References
- FDA. Reducing the risk of infection from reprocessed duodenoscopes. [Internet]. Silver Spring: FDA; c2019 [cited 2021 Oct 13]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/132187/download.
- Murray P, Member R. Health, Education, Labor, Pensions Committee. Preventable tragedies: superbugs and how ineffective monitoring of medical device safety fails patients. [Internet]. United States Senate Minority Staff Report; c2016 [cited 2021 Oct 13]. Available from: https://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Duodenoscope%20Investigation%20FINAL%20Report.pdf.
- FDA. Design of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) duodenoscopes may impede effective cleaning: FDA safety communication [Internet]. Silver Spring: FDA; c2015 [cited 2021 Oct 13]. Available from: http://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170722213105/ https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm434871.htm.
- FDA. Supplemental measures to enhance duodenoscope reprocessing: FDA safety communication [Internet]. Silver Spring: FDA; c2015 [cited 2021 Oct 13]. Available from: http://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170722150658/https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm454766.htm.
- FDA. 522 Postmarket Surveillance Studies Database [Internet]. Silver Spring: FDA; c2016 [cited 2021 Oct 13]. Available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMA/pss.cfm?t_id=355&c_id=3727.
- FDA. 522 Postmarket Surveillance Studies Database [Internet]. Silver Spring: FDA; c2016 [cited 2021 Oct 13]. Available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMA/pss.cfm?t_id=354&c_id=3726.
- Rauwers AW, Voor In 't Holt AF, Buijs JG, et al. High prevalence rate of digestive tract bacteria in duodenoscopes: a nationwide study. Gut 2018;67:1637-1645.
- 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.
- Mark JA, Underberg K, Kramer RE. Results of duodenoscope culture and quarantine after manufacturer-recommended cleaning process. Gastrointest Endosc 2020;91:1328-1333.
- 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;88:306-313.e2.
- Gromski MA, Sieber MS, Sherman S, Rex DK. Double high-level disinfection versus liquid chemical sterilization for reprocessing of duodenoscopes used for ERCP: a prospective randomized study. Gastrointest Endosc 2021;93:927-931.
- Higa JT, Choe J, Tombs D, Gluck M, Ross AS. Optimizing duodenoscope reprocessing: rigorous assessment of a culture and quarantine protocol. Gastrointest Endosc 2018;88:223-229.
- Naryzhny I, Silas D, Chi K. Impact of ethylene oxide gas sterilization of duodenoscopes after a carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae outbreak. Gastrointest Endosc 2016;84:259-262.
- 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.
- 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.
- Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC. Chapter 8: assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [Internet]. London: Cochrane; c2011 [updated 2011 Mar]. Available from: http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/.
- Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:264-269, W64.
- Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 2010;25:603-605.
- FDA/CDC/ASM Working Group on Duodenoscope Culturing. Duodenoscope surveillance sampling and culturing protocols [Internet]. Silver Spring: FDA; c2018 [cited 2021 Oct 13]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/111081/download.
- DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1986;7:177-188.
- Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence--inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:1294-1302.
- FDA. The FDA continues to remind facilities of the importance of following duodenoscope reprocessing instructions: FDA safety communication [Internet]. Silver Spring: FDA; c2019 [cited 2021 Oct 13]; Available from: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/fda-continues-remind-facilities-importance-following-duodenoscope-reprocessing-instructions-fda.
- Larsen S, Russell RV, Ockert LK, et al. Rate and impact of duodenoscope contamination: a systematic review and meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine 2020;25:100451.
- FDA. The FDA is recommending transition to duodenoscopes with innovative designs to enhance safety: FDA Safety Communication [Internet]. Silver Spring: FDA; c2019 [cited 2021 Oct 13]; Available from: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/fda-recommending-transition-duodenoscopes-innovative-designs-enhance-safety-fda-safety-communication.
- Pasricha PJ, Miller S, Carter F, Humphries R. Novel and effective disposable device that provides 2-way protection to the duodenoscope from microbial contamination. Gastrointest Endosc 2020;92:199-208.
- Ross AS, Bruno MJ, Kozarek RA, et al. Novel single-use duodenoscope compared with 3 models of reusable duodenoscopes for ERCP: a randomized bench-model comparison. Gastrointest Endosc 2020;91:396-403.
- Bang JY, Hawes R, Varadarajulu S. Equivalent performance of single-use and reusable duodenoscopes in a randomised trial. Gut 2021;70:838-844.