Current Practice of Duodenoscope Reprocessing

  • Stephen Kim
  • V. Raman MuthusamyEmail author
Pancreas/Biliary Tract (O Haluszka, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Pancreas and Biliary Tract


Numerous outbreaks of duodenoscope-associated transmission of multi-drug resistant bacteria have recently been reported. Unlike prior episodes of endoscope-transmitted infections, the latest outbreaks have occurred despite strict adherence to duodenoscope reprocessing guidelines. The current standard for all flexible endoscope reprocessing includes pre-cleaning, leak testing, an additional manual cleaning step, and high-level disinfection. When these steps are strictly followed, the risk of infection transmission during endoscopy is exceedingly rare. However, due to its complex design, the duodenoscope may not be able to be adequately disinfected using the current reprocessing standards. Supplemental measures to enhance scope reprocessing have subsequently been recommended to reduce the infection risk in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. These methods are likely short-term solutions that have yet to be validated regarded their effectiveness. Additional approaches to monitor the quality of duodenoscope reprocessing may also be useful. Ultimately, a definitive, yet logistically feasible, method of duodenoscope reprocessing is required to ensure the safety of our patients.


Duodenoscope Reprocessing Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography Carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae Outbreak 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

SK and VRM declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.••
    Epstein L, Hunter JC, Arwady MA, et al. New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase-producing carbapenem-resistant Escherichia coli associated with exposure to duodenoscopes. JAMA. 2014;312:1447–55. This article chronicles the investigation and identification of a duodenoscope-associated carbapenem-resistent Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) outbreak in a Chicago hospital. The study revealed that bacterial contamination of duodenoscopes occurred despite adherence to duodenoscope reprocessing.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.•
    Kim S, Russell D, Mohamadnejad M, et al. Risk factors associated with the transmission of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae via contaminated duodenoscopes. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016. [Epub ahead of print] This article identifies high risk clinical risk factors involved in the transmission of carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae (CRE) via contaminated duodenoscopes. The study identified biliary stent placement, a diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma, and inpatient status at the time of ERCP as independent risk factors.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gastmeier P, Vonberg RP. Klebsiella spp. in endoscopy-associated infections: we may only be seeing the tip of the iceberg. Infection. 2014;42:15–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.•
    Verfaillie CJ, Bruno MJ, FVItH A, et al. Withdrawal of a novel-design duodenoscope ends outbreak of a VIM-2-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Endoscopy. 2015;47:502. This article describes the investigation of one of the earliest duodenoscope-associated multidrug-resistant bacteria that occurred in the Netherlands in 2012. The authors highlight a new duodenoscope design with a sealed elevator channel as a possible barrier to proper reprocessing and the likely cause of their bacterial outbreak.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Murray, Patty. Preventable tragedies: superbugs and how ineffective monitoring of medical device safety fails patients. United States Senate – Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Minority Staff Report. January 13, 2016.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Spaulding EH. Chemical disinfection of medical and surgical materials. In: Lawrence C, Block SS, editors. Disinfection, sterilization, and preservation. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger; 1968. p. 517–31.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Petersen BT, Chennat J, Cohen J, et al. Multisociety guideline on reprocessing flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes: 2011. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:1075–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Humphries RM, McDonnell G. Superbugs on duodenoscopes: the challenge of cleaning and disinfection of reusable devices. J Clin Microbiol. 2015;53:3118–25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Riley R, Beanland C, Bos H. Establishing the shelf-life of flexible colonoscopies. Gastroenterol Nurs. 2002;25:114–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rejchrt S, Cermak P, Pavlatova L, et al. Bactetriologic testing of endoscopes after high-level disinfection. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;60:76–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ofstead CL, Dirlam Langlay AM, Mueller NJ, et al. Re-evaluating endoscopy-associated infection risk estimates and their implications. Am J Infect Control. 2013;41:734–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shaefer MK, Jhung M, Dahl M, et al. Infection control assessment of ambulatory surgical centers. JAMA. 2010;303:2273–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dirlam Langlay AM, Ofstead CL, Mueller NJ, et al. Reported gastrointestinal endoscope reprocessing lapses: the tip of the iceberg. Am J Infect Control. 2013;41:1188–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.••
    Rutala WA, Weber DJ. ERCP scopes: what can we do to prevent infections? Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015;36:643–8. This editorial reviews the issues with the current guidelines for duodenoscope reprocessing and discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed advanced reprocessing techniques. The authors also present thoughtful long term solutions to duodenoscope reprocessing to ensure patient safety during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Supplemental measures to enhance duodenoscope reprocessing: FDA safety communication. FDA Safety Communication. Issued August 4, 2015. Available at: ?>Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm454766.htm. Accessed 4 August 2015.
  17. 17.
    Interim duodenoscope sampling method: interim sampling method for the duodenoscope—distal end and instrument channel. Issued August 19, 2015. Available at: ?>lab/lab-duodenoscope-sampling.html. Accessed 1 September 2015.
  18. 18.
    Interim duodenoscope culture method: interim culture method for the duodenoscope—distal end and instrument channel. Issued August 19, 2015. Available at: Accessed 1 September 2015.
  19. 19.•
    Ross AS, Baliga C, Verma P, et al. A quarantine process for the resolution of duodenoscope-associated transmission of multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;82:477–83. This article demonstrates the efficacy of a novel culture and quarantine advanced reprocessing technique that was adopted at an institution following a duodenoscope-associated carbapenem-resistent Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) outbreak.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Petersen BT. Monitoring of endoscope reprocessing: accumulating data but best practices remain undefined. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014;35:995–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Interim duodenoscope surveillance protocol: interim protocol for healthcare facilities regarding surveillance for bacterial contamination of duodenoscopes after reprocessing. Issued March 11, 2015. Available at: Accessed 1 September 2015.
  22. 22.
    Kovaleva J, Peters FT, van der Mei HC, et al. Transmission of infection by flexible gastrointestinal endoscopy and bronchoscopy. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2013;26:231–54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Duarte RS, Lourenço MC, Fonseca Lde S, et al. Epidemic of postsurgical infections caused by Mycobacterium massiliense. J Clin Microbiol. 2009;47:2149–55.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fisher CW, Fiorello A, Shaffer D, et al. Aldehyde-resistant mycobacteria bacteria associated with the use of endoscope reprocessing systems. Am J Infect Control. 2012;40:880–2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Alfa MJ, DeGagne P, Olson N, et al. Comparison of liquid chemical sterilization with peracetic acid and ethylene oxide sterilization for long narrow lumens. Am J Infect Control. 1998;26:469–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Naryzhny I, Silas D, Chi K. Impact of ethylene oxide gas sterilization of duodenoscopes after a carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae outbreak. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016. [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Urgent field correction: updated instructions for use for Pentax medical ED-3490TK video duodenoscope. Issued February 19, 2016. Available at: Accessed 15March 2016.
  28. 28.
    Alfa MJ, Fatima I, Olson N. Validation of adenosine triphosphate to audit manual cleaning of flexible endoscope channels. Am J Infect Control. 2013;41:245–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Alfa MJ, DeGagne P, Olson N. Worse-case soiling levels for patient-used flexible endoscopes before and after cleaning. Am J Infect Controll. 1999;27:392–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Digestive DiseasesDavid Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)Los AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations