United States Senate

HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS COMMITTEE
Patty Murray, Ranking Member

Preventable Tragedies:Superbugs and How Ineffective Monitoring ofMedical Device Safety Fails Patients

Minority Staff Report
January 13, 2016

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... i
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1
Many Hospitals Experienced Infections Linked to Closed-Channel Duodenoscopes........................... 3
Background ................................................................................................................................................. 5
The Current Surveillance System to Ensure Medical Devices are Safe and Effective is Inadequate . 7
Device Manufacturers Failed to Meet Regulatory Requirements and Endangered Patients .............. 8
Olympus knew in 2012 that the design of its closed-channel duodenoscope could prevent effective
cleaning. .................................................................................................................................................... 9
Olympus failed to meet its regulatory obligations. ................................................................................. 12
Pentax and Fujifilm also failed to comply with regulatory requirements. .............................................. 15
Custom Ultrasonics’ automated endoscope reprocessors likely contributed to patient infections.......... 16
Hospitals Were Slow to Report Infections .............................................................................................. 18
Hospitals did not comply with mandatory requirements to report information to manufacturers. ......... 19
Hospitals did not proactively communicate information to federal agencies. ........................................ 21
FDA Failed to Recognize the Prevalence of Duodenoscope-Linked Infections and Respond Quickly.................................................................................................................................................................... 22
FDA Needs a More Robust Device Safety Surveillance System............................................................ 25
A passive device surveillance system is ineffective even when manufacturers and hospitals self-report
information about device safety to FDA. ................................................................................................ 25
A system like Sentinel for surveillance of devices could have prevented life-threatening infections
worldwide................................................................................................................................................ 27
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 28
Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................... 29
Appendices I through IV……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………... 38

Executive Summary
In September 2013, staff at Virginia Mason Hospital and Medical Center in Seattle, Washington,
traced a cluster of antibiotic-resistant infections in patients to a medical device called a closedchannel duodenoscope, which is used to identify and treat conditions of the pancreas and bile duct.
Around the same time, staff at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital outside of Chicago, with thehelp of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, similarly linked an outbreak of superbug
infections to closed-channel duodenoscopes.
Both hospitals concluded that closed-channel duodenoscopes remained contaminated evenafter proper cleaning, spreading bacteria between patients, but it took 17 more months forduodenoscope manufacturers and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to alert
hospitals, doctors, and the public to the risk posed by the devices.



In January 2015, after several outbreaks of serious infections, including in Seattle, became
public, Senator Patty Murray, the Ranking Member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor,and Pensions Committee, initiated an investigation to determine the extent of
duodenoscope-linked infections, understand the slow response, and determine if legislativechanges were needed to prevent similar problems in the future.



Senator Murray’s staff investigation has demonstrated that the clusters of infections at
Virginia Mason and Advocate Lutheran were not isolated incidents. Between 2012 andspring 2015, closed-channel duodenoscopes were linked to at least 25 different incidents
of antibiotic-resistant infections that sickened at least 250 patients worldwide.

The investigation found that by early 2013, Olympus, the manufacturer of 85 percent of
the duodenoscopes used in the United States, knew of two independent lab reports findingthat the closed-channel model duodenoscope could harbor and spread bacteria even after
cleaning according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Olympus never brought thisinformation to FDA, and did not alert hospitals, physicians or patients in the U.S. to therisk of infection until February 2015.

The investigation also found that Olympus, as well as the other two manufacturers ofduodenoscopes used in the United States, Pentax and Fujifilm, and Custom Ultrasonics,
the manufacturer of the automated cleaning machine in use at many of the hospitals thatexperienced infections, failed to meet the obligations placed upon them by the current
regulatory system. Two of the manufacturers failed to seek FDA clearance before sellingthe “closed-channel” duodenoscopes, all failed to adequately test whether the scopes could
be cleaned reliably in real-world settings, and fully comply with adverse events reporting
requirements.

Additionally, although at least 16 separate U.S. hospitals traced antibiotic-resistantinfections directly to duodenoscopes, the hospitals generally did not raise alarms about
these infections with federal regulators. It appears that not a single hospital thatexperienced infection outbreaks tied to the duodenoscopes sent the required adverse event
form to the device manufacturers.

When hospitals did take required action to report adverse events to device manufacturers
it was often late, notification was made informally by phone or email, and reports were notiinclusive of all the information necessary for the manufacturers to themselves submit
accurate and complete information to FDA.


While FDA started investigating how closed-channel duodenoscopes cleaned according to
manufacturers’ instructions spread infection in September of 2013, the agency took no
action to alert hospitals, doctors and the public to the risk posed by closed-channel
duodenoscopes for 17 months. At least 68 patients in seven different hospitals in the UnitedStates were infected with antibiotic-resistant bacteria linked to duodenoscopes during thisperiod.

Problems with FDA’s outmoded adverse event device database, as well as slow andincomplete reporting by manufacturers and hospitals, appear to have left FDA staff unable
to develop an accurate sense of the frequency and severity of the infection outbreaks. FDA
was also unaware that by early 2013, two independent labs in Europe had documented the
Olympus closed channel duodenoscope remaining contaminated after repeated cleaning,or that a Dutch Health Ministry report in 2013 had already concluded that Olympus did nothave the data to show their cleaning instructions worked consistently and effectively.



As a result, the FDA wasted valuable time seeking cleaning data from manufacturers andtrying to conclusively determine that cleaning mistakes by hospital staff in cleaning were
not the responsible for the infections. Unlike FDA’s surveillance of drugs, where theagency is increasingly able to use the “Sentinel” system to develop fast and accurate
information about adverse events, FDA had no way to seek independent information about
adverse events linked to medical devices.



The failure of FDA’s current device safety reporting system to rapidly identify
duodenoscope-related, antibiotic-resistant infections, including superbug infections,should serve as warning that without a comprehensive postmarket device surveillancesystem that supplements self-reporting from hospitals and manufacturers, future device
issues are likely to go undetected for far too long and with life-threatening consequences.



To minimize future delays in identifying and addressing device safety issues, the report
recommends:
o Congress require unique device identifiers (UDIs) to be included in insurance
claims and fully fund a National Medical Device Evaluation System to ensure that
FDA is able to effectively monitor the safety of medical devices on the market
rather than relying on adverse event reporting.
o FDA quickly evaluate the design of closed-channel duodenoscopes and implementa phased recall to fix or modify the devices if necessary.
o FDA update its guidance to clarify when manufacturers are required to seek 510(k)clearance when medical devices are modified, and that Congress clarify FDA’s
authority to consider a 510(k) application incomplete in the absence of sufficient
data to demonstrate a medical device can be safely cleaned and reused.
o FDA implement new draft guidance to more quickly disseminate information to
health care providers when the agency becomes aware of information that patient
safety might be compromised by a medical device; ando Compliance by hospitals with adverse event reporting related to medical devices bemade a Condition of Participation in Medicare.
iiIntroduction
In the summer of 2013, staff at Virginia Mason Hospital in Seattle, Washington realized thatmultiple patients were contracting the same type of antibiotic-resistant infection after undergoinga specific procedure at the hospital. By September 2013, after conducting an extensive
epidemiological investigation in conjunction with the King County and Washington State Health
Departments, the hospital linked the infections to closed-channel duodenoscopes. Duodenoscopes
are medical devices used in a procedure called endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography(ERCP) to diagnose and treat problems in the bile or pancreatic ducts. By the time the hospital
successfully contained the outbreak of infections in early 2014, at least 32 patients at Virginia
Mason were infected with antibiotic-resistant infections after undergoing ERCP.1 At least elevenof those patients later died, although it is unclear whether those deaths were a direct result of theinfections.2
During the same period in 2013 when patients at Virginia Mason were falling ill, 32 patients
contracted carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriacea (CRE), a bacteria that is resistant to even themost potent antibiotics, after undergoing ERCP at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital in Park
Ridge, Illinois. CRE is a deadly bacteria, often called a “superbug,” that kills almost half of those
infected. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) investigated the outbreak after
Advocate Lutheran requested assistance with identifying the source of the bacteria and containing
the infection. By September 2013, CDC and Advocate Lutheran had determined that the CRE
outbreak in Illinois – like the outbreak in Washington – was linked to ERCP procedures using
closed-channel duodenoscopes.
After The Seattle Times broke the news in late January 2015 that Virginia Mason had experienced
an outbreak of antibiotic-resistant infections in ERCP patients, Senator Patty Murray, Ranking
Member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), initiated aninvestigation into these dangerous duodenoscope-linked infections. In February and March 2015,
Senator Murray sent two letters to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and in June she sent
requests for documents to the three manufacturers of closed-channel duodenoscopes sold in the
United States: Olympus Medical Systems (Olympus), Hoya Corporation PENTAX Life Care
Division (Pentax), and Fujifilm Medical Systems (Fujifilm). All three manufacturers provided
significant information in response to the request, including previously unavailable independent
reports provided by Olympus. Senator Murray’s staff also conducted interviews with hospitals,
subject matter experts, independent investigators, state and local health departments, CDC, andFDA.
Senator Murray’s staff investigation has demonstrated
that the clusters of infections at Virginia Mason and Between 2012 and spring 2015,
Advocate Lutheran linked to closed-channel closed-channel duodenoscopes
duodenoscopes were not isolated incidents. Between were linked to at least 25
2012 and spring of 2015, the Olympus closed-channel
different instances of antibioticduodenoscope used at Virginia Mason, together withclosed-channel models made by Pentax and Fujifilm, resistant infections that sickened
were linked to at least 25 different instances of at least 250 patients worldwide.
antibiotic-resistant infections that sickened at least 250
patients worldwide. Because some of the identified infections had unique markers that made the1bacteria possible to track, and because the hospitals that have reported infections are primarily
large research hospitals and medical centers adept at spotting and addressing antibiotic-resistantinfections, it is likely that there are more incidents of infections linked to these devices that havenever been identified.
The investigation found that Olympus, the manufacturer of 85 percent of the duodenoscopes usedin the United States, knew by May 2012 that the closed-channel duodenoscope model used at
Virginia Mason could harbor and spread bacteria even after proper cleaning. By the fall of 2012,
Olympus was aware that its duodenoscopes had been linked to antibiotic-resistant infections,
including superbug infections, caused by life-threatening multidrug-resistant organisms at
hospitals in both the United States and Europe. By early 2013, independent laboratory tests of atleast two different closed-channel duodenoscopes showed the devices remained contaminated after
careful repeated cleaning and reprocessing.
Despite this, Olympus issued no safety alerts or guidance to hospitals and physicians in the UnitedStates until February 2015 – almost three years after first realizing the problem in April 2012. In
contrast, Olympus sent some hospitals in Europe two separate alerts in 2013 and 2014, which, atthe very least, advised extra caution when cleaning these duodenoscopes.
Olympus, Fujifilm, and Pentax also failed to meet their obligations to provide FDA with theinformation the agency needs to keep patients safe.
At the time duodenoscope Olympus and Fujifilm never applied for FDA clearance
manufacturers
soldtheir for the new design of the closed-channel duodenoscope
devices to hospitals in the before selling the devices in the United States. The
United States, they lacked manufacturers also attested to FDA that they had tested
their duodenoscope cleaning instructions andsufficient data to show their demonstrated that they worked reliably. However, none
cleaning instructions worked. of the manufacturers actually had sufficient data to show
to reliably decontaminate the that duodenoscopes could be reliably cleaned between
uses.
Finally, the manufacturers did not consistently report the information they had regarding
devices.
infections linked to the devices.
Additionally, the investigation found that many, although not all, of the domestic hospitals withduodenoscope-linked outbreaks used an automated endoscope reprocessor (AER) manufactured
by Custom Ultrasonics. Custom Ultrasonics, like the duodenoscope manufacturers, failed to meet
its regulatory obligations, including filing appropriate applications with FDA, testing its machines
sufficiently to make sure they worked, and filing complete and accurate adverse event reports. In
November 2015, FDA issued a mandatory recall of all Custom Ultrasonics AERs.
Further, the investigation established that although at least 16 separate domestic hospitals traced
antibiotic-resistant infections directly to ERCP procedures, as a group, the facilities generally
failed to quickly raise alarms with FDA and CDC. In some cases, hospitals completely failed tomake the required reports of infections to the devices’ manufacturers. This limited and slow
reporting by hospitals likely impaired FDA’s ability to accurately assess the frequency and severityof outbreaks of duodenoscope-linked infections.
Failures by device manufacturers and hospitals to quickly and completely disclose important
information to FDA, and FDA’s outmoded adverse event system, hampered the agency’s ability
to accurately assess and respond to the infections. Because FDA did not have prompt and complete2

information, it took the agency overly long toaccept that duodenoscope-linked infections were
not the result of hospital cleaning errors. As aresult, contaminated duodenoscopes spread
serious infections for at least three years before
manufacturers and FDA alerted hospitals in the
United States. FDA’s first safety communication
regarding duodenoscope cleaning did not occur foralmost 17 months after the agency first becameaware of the spread of infections. In the interim,
at least 68 patients were affected in seven different
hospitals in the United States.

Between the time FDA learned
duodenoscopes
could
remaincontaminated even after propercleaning and the first safety alerts, atleast 68 patients in seven different
hospitals in the United States were
infected with antibiotic-resistantinfections.

The investigation provides a vivid example of the failure of FDA’s current system for tracking andmonitoring the safety of medical devices on the market (the postmarket surveillance system).
FDA’s postmarket surveillance system relies too heavily on self-reporting from manufacturers andhospitals with competing priorities that weigh against full and fast disclosure of patient safetyconcerns. This passive postmarket surveillance system inhibits FDA’s ability to quickly identify
information related patient health and device safety. Until a system is implemented that allows
FDA to independently monitor, track, and assess the performance of devices, the agency will not
be able to adequately identify risks to patient safety from particular devices like duodenoscopes
and move quickly to address those risks.

Many Hospitals Experienced Infections Linked to ClosedChannel Duodenoscopes
Senator Murray’s staff investigation has revealed that outbreaks of antibiotic-resistant infections
caused by deadly multidrug-resistant organisms spread by duodenoscopes were vastly morewidespread than previously reported. In June 2015, when Senator Murray first sought informationfrom Olympus, Pentax, and Fujifilm, the three manufacturers of duodenoscopes sold in the UnitedStates, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had recently announced that there had been atleast nine outbreaks of infections related to duodenoscopes.3 According to documents provided to
the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, however, from 2012 throughspring of 2015, there have actually been at least 25 separate outbreaks of patient infections
following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures with closedchannel scopes in four different countries and 10 states. These outbreaks infected at least 250
people with life-threatening illnesses including carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE), a
dangerous superbug that is resistant to our most potent antibiotics and that kills about half of thoseit infects.4

Institutions where antibiotic-resistant infections linked to duodenoscopes occurred include:1

The number of patients infected and date of infections indicate committee staffs’ understanding based on the
totality of the information obtained during this investigation. They are estimates only.
1

3

Estimated # ofPatients Infected

Approximate time
infections

Duodenoscope
Manufacturer

Erasmus Medical Center,
Rotterdam, Netherlands

30

January 2012

Olympus

Clinique De Bercy,
Charenton-le-Pont, France3

October 2012

Olympus135

November 2012

Olympus15

December 2012

Olympus20

December 2012

Olympus1

2013

Olympus

8

January 2013

Olympus5

February 2013

Olympus32

March 2013

PentaxHospital

University of Pittsburgh Medical
Center Presbyterian Hospital,
Pittsburgh, PA
New York-Presbyterian/Weill
Cornell Medical Center,
New York City, NY
UMass Memorial Medical Center,
Worchester, MA
Carolinas Medical Center,
Charlotte, NC
Thomas Jefferson University
Hospital,
Philadelphia, PA
Charite-Universitatsmedizin,
Berlin, Germany
Advocate Lutheran General Hospital,
Park Ridge, IL
Froedtert Hospital,
Milwaukee, WI
Virginia Mason Hospital and Medical
Center,Seattle, WA
Clinique De Bercy,
Charenton-Le-Pont, France

5

May 2013

Olympus32

Spring/Summer
2013

Olympus2

November 2013

OlympusHartford Hospital,
Hartford, CT

12January 2014

OlympusMassachusetts General Hospital,
Boston, MA

7Before Spring 2014

Pentax

Advocate Good Samaritan Hospital,
Downers Grove, IL

3

May 2014

Fujifilm

4

May 2014

Olympus

96

August 2014

Olympus

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center,
Torrance, CA

4

August 2014

Olympus

UCLA Medical Center,
Los Angeles, CA

7

October 2014

OlympusEvangelisches Waldkrankenhaus,
Spandau,
Berlin, Germany
Boca Raton Regional Hospital,
Boca Raton, FL

4

Carolinas Medical Center,
Charlotte, NC

18

2015

Olympus

MGH Gastroenterology Associates,
Boston, MA

5January 2015

Pentax

Massachusetts General Hospital,
Boston, MA

3January 2015

PentaxUniversitair Medisch Centrum,
Utrecht, Netherlands

8

January 2015

OlympusAllegheny General Hospital,
Pittsburgh, PA

1February 2015

Olympus

Fox Chase Cancer Center,
Philadelphia, PA

3

April 2015

Fujifilm

Because some of the infections identified had unique markers that made the bacteria possible to
track, and because the hospitals that have reported infections are primarily large, well-resourced
research hospitals adept at spotting and addressing antibiotic-resistant infections, it is likely that
there have been more incidents of infections linked to these devices that were never identified.

Background
Duodenoscopes, Reprocessing, and Automated Endoscope Reprocessors
Duodenoscopes are flexible, hollow tubes that are typically used during ERCP to treat patients
suffering from blockage in their bile or pancreatic ducts due to tumors and other serious medical
conditions.7 Doctors in the United States performed more than 660,000 potentially lifesaving
ERCP procedures in 2014. 8 Duodenoscopes are currently sold in the United States by threecompanies based in Japan: Olympus, Fujifilm, and Pentax. Olympus manufactures about 85
percent of the duodenoscopes used in the United States, Pentax about 12 percent, and Fujifilm only
about three percent.9
All types of endoscopes can spread infection by passing bodily
fluids or debris from one patient to subsequent patients if they are
not properly cleaned between uses. Careful cleaning is especiallycritical for duodenoscopes because they are used in parts of the
body with high levels of bacteria and patients undergoingprocedures with duodenoscopes are often already very ill, raising
the risk of infection. Also, a duodenoscope’s elevator channel,
which allows physicians to insert a guidewire and catheter into theduodenum, is particularly difficult to clean between uses. In early
duodenoscopes, the elevator wire channel was open and exposed tobodily fluids, while the newer “closed-channel” duodenoscopemodel seals off the elevator wire channel from contaminants.10

Picture taken from www.olympus.co.uk

To ensure that a duodenoscope does not spread infection, it must undergo reprocessing, a multistep cleaning procedure to ensure the device is safe for re-use.11 There are generally three steps toduodenoscope reprocessing:51) Point-of-use Processing: Hospitals perform point-of-use processing immediately after adevice has been used by rinsing or wiping the device to make sure that contaminants do not
dry and make cleaning more difficult.122) Thorough Cleaning: After point-of-use processing, a technician uses a brush to ensure allparts of the device are cleansed of any soil and debris. Thorough cleaning is essential
because debris and other material remaining on a duodenoscope can interfere with the final
disinfection or sterilization phase of reprocessing. 13
3) High Level Disinfection: Devices like duodenoscopes that contact mucous membranes ornon-intact skin, but that cannot withstand heat sterilization, are required to undergo highlevel disinfection (HLD), which kills most microbes remaining after thorough cleaning.14
Most hospitals achieve HLD by using an AER. AERs flush liquid chemicals through thescope to destroy lingering contamination after cleaning and then rinse the scope to remove
the chemical before reuse.15
FDA’s Regulation of Devices
FDA oversees the safety and effectiveness medical devices, more than 1,700 of which areclassified by the agency into three different categories based on the amount of risk they pose topatient health and safety. 16 Duodenoscopes are classified as Class II devices, which pose amedium level of risk.17 When a manufacturer modifies the design of a Class II device in a waythat might implicate the safety or effectiveness of that device, it must make what is known as a“510(k) submission” to show FDA that the device remains “substantially equivalent” to a device
the agency has already cleared and that the design change does not put patients at any additionalrisk.18 It is the manufacturer’s responsibility to determine when a 510(k) submission to FDA isrequired.19
It is also the manufacturer’s responsibility to validate the design of their new or modified devices
to make sure they work properly, which includes the ability for that device to be safely reprocessed
between uses. 20 Manufacturers must test their devices and collect evidence to show that
reprocessing will consistently result in a device that meets certain decontamination
specifications.21 Proper validation should test all stages of reprocessing, and “the characteristicsof the user population and operating environment [should be] considered.”22
Once a medical device is sold and in use in the United States, FDA monitors the device primarily
by relying on manufacturers and hospitals to observe when a device is working and to report when
it is not. Manufacturers are required to submit medical device reports (MDRs) within 30 days oflearning information that reasonably suggests a device may have caused or contributed to a deathor serious injury. 23 Within in 10 work days, hospitals must report serious injuries potentiallycaused by devices to the manufacturers, and report deaths connected to a device to both the
manufacturers and FDA.24 Additionally, the Medical Product Safety Network (MedSun) provides
a secure online mechanism for 250 participating hospitals to report adverse events related to
medical devices before a patient is injured or dies. 25 Finally, anyone, including hospitals andpatients, may submit a voluntary “MedWatch” report to alert FDA to any suspected device issues.
FDA receives over one million MDRs each year, and relies on a small number of human reviewers
to spot safety issues.26 MDRs are often incomplete and lack key details, in part because FDA
encourages quick filing with additional follow-up as more information is learned, and thus expects
6

initial submissions to be incomplete. MDR reports are primarily useful once FDA has alreadyidentified a problem; the agency can then search the MDR databases to identify similar or related
reports. MDRs are extremely difficult to search and query, however. A simple spelling error orinconsistency in naming products can prevent the agency from tracking or identifying MDRs
related to specific devices or patient outcomes.27 Moreover, MDRs are not designed to identify
trends, alert FDA to emerging problems, or track particular devices over time.
Finally, FDA can also require device manufacturers to conduct a postmarket surveillance study ofthe safety or effectiveness of a device (a section 522 postmarket surveillance study). FDA sets out
specific questions, and the manufacturer designs and conducts a study to answer those questions
over a three year period. The manufacturer then produces a Postmarket Surveillance Study Reportsetting forth the results of its study.28 These section 522 postmarket surveillance studies have been
criticized by some observers because there is very little infrastructure developed to assist device
manufacturers as they design and carry out the studies, including a lack of device registries or
identification codes that allow manufacturers to track and link devices to outcomes. 29
Additionally, there are few incentives for clinicians and patients to participate in the studies, which
may make it difficult for manufacturers to obtain the information they need.30 As an example,
while FDA has sought studies on 104 metal-on-metal hip products. However, just 24 products
have FDA-approved study plans while the remaining 80 are listed as having either a “Plan
Pending” or a “Plan Overdue.31
Currently, device manufacturers are essentially responsible for determining when a new clearance
is required, how much information to report about adverse events, and how to conduct safety
studies. This forces FDA to rely too heavily on manufacturers and user facilities to alert the agency
to problems, help it accurately assess the severity of a potential safety issue, and move quickly toaddress it.

The Current Surveillance System to Ensure Medical Devices
are Safe and Effective is Inadequate
The investigation found that FDA’s current regulatory system for monitoring the safety of devices
failed to quickly identify and resolve the spread of duodenoscope-linked, antibiotic-resistantinfections. It took FDA almost a year and a half from the time the agency first became aware thatclosed-channel duodenoscopes could remain contaminated after proper cleaning to alert hospitals
and the public. While responsibility for the slow response is shared among Olympus and the otherdevice manufacturers, hospitals, and FDA, the investigation overall demonstrates that FDA’s
device surveillance system is overly-reliant on device manufacturers and user facilities to makequick and complete reporting of safety issues over their own competing priorities.
FDA relies on device manufacturers and hospitals to provide information so that FDA has the data
it needs to assess the safety and effectiveness of medical devices. The regime relies on compliancewith the law and self-reporting from device manufacturers and hospitals, ignoring the reality that
manufacturers and health care providers have strong competing priorities that weigh against rapid
and robust disclosure, such as moving new products to market quickly and avoiding costly
litigation.

7

The current postmarket surveillance system relies on device manufacturers to self-monitor andself-report by: 1) determining when it is necessary to submit design modifications to FDA for
review; 2) adequately testing that the devices work consistently in real-world settings; and 3)
reporting when adverse events occur. The device manufacturers in this investigation failed to fullycomply with any of these three regulatory requirements, providing a vivid example of the flaws
with the current system.
FDA’s reliance on manufacturers and hospitals to quickly and accurately report safety concerns
related to devices stands in contrast to FDA’s ability to independently monitor the safety of drugs.
FDA increasingly has access to information about the postmarket safety and effectiveness of drugs
through its “Sentinel” surveillance system.32 Because all drugs carry a National Device Code
(NDC), which is also included on all pharmacy insurance claims and electronic health records,
FDA has been able to leverage the wealth of information available through these sources to identify
potential problems with a particular drug and proactively monitor drugs that are new to the market
or are of particular interest. Sentinel allows FDA to query databases that contain real-time
information, reducing the agency’s reliance on the information reported by drug manufacturers
and hospitals. Sentinel has the added advantage of allowing the agency to assess the frequency ofadverse events relative to the overall use of a drug and relative to the rate of adverse events for
similar drugs.
At this time, no similar system exists for devices. While the Food and Drug Administration
Amendments Act of 2007 required devices to have a Unique Device Identifier (UDI) placed on
medical device labels and packages comparable to the NDC number for drugs, and the Food andDrug Administration Safety and Innovation Act of 2012 required that Sentinel be expanded todevices, the UDI requirement does not go into effect for all devices until 2020. 33 Of moresignificant concern, UDIs are not currently included in insurance claims, which contain the criticalinformation necessary to draw conclusions about device safety and patient outcomes. Without
widespread adoption of UDI in electronic health records and claims, FDA will remain overly
reliant on information reported by manufacturers and hospitals and unable to utilize a Sentinellike system to ensure critical information about problematic devices is rapidly identified.
As detailed below, Olympus, Pentax, Fujifilm, and Custom Ultrasonics failed to report to FDA theinformation necessary to make the current postmarket surveillance system work properly.
Hospitals also generally failed to provide manufacturers with required information about
antibiotic-resistant infections linked to their devices or to proactively alert federal authorities totheir concerns. As a result, FDA was unable to accurately assess and quickly react to the risks
posed by closed-channel duodenoscopes.

Device Manufacturers Failed to Meet Regulatory
Requirements and Endangered Patients
By the end of 2012, at least one duodenoscope manufacturer, Olympus, was aware that the newclosed-channel duodenoscope the company had marketed since 2010 had the potential to remaincontaminated even after cleaning and reprocessing according to manufacturers’ instructions.
Properly cleaning reusable devices like duodenoscopes is challenging, and failures to clean thedevices correctly have resulted in patient infections in the past. An elevator wire channel locatedat the end of the duodenoscope allows doctors to move tools inserted through the duodenoscope8to perform procedures. 34 In early duodenoscope models, the elevator wire channel remained open
and exposed to the same type of contamination as the rest of the scope.
In an effort to protect this part of the scope from contamination, in 2010 Olympus introduced a
new closed-channel model that sealed off the elevator wire channel with an “O-ring” designed toprevent exposure to any contaminants from a patient. 35 The other two duodenoscope
manufacturers, Pentax and Fujifilm, similarly moved to closed-channel duodenoscopes although
Pentax did so considerably earlier.
After a lengthy investigation by FDA throughout 2014 and 2015, it is now evident that, unlike
open-channel duodenoscopes, closed-channel duodenoscopes can trap and transmit bacteria evenwhen the devices are cleaned according to manufacturers’ instructions. Moreover, at least one
manufacturer, Olympus, the manufacturer of 85 percent of the duodenoscopes used in the UnitedStates and in 19 of the 25 reported incidents, was aware of the problems well before FDA’s
findings, but failed to adequately alert either FDA or the hospitals and patients using these scopes.

Olympus knew in 2012 that the design of its closed-channel
duodenoscope could prevent effective cleaning.
Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Spring 2012
In January 2012, there was an outbreak of antibiotic-resistant infections affecting 30 patients at
Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Hospital staff traced the infections topatients undergoing ERCP, and then directly to an Olympus TJF-Q180V closed-channel scope
first marketed in the United States in mid-2010.36
After Erasmus contacted Olympus, the hospital and manufacturer jointly asked Dr. Arjo Loeve of
the Delft University of Technology to conduct an independent investigation into the Olympus
duodenoscope.37 Dr. Loeve’s investigation took place on
April 23, 2012, at Olympus Netherlands headquarters withassistance from an Olympus employee flown in for the
purpose of correctly disassembling the scope. 38 The
investigation was observed by two Olympus Europa
employees, three Olympus Netherlands employees, andsix staff from Erasmus Medical Center.39
The study identified two critical design flaws in the TJFQ180V duodenoscope that made it difficult to cleanreliably. First, Dr. Loeve found a series of tiny crevices
that are too small to clean with a brush but large enoughto allow in and trap bodily fluids and bacteria. In his
report, Dr. Loeve points in particular to the space createdby the axial clearance of the elevator, the area behind thecurve of the elevator, and the hinges of the elevator as“locations where lingering and/or increasing moisture
and/or biological materials are quite likely.”40

Picture from USA TODAY

Dr. Loeve also found that poor-quality sealing at the end of the scope is a potential mechanism fortransmitting bacteria between patients. Dr. Loeve describes cracks in the material around the9camera, scale that was found behind the glass that covers the camera face, and open air bubbles,
which can trap contaminants. 41 The O-ring, which seals off the elevator channel fromcontamination, was torn, worn, and contained “brownish scale,” which indicates the O-ring may
not have created a tight seal.42 This is particularly dangerous because the closed elevator wirechannel, unlike the open channel of the previous duodenoscope model, does not undergo HLD.
Dr. Loeve concluded that it was “very likely [the] O-ring has not done its job” and “reliable sealingby means of the O-ring cannot be guaranteed.”43
Ultimately, in his May 2012 report, Dr. Loeve concluded that there needed to be a series of designchanges to the TJF-Q180V scope to ensure it could be effectively decontaminated between uses.
Dr. Loeve suggested changing the design of the scope to either have multiple sealing barriers or
return to an open channel, to regularly ensure proper sealing between the O-ring and the scope, tofrequently replace the O-ring to ensure the sealing mechanism remains functional, to alter thedesign to make various cracks and spaces larger so that a cleaning brush can reach them, and to
rework the cleaning instructions to better address the hard-to-clean spaces in the scope.44
On May 25, 2012, one month after five Olympus officials participated in the examination of therelevant scope at Delft University and ten days after the Delft“Reliable sealing by report finding that the design of the scope hinders reprocessingmeans of the O-ring was published, Olympus filed an MDR with FDA regarding thecannot be guaranteed.” infections at Erasmus. The MDR stated that “the device wasbeing investigated by independent organization [sic]” and that
–Dr. Arjo Loeve“the photograph of the distal end of the device which was sentfrom OLYMPUS NEDERLAND showed the debris around the objective lens.”45 While the MDR
provided FDA with notice that the infections were linked to the scope, it was fundamentally
misleading. The MDR did not discuss the findings of the Loeve report, misstated the number ofpatients impacted, and specifically stated it could not “conclusively determine the cause [sic] thisevent,” claiming that “it can be considered as a possible cause of this phenomenon that the patient
infected from other than the endoscope and procedure such as environmental factor in the facility[sic].”46
Following Dr. Loeve’s report, the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment(RIVM) requested additional documents and information from
Olympus and Erasmus and produced a follow-up report in July 2013 “The constructionthat confirmed many of Dr. Loeve’s findings. 47 The RIVM report of the endoscopeagreed with Dr. Loeve that “the construction of the endoscope hinders hinders optimum
optimum manual cleaning.”48 The RIVM report similarly confirmed manual cleaning.”that Olympus had no substantive response to Loeve’s concern about– RIVM
the O-ring, although RIVM could not rule out that the scale seen by
Loeve was a result of previous repairs made to the scope rather than Oring failure.49
Olympus did not update FDA regarding the events at Erasmus Medical Center until March 2015,
and the company still did not fully describe the findings of the Delft or RIVM reports.50
University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Presbyterian Hospital, Pittsburgh, fall 2012
A few months after Dr. Loeve’s report first raised alarms about whether the Olympus closedchannel duodenoscope could be consistently disinfected by following the manufacturer’s cleaning
10

instructions, Olympus was contacted by officials at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
Presbyterian hospital in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (“UPMC”). 51 In the fall of 2012, UPMC
experienced an outbreak of CRE, infecting about 13 patients who had undergone ERCP procedureswith Olympus duodenoscopes.52 Repeated cultures of one particular duodenoscope by UPMC
staff found bacteria in the biopsy and water channels even after the scope had been reprocessed
three times.53
After UPMC traced the infections back to the device, Olympus and an outside consulting group,
ECRI Institute, evaluated UPMC’s reprocessing procedures. ECRI found that UPMC’sreprocessing was “consistent with standard practice and manufacturer recommendations.”54 ECRI
told UPMC officials that it could not make a “definitive” assessment about whether “there is a
defect within the endoscope that would provide a reservoir for bacteria” because the small crevices
in the scope made it impossible for ECRI to fully examine the device.55
When Olympus officials raised the possibility that the hospital’s Custom Ultrasonics AERs could
be at fault, UPMC officials went so far as to purchase an Olympus AER and demonstrated that theuse of Olympus’ own reprocessing machine did not prevent scopes from remaining contaminatedafter cleaning.56 On December 18, 2012, Olympus filed an MDR with FDA, which documented
some of the events at UPMC and the findings of ECRI. This MDR appears to have never beenentered into FDA’s system.57
Additional independent testing, Jan 2013-2014
Documents obtained from Olympus show that from December 2012 through at least the summerof 2014 the company engaged independent laboratories to test company’s closed-channel
duodenoscopes for contamination, to assess whether the devices could be consistently disinfected,
and to validate revised cleaning procedures. On January 8, 2013, before the infections at Virginia
Mason had occurred, the French medical device evaluation company Biotech-Germande
completed a report evaluating the Olympus duodenoscope with the same serial number as thescope involved in the December 2012 infections at Clinique de Bercy in France. The evaluation
showed that “three cleaning/disinfection procedures were needed to eliminate the contaminationthat was initially present in the internal channels of the endoscope” and noted the “difficulty ofeliminating all contamination present at the air/water and suction/biopsy valves and the operator
channel cap through the application of a standard manual cleaning/disinfection procedure.” 58 A
follow-up study in July 2014 further confirmed “that after a complete reprocessing procedure
consistent with the guidelines of the Ministry of Health and the recommendations of [Olympus] acontamination may persist at the distal end of the endoscope . . . .”59 Studies at Bonn University
conducted from March to November 2013, did confirm that a separate closed-channel
duodenoscope was successfully cleaned using an Olympus AER.60
European Alerts
By the end of 2012, Olympus had two clear examples of contaminated scopes spreading antibioticresistant infections even after correct reprocessing but neglected to alert hospitals or regulators in
the United States. While Olympus left American doctors and hospitals in the dark about theduodenoscope design issues, in January 2013, Olympus sent a letter informing some European
hospitals that they needed to carefully follow all reprocessing instructions and to “pay particularattention to the detailed pre-cleaning instructions, especially for the distal end and forceps
elevator.” 61 By the time Olympus sent the letter, the company was aware of at least three11

duodenoscope-linked outbreaks impacting about 46 patients in three different countries; however,the letter only references “a recently reported case” of a contaminated TJF-Q180V scope.62
Again, in August 2014, Olympus disseminated in Europe an urgent field safety corrective action.
The August 2014 safety communication references “a few complaints of residual debris in the
distal end of the TJF-Q180V duodenoscope after reprocessing.”63 By that time, Olympus knew ofat least ten different instances of hospitals reporting contaminated TJF-Q180V scopes spreading
antibiotic-resistant infections between patients.64
FDA Investigation
In September 2013, after CDC alerted FDA to an outbreak of infections at Advocate Lutheran
General Hospital linked to a Pentax duodenoscope, and CDC confirmed that Advocate Lutheran
reprocessed scopes correctly according to the manufacturer’s instructions, FDA began aninvestigation into closed-channel duodenoscopes. Throughout 2014, FDA worked to better
understand the extent of the problem and to develop recommendations. It appears that at the timethe investigation was initiated, FDA was unable to locate either the Erasmus or UPMC MDRs filed
by Olympus and was without the benefit of reports from Dr. Loeve’s Delft University or RIVM.
By April 2014, FDA had independently sought validation data from the duodenoscope
manufacturers in order to determine if the cleaning instructions worked reliably. FDA becameaware of and obtained a copy of the Delft report only sometime after September 2014; had
Olympus shared the existence of the report earlier, it likely would have sped FDA’s investigationand led to more rapid alerts from both Olympus and the agency.
Instead, Olympus did not acknowledge the problem in the United States until February 19, 2015,
six months after the urgent safety communication in Europe and almost three years after the Delft
report. In May 2015, Olympus provided additional updates to their reprocessing instructions anddistributed a new brush to help ensure that duodenoscopes are clean before undergoing HLD – abrush that was available in Europe for nearly five years before it was provided in the United States.
Had hospitals been alerted to the risk and the need to use increased efforts to ensure that
duodenoscopes were appropriately disinfected, some if not all of the infections, including in
Seattle, may have been prevented.
Olympus’s failure to take action and alert regulators likely contributed to the at least 141 patient
infections linked to Olympus duodenoscopes that occurred in domestic hospitals between thespring of 2012, when Olympus was well aware of potential flaws with the device, and February of
2015, when the company finally alerted doctors and hospitals in the United States.

Olympus failed to meet its regulatory obligations.
Olympus’s failure to act upon the information it knew about the problems decontaminating closedchannel duodenoscopes and the spread of deadly infections is consistent with the company’s
failure to meet its obligations at each step of the device regulatory process. During its investigationin 2014 and 2015, FDA determined that Olympus failed to seek required clearance for themodification from an open to closed-channel device, failed to validate the closed-channel
duodenoscope cleaning instructions to make sure they worked consistently, and failed to fully
report information it knew about the adverse events linked to its device.
Olympus did not clear its duodenoscope design modification with FDA.
12

Manufacturers of Class II devices like duodenoscopes are required to make a 510(k) submissionin order to market a new device, an existing device for a new purpose, or a device that is changed
or modified in a way that might implicate its safety or effectiveness.65 This allows FDA to ensurethat the modified device remains “substantially equivalent,” or at least as safe and effective, as adevice that is already legally on the market.66 It is the manufacturer’s responsibility to determine
if and when a 510(k) application should be submitted to FDA.67
Olympus did not file a 510(k) application for the TJF-Q180V duodenoscope because it determined
the new model was similar to a previous device, the TJF-Q160, approved in 2008. However,unlike the TJF-Q180V, the TJF-Q160 has an open elevator wire channel. FDA subsequently
determined Olympus was wrong to assert that the TJF-Q160 and TJF-Q180V are substantiallyequivalent devices, and found that the change from an open to a closed elevator channel “impacts
the safe use of the device” because the newly sealed elevator channel “prevent[s] sterilization andhigh level disinfection.”68 FDA notified Olympus that it should have made a 510(k) submission
to account for the substantial changes between the TJF-Q160 and the TJF-Q180V and, in March
2014, required the company to belatedly make that submission. FDA is currently in the processof evaluating those documents to assess the substantial equivalency of the elevator channel sealingmechanism.
Olympus failed to ensure duodenoscope cleaning instructions worked before selling closedchannel duodenoscopes to hospitals.
The investigation also found that Olympus has been selling its closed-channel duodenoscope since2010 without sufficiently testing its cleaning instructions to ensure that they actually work in realworld settings, and that Olympus knew that its testing data was insufficient since at least 2013.
FDA requires device manufacturers to validate the design of their devices, which includes theability for that device to be safely reprocessed between uses.69 In other words, manufacturers must
test their devices and collect evidence to show that reprocessing will consistently result in a device
that meets certain decontamination specifications.70 Proper validation should test all stages ofreprocessing and should consider “the characteristics of the user population and operating
environment.”71
However, in July 2013, following the infections at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, RIVM
examined Olympus’ validation of the TJF-Q180V reprocessing instructions and found the data
analysis “unacceptable as a demonstration of effective cleaning.”72 RIVM concluded that the data
Olympus provided to show that manual cleaning could decontaminate the elevator mechanism“left so much to be desired that it is not possible
to support the conclusion drawn by the [Olympus’s reprocessing data] ismanufacturer, namely that the cleaning and “unacceptable” and left so much to bedisinfection procedure for the elevator is desired that it is not possible toeffective.” 73 Olympus also did not provide support the conclusion . . . that the
RIVM with information to substantiate that the disinfection procedure. . .is effective.”
O-ring effectively seals the elevator wire – RIVM
channel from contamination or attempt to showthat the leak testing that hospitals are supposed to conduct during reprocessing is an accurate wayof assessing when an O-ring is wearing out and in need of maintenance from the manufacturer.74
After requesting Olympus’s validation data in April 2014, FDA reached the same conclusion –13

Olympus did not have sufficient data to show closed-channel duodenoscopes could be reliably
cleaned with an adequate margin of safety.
In the 19 months between RIVM’s conclusion that Olympus did not have sufficient validation data
and Olympus’ first safety notice, at least 49 patients in the United States were infected with
antibiotic-resistant bacteria connected to an Olympus closed-channel duodenoscope.
At the time Olympus’ closed-channel duodenoscopes were first sold in the United States, FDA
relied on manufacturers to attest that their devices had been validated effectively before being
marketed. Unsurprisingly in view of the RIVM findings, in April 2014 when FDA similarly asked
Olympus to produce suitable data to show their cleaning instructions actually worked, the company
could not do so.75 The faith that patients, doctors, hospitals, and public health officials placed in
Olympus to thoroughly test their cleaning instructions before putting devices in the marketplace
was clearly misplaced.
In February 2015, Senator Murray requested FDA update its draft reprocessing guidance forreusable devices, and on March 17, the agency issued final guidance, “Processing/Reprocessing
Medical Devices in Health Care Settings: Validation Methods and Labeling.” 76 This final
guidance requires manufacturers of high-risk reusable devices such as duodenoscopes to provide
FDA with their actual reprocessing data when applying for clearance to market devices so that
FDA can assess the validity of cleaning instructions for itself. While the guidance is a useful step,under current law, manufacturers of reusable devices are still not required, as a condition of market
clearance, to produce data that actually demonstrates the devices can be reliably and repeatedly
cleaned in real world conditions.
Olympus submitted incomplete and misleading medical device reports to FDA.
Finally, while Olympus generally submitted MDRs to account for duodenoscope-linked infections
the company was aware of, Olympus did so in such a cursory manner as to make it nearly
impossible for the agency to accurately assess the scope and severity of the infections liked toduodenoscopes. Because device manufacturers and importers are the only entities required tosubmit adverse event reports to FDA when a device is linked to a serious injury, the agency relies
heavily on the accuracy of manufacturers’ reports to track problems with medical devices.77
Some Olympus MDRs, particularly those submitted for outbreaks in Europe, understate thenumber of patients affected,78 point to environmental contamination as a source of the infections
rather than problems with the device itself,79 and fail to provide the full information available toOlympus. Following the reports of contaminated scopes at Erasmus Medical Center and Cliniquede Bercy in France, Olympus received results from independent labs that found the duodenoscopes
linked to infections in those hospitals could contain bacteria even after being cleaned correctly,
but never updated their adverse event reports or communicated that information to FDA.
As a result of inspections conducted in 2015, FDA found that Olympus “fail[ed] to adequately
develop, maintain, and implement written MDR procedures” as mandated by adverse event
reporting regulations and did not have a consistent process for “submit[ting] all information
reasonably known to it for each event.”80 While FDA’s findings regarding the MDRs submitted
by Olympus are certainly correct, the violations also understate the real impact of Olympus’ larger
failure to alert regulators in the United States and Europe about significant problems in cleaning
the TJF-Q180V closed-channel scope.
14

Pentax and Fujifilm also failed to comply with regulatory requirements.
While the majority of the infections that occurred between 2012 and spring of 2015 were connected
to an Olympus duodenoscope, closed-channel devices manufactured by Pentax and Fujifilm werealso linked to six outbreaks and at least 53 antibiotic-resistant infections during this time. Pentax
sells about 12 percent of the duodenoscopes used in the United States and Fujifilm about three
percent.81 These duodenoscope manufacturers contributed to the dangerous superbug and otherantibiotic-resistant infections linked to ERCP procedures at hospitals in the United States andaround the world by failing both to comply with the same basic regulatory expectations as
Olympus and communicate thoroughly with FDA about the outbreaks.
Fujifilm failed to clear their duodenoscope design modifications with FDA.
Similar to Olympus, FDA determined that Fujifilm never made a 510(k) submission for themodifications in the design of its closed-channel scope ED-530XT. 82 Fujifilm had concluded that
there were only minor changes between ED-530XT and the already-approved open-channel model
ED-450XT5. However, FDA’s inspection identified least four potentially substantial differences
between the ED-450XT5 and the ED-530XT. In August of 2015, FDA sent a 510(k) status letterto Fujifilm summarizing these findings and requested a 510(k) application for the ED-530XT.83
FDA has not yet determined whether Pentax should have submitted a 510(k) application to accountfor the changes between the Pentax ED-3490TK and ED-3670TK.84
Pentax and Fujifilm failed to properly validate their duodenoscope reprocessing
instructions.
Once FDA launched its investigation into closed-channel duodenoscopes, it requested the datafrom Pentax and Fujifilm demonstrating that each company’s closed-channel duodenoscope could
be consistently cleaned. Also like Olympus, both Pentax and Fujifilm were unable to produce therequired underlying data to show that the cleaning instructions were consistently effective. In fact,
after FDA inspections of Fujifilm plants in April and May 2015, the agency observed multiple
flaws in Fujifilm’s validation process including that the company did not evaluate the O-ring,85
performed validation on a mock-up of a duodenoscope channel rather than the actual device,86 did
not produce the appropriate reduction in bacterial spores during ethylene oxide sterilization
validation,87 and did not evaluate the design of the closed-channel model under actual or simulated
conditions of use.88
FDA inspections also found that Pentax had validated its HLD and sterilization protocols for the
ED-3670TK duodenoscope using an entirely different model of scope and could not show that thetwo duodenoscopes responded comparably to reprocessing.89 Moreover, Pentax tested sterilizationof the scope with a different mixture of gas than it instructed hospitals to use.90
On December 23, 2015, FDA announced that new Fujifilm reprocessing instructions that included
additional brushing, washing, and flushing were sufficiently validated, and “demonstrateconsistent and reliable cleaning and high level disinfection.”91 Meanwhile, Pentax has not yet
demonstrated to FDA that its new cleaning instructions were validated, leaving doctors andhospitals in the disconcerting position of using a device without cleaning instructions they can feel
confident about.
Pentax and Fujifilm submitted late and incomplete medical device reports.
15

Similarly, Fujifilm and Pentax failed to meet their obligations to self-report serious illnesses anddeaths that may have been caused by their duodenoscopes. After inspecting manufacturers’ files
in 2015, FDA found that both companies had substandard MDR reporting practices. Pentax failed
to “adequately develop, maintain, and implement written MDR procedures” or “internal systems
that provide for timely and effective identification, communication, and evaluation of events that
may be subject to MDR requirements.”92 Meanwhile, Fujifilm lacked procedures for “receiving,
reviewing, and evaluating complaints.”93
These failures may well explain why neither Fujifilm nor Pentax appears to have filed a single
adverse event report related to antibiotic-resistant infections and closed-channel duodenoscopeswith FDA for any incidents in any foreign country until the fall of 2015 despite the regulatory
requirement to report adverse events that occur anywhere in the world for any device sold in the
United States.94 The Americas are only about 36 percent of Pentax’s business worldwide with 15
percent in the Asia Pacific region, 49 percent in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, and less than
one percent in Japan.95 Fifty percent of Fujifilm duodenoscopes are sold in Europe, 22 percent in
Asia, and 18 percent in Latin and South America. 96 Since Pentax and Fujifilm scopes werecollectively linked to six outbreaks domestically by Spring 2015, it is hard to imagine that noinfections during this time were connected to the more than 90 percent of Fujifilm scopes in use
outside of North America and more than 64 percent of Pentax duodenoscopes used outside ofNorth and South America.
Overall, FDA inspections documented that all three duodenoscope manufacturers put patients’
lives in jeopardy by failing to meet their obligations at each step of the regulatory process. The
manufacturers failed to seek FDA clearance for their modified devices when they changed to theclosed-channel design. When confronted with evidence that the design of closed-channel
duodenoscopes was contributing to the spread of infections across the United States andworldwide, the duodenoscope manufacturers did not take adequate action to alert device users or
regulators, allowing its device to spread superbug and other serious infections among ERCP
patients for years.

Custom Ultrasonics’ automated endoscope reprocessors likely
contributed to patient infections.
On November 13, 2015, FDA took the unusual step of issuing a mandatory recall of all of theapproximately 2,800 Custom Ultrasonics AERs in hospitals and clinics across the United States.
FDA is so concerned about Custom Ultrasonics AERs’ ability to perform as marketed that theagency deemed a mandatory recall necessary to protect the public’s health, and has recommended
that hospitals using Custom Ultrasonics AERs switch to alternative methods of HLD.97

16

HELP Committee staff has been able to confirm that Custom
Ultrasonics machines were used by at least nine out of 16
domestic hospitals that experienced infections after ERCP
procedures accounting for about 141 patient infections at:










UPMC Presbyterian Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA
NYP/Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York City, NY
UMass Memorial Hospital, Worchester, MA
Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, IL
Hartford Hospital, Hartford, CT
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA
Carolinas Medical Center, Charlotte, NC
Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA

Picture from www.customultrasonics.com

Considering that only about ten to 20 percent of the AERs used in American hospitals are Custom
Ultrasonics AERs, it appears the defective machines played a significant role in allowing theduodenoscopes to remain contaminated between uses.
However, it is also clear that duodenoscope-linked infections cannot be solely attributed to Custom
Ultrasonics machines. Erasmus Medical Center, Virginia Mason Hospital, Froedtert Hospital, andAdvocate Good Samaritan Hospital all experienced contaminated duodenoscopes while using
other brands of AER machines. Additionally, UPMC, which used Custom Ultrasonics machines,
took the unusual step of purchasing an Olympus-made AER and demonstrated that their Olympus
closed-channel duodenoscope remained contaminated even after cleaning it in Olympus’ own
AER.
Similar to washing machines, AERs flush liquid chemicals through scopes to destroy lingering
contaminants after the device is hand cleaned with small brushes in order to achieve HLD. If an
AER is not working correctly, it may not completely disinfect the scopes. Custom Ultrasonics’
AERs do not appear to have consistently provided HLD when used to clean duodenoscopes after
procedures, and the company, like the duodenoscope manufacturers, appears to have repeatedly
abused the expectations of the current regulatory system.
FDA first cleared the Custom Ultrasonics AER for use in 1984 but the company has faced
regulatory challenges dating back to at least 2005.98 After FDA inspections in 2005-2007 revealed
that Custom Ultrasonics failed to comply with regulations designed to ensure that devices are
manufactured according to certain standards of quality, Custom Ultrasonics and FDA entered into
a consent decree in 2007 preventing Custom Ultrasonics from manufacturing and distributing any
devices – including AERs.99 Although the company was able to resolve some of the issues andresume manufacturing five months later, FDA subsequently found Custom Ultrasonics in violationof the terms of the consent decree at least three separate times since 2008, including failure to seek
510(k) clearances for significant changes to its devices.100
In the spring of 2015, FDA asked for data from all AER manufacturers. In April 2015, aninspection of the Custom Ultrasonics plant in Ivyland, Pennsylvania found Custom Ultrasonics: Never validated the compatibility of its AERs with closed-channel models of
duodenoscopes;
17 Did not validate their AERs with specific types of HLD cleaning solutions; Did not validate the effectiveness of pre-filters that prevent large particulates and debris
from contaminating devices; and Did not sufficiently validate the water filtration system.101
Ultimately, FDA concluded that Custom Ultrasonics machines could not consistently provide theadequate margin of safety required by liquid chemical sterilant and HLD-specific guidance.102
Overall, the investigation found that the current regulatory regime places obligations on device
manufacturers that each of the four manufacturers above repeatedly failed to meet. At each stepof the regulatory process – the determination of whether new device clearances need to be sought,
quality testing that truly proves a device will consistently perform in real world settings, andprompt and complete reporting of all required adverse events – each of the four device
manufacturers discussed above failed to meet these obligations. These failures are directly
responsible for the spread of antibiotic-resistant infections in already critically ill patients.

Hospitals Were Slow to Report Infections
While this investigation has demonstrated that duodenoscope manufacturers and Custom
Ultrasonics failed to quickly and comprehensively report problems with their devices to FDA, theinvestigation has also revealed a similar problem among hospitals. At least 16 domestic hospitals,
primarily large, sophisticated health systems, identified outbreaks of antibiotic-resistant infections
linked to ERCP, but none actually followed all of the required steps to promptly notify
manufacturers or, in cases of death, FDA.
FDA regulations require hospitals to submit an adverse event report to a device manufacturer
within ten working days of becoming aware of information that reasonably suggests that a device“may have caused or contributed” to a serious injury or death.103 The hospital is supposed to report
the information to the manufacturer on FDA form 3500A or an approved electronic substitute,which includes a variety of information about the facility, the patient, and what happened, in orderto help the manufacturer meet their own reporting obligations to FDA.104
Because they are on the front lines of treating patients, doctors and hospitals are often the first torecognize device related problems. Health care providers thus play a critical role in alerting
manufacturers and federal regulators to suspected issues. However, conversations between
Senator Murray’s HELP Committee staff and hospital staff, state and local health departments,and manufacturers have revealed a disconcerting lack of awareness that these reporting obligations
even exist.

18

Hospitals did not comply with mandatory requirements to report
information to manufacturers.
As part of this investigation, HELP Committee staff spoke with staff at eight hospitals that had
infections linked to closed-channel duodenoscopes before
or around September 2013 – when FDA first understood It appears that not a single
that some duodenoscopes remained contaminated after hospital that experienced
cleaning according to manufacturers’ instructions. 105 infection outbreaks linked to
These conversations demonstrated that numerous the duodenoscopes sent thehospitals were able to identify, track, and containsuperbug and other antibiotic-resistant infections within required adverse event form
their hospitals, but not a single hospital that experienced to the device manufacturers.
infection outbreaks tied to the duodenoscopes appears to.
have sent the required adverse event form to the device manufacturers. Several hospitals appear
to have failed entirely to alert the device manufacturer in any way.
Multiple hospitals across the country engaged in exemplary public health work to identify clustersof antibiotic-resistant infections, isolate the source, and contain the problem. At least 16 hospitals
across the United States were able to identify that they had patients with unusual infections andtrace those infections back to ERCP procedures performed with duodenoscopes. These
investigations were often complicated and sophisticated. For example, Virginia Mason, with theassistance of the Washington State Department of Health, undertook enhanced surveillance efforts
that identified a cluster of patients infected after ERCP. From that cluster, hospital officials wereable to identify a unique isolate that was then used to trace the infections.
Similarly, UMass Hospital in Worchester, Massachusetts used isolate testing and DNA
fingerprinting to confirm that liver transplant patients were infected with the same strain of
antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston and NYP/Weill Cornell
Medical Center in New York City conducted in-depth retrospective analyses that retroactively
linked patient infections with ERCP procedures. It is likely that many hospitals with fewer
resources similarly experienced infections but did not identify or track the infections.
Most hospitals also alerted either their state or local health departments about the infections. States
have varying reporting requirements and not all hospitals are required to report infections to healthdepartment officials, or may be required only to report certain types of infections or infections
impacting a large number of patients.106 Even in cases when reporting was not required, however,hospitals generally appear to have communicated with their local or state officials about outbreaks.
However, with the exception of Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, and Virginia Mason hospitalwhich worked with a CDC staffer embedded in the King County Health Department who kept theagency informed, no hospital directly notified CDC, and there is no federal reporting requirement
for hospitals to do so.
Startlingly, after identifying the source of the outbreaks, none of the eight hospitals entirely
fulfilled their legal obligation to quickly alert manufacturers or FDA to adverse events at their
hospitals traced to devices. Certain hospitals, including UMass, Carolinas Medical Center andThomas Jefferson, failed entirely to alert manufacturers to problems, leaving Olympus, Fujifilm,
Pentax, and FDA unaware of the outbreaks of infections potentially caused by contaminatedduodenoscopes. Some hospital staff have explained they did not inform manufacturers, even after
tracing infections back to ERCP procedures, because they could not demonstrate that a particular19

scope harbored contamination, or be entirely certain that a problem with a specific duodenoscopecaused a particular illness or cluster of infections among ERCP patients.
When hospitals did report adverse events, it was generally late, notification was made informallyby phone or email, and reports did not include all of the information necessary for the
manufacturers to submit accurate and complete information to FDA. Olympus relayed that noneof the 12 domestic hospitals with outbreaks linked to Olympus scopes sent the required FDA form
3500A to the manufacturer.
Moreover, UPMC, NYP Weill/Cornell Medical Center, Advocate Lutheran, and Virginia Mason
notified manufacturers of a potential problem months after they were aware of the connection. For
example, by December 2013, Virginia Mason knew that duodenoscopes were contaminated andspreading antibiotic-resistant infections between patients but did not alert the manufacturer to theissue until July 2014.107 When a team from Olympus evaluated Virginia Mason’s reprocessing
procedures in the fall of 2013, the hospital never mentioned the infections.108 Hartford Hospital
reported a patient tested positive for “bacterial micro-organisms” after an “unspecified procedure,”vague information at best. Olympus followed up but received no response from the hospital.109
Pentax MDRs also documented difficulty obtaining information from Massachusetts General
Hospital, receiving no response after multiple requests for information.110
Overall, not one of the hospitals that had identified infection outbreaks by the time FDA becameaware of the problem in September 2013 notified the manufacturer within the period dictated by
FDA regulation.

Hospital

UPMC Presbyterian
Hospital,
Pittsburgh, PA
NYP Weill/ Cornell
Medical Center
NYC, NY
UMass Memorial
Hospital,Worchester MA
Advocate Lutheran
General Hospital,
Park Ridge IL
Froedtert Hospital,
Milwaukee WI
Virginia Mason Hospitaland Medical Center,Seattle WA
Thomas Jefferson
University Hospital,
Philadelphia, PA

Notified the
Manufacturer*

Notified
FDA*

Notified
CDC

Notified
Patients

Notified
State/Local
HealthDepartments
**

Late

Late

No

Unk

Yes

Late

Late

No

Unk

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

Yes

Late

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Late

Unk

No

Unk

Unk

Late

Late

Indirectly

Late

Late

No

No

No

No

Yes

20

Carolinas Medical Center,
Charlotte, NC

Unk

Unk

No

Unk

Unk

* Required** May be required depending on the state

Hospitals did not proactively communicate information to federal
agencies.
Hospitals also generally failed to communicate directly with FDA and CDC. Hospitals are
required to report information related deaths (but not serious injury) to FDA no more than ten days
after becoming aware of the incident, and may always submit adverse event reports relaying othersuspected problems to the agency.111 While several hospitals did eventually submit MedWatch
reports to FDA, less than one percent of all the adverse event reports were submitted by hospitals,
suggesting that hospitals are not meeting their obligations to report deaths that devices may havecaused or contributed to. 112 Moreover, hospital staff interviewed by Committee staff almost
universally were unfamiliar with any obligation to report to FDA.
Even the hospitals that did file reports typically failed to provide FDA with a full picture of what
they knew. For example, in its one-paragraph MedWatch report filed March 4, 2013, about fivemonths after linking infections to duodenoscopes, UPMC reported that the “source of the[infection] remains undetermined at this time.” 113 The report included neither that UPMC’sreprocessing procedures had been validated by Olympus nor that the hospital was unable todecontaminate the duodenoscope after multiple attempts at reprocessing. NYP Weill/Cornell filed
a MedWatch report on October 9, 2013 clearly explaining that the duodenoscopes could not be
reliably cleaned, but filed the report seven months after identifying the duodenoscope elevator asa source of the infections.114 Virginia Mason also filed a MedWatch report but did so in May
2014, at least five months after connecting patient infections to duodenoscopes.115 No hospital that
identified clusters of antibiotic-resistant infections linked to closed-channel duodenoscopes
reported those infections to CDC until May 2013.116
Overall, hospitals’ slow approach left FDA with an inaccurate picture of the frequency and severityof these events. Reporting by the hospitals as a whole suggests that rather than collaborate toquickly alert regulators to a potential device problem, hospitals were reluctant to shareunconfirmed information. Hospitals as a whole appear to have believed they had an obligation toreport only what they could demonstrate beyond any doubt. Such narrow reasoning reveals a
misunderstanding about hospital reporting requirements, which are triggered by information thatreasonably suggests a device may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury. 117
Hospitals’ slow reporting may have had the effect of impairing FDA’s initial understanding of thenumber and severity of infections tied to duodenoscopes, and is further evidence of the need tomove beyond self-reporting to identify and address issues posed by medical devices.

21

FDA Failed to Recognize the Prevalence of DuodenoscopeLinked Infections and Respond Quickly
FDA first became aware that closed-channel duodenoscopes could not be reprocessed consistently
to prevent transmission of deadly superbug and other antibiotic-resistant bacteria between patientsin September 2013, after CDC alerted them to infections at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital.
By this point, at least 11 hospitals, including Virginia Mason, had experienced outbreaks linked toreprocessed duodenoscopes. Because of FDA’s reliance on a passive postmarket surveillancesystem, the agency had no way to identify this trend until the issue was directly brought to theirattention.
FDA reviews reports filed by manufacturers and others largely by having staff with clinicalbackgrounds read the more than one million adverse event reports submitted every year.118 As
discussed above, FDA does not flag incomplete reports because the agency expects MDRs to be
filed before all the relevant information is known, and expects manufacturers to supplement thereports as they learn more. Therefore, it is challenging for reviewers to identify trends that might
involve a relatively low number of incidents. Additionally, because there is no way to measure
how a series of adverse event reports relate to the total number of devices and procedures, thesystem provides no way to assess the prevalence of adverse events.
In the spring of 2013 Advocate Lutheran General Hospital contacted CDC about an ongoing CRE
outbreak, the only hospital to proactively contact the agency.119 CDC officials sent to the hospitalin August 2013 were able to trace the infection back to the closed-channel Pentax duodenoscopes
used in ERCPs and confirm that the scopes had been carefully reprocessed by the hospital.120 CDC
in turn alerted FDA that duodenoscopes were potentially transmitting bacteria even after being
cleaned in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions.
At that point, FDA began an investigation into infections transmitted by closed-channel
duodenoscopes. One of FDA’s initial steps was to query their adverse event reporting system todetermine if similar events had been reported elsewhere. When FDA initially queried its adverse
event database after learning from CDC of the infections at Advocate Lutheran, FDA had received
the following information about six outbreaks involving closed-channel duodenoscopes:
1) Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, Netherlands. Notified in May 2012 that 16 patients
had tested positive for Pseudomonas aeruginosa after undergoing an ERCP with an
Olympus duodenoscope, and that an independent investigation was being conducted.121
2) UPMC Presbyterian Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA. Notified in November 2012 that ten to 13
patients may have been infected with CRE after undergoing a procedure with an Olympus
duodenoscope.122 Also notified that CRE had been found on one of the scopes, and thatthe scopes tested positive for Klebsiella pneumonia on two separate occasions after
multiple cultures. In October 2013, an additional report relayed that another scope tested
positive for contamination.123
3) Clinique de Bercy, Charenton-le-Pont, France. Notified in December 2012 that threepatients were infected with Escherichia coli after undergoing an ERCP performed with an
Olympus duodenoscope. Mentions that the scope is being sent to an independent lab for
testing.124
224) Charite-Universitatsmedizin, Berlin, Germany. Notified in April and July 2013, that fivepatients at Charite-Universitatsmedizin in Berlin were infected with Klebsiella after
undergoing treatment with an Olympus duodenoscope that had been used earlier on apatient with the same infection. Two of the five infected patients died.125
5) NYP/Weill Cornell Medical Center, NYC, NY. Notified in June 2013 that 15 patients at
NYP/Weill Cornell Medical Center were infected with CRE after undergoing a procedure
with an Olympus duodenoscope and that four different duodenoscopes tested positive for
CRE even after the scopes had undergone HLD. Olympus also reported the hospital was
not using the correct reprocessing procedures.126
6) Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, IL. Notified in July 2013 that a patient
had undergone ERCP with a Pentax closed-channel duodenoscope and then developed a
CRE infection. The hospital confirmed that its staff used proper reprocessing procedures,and that an organism had been found under the elevator on the duodenoscope.127
Taken together these reports should have provided FDA with considerable information to suggest
cleaned scopes were continuing to spread infection; however, the agency appears to have lost thereport filed describing the 2012 outbreak at UPMC (it is not available in the agency database).
This left FDA without the key information that reported the earliest domestic antibiotic-resistantinfections linked to a correctly reprocessed duodenoscope. It also appears that FDA’s initial searchof their adverse event report database did not identify the foreign adverse event reports that
accounted for half of the incidents reported before September 2013. Accordingly, FDA’s initialquery may have left the agency with information about just one additional instance of closedchannel duodenoscope linked infections.
By the time FDA started its investigation, outbreaks of antibiotic-resistant infections had likely
already occurred at Thomas Jefferson University, Virginia Mason, Carolinas Medical Center, andFroedtert hospitals. However, those outbreaks had not yet been reported to the agency, or, in somecases, to the device manufacturers. FDA appears to have been left with such incomplete
information that it was unable to develop an accurate sense of the frequency and severity of theseoutbreaks. This lack of complete information made it difficult for the agency and outside experts
to conclusively determine that mistakes in the cleaning and reprocessing of the duodenoscopes
were not the source of the infections.
Throughout late 2013 and 2014, as the agency became aware of the clusters of infections in
Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Washington, Illinois, and Wisconsin, and the numberof patients infected with potentially deadly bacteria continued to rise, FDA continued to investigate
and collaborate with CDC and outside experts. FDA had not yet determined whether the infections
occurred because hospitals did not correctly follow manufacturers’ cleaning instructions orwhether the closed-channel duodenoscopes could remain contaminated even after reprocessing
was correctly carried out. FDA had also not yet developed supplemental reprocessing
recommendations to ensure hospitals initiated enhanced cleaning procedures. As a result, FDA
still had not issued any safety communication to alert hospitals to the risk posed by these devices.
In April 2014, FDA sought the validation data from duodenoscope manufacturers to show thatthey had properly tested their cleaning instructions to make sure that the data showed the
instructions worked consistently. It was not until September 2014, when an FDA official met
someone involved with the investigation of the outbreak in the Netherlands at a conference, that
23

FDA learned of the RIVM report detailing Olympus’ lack of cleaning validation data almost a fullyear earlier. As a result, it took an additional year for FDA to receive the data, determine it wasinsufficient, and for the manufacturer to develop enhanced cleaning procedures cleared by FDA
in the spring of 2015.
By late 2014, FDA had sufficient information to begin preparing a safety communication for
hospitals. In January 2015, news reports revealed the infections in Seattle as well as more recent
infections at UCLA and Cedar Sinai hospitals in California. On February 4, 2015, Senator Murraywrote to FDA seeking additional information about the infections, urging the agency to provide
hospitals with safety information and to finalize the guidance for the cleaning of reusable devices
that had been issued as a draft in 2010.128
Following those events, U.S. federal agencies took the following steps in 2015:


February 19: FDA issues a Safety Communication. FDA warns for the first time that
duodenoscopes may transmit antibiotic-resistant infections between patients “even whenmanufacturer reprocessing instructions are followed correctly.” 129March: The Department of Justice (DOJ) launches a criminal investigation into
duodenoscope manufacturers. DOJ has since issued subpoenas to Olympus, Fujifilm,and Pentax as well as several hospitals for information related to duodenoscopes andantibiotic-resistant infections.

March 12: CDC issues an interim duodenoscope surveillance protocol. CDC issued
an interim protocol that instructs hospitals about how to culture and quarantine devices toassess whether their reprocessing procedures and manufacturers cleaning instructions areworking correctly, and to identify contaminated scopes before they are used during
procedures.130

March 17: FDA finalizes reprocessing guidance for reusable devices. The finalized
guidance makes clear that FDA expects to see in 510(k) applications underlying data
demonstrating that cleaning instructions actually work for certain reusable devices,
including duodenoscopes.131

March–May: FDA inspects Olympus, Fujifilm, and Pentax manufacturing plants.
The inspections noted failures to make requisite 510(k) submissions by Olympus andFujifilm, failures to maintain adequate MDR reporting systems, and failures to properly
validate cleaning instructions.



April: FDA inspects Custom Ultrasonics’ facility. Inspectors documented a series ofviolations including that the company had insufficient data to show their AERs worked
effectively.



May 15 and 16: FDA convenes a meeting of the Gastroenterology-Urology Device
Advisory Committee. FDA issues an Executive Summary of the meeting indicating theagency is aware of at least nine outbreaks of infections linked to closed-channel
duodenoscopes. The Advisory Committee discusses potential options for hospitals toensure that devices are consistently cleaned after every procedure, including the cultureand quarantine protocol developed and implemented by Virginia Mason staff.132 None of
the three device manufacturers attended the advisory committee meetings.
24August 4: FDA issues a safety communication for supplemental reprocessing. The
safety communication included four potential supplemental reprocessing measures
including the microbiological culturing method put in place by Virginia Mason, Ethylene
Oxide Sterilization, a liquid chemical sterilant processing system, or repeat HLD. Noneof these options are ideal. For example, ethylene oxide sterilization may pose health risks
to hospital staff and microbiological culturing requires a hospital to purchase additional
duodenoscopes.133

August 12: FDA issues warning letters to Fujifilm, Pentax, and Olympus. The letters
included requests for the manufacturers to submit 510(k) applications so that FDA canevaluate the safety of the modification from an open to closed elevator wire channel.134



October 5: FDA orders postmarket surveillance studies. The manufacturers must
answer whether their instructions are sufficient to ensure user adherence, the percent of
scopes that remain contaminated after proper reprocessing, and the factors that contributeto contamination and what is needed to fully decontaminate the device.135

November 13: FDA issues a mandatory recall of Custom Ultrasonics AERs. FDA
warned that Custom Ultrasonics AERs may not reliably clean devices and recommended
that the hospitals and health facilities using about 2,800 Custom Ultrasonics machines
move as quickly as possible to a different manufacturer’s AERs.136



December 31: FDA issues draft “emerging signals” guidance. FDA’s new guidance
explains the agency will now notify the public when it learns about potentially serious
device issues rather than wait until the agency has reached a conclusion about a problem
or formed recommendations.137

While FDA has taken a number of actions to address the outbreaks in 2015, the inability to accessinformation about adverse events independently from hospitals and manufacturers, and theinability to query data in electronic health records and claims data, stymied FDA’s investigation
and response to the spreading superbug infections and other dangerous illnesses.
Overall, FDA had major gaps in information, or delays in receiving information, which led to an
unacceptably slow response to the spread of deadly infections in ERCP patients. While some of
the responsibility for this failure lies with the agency for losing a key adverse event report andmissing relevant international adverse event reports, without a more robust surveillance system
independent from the reporting of manufacturers and hospitals, it is likely that the same gaps anddelays will occur in other device related investigations.

FDA Needs a More Robust Device Safety Surveillance
SystemA passive device surveillance system is ineffective even whenmanufacturers and hospitals self-report information about device
safety to FDA.
Even if device manufacturers and hospitals had worked to fulfill their regulatory obligations andprovide FDA with the information they knew about device issues as rapidly and completely as
25possible, FDA’s passive device surveillance system probably would have still taken an
unacceptably long time to identify the extent of the device issues. Assuming an MDR is filed andcontains relevant information, staff reviewers can assess the seriousness of a particular incident,
but are unlikely to make connections or see patterns because MDRs are not linked to the reportsof similar devices from the same or other manufacturers with the same type of adverse event. Evenin the unlikely event that a staff member sees a sufficient number of reports related to particulardevice to notice a pattern, FDA reviewers lack a denominator of the total number of times a device
is used, and accordingly, have no way of assessing how frequent or serious issues are relative to
how often a device is used. If a reviewer sees ten MDRs reporting a device failure, it is almost
impossible to know if that is ten out of 100 procedures, ten out of 10,000 procedures, or ten out of
one million.
The current system provides no ability to run data analytics to help identify patterns or to alert
FDA to unusual types of reports. The system as it is currently designed allows FDA only to querythe passive database to pull up all the information it has about a specific device. This is only
useful, however, once FDA suspects there is a problem and specifically runs a search related tothat issue. Even so, FDA queries do not always pull up all the relevant information. Spelling
mistakes and differences in the way that devices are named make searches difficult, and prior to
February 2014, FDA relied on paper rather than electronic submissions.138 Occasionally, as in thecase of the initial Olympus UPMC MDR, paper adverse event reports received by the agency havebeen lost.
In contrast to the outdated and ineffective post-market monitoring system for devices, FDA has
moved towards a more modern and effective system for overseeing the postmarket safety andeffectiveness of drugs. The Food and Drug Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA) required FDA toestablish a surveillance system that uses electronic health care data to monitor drugs using theunique product identifier known as an NDC, which is also included on all pharmacy insurance
claims and on Medicaid claims for outpatient drugs prescriptions. 139 In 2009, FDA began toleverage the data provided by NDCs through the “Sentinel” initiative, which queries multiple
health care data sources, including electronic health records and insurance claims information, tomake links between patient outcomes and specific drugs.140 The NDCs provide the key to making
that link.
A system like Sentinel for devices is critical for two primary reasons. First, it does not rely
exclusively on hospitals or manufacturers to report adverse events against weighty competinginterests, but rather pulls information directly from databases that contain real-time informationfrom insurance claims and other data that tracks patient care. 141 This reduces the reliance on
hospitals and manufacturers to self-report which, as this investigation has revealed, can happen
months or even years after the fact and often lack important information. Second, Sentinel
provides FDA with a “denominator” so that FDA can understand the number of adverse incidents
reported in the context of the total number of patients treated.
Although it is not yet fully developed, a pilot “mini-Sentinel” has already substantially improved
FDA’s postmarket surveillance of drugs. For example, after being alerted to cases of serious
intestinal issues linked to the blood pressure drug Olmesartan, FDA analyzed the data in Sentinel
to assess whether such issues were limited to the particular drug or whether all similar drugs caused
intestinal problems.142 FDA was able to determine that only Olmesartan was linked to higher rates
of celiac disease, and therefore notify patients of particular issues with a specific drug rather than26

an entire class of drugs.143 Similarly, after receiving a large number of reports of fatal bleeding
associated with the drug Dabigatran to treat abnormal heart rhythms, FDA used the information in
Sentinel to assess whether the rates of bleeding in Dabigatran patients were in fact higher than therates in the clinical trial.144 FDA found that the rates were not significantly different from theresults of the trial or from other similar drugs on the market, which ensured that doctors knew they
could safely continue prescribing Dabigatran.145
A Sentinel-like system can also assist FDA and manufacturers to complete postmarket surveillance
studies of the safety or effectiveness of a device required under section 522 of the Food, Drug, andCosmetic Act (section 522 postmarket surveillance studies). Currently, there are few incentives
for clinicians and patients to participate in the studies, and without UDI codes in claims data, it isdifficult for device manufacturers to find ways to link use of their devices to patient outcomes. 146
A Sentinel system would help manufacturers to run more accurate studies quickly to answer
lingering questions around the safety of duodenoscope and AER design. Moreover, a Sentinel
system would allow FDA to run its own queries and investigations without relying on
manufacturers, who have few incentives to complete the studies quickly.
Currently FDA cannot use Sentinel or similar system to perform surveillance on devices because
there is no similar way to track specific devices across different health claims databases. The Foodand Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 required FDA to issue regulations to create a
UDI system for medical devices.147 Like the NDCs for drugs, UDIs will be placed on medical
device labels and packages. FDA issued the final rule in September of 2013 which phases in the
UDI requirements over time starting in September 2014 and ending in September of 2020.148
UDIs will be required to be included on MDR reports, which should make it easier for FDA toquery its system to identify reports linked to particular devices. 149 The UDIs, however, unlike
NDCs, are not currently included on insurance claims.150

A system like Sentinel for surveillance of devices could have prevented
life-threatening infections worldwide.
In September 2013, when FDA first started investigating the design of duodenoscopes, outbreaksof CRE potentially linked to closed-channel devices had occurred at Thomas Jefferson Hospital,
Virginia Mason, Carolinas Medical Center, and Froedtert Hospital but had not yet been reported
to federal regulators by device manufacturers or hospitals. If FDA had access to UDIs in insurance
claims, it is possible that the agency could have identified those outbreaks for itself at the beginningof its investigation and potentially moved faster to understand that the design of duodenoscopes
makes them difficult or impossible to reliably clean, developed consensus internally about thesource of the problems, and more promptly taken action to warn patients and hospitals.
Instead, after learning about the reprocessing problems at Advocate Lutheran from CDC, FDA
took more than 17 months to issue its first safety
alert to hospitals and almost two years to provide 68 patient infections in the United
hospitals with additional measures to supplement States may have been prevented if
their reprocessing of duodenoscopes. In the hospitals had been alerted by FDA
intervening months, at least 68 patients in the earlier to reprocessing difficulties.
United States and 82 patients worldwide were
infected with superbug and other antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Those infections, along with otherinfections that likely occurred but were never identified, could possibly have been prevented if
27hospitals been aware of the reprocessing difficulties known to FDA a year and a half before its
first safety warning about the devices.
In the case of duodenoscopes, FDA was overly cautious and waited to alert the public and hospitals
to the risks posed by duodenoscopes until the agency had finished its investigation and developed
recommendations for supplemental reprocessing procedures. FDA’s release of draft guidance on
December 31, 2015, which explains that the agency will now notify the public about emerging
serious device issues more quickly, is a positive step that will allow the agency, the public, andhospitals to take action sooner when new device issues arise.
The inability to access adequate information about adverse events independently from hospitals
and manufacturers, and the inability to gather information about devices from insurance claims
data, stymied FDA’s investigation and expedient attention and response to the spreading antibioticresistant infections and other dangerous illness.
Overall, major gaps or delays in receiving information led to an unacceptably slow response fromthe FDA to the spread of deadly infections in ERCP patients. Without a more robust surveillancesystem independent from the self-interested reporting of manufacturers and hospitals, it is likely
the same gaps and delays will continue to occur with other device related investigations.

Conclusion
Senator Murray’s staff investigation demonstrates that duodenoscopes spread life-threatening
superbug and other antibiotic-resistant infections among patients in a number of hospitals
throughout the United States and Europe in 2013 and 2014. These outbreaks occurred despite thefact that the manufacturer of 85 percent of the duodenoscopes used in the United States, Olympus,
was aware by early 2012 that its closed-channel duodenoscope could harbor dangerous bacteria
even after repeated and careful cleaning according to instructions.
Multiple hospitals were also aware that duodenoscopes were linked to superbug and otherantibiotic-resistant infections in ERCP patients. Yet none of the three manufacturers ofduodenoscopes sold in the United States – Olympus, Fujifilm, and Pentax – and only one hospital,
ever alerted CDC to the infections. The device manufacturers and most hospitals also largely
failed to meet their legal obligations to provide complete and timely information about serious
patient infections and deaths to manufacturers and/or FDA.
The duodenoscope manufacturers and Custom Ultrasonics, the manufacturer of an AER used toclean duodenoscopes between uses, failed at every level to meet basic expectations of transparency
and openness and to actively engage with FDA to address contamination issues. This disregard
for the spirit, and sometimes the letter, of the law resulted in potentially preventable serious andpotentially fatal illnesses in hospitals around the world.
As a result, when FDA first became aware of the outbreak at Advocate Lutheran, the agency lacked
critical pieces of information that would have better allowed its staff to understand the frequency
with which infections were occurring and that duodenoscopes could remain contaminated evenafter reprocessing instructions were followed correctly. Throughout 2014, FDA investigated theinfections but did not issue any safety communications to inform hospitals of the risk posed byeven duodenoscopes that are reprocessed according to manufacturers’ instructions and reprocessedwith cleared AERs. While FDA took significant steps in 2015 to alert hospitals to the risks of28

contaminated duodenoscopes, study supplemental cleaning procedures to help ensure the devices
are safe for reuse, require new data from manufacturers to prove that their cleaning instructions
work, recall about 2,800 AERs, and require manufacturers to conduct postmarket surveillance
studies, these steps ought to have been taken months or even a year sooner.
This investigation clearly demonstrates the inability of FDA’s current device surveillance system
to accurately identify the extent of device problems when they occur, which poses an unacceptablerisk to patients. In contrast to the surveillance system for drugs, which increasingly uses unique
identifiers to track drug performance through electronic health records and insurance claims, thedevice surveillance system continues to rely almost
In contrast to the surveillance exclusively on the self-reporting and self-regulation ofsystem for drugs, the device manufacturers and hospitals. Had FDA been able tosurveillancesystemrelies utilize a similar surveillance system to pull information
about ERCP patient outcomes from insurance claims
almost exclusively on the self- and health records data, it is possible that as early asreporting of manufacturers and September 2013 the agency would have understood thehospitals.
extent of the threat posed by contaminated closedchannel duodenoscopes. FDA would have been able toidentify outbreaks in far more facilities than were identified at the time and link those infections
to particular models of duodenoscopes and AERs. As a result, the agency could have completed
its investigation sooner and more quickly issued safety alerts to hospitals.
The failure of FDA’s device surveillance system to rapidly identify and respond to duodenoscoperelated superbug and antibiotic-resistant infections serves as just one example of the fallacy of asystem that is primarily reliant on hospitals and device manufacturers to self-report information to
FDA. This investigation has shown that the expectation for device manufacturers and hospitals,
despite strong competing priorities, to file 501(k) applications for device modifications, adequately
validate devices before they are marketed, and quickly and accurately report potential devicerelated injuries and deaths as required by the current system, is ineffective.
The systematic failures identified in this report are, unfortunately, likely not confined solely toduodenoscopes. Without improved communication for each stakeholder from hospitals to
manufacturers to state and local health departments, to FDA and CDC, and without acomprehensive postmarket device surveillance system that supplements self-reporting from
hospitals and manufacturers, future device-related safety issues are likely to go undetected for far
too long and with life-threatening consequences.

Recommendations
In order to address the issues raised by this investigation, the HELP Committee minority staff
recommends the following legislative and regulatory changes:
Recommendation #1: Congress should require and promote that unique device identifiers(UDIs) be included in insurance claims, electronic health records, and device registries.
The investigation demonstrates that FDA’s reliance on self-reporting of adverse events by
manufacturers and hospitals is unworkable and outdated, particularly when contrasted with theactive postmarket surveillance system for drugs. The widespread inclusion of UDIs in medical29

data including claims data, electronic health records, and registries, is an absolutely essential pieceof any fully functional, high-quality device surveillance system. Without widespread adoption of
UDIs in claims and electronic health data, FDA is severely hampered in its ability to move forward
to implement an improved device surveillance system. Congress should require that claims data
include the UDI number associated with medical devices used in procedures in order to ensure
FDA is not caught in the dark when the next medical device is linked to serious illness, injury, or
death.
Recommendation #2: FDA should evaluate whether modifications to the design of closedchannel duodenoscope are necessary to prevent the spread of infection, and if so, require
manufacturers to rapidly implement any repairs through a phased recall to ensure thatdevices used by hospitals are safe for reuse.
This investigation has suggested that closed-channel duodenoscopes may spread infection between
uses even when manufacturers’ instructions are followed correctly and an effective AER is used.
At least three independent evaluators have found that potential design flaws with the Olympus
closed-channel duodenoscope prevent hospitals from reliably cleaning the devices between
procedures. FDA should thoroughly evaluate the design of closed-channel duodenoscopes andconsider immediate implementation of a phased recall to make any repairs or modifications
necessary to ensure effective reprocessing.
Recommendation #3: FDA should update its guidance to clarify when manufacturers are
required to submit a notification to FDA for 510(k) clearance before marketing modified
devices.
In 2011, after becoming concerned about the number of manufacturers that failed to submit a
notification to FDA for 510(k) clearance to account for substantial device modifications, FDA
promulgated new draft guidance to clarify the existing 1997 document, to update the instructions,and to accommodate new technological advances. That guidance was subsequently withdrawn at
the instruction of Congress in the Food Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA)
of 2012. The investigation provides renewed evidence of the need for updated guidance for device
modifications.
Consistent with FDASIA, FDA should issue updated guidance that clarifies important terms that
may confuse manufacturers regarding whether a 510(k) clearance is required, and that makes clearthat manufacturers should verify and validate any determinations that safety and effectiveness are
not impacted by a device modification.
Recommendation #4: FDA should move faster to provide information to health careproviders when the agency becomes aware of information suggesting that patient safety
might be compromised by a medical device.
A key finding of the investigation is that it took FDA almost 18 months from the time they learnedof duodenoscope-linked infections to issue a safety communication alerting hospitals and the
public to the risk posed by closed-channel duodenoscopes. Had FDA promptly notified hospitals
earlier that there were potential safety issues with the reprocessing of closed-channel
duodenoscopes, additional cleaning measure could have been adopted more quickly and issues
with AER machines may have been identified more rapidly. Overall, earlier communication might30

have prevented dozens of life-threatening infections including some that have never been
identified.
The HELP Committee minority staff are pleased to note that on December 31 2015, FDA issued
draft guidance to update the agency’s procedures for notifying the public about potential device
safety issues.151 Rather than wait until the agency has finishes an investigation and reaches aconclusion, FDA will now alert the public about to emerging safety concerns when the agency
receives new information about serious or widespread public health issues.
Recommendation #5: FDA should have clear authority to deny a 510(k) submission based
upon insufficient reprocessing validation data.
The investigation conclusively demonstrates that relying on reusable device manufacturers to attest
that their reprocessing instructions have been sufficiently tested and will work reliably in realworld conditions is insufficient. FDA guidance issued in March 2105, “Reprocessing Medical
Devices in Health Care Settings: Validation Methods and Labeling guidance for Industry and Foodand Drug Administration Staff,” provides additional clarity that reprocessing data should be
included with 510(k) submissions for some reusable devices. In order to ensure that manufacturers
submit all the requisite validation data when marketing a new or modified device, Congress should
clarify in statute FDA’s authority to consider a 510(k) submission incomplete and deny marketing
clearance if a reusable device manufacturer fails to provide validation data with the 510(k)submission.
Recommendation #6: Compliance with MDR reporting requirements should be a
Condition of Participation in Medicare.
The investigation demonstrates that hospitals that performed exemplary public health work to
identify and halt duodenoscope-linked antibiotic-resistant infections often failed to share that
information with device manufacturers and to collaborate effectively with federal regulators.
Hospitals that wish to participate in Medicare must meet certain conditions of participation
specified and laid out in statute and regulation, including certain requirements for infection control
and medical records services. In addition to enforcement efforts by FDA, Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services should require that compliance with relevant medical device reporting
requirements be included as a condition of participation in Medicare to ensure that state survey
agencies and accrediting bodies such as the Joint Commission on Hospital Accreditation
specifically examine whether hospitals are filing timely required medical device reports withhospitals or FDA.
Recommendation #7: Congress should fully fund a National Medical Device Evaluation
System (NMEDS).
Widespread adoption of UDIs is an important step but is just one of many parts of a complete androbust device evaluation system. FDA must also facilitate a coordinating center to ensureinteroperability between data sources and a governance structure to operate the system. Congressshould provide sufficient funds for the agency to move towards these goals as rapidly as possible.

31

Kristen Wnedorf, et.al, “Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography-Associated AmpC Escherichia coli
Outbreak,” Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, (March 30, 2015).
2
Id.
3
FDA, Effective Reprocessing of Endoscopes used in Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)
Procedures, Executive Summary 14 (2015),
www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/MedicalDevices/MedicalDevicesAdvi
soryCommittee/Gastroenterology-UrologyDevicesPanel/UCM445592.pdf [hereinafter FDA Executive Summary].
4
Press Release, CDC, Action Needed Now to Halt Spread of Deadly Bacteria (2013),
www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2013/p0305_deadly_bacteria.html.
5Documents show discrepancies in the number of patients reported and the date of the infections. An additional
five patients may have been infected with a multidrug-resistant infection after ERCP procedures at UMPC insummer and fall 2013 that were not reported to FDA.
6
Only six of these infections were linked to an Olympus duodenoscope. The remaining infections were linked to an
unknown manufacturer’s device.
7
FDA Executive Summary at 14.
8
Id. at 9.
9
Id. at 24; Letter from Keiichi Nagata, Division President, FUJIFILM Medical Systems USA, to Senator Patty
Murray (June 19, 2015) (on file with the HELP Committee).
10
FDA Executive Summary at 24-25.
11
FDA Executive Summary at 17-18.
12
FDA, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Reprocessing Medical Devices in Health Care Settings:
Validation Methods and Labeling: Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff 5-6 (March 7,2015),
www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM253010.pdf.
13
Id.
14
Id. at 10.
15
FDA Executive Summary at 32-40.
16
FDA, “Classify Your Medical Device,”
www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=876.1500.
1721 C.F.R. § 876.1500.
18
A device is substantially equivalent to another device if it (1) has the same intended use and the same
technological characteristics, or (2) has the same intended use but with different technological characteristics that (a)do not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness and (b) demonstrate that it is at least as safe and effective as
the legally marketed device. See FDA, Premarket Notification 510(k), “What is Substantial Equivalence?”,www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/HowtoMarketYourDevice/PremarketSubmissions/Pr
emarketNotification510k/#se.
19
See 21 C.F.R § 807.
20
See FDA, Reprocessing Medical Devices in Health Care Settings: Validation Methods and Labeling: Guidance forIndustry and Food and Drug Administration Staff (March 17, 2015),
www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM253010.pdf.
21
Id.; 21 C.F.R. 820.75.
22
See FDA, Reprocessing Medical Devices in Health Care Settings: Validation Methods and Labeling: Guidance forIndustry and Food and Drug Administration Staff (March 17, 2015),
www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/UCM253010.pdf.
23
21 C.F.R. Section 803.50(a).
24
21 C.F.R. Section 803.30(a).
25FDA, “MedSun: Medical Product Safety Network,”
www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/MedSunMedicalProductSafetyNetwork/default.htm?source=govdelivery.
1

32

26

FDA Executive Summary at 11.
As of Aug. 13, 2015, manufacturers and importers have been required to submit all MDRS electronically whichshould address some of these issues. (Medical Device Reporting: Electronic Submission Requirements, 79 Fed.
Reg. 8832 – 8855).
28
FDA, Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff - Postmarket Surveillance Under
Section 522 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (Aug. 16, 2011),
www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm268064.htm.
29
The Brookings Institution, “Strengthening Patient Care: Building an Effective National Medical Device
Surveillance System,” 12 (Feb. 2015), www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2015/02/23-medicaldevice-policy-surveillance/med-device-report-web.pdf
30
Id.
31
Josh Rising, Ian Reynolds, and Art Sedrakyan, Pew Charitable Trusts, “Delays and Difficulties in Assessing
Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants” (July 6, 2012), www.pewtrusts.org/en/about/news-room/opinion/2012/07/16/delaysand-difficulties-in-assessing-metalonmetal-hip-implants.
32
FDA, “FDA’s Sentinel Initiative- Background,” www.fda.gov/Safety/FDAsSentinelInitiative/ucm149340.htm.
33
21 U.S.C. § 360(i); Unique Device Identification System 78 Fed. Reg. 58786 – 58828.
34
See FDA Executive Summary at 9.
35
Id.at 25-27. The closed-channel duodenoscope models include the Olympus TJF-Q180V, the Fujifilm ED530XT, and the Pentax ED-3490TK and ED-3670TK.
36
MDR 8010047-2012-00157.
37
Dr. Ir. Arjo Loeve, Delft University of Technology, “Investigation Olympus TJF-Q180V scope: Following
detected contamination after cleaning and disinfection” (May 15, 2012) [hereinafter Delft report].
38
Telephone conversation with Dr. Arjo Loeve (October 2, 2015).
39
Delft report at 11.
40
Id. at 23-24.
41
Id. at 23.
42
Id.
43
Id. at 23-24.
44
Delft report at 23-24.
45
Id.
46
Id.
47
A. Bruijn, A. Drogelen,, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment Ministry of Health, Welfare,and Sport, “Disinfection of Olympus TFJ-Q180V ERCP endoscope” (July 30, 2013) [hereinafter RIVM report].
48
Id. at 1.
49
Id. at p. 6.
50See, e.g., MDR 8010047-2015-00216.
51
Telephone conversation with staff at UPMC (October 29, 2015).
52
MDR 8010047-2012-00481.
53
Letter from Scott Lucas, Program Manager at ECRI Institute to William Schaffner, Senior Associate Counsel at
UPMC (December 26, 2012) (on file with the HELP Committee).
54
MDR 8010047-2012-00481; Memorandum from Mary Ann Drosnock to David Barlow, Simon Nguyen, Laura
Storms-Tyler, and Mia Zhang (December 14, 2012) (on file with the HELP Committee); Letter from Scott Lucas,
Program Manager at ECRI Institute to William Schaffner, Senior Associate Counsel at UPMC (December 26, 2012)(on file with the HELP Committee).
55
Letter from Scott Lucas, Program Manager at ECRI Institute to William Schaffner, Senior Associate Counsel at
UPMC (December 26, 2012) (on file with the HELP Committee).
56
Telephone conversation with staff at UPMC (October 29, 2015).
57
Olympus has provided documentation that confirms the MDR was sent to FDA.
27

33

58

Biotech Germande study 2128.Oly.2012 (: 08-Jan-2013) (on file with the HELP Committee).
Biotech Germande study 2231.Oly.2013 (July 2, 2014) (on file with the HELP Committee).
60
Bonn University studies on file with the HELP Committee. It is unclear whether the scope evaluated by Bonn
University was linked to a particular outbreak
61
Letter from Olympus to customers, “Important Safety Advice” (Jan. 2013),
www.swissmedic.ch/recalllists_dl/07207/Vk_20130123_15-e1.pdf (emphasis added).
62
These three outbreaks are: Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands, UPMC in the United States, and Cliniquede Bercy in France.
63
Letter from Olympus to customers, “URGENT: Field Safety Corrective Action” (2014,www.swissmedic.ch/recalllists_dl/10220/Vk_20140729_02-e1.pdf (emphasis added).
64
These ten outbreaks are: Erasmus Medical Center, UPMC, Clinique de Bercy (two outbreaks), Evangelisches
Waldkrankenhaus Spandu, Hartford Hospital, Froedtert Hospital, NYP/Weill Cornell Medical Center, UMass
Memorial Hospital, and Charite-Universitatsmedizin,
65
See 21 C.F.R 807.81(a)(3).
66
FDA, “Deciding When to Submit a 510(k) for a Change to an Existing Device. Memorandum # K97-1” (1997),
www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/ucm080235.htm.
67
Id
68
Letter from LaShonda M. Long, Chief of Surveillance and Enforcement Branch I, to Laura Storms-Tyler, Vice
President of Olympus Medical Systems Corporation, “It Has Come to Our Attention” (March 18, 2014),
www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/ResourcesforYou/Industry/UCM436587.pdf.
69
See 21 C.F.R. § 820.30(g).
70See 21 C.F.R. 820.75; FDA Executive Summary at 30.
71
FDA, Reprocessing Medical Devices in Health Care Settings: Validation Methods and Labeling, Guidance forIndustry and Food and Drug Administration Staff, 22-23 (2015),
www.fda.gov/downloads/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/guidancedocuments/ucm253010.pdf
72
RIVM report at p. 9.
73
Id. at p. 4.
74
Id. at ps. 7-8.
75
In March 2015 FDA found that Olympus had validated updated reprocessing instructions. FDA, Safety
Communication “Olympus Validates New Reprocessing Instructions for Model TJF-Q180V Duodenoscopes”(March 26, 2015), www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm439999.htm.
76
FDA, Reprocessing Medical Devices in Health Care Settings: Validation Methods and Labeling, Guidance forIndustry and Food and Drug Administration Staff (March 17, 2015),
www.fda.gov/downloads/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/guidancedocuments/ucm253010.pdf
77
Hospitals and other user facilities are required to report serious injuries linked to devices to manufacturers but are
not required to report serious injuries to FDA.
78
MDR 8010047-2012-000157 (understating the number of patients infected at Erasmus Medical Center).
79
See, e.g., MDR 8010047-2013-00595 (Clinique de Bercy) (“improper reprocessing could not be ruled out as acontributory factor”); MDR 8020047-2013-00092 (Charite-Universitatsmedizin); MDR 8010047-2012-000452(Clinique de Bercy).
80
Letter from Jan B. Welch, Acting Director, Office of Compliance, FDA, to Akihiro Okubo, President, Olympus
Medical Systems Corporation, “Warning Letter” (Aug. 12, 2015),
www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2015/ucm458510.htm.
81
Letter from Keiichi Nagata, Division President FUJIFILM Medical Systems USA to Senator Patty Murray (June19, 2015) (on file with the HELP Committee).
82
Letter from Anastacia M. Bilek, Director, Division of Premarket and Labeling Compliance, FDA, to Mr. Teiichi
Goto, Corporate Vice President, Fujifilm Corporation, “It has come to our attention” (Aug. 12, 2015),
www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/ResourcesforYou/Industry/UCM458552.pdf.
83
Id.
59

34

84

Letter from Anastacia M. Bilek, Director, Division of Premarket and Labeling Compliance, to Mr. Hiroshi
Suzuki, President and CEO, Hoya Corporation (PENTAX Life Care Division), “It has come to our attention” (Aug.
12, 2015), www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/ResourcesforYou/Industry/UCM458554.pdf.
85
FDA, Form 483, Observation 1, inspection of a Fujifilm Facility in Ashigarakami Gun, Japan (April 23-May 01,
2015).
86
Id.
87
Id.
88
Id. (observation 3).
89
Letter from Jan B. Welch, Acting Director, Office of Compliance, FDA to Mr. Hiroshi Suzuki, President andCEO, Hoya Corporation (PENTAX Life Care Division), Warning Letter (Aug 12, 2015),
www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2015/ucm458487.htm.
90
Pentax instructs user facilities to use either an EtO/Carbon Dioxide 80:20 or 90:10 mixture when sterilizing a
duodenoscope but the validation was performed with an EtO/HCFC 10:90 gas mixture – a different mixture from thegas included on the label. (Id.).
91
FDA, Safety Communication, “FUJIFILM Medical Systems, U.S.A., Inc. Validates Revised Reprocessing
Instructions for Model ED-530XT Duodenoscopes” (Dec. 23, 2015),
www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm439999.htm
92
Letter from Jan B. Welch, Acting Director, Office of Compliance, FDA to Mr. Hiroshi Suzuki, President andCEO, Hoya Corporation (PENTAX Life Care Division), Warning Letter (Aug 12, 2015),
www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2015/ucm458487.htm.
93
Letter from Jan B. Welch, Acting Director, Office of Compliance, FDA to Mr. Teiichi Goto, Corporate Vice
President, Fujifilm Corporation, Warning Letter (Aug. 12, 2015),
www.fda.gov/iceci/enforcementactions/warningletters/2015/ucm458453.htm.
94
In November, 2014 Pentax reported patients at a hospital in Udine, Italy developed a Klebsiella pneumoniae
infection after undergoing ERCP. MDR 9610877-2015-00046.
95
Email from counsel to Pentax to HELP committee staff (October 28, 201) (on file with the HELP Committee).
96
Letter from Counsel for Fujifilm to Senator Patty Murray (October 2, 2015) (on file with the HELP Committee).
97
Press Release, FDA, “FDA orders recall under consent decree for all custom ultrasonics automated endoscope
reprocessors” (Nov. 13, 2015), www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm472605.htm.
98
Letter from Thomas D. Gardine, District Director, FDA, to Frank J. Weber, President & CEO, Custom
Ultrasonics, Warning Letter (June 22, 2005),/www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2005/ucm075455.htm.
99
FDA, Safety Communication, “Custom Ultrasonics, Inc. Endoscope Washer/Disinfectors” (Feb. 27, 2007),
www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/PublicHealthNotifications/ucm064361.htm.
100
Telephone conversation with FDA (Dec.7, 2015).
101
Letter from Anne E. Johnson, Acting Director, Philadelphia District, Office of Regulatory Compliance and Capt.
Sean Boyd, Acting Director of Compliance, FDA, to Alicia Nakonetschny, President and CEO, Custom Ultrasonics(Nov. 12, 2015),
www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDRH/CDRHFOIAElec
tronicReadingRoom/UCM472567.pdf.
102
Id.
103
21 C.F.R. § 803.30.
104
Id.
105
Committee staff were unable to obtain information from Carolinas Medical Center in Charlotte North Carolina
after repeated inquiries.
106
For state reporting requirements see Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology,“Summary of State CRE Reporting Requirements,” www.apic.org/Resource_/TinyMceFileManager/AdvocacyPDFs/CRE_ReportingRequirements_Final.pdf.
107
Telephone conversation with staff at Virginia Mason (October 29, 2015).
108
Id.

35

109

MDR 2951238-2014-00644.
MDR 2518897-2015-00329.
111
21 C.F.R. § 803.30(a)(1).
112
Letter from Thomas Kraus, Associate Commissioner for Legislation, FDA, to Senator Patty Murray (May 14,2015) (on file with the HELP Committee).
113
MedWatch 5029305.
114
MedWatch 5032234.
115
Telephone Call with staff at Virginia Mason (October 29, 2015).
116
There is no federal requirement that user facilities report all antibiotic-resistant infections, or even all CRE
outbreaks, to the CDC. Instead, hospitals voluntarily report hospital-acquired infections to the National Healthcare
Safety Network (NHSN) or the Gram-Negative Bacilli Surveillance Initiative (MuGSI). MuGSI was createdspecifically to track CRE infections but includes data from only eight surveillance sites in Colorado, Georgia,
Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Tennessee. The CDC has been unable to confirm thatany of the identified outbreaks prior to fall 2013 were reported to any of their databases. See CDC, “What is
NHSN?” (last accessed Nov. 30, 2015), www.cdc.gov/nhsn/about-nhsn/index.html; CDC, “Technical InformationMulti-Site Gram-Negative Bacilli Surveillance Initiative (MuGSI)” (last accessed Nov. 30, 2015),
www.cdc.gov/hai/eip/mugsi_techinfo.html.
117
21 C.F.R. § 803.30 (emphasis added).
118
FDA Executive Summary at 11.
119
Telephone conversation with staff at Advocate Lutheran (November 19, 2015).
120
Id.
121
MDR 8010047-2012-00157. There were actually at least 30 patients infected.
122
MDR 8010047-2012-00481. Olympus has provided supporting documentation that the original report was sent to
FDA, but it does not appear that it was ever entered into FDA’s adverse event reporting database and FDA experts
conducting the investigation do not appear to have seen this MDR until a later time.
123
MDR 2951238-2013-00031.
124
MDR 8010047-2012-00452.
125
MDR 8010047-2013-00092.
126
MDR 8010047-2013-00176.
127
MW 5031083.
128
Letter from Senator Patty Murray to Margaret Hamburg, FDA Commissioner (February 3, 2014),
www.murray.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/096ecf61-0004-4076-b2e0-8fd4f1a25e78/020315-virginia-masonletter.pdf.
129
FDA, Safety Communication, “Design of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)
Duodenoscopes May Impede Effective Cleaning” (February 19, 2015 updated March 4, 2015),
www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm434871.htm.
130CDC, “Interim Duodenoscope Surveillance Protocol,” www.cdc.gov/hai/organisms/cre/cre-duodenoscopesurveillance-protocol.html.
131
FDA, Reprocessing Medical Devices in Health Care Settings: Validation Methods and Labeling, Guidance forIndustry and Food and Drug Administration Staff (March 17, 2015),
www.fda.gov/downloads/medicaldevices/deviceregulationandguidance/guidancedocuments/ucm253010.pdf
132
FDA Executive Summary. Virginia Mason has extensively studied the culture and quarantine protocol at its
facility, and continues to find about two percent of its duodenoscopes remain contaminated after reprocessing evenusing Olympus’s updated cleaning instructions.
133
FDA, Safety Communication, “Supplemental Measures to Enhance Duodenoscope Reprocessing” (Aug. 4,2015), www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm454766.htm.
134
Letter from Jan B. Welch, Acting Director, Office of Compliance, FDA to Mr. Teiichi Goto, Corporate Vice
President, Fujifilm Corporation, Warning Letter (Aug. 12, 2015),
www.fda.gov/iceci/enforcementactions/warningletters/2015/ucm458453.htm; Letter from Jan B. Welch, Acting
110

36

Director, Office of Compliance, FDA to Mr. Hiroshi Suzuki, President and CEO, Hoya Corporation (PENTAX Life
Care Division), Warning Letter (Aug 12, 2015),
www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2015/ucm458487.htm; Letter from Jan B. Welch, Acting
Director, Office of Compliance, FDA, to Akihiro Okubo, President, Olympus Medical Systems Corporation,“Warning Letter” (Aug. 12, 2015),
www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2015/ucm458510.htm.
135
Press Release, FDA, “FDA orders duodenoscope manufacturers to conduct postmarket surveillance studies inhealth care facilities” (Oct. 5, 2015), www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm465639.htm.
136
Press Release, FDA, “FDA orders recall under consent decree for all custom ultrasonics automated endoscope
reprocessors, (Nov. 13, 2015), www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm472605.htm.
137
Public Notification of Emerging Postmarket Medical Device Signals (“Emerging Signals”); Draft Guidance, 80Fed. Reg. 81829 – 81830.
138
FDA published a final rule on February 13, 2014 requiring manufacturers and importers to submit electronic
MDRs in a reviewable format, but allowed for hardcopy submissions until August 13, 2015. User facilities areallowed to continue submitting hardcopy MDRs but are given the option of e-filing reports as well. Medical Device
Reporting: Electronic Submission Requirements, 79 Fed. Reg. 8832 – 8855.
139
See Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 § 6002; 42 U.S.C. § 1396r-8(a); 21 U.S.C. § 360; Drug Listing Act of 1972,§§ 3, 4.
140
FDA, “Sentinel Program Interim Assessment (FY 15)” (Sept. 24, 2015),
www.fda.gov/downloads/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/UCM464043.pdf.
141
Id. at 12.
142
Id. at 23-24.
143
Id. at 23-24.
144
Id. at 21-22.
145
Id.
146
See Brookings Institution, Strengthening Patient Care: Building an Effective National Medical Device
Surveillance System (Feb. 2015), www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2015/02/23-medical-devicepolicy-surveillance/med-device-report-web.pdf.
147
Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 § 226; 21 U.S.C. § 360i(f).
148
Unique Device Identification System 78 Fed. Reg. 58786 – 58828.
149“Medical Device Reporting” 21 C.F.R. §§ 803.32-33, 803.42, 803.52.
150
The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology’s “2015 Edition Health Information
Technology Certification Criteria” rule made progress towards enabling access to and sharing of unique device
identifier information. This rule requires that federally-certified health information technology allow a user to accessa list of UDIs for a patient’s implantable devices and share it with other authorized users. 80 Fed. Reg. 62601.

37

Appendix I: Letters
The following are reproductions of the letters Senator Murray
sent to Olympus, Pentax, Fujifilm, and FDA.

Appendix II: Reports
This appendix includes a report of the results of Dr. Arjo
Loeve’s investigation of the TJF-Q180V closed-channel
duodenoscope involved in the outbreak of antibiotic-resistantinfections at Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands. It also
includes the report of the Dutch National Institute for Public
Health and the Environment (RIVM) investigation into thedesign and safety of the TJF-Q180V duodenoscope and the
response of Erasmus Medical Center. The translation of thisreport from the original Dutch to English is not endorsed orverified by RIVM.

Investigation Olympus TJF-Q180V
Scope
following detected contamination after cleaning anddisinfection(Internal title: Report Investigation Scope G-206)______________________________________________________________
Reporting, Conclusions and Recommendation

May 15, 2012______________________________________________________________

Final Ver si on - Revi si on June 27, 2012 – Adding external title August 29, 2014

Dr. Ir. Arjo Loeve
Delft University of Technology
Electronic Instrume ntation Laboratory
Faculty of Electrical Engineering , Mat hematics and Computer S cience&
BioMechanical Engineering Department
Faculty of Mecha nical, Maritime a nd Materials Engineering (3mE )Lab F-0-200, Mekelweg 2, 2628 CD Delft, Ne therlands
Tel. +31 (0) 15 2782977 || Cell +31 (0) 630876959
www.bmeche.tudelft.nl || www.misit.nl ||Investigation Scope 206 – page 2

Table of Contents

1

Background- Cont amination 'Scope G-206' .................................................................................................................. 5

2

Purpose and layout of this report .................................................................................................................................... 73

Disclaimer ............................................................................................................................................................................... 94

Report briefing.................................................................................................................................................................... 115

Report scope dissembling and sampling...................................................................................................................... 13

6

Vision independent expert............................................................................................................................................... 23
Accessibility for brushes .................................................................................................................................................. 23
Quality of sealing............................................................................................................................................................... 23
Scale on parts ..................................................................................................................................................................... 23
Cultures ................................................................................................................................................................................ 24
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................................... 24

Appendix A – Registration numbers and description cultures Scope G-206.............................................................. 25
Appendix B - Electron microscope photos .......................................................................................................................... 27
Appendix C - Contact sheets all photos of the investigation ......................................................................................... 29

Investigation Scope 206 – page 3

Investigation Scope 206 – page 4

1

Background - Contamination 'Scope G-206'

Recently the bacterium Pseudomonas Aeruginosa was found at the Erasmus Medical Center ('ErasmusMC') in the cavity of the tip of an Olympus video duodenoscope TJF-Q180V (hereinafter referred to as'Scope G-206', where the number 206 refers to the internal registration number of the related scope
within the Erasmus MC). T his bacterium persisted after manual cleansing and mechanical cleaning anddisinfection in the Olympus ET D3 scope disinfector.
In order to locate the cause of the persistence of the detected bacteria, it was decided to extensively
inspect Scope G-206, to take samples at places that are normally within reach. It will then step by step
disassembled and inspected. Sampling will be taken in areas that have become accessible through thedisassembly. Also due to these sampling-and disassembling steps and the subsequent microbiological andviral investigations (hereinafter referred to as 'the investigation), it is attempted to discover if thepersistence of the bacteria is caused by:-Incorrect or insufficient following of the cleaning instr uctions
Incorrect or insufficient formulated cleaning instructions
Insufficient functioning of sealing in Scope G-206
Other cause(s)Olympus Nederland and the Erasmus MC have decided together to take care of and to carry out a fur therinvestigation of the contamination of Scope G-206. On April 23, 2012 an investigation team (hereinafterreferred to as 'the investigation team'), consisting of representatives of the Erasmus MC and Olympus, aswell as an independent expert of the Delft University of Technology ('TU Delft'), has conducted theinvestigation at Olympus Nederland B.V., Industrieweg 44, Zoeterwoude, Ne therlands.

Investigation Scope 206 – page 5

Investigation Scope 206 – page 6

2 Purpose and layout of this report
Purpose of this report is to come to an objective determination of the cause / causes of the persistence of
the Pseudomonas Aeruginosa bacterium in Scope G-206.
For this purpose, first a factual recor d (supported by photos as well as registration and result lists) of thebriefing and execution of the investigation is provided.
Following the findings during the Investigation, the independent expert of the TU Delft has formulated an
opinion concer ning the most likely cause / causes of the persistence of the Pseudomonas Aeruginosabacterium in Scope G-206.
In this report, the sample reference numbers are given as {0000}

Investigation Scope 206 – page 7

Investigation Scope 206 – page 8

3Disclaimer

Photo used in this report were taken by a professional photographer. The photos were corrected visuallyregarding color to compensate for deviations by changing light sources and using different cameras.
(Over view and macro photos were made with a Nikon D300s and microscope photos with the connectedcamera). Colors may therefore still differ slightly from the actual colors as they w ould have been observed
under daylight or under daylight lamps. Due to differences in color rendering by different monitors,
printers or kinds of paper, possible deviations could be stronger.
Conclusions regarding observations should in no way be based on shades of color or specificcharacteristic, absolute color values based on the utilized photos.
The conclusions, estimations and recommendations as shown in Chapter 6 "Opinion of the independent
expert" are conclusions, estimations en recommendations based on the observed facts during theinvestigation, the know- how and experience of the independent expert (Arjo Loeve, see Chapter 4) andconfidential discussions be tween the independent exper t, experienced fellow scientists and Head of the
Depar tment Prof. Dr. Jenny Dankelman in the Biomechanical Engineering Department of the Delft
University of Technology, Faculty 3ME.
Therefore conclusions, estimations en recommendations in Chapter 6 can be seen as an informed expert
opinion, but in no way a formal position of the Delft University of Technology.
The names used to refer to par ts of the scope in this repor t are not necessarily the same as names
commonly used or names used within Olympus. For example: A 'sealing' can also be know n as 'bonding'or a 'cap' can be referred to as 'cover'/'sleeve'/'housing'. In this report, consistent and unambiguous useof names was taken care of as much as possible.
In case of uncertainty or doubt about which part is identified by a particular name, you will need tocontact the author before drawing conclusions and / or take consequences regar ding this report.

Investigation Scope 206 – page 9.

Investigation Scope 206 – page 10

4 Briefing Report
The investigation was conducted on April 23, 2012 at Olympus Nederland B.V., Industrieweg 44,
Zoeterwoude.
At around 10:15 hrs., the investigation team gathered there consisting of:Name

Job Function

Henk Braat
Knut Burmester
Viktor Tran
Kees Verdouw
Marcel Vonk
Leo AbelJolanda Buijs-Hegeman
Leo Groenendaal
Johan de Kat
Annelies PothAnnette Sandijck
Arjo Loeve

Managing Director
OlympusNederland
B.V.
Section Manager Service Engineering
Olympus Europa Holding GMBH
Production Support Specialist MS D
Olympus Europa Holding GMBH
Service Engineer Flexible Instruments
OlympusNederland
B.V.
Sales Support Manager CDS Unit Head Olympus
Nederland
B.V.
Gastroenterology & Liver Diseases Dept. Erasmus
MedicalCenterStaff Advisor Medical Devices
Erasmus
MedicalCenter
Unit head of Medical Technology
Erasmus
MedicalCenterHospital Hygienist
Erasmus
MedicalCenterExper t Medical Devices Hospital
Erasmus
MedicalCenterHygienist
Erasmus Medical Center
Researcher Biomechanical Engineering Delft University of Technology

Organization

A number of issues relating to the people present are specifically addressed:-

Henk Braat leading the meeting indicates that he will not be present during the investigation.
Arjo Loeve as an independent expert from the T U Delft will take care of reporting, photo / video
shooting for recording, and will observe the process objectively and critically and will manage
when necessary.
Leo Abel will take care of the sampling and will wear latex gloves.
Viktor Tran takes care of the scope disassembly and will wear latex gloves.
Annette Sandij k takes care of the storage of the sample materials.
Johan de Kat will take care of the labeling and packaging of the samples.
Kees Verdouw will provide and operate any auxiliar y equipment such as microscopes.

It is discussed w hat the approach during the investigation will be:1
2

3

Sampling working channels and tip of Scope G-206 with a 3mm diameter cytology brush in orderto determine possible presence of residual patient material. Only those samples will be taken in
the clean room and attendees present will be wearing gloves and masks.
Step-by-step disassembling of Scope G-206. For each disassembly step, the relevant part of thescope will be visually inspected, photographed and sampled with cytolog y brushes and / orswabs. Components of Scope G- 206 would also partially or completely be packed for fur therinvestigation (cultures, NACT PCR and viral).
At a later stage components of Scope G-206 will be examined with an electron microscope inorder to determine the presence of possible biofilms.

Investigation Scope 206 – page 11

Investigation Scope 206 – page 12

11:23 hrs.

Preparing the wor k tables (disinfecting and covering them with a sterile cloth). Thosepresent in the clean room are wearing protective coats and surgical masks. Leo Abel
samples the scope and wears in addition to the protective coat and the surgical mask, also
sterile gloves and a surgical cap.
11:31 hrs.
Sampling for PCR in a clean room. Present in the clean room are: Leo Abel, Arjo Loeve,
Annelies Poth, Annette Sandijck, Marcel Vonk. The rest of the investigation team observes
from a technical location.
 Sampling the parts below with sterile 3 mm diameter cytology brushes(after sampling by brushing and/or pigging, each br ush is collected in a
new and sterile laborator y jar):• Air/water channel and instrument channel tip {5379} (Figure 1).
______________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 1: Tip of Scope G-206 and the cytology brush used.

______________________________________________________________________________________
 The cavity under the forceps elevator ("behind the forceps elevator"
according to the sample list) {5388} (Figure 2). It should be noted that it
was impossible to reach behind/below the forceps elevator cytology
brushes since these have a hard tip. Grooves, holes and cracks in thatpart of the tip could not be reached______________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 2: Sampling of the cavity under the forceps elevator.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Investigation Scope 206 – page 13

 Biopsy / instr umentation channel {5396} and biopsy por t {5401} (Figure 3).
______________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 3: Sampling biopsy channel (above and left middle) and biopsy port (right middle and below).

______________________________________________________________________________________
11:40 hrs.

11:43 hrs.

The investigation team is located in the technical area. The rest of the investigation willtake place there. It was decided that the Scope G-206 or parts exposed between thedisassembly steps do not need to be cleaned due to the low probability of relevant cr osscontamination (since the search is focused on a ver y specific bacterium).
Viktor makes the first cut in the sealant of cardan rubber, directly behind the steerable tipof the scope and observes air bubbles in the sealing. He suspects that the sealant wasapplied by a third party. Further investigation shows that Erasmus MC does not use a third
party for repairs; this sealant was applied by Olympus Nederland B.V.. Arjo requests topause in order to first take photos of the coating, Figure 4. T he scope is moved to themicroscope in order to take photos of the tip.

Investigation Scope 206 – page 14

Figure 4: Cutting the sealant of cardan rubber open and microscope photos of the air bubbles(some of them are open) in the still untouched parts of the sealing. The air bubbles areindicated with arrows.
________________________________________________________________________________ ______
Photos of the camera and light source in the tip show: brownish scale behind the cover glass of the camera (Figure 5)
 cracks in the sealing of the housing of the tip around the camera (Figure 5)______________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 5: Visual inspection camera housing. On the left and right, it is clearly visible that the scale is located behind the glass
covering of the camera. On the right, a vertical arrow points to the tear in de sealing of the housing. Furthermore, on the rightanother tear can be seen in de sealing of the camera which is indicated with the diagonal arrow.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Investigation Scope 206 – page 15

Photos of the cavity in which the forceps elevator moves, made with the microscope and asmall diameter fiberscope, show (Figure 6 en 7):
scratches and gr ooves reaching under the forceps elevator,

whitish scale in the tip housing and also br ownish scale on themetal par t where the forceps elevator runs {5412, 5423, 5434}.
__________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 6: Visual inspection of the tip around the forceps elevator. Above: scratches and grooves well below the forceps
elevator; the arrows point to the scratches. Below: whitish and brownish scale (arrow) on the surface where along the forceps
elevator moves.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 7: From left to right: sampling of the space around the forceps elevator with swab; scraping sample of white and brownscale; overview of work setting, cutting of scalpel point for packaging.

Investigation Scope 206 – page 16

12:22 hrs.

Viktor Viktor removes the sealing with which the hard plastic cap of the cardan par t of thescope is connected. This sealing is packaged as sample {5445}. Then under the adhesionon the flexible sleeve which covers the steerable par t will take place using a swab {5456,
5467} (Figure 8).
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 8: Removing and packaging of the sealant between the hard plastic cap of the tip and the cardan rubber of the scopeand (far right) sampling under the cardan rubber.

______________________________________________________________________________________
Viktor removes the hard plastic cap from the tip by cutting it open and pr ying it loose fromthe adhesive layer that glues it to the metal interior of the tip. Waste from cutting the cap
is package d for fur ther testing {5478} (Figure 9). Then sampling with swabs took place
inside the housing on which the hard plastic cover was glued {5489, 5490} (Figure 9).
______________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 9: (First two photos on the left) Cutting open and prying loose of the hard plastic cap on the tip. (Two photos on the right)
Sampling interior under the removed hard plastic cap.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Investigation Scope 206 – page 17

It was attempted twice to reach behind the forceps elevator with a swab for sampling.
However, the limited space does not lend itself for a deep sampling. Therefore superficial
sampling at the rear end of the forceps elevator took place as well as in the forceps
elevator channel {5507, 5516} (Figure 10). Another attempt was made to sample deep
behind the forceps elevator using a cytology brush. This was a bit more successful, but
the space was still too limited for the br ush to reach behind the forceps elevator {5521}(Figure 10).
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 10: Sampling behind the forceps elevator with swabs and cytology brush.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Inspection of the forceps elevator hinge under the microscope (Figure 11) showed thatthe hinge has relatively speaking a lot of room to maneuver. When the forceps elevator
was moved, a fiber catapulted from this hinge. This fiber was picked up with the point ofa scalpel and packaged for further investigation {5535}.
____________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 11: Microscope images of the forceps elevator hinge and the fiber that emerged from it. The axial shifting of theforceps elevator due to room for maneuvering is clearly visible in the two photos. Arrows point to the location of the fiber___________________________________________________________________________________
12:56 hrs.

