PURPOSE: An outbreak of gram-negative bacteremia in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) was investigated to determine the sources of infection and to control transmission. PATIENTS, METHODS, AND RESULTS: The incidence of post-ERCP bacteremia increased from 1.6% (60 of 3,696) procedures to 3.6% (53 of 1,454) procedures (relative risk 2.3, p < 0.0001) after endoscopes were processed in a new automated disinfector. Bacteremia involved nine species of Pseudomonas and Enterobacteriaceae, which were also isolated from processed endoscopes. Seven epidemic strains with highly related genomic macrorestriction profiles each infected 2 or more patients, accounting for 29 (55%) episodes of post-ERCP bacteremia. Strains recovered from endoscopes and from the disinfector were associated with 22 (42%) and 5 (9%) bacteremic episodes respectively. Effective endoscope disinfection was achieved by cleansing and disinfection of a blind channel not processed in the disinfector, additional isopropanol-air flush of all channels, and auto-disinfection of the disinfector. In the following period, the incidence of post-ERCP bacteremia returned to the pre-epidemic rate (1.7%, p = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Bacterial genome fingerprinting by macrorestriction analysis enabled delineation of a multi-strain outbreak of post-ERCP bacteremia. Cross-contamination, and to a lesser extent, common-source contamination, appeared related to inadequate disinfection of endoscopes processed in an automated disinfector.
PURPOSE: An outbreak of gram-negative bacteremia in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) was investigated to determine the sources of infection and to control transmission. PATIENTS, METHODS, AND RESULTS: The incidence of post-ERCP bacteremia increased from 1.6% (60 of 3,696) procedures to 3.6% (53 of 1,454) procedures (relative risk 2.3, p < 0.0001) after endoscopes were processed in a new automated disinfector. Bacteremia involved nine species of Pseudomonas and Enterobacteriaceae, which were also isolated from processed endoscopes. Seven epidemic strains with highly related genomic macrorestriction profiles each infected 2 or more patients, accounting for 29 (55%) episodes of post-ERCP bacteremia. Strains recovered from endoscopes and from the disinfector were associated with 22 (42%) and 5 (9%) bacteremic episodes respectively. Effective endoscope disinfection was achieved by cleansing and disinfection of a blind channel not processed in the disinfector, additional isopropanol-air flush of all channels, and auto-disinfection of the disinfector. In the following period, the incidence of post-ERCP bacteremia returned to the pre-epidemic rate (1.7%, p = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Bacterial genome fingerprinting by macrorestriction analysis enabled delineation of a multi-strain outbreak of post-ERCP bacteremia. Cross-contamination, and to a lesser extent, common-source contamination, appeared related to inadequate disinfection of endoscopes processed in an automated disinfector.
Authors: T Muratani; S Akasaka; T Kobayashi; Y Yamada; H Inatomi; K Takahashi; T Matsumoto Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2001-12 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: M Edelstein; M Pimkin; T Dmitrachenko; V Semenov; N Kozlova; D Gladin; A Baraniak; L Stratchounski Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Jaroslav Hrabák; Dana Cervená; Radoslaw Izdebski; Wojciech Duljasz; Marek Gniadkowski; Marta Fridrichová; Pavla Urbásková; Helena Zemlicková Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2010-10-27 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: A Forcina; R Baldan; V Marasco; P Cichero; A Bondanza; M Noviello; S Piemontese; C Soliman; R Greco; F Lorentino; F Giglio; C Messina; M Carrabba; M Bernardi; J Peccatori; M Moro; A Biancardi; P Nizzero; P Scarpellini; D M Cirillo; N Mancini; C Corti; M Clementi; F Ciceri Journal: Bone Marrow Transplant Date: 2016-09-26 Impact factor: 5.483
Authors: A Deplano; O Denis; L Poirel; D Hocquet; C Nonhoff; B Byl; P Nordmann; J L Vincent; M J Struelens Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 5.948