevators of duodenoscopes. Endoscopy. 2018;50:588–596.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Snyder GM, Wright SB, Smithey A, et al. Randomized comparison of 3 high-level disinfection and sterilization procedures for duodenoscopes. Gastroenterology. 2017;153:1018–1025.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Bartles RL, Leggett JE, Hove S, et al. A randomized trial of single versus double high-level disinfection of duodenoscopes and linear echoendoscopes using standard automated reprocessing. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;88:306-13.e2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Schneider PM. New technologies and trends in sterilization and disinfection. Am J Infect Control. 2013;41:S81–S86.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Bălan GG, Roşca I, Ursu EL, et al. Plasma-activated water: a new and effective alternative for duodenoscope reprocessing. Infect Drug Resist. 2018;11:727–733.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Voelker R. Duodenoscope design aimed at infection prevention. JAMA. 2017;318:1644.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Colt HG, Beamis JJ, Harrell JH, Mathur PM. Novel flexible bronchoscope and single-use disposable-sheath endoscope system. A preliminary technology evaluation. Chest. 2000;118:183–187.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Hirota WK, Petersen K, Baron TH, et al. Guidelines for antibiotic prophylaxis for GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;58:475–482.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Banerjee S, Shen B, Baron TH, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis for GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;67:791–798.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Bai Y, Gao F, Gao J, Zou DW, Li ZS. Prophylactic antibiotics cannot prevent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-induced cholangitis: a meta-analysis. Pancreas. 2009;38:126–130.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Harris A, Chan AC, Torres-Viera C, Hammett R, Carr-Locke D. Meta-analysis of antibiotic prophylaxis in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Endoscopy. 1999;31:718–724.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Cotton PB, Connor P, Rawls E, Romagnuolo J. Infection after ERCP, and antibiotic prophylaxis: a sequential quality-improvement approach over 11 years. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;67:471–475.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Motte S, Deviere J, Dumonceau JM, Serruys E, Thys JP, Cremer M. Risk factors for septicemia following endoscopic biliary stenting. Gastroenterology. 1991;101:1374–1381.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Allison MC, Sandoe JA, Tighe R, et al. Antibiotic prophylaxis in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gut. 2009;58:869–880.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Ofstead CL, Dirlam Langlay AM, Mueller NJ, Tosh PK, Wetzler HP. Re-evaluating endoscopy-associated infection risk estimates and their implications. Am J Infect Control. 2013;41:734–736.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Imbert G, Seccia Y, La Scola B. Methylobacterium sp. bacteraemia due to a contaminated endoscope. J Hosp Infect. 2005;61:268–270.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Ranjan P, Das K, Ayyagiri A, Saraswat VA, Choudhuri G. A report of post-ERCP Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection outbreak. Indian J Gastroenterol. 2005;24:131–132.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Alrabaa SF, Nguyen P, Sanderson R, et al. Early identification and control of carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae, originating from contaminated endoscopic equipment. Am J Infect Control. 2013;41:562–564.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Aumeran C, Poincloux L, Souweine B, et al. Multidrug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae outbreak after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Endoscopy. 2010;42:895–899.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Carbonne A, Thiolet JM, Fournier S, et al. Control of a multi-hospital outbreak of KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae type 2 in France, September to October 2009. Euro Surveill. 2010;15:19734.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Dortet L, Naas T, Boytchev I, Fortineau N. Endoscopy-associated transmission of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae: return of 5 years’ experience. Endoscopy. 2015;47:561.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Naas T, Cuzon G, Babics A, et al. Endoscopy-associated transmission of carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae producing KPC-2 beta-lactamase. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010;65:1305–1306.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    McCool S, Clarke L, Querry A. Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) Klebsiella pneumonia (KP) cluster analysis associated with GI scopes with elevator channel. ID Week2013.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Verfaillie CJ, Bruno MJ, Voor in 't Holt AF, et al. Withdrawal of a novel-design duodenoscope ends outbreak of a VIM-2-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Endoscopy. 2015;47:493–502.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Kola A, Piening B, Pape UF, et al. An outbreak of carbapenem-resistant OXA-48 - producing Klebsiella pneumonia associated to duodenoscopy. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2015;4:8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Wendorf KA, Kay M, Baliga C, et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-associated AmpC Escherichia coli outbreak. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015;36:634–642.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Epstein L, Hunter JC, Arwady MA, et al. New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase-producing carbapenem-resistant Escherichia coli associated with exposure to duodenoscopes. JAMA. 2014;312:1447–1455.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Smith ZL, Oh YS, Saeian K, et al. Transmission of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae during ERCP: time to revisit the current reprocessing guidelines. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81:1041–1045.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Ross J. Electronic and microbiological detection, investigation, and surveillance for potential hospital-acquired device associated infections at ERCP. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2017;4:S174.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Coffey Kc, Shenoy ES, Platt MY, et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography associated with ceftriaxone-resistant Escherichia coli bloodstream infections: looking for hay in a haystack. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2017;4:S173–S174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Texas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA
  2. 2.Department of Gastroenterology and HepatologyUniversity of Arkansas For Medical SciencesLittle RockUSA
  3. 3.Gastroenterology DivisionThe Medical Center Navicent HealthMaconUSA
  4. 4.GI Fellowship ProgramThe Wright Center of Graduate Medical EducationScrantonUSA
  5. 5.Department of GastroenterologyRegional Hospital and Mosses Taylor HospitalScrantonUSA
  6. 6.Department of GastroenterologyUniversity of Missouri Kansas City (UMKC) School of Medicine, Saint Luke’s HospitalKansas CityUSA
  7. 7.Mercer University School of MedicineMaconUSA

Personalised recommendations