LUNCH BREAK. All participants leave the technical area and continue with theinvestigation only after Arjo was present again.

Investigation Scope 206 – page 18

13:27 hrs. CONTINUA TION. Het investigation team is present again in the technical area. Viktor
removes the cover plate that covers de actuator area of the forceps elevator (Figure 12,left). The cover plate is packaged for further testing {5609}. Then the propulsion cable ofthe forceps elevator is sampled twice with swabs {5542, 5558} (Figure 12, right). What is
immediately noticeable is the fact that all metal surfaces inside the opened actuator area
are covered in br own scale. Further testing is needed to determine if this is the result ofoxidation or something else.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 12: (Left) Verwijdering afdekplaat (rechter piji) van actuator area forceps elevator (linker piji). (Right) Sampling
propulsion cable forceps elevator.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
Two swab samples were taken from the deep area in which the lever of the forceps
elevator moves back and forth {5560, 5573} (Figure 13, first three on the left). Afterdisconnecting and pushing aside the propulsion cable of the forceps elevator (using aprecision screw driver), the area where the propulsion cable was originally r unning on was
sampled twice with swabs {5584, 5599} (Figure 13, far right).
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 13: (First three photos on the left) Sampling of the deep area in which the lever of the forceps elevator moves back andforth. (Far right) Sampling under the propulsion cable of the forceps elevator.

_______________________________________________ ______________________________________

Investigation Scope 206 – page 19

13:54 hrs.

Viktor removes the glue from the screw which mounts the forceps elevator on the axis of
the lever, lifting axle. The screw is removed and packaged for further testing {5677}. The
lever with lifting axle forms one single par t which is lifted from the actuator area and put
under the microscope (Figure 14). There is an O-ring around the lifting axle that should
create a watertight separation between the actuator area and the patient.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Lever

O-ring Lifting Axle

Figure 14: From left to right: lifting away of the lever with lifting axle; actuator area from where the lever was
removed; lever with lifting axle and O-ring photographed from the side that was in the actuator area; lever withlifting axle and O-ring photographed from the side of the lifting axle.
The O-ring was mounted on the forceps elevator.

_____________________________________________________________________________________In the far right photo in Figure 14, it can be clearly seen that all surfaces of the lever andlifting axle that were located in the actuator area, the actuator area-side, was covered
with brown scale. The lifting axle looks clean at the side where the forceps elevator (andtherefore also the patient) was located, the patient-side.
Under the microscope, the lever is sampled twice with swabs at the actuator area-side{5613, 5620} and twice on the lifting axle that was located in the forceps elevator {5636,
5648} (Figure 15).
_______________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 15: Lever with lifting axle and O-ring (dark blue arrow) and the forceps elevator (white arrow).

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Investigation Scope 206 – page 20

Under the microscope the difference between the brow n-scaled actuator-side area and the cleanlooking patient-side of the lever with lifting axle is clearly visible again (Figure 16). T he O-ring shows
signs of wear and is on the actuator-side area heavily covered with brown scale. On the surface of
the O-ring (w here it is wedged in the housing) the brow n scale is also prominently present. On thepatient-side of the O-ring is the brown scale still present, but to a lesser extent.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Actuator housing-side

Patient-side
Patient-side
Patient-side

Actuator housing-side
Patient-side

Actuator housing-side

Figure 16: Microscope images of the lever with lifting axle and O-ring. In each of the bottom four
photos, there is an enlargement of the central part of the photo on the left.

____________________________________________________________________________ _________

Investigation Scope 206 – page 21

Viktor removes de O-ring from the lifting axle. T he O-ring is cut into tw o halves, both ofthem are packaged for further testing {5651, 5664} (Figure 17). The forceps elevator andthe lever with lifting axle are also packaged for further testing {5682, 5695}. Finally, avirological sample is taken from the water suction channel {5706} before the tip of Scope
G-206 is packaged with a sterile bag and the scope in is stored in its case (Figure 17).
______________________________________________________________________________________

Figure 17: From left to right: removing the O-ring; cutting the O-ring in half; virological sample from water suction channel;
packaging of Scope G-206.

____________________________________________________________________________________
14:23

Since Viktor and Knut must catch their plane back to Germany, the investigation is
terminated. Therefore it is refrained from sampling of the inside of the scope shaft, theremoval and cutting up of the wor king channel for further testing, and the sampling of
the inside of the handle of Scope G-206.

Investigation Scope 206 – page 22

6.

Opinion independent expert

Accessibility for brushes

Observations: During the sampling it became repeatedly clear that the tip of Scope G-206 contains
several cracks, corners and spaces that are hard to reach or cannot be reached at all with the 3 mmdiameter cytology br ush. In par ticular:- the crack under the hinge point of the forceps elevator,- the crack caused by the axial clearance of the forceps elevator,- and the area under/behind the curve of the forceps elevator,
proved unreachable for this br ush (Figures 2, 10 and 11).
Recommendat ion: Enlarge in the scope design the space around the mentioned points so that thesecan be reached by br ushes and / or make sure that the cleaning instr uctions are such that those points
are cleaned thoroughly in the current scope in one way or another. Validate that the customized designs
and / or instr uctions actually result in sound cleaning.

Quality of sealing
Observations: The sealing in and around the tip were found to show abnormalities that could result in
potential leakage. Specific observations:- air bubbles, some of them open, in the adhesion between the hard plastic cap of the tip and theflexible sleeve over the steerable part of the scope (Figure 4),- cracks in the sealing around the camera housing (Figure 5),- Worn looking O-ring which should ensure the sealing around the lifting axle (Figure 12).
The air bubbles in the adhesion and the tear in the sealing can open the door for the appearance ofmoisture and micro-organisms. Visualization of the O-ring with a scanning electron microscope. Based on
the images of the O-ring, in particular the rough / powdery texture of the surface and the crack that canbe seen in the electron microscope photo (see Appendix B), it appears that reliable sealing by means of
this O-ring cannot be not guaranteed. This is fur ther supported by the findings as described below under'Scale found on parts'.
Recommendat ion: Ensuring regular, strict control of sealing between moments of use. Take care of
regular replacement of the O-ring (it might have performed well over time, but it remains a moving
sealing which requires maintenance). Improve in future scope designs the sealing by creating multiple
barriers or, and this would be preferred, avoid such sealing at all and design a forceps elevator with nomoving par ts that r un from the patient into a "sterile" area of the instr ument.

Scale on parts

Observations: At a number of locations in the tip of Scope G-206, scale was detected:- brownish scale behind the glass covering of the camera (Figure 5),- brownish and w hitish scale on the edge of the space ar ound the forceps elevator (Figure 6),- brownish scale on the surfaces in de actuator area (Figure 12),- brownish scale on the surfaces of the lever at the actuator area-side (Figure 16),
- brownish scale on the O-ring, mainly at the actuator area-side, but also at the patient-side(Figure 16).
Scale behind the covering glass of the camera implies that this area was not properly sealed, so thatgrowth of micr o-organisms, scale from residual liquids or deterioration of a possible coating occurred.
Scale on the edge of the area around the forceps elevator should be investigated further before arriving at
any conclusions. This could be oxidation, but in case of a contamination it could also indicate insufficient /incorrect cleaning by the Erasmus MC, since this location is well and easily accessible.
The brownish scale on the surfaces in de actuator area, the actuator area-side of the lever and the O- ringis so consistent and evenly distributed that it is highly unlikely that this oxidation is caused by, forexample, skin contact during assembling. It is more likely that somew here from the shaft or the tip of theendoscope moisture and / or biological material has entered the actuator area and lingered and / oraugmented.

Investigation Scope 206 – page 23

The fact that the br ownish scale of the O-ring can be seen on each side of the O-ring (area actuator-side
and patient-side) suggests that this scale around and on the O-ring has migrated from one side to theother. It is therefore very likely that this O-ring has not done its job. Furthermore, it appears that also thethe size of the cracks between the forceps elevator and the housing as well as between the lifting axle
and the housing are too small to be able to be brushed (and perhaps also to be rinsed) and too large to
be inaccessible for liquids and / or biological materials.
Experience with O-ring-sealing on this scale shows that less than 0.01mm deviation from the ideal
clearance can already ca use leakage. More scale could therefore increase the chance of leakage or scale
can be caused by leakage. During the axial back and forth movement of the lifting axle, the O-ring could
make axially rolling movements, which could cause moisture and / or organic material to enter between
the O-ring and the lifting axle. With each fur ther movement of the lifting axle, moisture and / or organic
material could migrate further from the actuator housing- side to the patient-side or vice versa.
Recommendat ion: Find out w hat the scale behind the glass covering of the camera is, measure thequality of the sealing and correct when necessary. Review the cleaning process critically in order to trace
how the scale in the forceps elevator channel on an easily accessible location could linger and stay
unnoticed.
Improve the sealing of the actuator area or avoid in future designs the use of such sealing. Check theexisting sealing in all existing scopes and ensure an objective, critical, quantitative measuring of thesealing quality.

Cultures

Observations: Culture results are show n in Appendix A, Table A.2. Only the cultures (specific as well as
generic) of the hard plastic cap of the tip provided positive culture results. Since the exterior of the cap
has been cleaned repeatedly, can be accessed easily, has been dry for a long time, (the detectedbacterium normally does not thrive on dry surfaces), it is therefore highly likely that the bacterium was
located on the inside of the cap. This finding also fits the observations made regarding the quality of thesealing.
The fact that there were no positive culture results at other points does not mean that none were there.
The inaccessibility of many places on the tip, the limitations of the sampling with swabs and the fact that
biofilms grow more easily on plastics and rubbers than on metals, result in the fact that little can beconcluded based on the negative test results.
Recommendat ion: Also make a culture of the spare sample of the O-ring {5651}. If possible, conduct a
detailed investigation to exclude the presence of unwanted biomaterials in the actuator area. Sinceapparently Pseudomonas Aeruginosa was found inside the tip, it seems prudent to investigate immediately
all scopes worldwide of a similar type. See also recommendations in the 'Quality of Sealing' and in the'Conclusion' sections.

Conclusion

Observations: All in all, it seems that this scope has suffered badly from usage, possible insufficientquality of sealing, inadequate maintenance and lack of critical mechanical contr ol. The ver y small cracks
and spaces in the forceps elevator channel form a number of locations w here lingering and / or increasing
moisture and / or biological materials are quite likely.
It goes without saying that the sealing, actuator area en O-ring require direct and serious attention in all
existing and future scopes similar to Scope G-206.
Recommendat ion: Increase direct global control and maintenance of similar scopes, revise especiallyscopes with degraded sealing, and conduct e xtensive sampling. Update the cleaning instructions andconduct strict controls to ensure compliance and acceptable results. Improve the quality of the sealing inthe scope design and minimize the amount of sealing points.
In case during further testing Pseudomonas Aeruginosa or other bacteria/viruses/substances are also
found that should not be present in the actuator area, it is recommended to immediately recall all similar
scopes and/or in parallel to investigate if there could (also) be a leakage trail that does not run via the Oring or other sealing.
Investigation Scope 206 – page 24

Appendix A – Registration numbers and descriptions of cultures
Scope G-206
Table A.1: Sample material and locations and relating reference numbers.
Material / Location
Air/water channel tip
Behind forceps elevator
Biopsy channel
Biopsy port
Contamination tip, top
Scalpel 1
Scrapings after scalpel 1

Reference number
5379
5388
5396
5401
5412
5423
5434

Adhesion cap
Swab under adhesion 1
Swab under adhesion 2
Cap
Culture without cap 1
Culture without cap 2
Under forceps elevator after removing cap 1
Under forceps elevator after removing cap 2
Brush under forceps elevator without cap
Scalpel with fiber
Cable forceps elevator tip 1
Cable forceps elevator tip 2
Housing forceps elevator channel for O-ring 1
Housing forceps elevator channel for O-ring 2
Sample under cable in tip 1
Sample under cable in tip 2
Cover plate forceps elevator operating housing
Operating forceps elevator patient side 1
Operating forceps elevator patient side 2
Operating forceps elevator instr ument side 1
Operating forceps elevator instr ument side 2
Half of O-ring 1
Half of O-ring 2
Screw backside forceps elevator
Forceps elevator
Lever
Water suction channel ( virological sample)

5445
5456
5467
5478
5489
5490
5507
5516
5521
5535
5542
5558
5560
5573
5584
5599
5609
5613
5620
5636
5648
5651
5664
5677
5682
5695
5706

Investigation Scope 206 – page 25

Reference number
5379
5388
5396
5401

Lab Number
Type
Date
ResultHanded to Annelies Poth for DNA Investigation
Handed to Annelies Poth for DNA Investigation
Handed to Annelies Poth for DNA Investigation
Handed to Annelies Poth for DNA Investigation

5412
5423
5434
5445
5456

20120072678101
20120072674701
20120072680001
20120072666701
20120072681901

AERK
AERK
AERK
VIM
AERK

2012-042012-042012-042012-042012-04-

negative
negative
negative
negative
negative

5467
5478
5478
5478
5489

20120072683501
20120072675501
20120072677101
20120072677101
20120072686101

VIM
VIM
AERK
AERK
AERK

2012-042012-042012-042012-042012-04-

negative
VIM pseu, B- DYK- 9760
E. Faecium, B- DYK- 9757
VIM pseu, B- DYK- 9756
negative

5490
5507
5516
5521
5535

20120072688601 VIM
2012-04- negative
20120072689401 AERK
2012-04- negative
20120072695801 VIM
2012-04- negative
Handed to Annelies Poth for DNA Investigation
20120072673901 AERK
2012-04- negative

5542
5558
5560
5573
5584

20120072700201
20120072705301
20120072711701
20120072717601
20120072729901

5599
5609
5613
5620
5636

20120072734401 VIM
2012-04- negative
Spare for possible future cultures and / or counter-expertise
expertise20120072737901 AERK
2012-04- negative

5648
5651
5664
5677
5682
5695

20120072750401 VIM
2012-04- negative
Spare for possible future cultures and / or counter-exper tiseculturesand/ or counter-exper
tiseInvestigation
Handed toAnnelies
Poth for DNA

5706

6159-E

p.26 - Investigation Scope 206

AERK
VIM
AERK
VIM
AERK

20120072740801 VIM
20120072745901 AERK

2012-042012-042012-042012-042012-04-

2012-042012-04-

negative
negative
negative
negative
negative

negative
negative

Electron microscopy
Electron microscopy
Electron microscopy
CELK

2012-04-

negative

Appendix B - Electron microscope photos
The electron microscope photos in this appendix are made with a scanning electron microscope by the
Vossius-institute in Leiden.

Figure B. 1: Photo of the O-ring which clearly shows that the surface of the O-ring is rough and fibrous, contains scale andwas torn at the left bottom.

Investigation Scope 206 - p.27

Figure B.2: a few more enlargements of the surface of the O-ring.

p.28 - Investigation Scope 206

Figure B.3: Photos of the surface from the bottom of the sealing between the hard plastic cap of the tip and the cardan
rubber of the scope.

Investigation Scope 206 - p.29

Appendix C - Contact sheets all photos of the investigation

p.30 - Investigation Scope 206

bbbbbbb
bbb

D300 s-ACL0006 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL0008 -eKLsq.jpg

D300 s-ACL0012 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL14 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL0017 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL18 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL22 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL0023 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL0027 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL29 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL0036 -eKLsq.jpg

D300 s-ACL0040 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL0041 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL0043 -eKL.jpg

7 v' P

D300 s-ACL44 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL0045 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL0052 -eKLsq.jpg

D300 s-ACL0053 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL0057 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL60 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL0064 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL65 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL0068 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL0070 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL0069 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL72 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL0077 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL79 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL0083 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL0084 -eKLsq.jpg

D300 s-ACL0086 -eKL.jpg
D300 s-ACL0090 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL0091 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL93 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL0096 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL0098 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL0099 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL101 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL0102 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL0105 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL0103 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL106 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL0107 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL0110 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL0113 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL114 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL0123 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL125 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL0130 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL0131 -eKLsq.jpg

D300 s-ACL0135 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL136 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL140 -eKL.jpg

D300 s-ACL0141 -eKL.jpg

fc' ‫"׳‬

M icr osc-003.jpg

M icr osc-4 .jpg

M icr osc-008.jpg

M icr osc-12.jpg

M icr osc-19.jpg

M icr osc-020.jpg

M icr osc-024.jpg

M icr osc-25.jpg

M icr osc-026.jpgAppendix III: Communications from Olympus to
Customers in Europe
The following are letters sent by Olympus to customers in
Europe.

Appendix IV: Selected Adverse Event Reports
The following reports are copies of medical device reports and
MedWatch reports sent by manufacturers and hospitals to FDA
to account for incidents of antibiotic-resistant infections linked
to ERCP procedures. This compilation is not inclusive of alldevice reports filed by manufacturers and hospitals but rather ismeant to provide a sample of the reports for each outbreak ofduodenoscope-linked infections between 2012 and spring 2015.

Advocate Good Samaritan Hospital
Downers Grove, IllinoisAdvocate Lutheran General HospitalPark Ridge, Illinois12/3/2015

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: PENTAX PENTAX PENTAX DUODENOSCOPE

FDA Home3 Medical Devices4 Databases5

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: PENTAX PENTAX PENTAX DUODENOSCOPE
510(k) 7|DeNovo8|Registration &6
Listing9
CFR Title |Radiation­Emitting
2116

Products17|Adverse|Recalls11|PMA12|HDE13|Classification14|Standards15

Events10|X­Ray|MedsunAssembler 18

Reports19|CLIA20|TPLC21|Inspections22

PENTAX PENTAX PENTAX DUODENOSCOPE
Back to Search Results
Model Number ED­3490TK
Event Date 06/21/2013
Event Type Injury
Event Description
Pt underwent an ercp procedure using a pentax ed­3490tk ­a110084 side viewing duodenoscope. Pt developed
a cre infection. Proper cleaning of scope confirmed as per company recommendations. Organism found underelevator on scope.
Search Alerts/Recalls23
New Search | Submit an Adverse Event Report24
Brand NamePENTAX
Type of DevicePENTAX DUODENOSCOPE
Manufacturer (Section D)PENTAX
3 Paragon Drive
Montvale NJ 07645
MDR Report Key3252445
Report NumberMW5031083
Device Sequence Number1
Product CodeFDT25
Report SourceVoluntary
Reporter OccupationRISK MANAGER
Type of ReportInitial
Report Date07/23/2013
1 Device Was Involved in the Event
1 Patient Was Involved in the Event
Date FDA Received07/23/2013
Is This An Adverse Event Report?No
Is This A Product Problem Report?Yes
Device OperatorHealth Professional
Device MODEL NumberED­3490TK
Device LOT NumberA110084
Was Device Available For Evaluation?Yes
Is The Reporter A Health Professional?NoIs this a Reprocessed and Reused Single­Use Device?Yes
Patient TREATMENT DATA
Date Received: 07/23/2013 Patient Sequence Number: 1
Links on this page:
1. http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?u508=true&v=152&username=fdamain
2. http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfmaude/detail.cfm?mdrfoi__id=3252445

1/3

12/3/2015

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: PENTAX PENTAX PENTAX DUODENOSCOPE

3. http://www.fda.gov/default.htm
4. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/default.htm
5. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Databases/default.htm
6. /scripts/cdrh/devicesatfda/index.cfm
7. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMN/pmn.cfm
8. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpmn/denovo.cfm
9. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRL/rl.cfm
10. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfMAUDE/TextSearch.cfm
11. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRES/res.cfm
12. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMA/pma.cfm
13. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfHDE/hde.cfm
14. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPCD/classification.cfm
15. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfStandards/search.cfm
16. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFRSearch.cfm
17. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPCD_RH/classification.cfm
18. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfAssem/assembler.cfm
19. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/Medsun/searchReportText.cfm
20. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfClia/Search.cfm
21. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfTPLC/tplc.cfm
22. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfTPLC/inspect.cfm
23. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/ListofRecalls/default.htm
24. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/medwatch/
25. ../cfPCD/classification.cfm?start_search=&ProductCode=FDT
Page Last Updated: 10/31/2015
Note: If you need help accessing information in different file formats, see Instructions for Downloading
Viewers and Players.
Accessibility Contact FDA Careers FDA Basics FOIA No Fear Act Site Map Transparency Website
Policies
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
10903 New Hampshire Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20993
Ph. 1­888­INFO­FDA (1­888­463­6332)
Contact FDA
For Government For Press
Combination Products Advisory Committees Science & Research Regulatory Information Safety
Emergency Preparedness International Programs News & Events Training and Continuing Education
Inspections/Compliance State & Local Officials Consumers Industry Health Professionals FDA Archivehttps://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfmaude/detail.cfm?mdrfoi__id=3252445

2/3

12/3/2015

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: PENTAX PENTAX PENTAX DUODENOSCOPE

Links on this page:
1. http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?u508=true&v=152&username=fdamain
2. http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php
3. http://www.fda.gov/default.htm
4. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/default.htm
5. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Databases/default.htm
6. /scripts/cdrh/devicesatfda/index.cfm
7. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMN/pmn.cfm
8. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpmn/denovo.cfm
9. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRL/rl.cfm
10. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfMAUDE/TextSearch.cfm
11. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRES/res.cfm
12. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMA/pma.cfm
13. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfHDE/hde.cfm
14. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPCD/classification.cfm
15. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfStandards/search.cfm
16. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFRSearch.cfm
17. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPCD_RH/classification.cfm
18. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfAssem/assembler.cfm
19. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/Medsun/searchReportText.cfm
20. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfClia/Search.cfm
21. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfTPLC/tplc.cfm
22. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfTPLC/inspect.cfm
23. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/ListofRecalls/default.htm
24. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/medwatch/
25. ../cfPCD/classification.cfm?start_search=&ProductCode=FDT

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfmaude/detail.cfm?mdrfoi__id=3252445

3/3

Allegheny General Hospital
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Boca Raton Regional Hospital
Boca Raton, Florida

Carolinas Medical Center,
Charlotte North CarolinaCedars-Sinai Medical Center
Torrance, California

Charite-Universitatsmedizin
Berlin, GermanyClinique De Bercy
Charenton-le-Pont, FranceErasmus Medical Center
Rotterdam, NetherlandsEvangelisches Waldkrankenhaus Spandu
Berlin, Germany

Fox Chase Cancer Center,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Froedtert Hospital
Milwaukee, WisconsinHartford Hospital
Hartford, ConnecticutMassachusetts General Hospital,
Boston, MassachusettsNew York-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center
New York City, New York11/3/2015

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: OLYMPUS OLYMPUS ERCP ENDOSCOPE

FDA Home3 Medical Devices4 Databases5

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: OLYMPUS OLYMPUS ERCP ENDOSCOPE
510(k) 7|DeNovo8|Registration &6
Listing9
CFR Title |Radiation­Emitting
2116

Products17|Adverse|Recalls11|PMA12|HDE13|Classification14|Standards15

Events10|X­Ray|MedsunAssembler 18

Reports19|CLIA20|TPLC21|Inspections22

OLYMPUS OLYMPUS ERCP ENDOSCOPE
Back to Search Results
Model Number J180
Event Date 12/20/2012
Event Type Malfunction
Event Description
This pt and 15 subsequent pts developed klebsiella pneumoniae infections after having undergone endoscopic
retrograde cholangiopancreatogram (ercp) procedures. The problem was thought to be related to difficulty inreliably cleaning and disinfecting the mechanically complex 'elevator' at the distal end of the endoscope. In
response, the method of reprocessing was changed from automated high­level disinfection (hld) to gas
sterilization. In addition, all staff was re­trained in scope pre­cleaning, cleaning, and high­level disinfection. The
re­training and hdl was assessed by obtaining brush specimens of the elevator after hld of 10 ercp scopes that
had been used on pts with known infection of the biliary tract. All of these cultures were negative.
Search Alerts/Recalls23
New Search | Submit an Adverse Event Report24
Brand NameOLYMPUS
Type of DeviceERCP ENDOSCOPE
Manufacturer (Section D)OLYMPUS
Center Valley PA 18034
MDR Report Key3413223
Report NumberMW5032234
Device Sequence Number1
Product CodeKOG25
Report SourceVoluntary
Reporter OccupationATTORNEY
Type of ReportInitial
Report Date10/09/2013
2 DeviceS WERE Involved in the Event:1 2
0 PatientS WERE Involved in the Event:
Date FDA Received10/10/2013
Is This An Adverse Event Report?No
Is This A Product Problem Report?Yes
Device OperatorHealth Professional
Device MODEL NumberJ180
Is The Reporter A Health Professional?NoIs this a Reprocessed and Reused Single­Use Device?No

Links on this page:
1. http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?u508=true&v=152&username=fdamain
2. http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfmaude/detail.cfm?mdrfoi__id=3413223

1/3

11/3/2015

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: OLYMPUS OLYMPUS ERCP ENDOSCOPE

3. http://www.fda.gov/default.htm
4. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/default.htm
5. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Databases/default.htm
6. /scripts/cdrh/devicesatfda/index.cfm
7. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMN/pmn.cfm
8. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpmn/denovo.cfm
9. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRL/rl.cfm
10. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfMAUDE/TextSearch.cfm
11. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRES/res.cfm
12. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMA/pma.cfm
13. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfHDE/hde.cfm
14. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPCD/classification.cfm
15. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfStandards/search.cfm
16. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFRSearch.cfm
17. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPCD_RH/classification.cfm
18. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfAssem/assembler.cfm
19. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/Medsun/searchReportText.cfm
20. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfClia/Search.cfm
21. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfTPLC/tplc.cfm
22. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfTPLC/inspect.cfm
23. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/ListofRecalls/default.htm
24. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/medwatch/
25. ../cfPCD/classification.cfm?start_search=&ProductCode=KOG
Page Last Updated: 09/30/2015
Note: If you need help accessing information in different file formats, see Instructions for Downloading
Viewers and Players.
Accessibility Contact FDA Careers FDA Basics FOIA No Fear Act Site Map Transparency Website
Policies
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
10903 New Hampshire Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20993
Ph. 1­888­INFO­FDA (1­888­463­6332)
Contact FDA
For Government For Press
Combination Products Advisory Committees Science & Research Regulatory Information Safety
Emergency Preparedness International Programs News & Events Training and Continuing Education
Inspections/Compliance State & Local Officials Consumers Industry Health Professionals FDA Archivehttps://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfmaude/detail.cfm?mdrfoi__id=3413223

2/3

11/3/2015

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: OLYMPUS OLYMPUS ERCP ENDOSCOPE

Links on this page:
1. http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?u508=true&v=152&username=fdamain
2. http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php
3. http://www.fda.gov/default.htm
4. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/default.htm
5. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Databases/default.htm
6. /scripts/cdrh/devicesatfda/index.cfm
7. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMN/pmn.cfm
8. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpmn/denovo.cfm
9. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRL/rl.cfm
10. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfMAUDE/TextSearch.cfm
11. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRES/res.cfm
12. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMA/pma.cfm
13. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfHDE/hde.cfm
14. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPCD/classification.cfm
15. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfStandards/search.cfm
16. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFRSearch.cfm
17. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPCD_RH/classification.cfm
18. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfAssem/assembler.cfm
19. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/Medsun/searchReportText.cfm
20. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfClia/Search.cfm
21. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfTPLC/tplc.cfm
22. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfTPLC/inspect.cfm
23. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/ListofRecalls/default.htm
24. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/medwatch/
25. ../cfPCD/classification.cfm?start_search=&ProductCode=KOG

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfmaude/detail.cfm?mdrfoi__id=3413223

3/3

Thomas Jefferson University Hospital,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: OLYMPUS MEDICAL SYSTEM CORPORATION D...

Page 1 of 5

FDA Home33Medical Devices44Databases55

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: OLYMPUS MEDICAL SYSTEM CORPORATIONDUODENOVIDEOSCOPE
510 |DeNovo88|Registration | Adverse |Recalls1111|PMA1212|HDE1313|Classification1414|Standards1515

66(k)& Listing99 Events1010

77

CFR Title | Radiation-Emitting |
1616

21

Products

1717

X-Ray

|
1818

Assembler

MedsunReports|CLIA2020|TPLC2121|Inspections2222

1919

OLYMPUS MEDICAL SYSTEM CORPORATION DUODENOVIDEOSCOPE
Back to Search Results
Lot Number N/A
Device Problem No Known Device Problem
Event Type Injury
Event Description
Olympus received a news article which reported that eight patients tested positive for carbapenemresistant enterobacteriaceae (cre) infections after undergoing a procedure using a duodeno videoscope(model/serial number unspecified) at the user facility. In addition, it was stated the hospital cultured its
scopes and found no bacteria matching the strain causing the patient's infections. The exact cause of thepatient's outcome cannot be conclusively determined at this time. Originally, (b)(6) 2015 olympus was
informed of one patient infection in which the patient was medically treated with antibiotics. Based on the
new information received olympus will submit seven mdrs to account for the eight patients. (crossreference: 2951238-2015-00388, 2951238-2015-00389, 2951238-2015-00390, 2951238-2015-00391,
2951238-2015-00392, and 2951238-2015-00393) olympus followed up with the user facility to obtain
additional information regarding the reported events by telephone and in writing but with no result.
Manufacturer Narrative
The user facility has not provided the specific model and serial number of the scopes involved into thereported events. Therefore, it is unknown if the user facility has returned the scope to olympus for service
or evaluation. As part of our investigation in this report, olympus dispatched an endoscopy support
specialist (ess) to the user facility to observe their reprocessing practices. At this time the user facility has
not yet scheduled a date for the in-service. If additional and significant information becomes available at alater time these reports will be supplemented please see original associated medical device report:
2951238-2015-00249.
Search Alerts/Recalls2323
New Search24 | Submit an Adverse Event Report2524
Brand NameDUODENOVIDEOSCOPE
Type of DeviceDUODENOVIDEOSCOPE
Manufacturer (Section D)OLYMPUS MEDICAL SYSTEMCORPORATION
2951 Ishikawa-Cho,
Hachioji-Shi
Tokyo 192-8 507
JAPAN 192-8507
Manufacturer ContactNoemi Schambach
2400 Ringwood Avenue
San Jose , CA 95131(408) 408 -4089
40893550 4089355002
MDR Report Key5030603

file:///S:/Scope%20infections/Report%20Drafts/Appendix/MDRs/Philadelphia/Additional...

12/1/2015

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: OLYMPUS MEDICAL SYSTEM CORPORATION D...

Page 2 of 5

Report Number2951238-2015-00387
Device Sequence Number1
Product CodeFDT2625
Report SourceManufacturer
Source TypeLITERATURE,OTHER,USER FACILIT
Reporter OccupationOther
Type of ReportInitial
Report Date08/05/2015
1 Device Was Involved in the Event
1 Patient Was Involved in the Event
Date FDA Received08/25/2015
Is This An Adverse Event Report?Yes
Is This A Product Problem Report?No
Device OperatorHealth Professional
Device LOT NumberN/A
Was Device Available For Evaluation?NoIs The Reporter A Health Professional?Yes
Was the Report Sent to FDA?
Event LocationNo Information
Date Manufacturer Received08/05/2015
Was Device Evaluated By Manufacturer?Device Not Returned To Manufacturer
Is The Device Single Use?NoIs this a Reprocessed and Reused Single-Use
No
Device?
Type of Device UsageReuse
Patient TREATMENT DATA
Date Received: 08/25/2015 Patient Sequence Number: 1
Links on this page:
1. http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?u508=true&v=152&username=fdamain
2. http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php
3. http://www.fda.gov/default.htm
4. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/default.htm
5. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Databases/default.htm
6. /scripts/cdrh/devicesatfda/index.cfm
7. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMN/pmn.cfm
8. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpmn/denovo.cfm
9. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRL/rl.cfm
10. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfMAUDE/TextSearch.cfm
11. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRES/res.cfm
12. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMA/pma.cfm
13. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfHDE/hde.cfm
14. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPCD/classification.cfm
15. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfStandards/search.cfm
16. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFRSearch.cfm
17. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPCD_RH/classification.cfm

file:///S:/Scope%20infections/Report%20Drafts/Appendix/MDRs/Philadelphia/Additional...

12/1/2015

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: OLYMPUS MEDICAL SYSTEM CORPORATION D...

Page 3 of 5

18. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfAssem/assembler.cfm
19. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/Medsun/searchReportText.cfm
20. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfClia/Search.cfm
21. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfTPLC/tplc.cfm
22. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfTPLC/inspect.cfm
23. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/ListofRecalls/default.htm
24. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/medwatch/
25. ../cfPCD/classification.cfm?start_search=&ProductCode=FDT
1. http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?u508=true&v=152&username=fdamain
2. http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php
3. http://www.fda.gov/default.htm
4. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/default.htm
5. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Databases/default.htm
6. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/devicesatfda/index.cfm
7. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMN/pmn.cfm
8. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpmn/denovo.cfm
9. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRL/rl.cfm
10. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfMAUDE/TextSearch.cfm
11. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRES/res.cfm
12. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMA/pma.cfm
13. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfHDE/hde.cfm
14. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPCD/classification.cfm
15. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfStandards/search.cfm
16. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFRSearch.cfm
17. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPCD_RH/classification.cfm
18. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfAssem/assembler.cfm
19. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/Medsun/searchReportText.cfm
20. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfClia/Search.cfm
21. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfTPLC/tplc.cfm
22. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfTPLC/inspect.cfm
23. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/ListofRecalls/default.htm
24. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfmaude/Search.cfm
25. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/medwatch/
26. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPCD/classification.cfm?
start_search=&ProductCode=FDT
Page Last Updated: 09/30/2015

file:///S:/Scope%20infections/Report%20Drafts/Appendix/MDRs/Philadelphia/Additional...

12/1/2015

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: OLYMPUS MEDICAL SYSTEM CORPORATION D...

Page 4 of 5

Note: If you need help accessing information in different file formats, see Instructions for Downloading
Viewers and Players.
AccessibilityContact FDACareersFDA BasicsFOIANo Fear ActSite MapTransparencyWebsite Policies
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
10903 New Hampshire Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20993
Ph. 1-888-INFO-FDA (1-888-463-6332)
Contact FDA
For GovernmentFor Press
Combination ProductsAdvisory CommitteesScience & ResearchRegulatory
InformationSafetyEmergency PreparednessInternational ProgramsNews & EventsTraining andContinuing EducationInspections/ComplianceState & Local OfficialsConsumersIndustryHealthProfessionalsFDA Archive

Links on this page:
1. http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?u508=true&v=152&username=fdamain
2. http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php
3. http://www.fda.gov/default.htm
4. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/default.htm
5. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Databases/default.htm
6. /scripts/cdrh/devicesatfda/index.cfm
7. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMN/pmn.cfm
8. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpmn/denovo.cfm
9. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRL/rl.cfm
10. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfMAUDE/TextSearch.cfm
11. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRES/res.cfm
12. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMA/pma.cfm
13. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfHDE/hde.cfm
14. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPCD/classification.cfm
15. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfStandards/search.cfm
16. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFRSearch.cfm
17. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPCD_RH/classification.cfm
18. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfAssem/assembler.cfm
19. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/Medsun/searchReportText.cfm
20. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfClia/Search.cfm
21. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfTPLC/tplc.cfm
22. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfTPLC/inspect.cfm
23. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/ListofRecalls/default.htm

file:///S:/Scope%20infections/Report%20Drafts/Appendix/MDRs/Philadelphia/Additional...

12/1/2015

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: OLYMPUS MEDICAL SYSTEM CORPORATION D...

Page 5 of 5

24. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/medwatch/
25. ../cfPCD/classification.cfm?start_search=&ProductCode=FDT
1. http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?u508=true&v=152&username=fdamain
2. http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php
3. http://www.fda.gov/default.htm
4. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/default.htm
5. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Databases/default.htm
6. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/devicesatfda/index.cfm
7. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMN/pmn.cfm
8. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpmn/denovo.cfm
9. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRL/rl.cfm
10. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfMAUDE/TextSearch.cfm
11. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRES/res.cfm
12. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMA/pma.cfm
13. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfHDE/hde.cfm
14. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPCD/classification.cfm
15. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfStandards/search.cfm
16. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFRSearch.cfm
17. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPCD_RH/classification.cfm
18. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfAssem/assembler.cfm
19. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/Medsun/searchReportText.cfm
20. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfClia/Search.cfm
21. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfTPLC/tplc.cfm
22. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfTPLC/inspect.cfm
23. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/ListofRecalls/default.htm
24. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfmaude/Search.cfm
25. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/medwatch/
26. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPCD/classification.cfm?
start_search=&ProductCode=FDT

file:///S:/Scope%20infections/Report%20Drafts/Appendix/MDRs/Philadelphia/Additional...

12/1/2015

UCLA Medical Center
Los Angeles, California

UMass Memorial Medical Center,
Worchester, Massachusetts

Universitair Medisch Centrum
Utrecht, Netherlands

University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
Presbyterian Hospital
Pittsburgh, PennsylvaniaMAUDE Adverse Event Report: OLYMPUS OLYMPUS 160/180 SERIES ENDOSCOP... Page 1 of 2

FDA Home3 Medical Devices4 Databases5

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: OLYMPUS OLYMPUS 160/180 SERIES ENDOSCOPE ERCPSCOPE 1160
510(k) |DeNovo8|
Registration &|Adverse|Recalls11|PMA12|HDE13|Classification14|Standards15
6

CFR Title |7

Listing9
Radiation-Emitting

2116

Products17|

Events10
X-Ray
Assembler18|

Medsun|CLIA20|TPLC21|Inspections22

Reports19

OLYMPUS OLYMPUS 160/180 SERIES ENDOSCOPE ERCP SCOPE 1160
Back to Search Results
Lot Number 2001160
Event Date 02/27/2013
Event Type Malfunction
Event Description
Over a 2 year period, there was an increase in the number of kp resistant microbiology (kpc) reported results.
During investigation, it was determined that a small percentage of involved patients had undergone endoscopic
procedures. Endoscopes were cultured by microbiology department. One endoscope tested positive for kpc
following disinfection. The endoscope was removed from use. (b)(6) was consulted. A review of endoscope
cleaning, disinfection and related processes was documented by (b)(6). Staff were interviewed, reprocessing
documents reviewed, audits completed. The subject endoscope was tested by third party laboratory, (b)(4). Third
party laboratory culture results were negative for kpc. Investigation and analysis of kpc is ongoing and sources of
kpc remains undetermined at this time. Official olympus report received, root cause unknown. Dates of use: (b)(6)2011 - (b)(6) 2012.
Search Alerts/Recalls23
New Search | Submit an Adverse Event Report24
Brand NameOLYMPUS 160/180 SERIES ENDOSCOPE
Type of DeviceERCP SCOPE 1160
Manufacturer (Section D)OLYMPUS
2400 Ringwood Ave.
San Jose CA 95131
MDR Report Key2999629
Report NumberMW5029305
Device Sequence Number1
Product CodeFDS25
Report SourceVoluntary
Reporter OccupationNurse
Type of ReportInitial
Report Date03/04/2013
1 Device Was Involved in the Event
1 Patient Was Involved in the Event
Date FDA Received03/04/2013
Is This An Adverse Event Report?No
Is This A Product Problem Report?Yes
Device OperatorHealth Professional
Device LOT Number2001160
OTHER Device ID NumberTJF-Q180VWas Device Available For Evaluation?Device Returned To Manufacturer
Date Returned to Manufacturer01/08/2013
Is The Reporter A Health Professional?Yes
Is this a Reprocessed and Reused Single-Use Device?No
Patient TREATMENT DATA
Date Received: 03/04/2013 Patient Sequence Number: 1
Links on this page:
1. http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?u508=true&v=152&username=fdamain

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfmaude/detail.cfm?mdrfoi id=2999... 10/29/2015

MAUDE Adverse Event Report: OLYMPUS OLYMPUS 160/180 SERIES ENDOSCOP... Page 2 of 2

2. http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php
3. http://www.fda.gov/default.htm
4. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/default.htm
5. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Databases/default.htm
6. /scripts/cdrh/devicesatfda/index.cfm
7. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMN/pmn.cfm
8. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpmn/denovo.cfm
9. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRL/rl.cfm
10. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfMAUDE/TextSearch.cfm
11. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRES/res.cfm
12. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMA/pma.cfm
13. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfHDE/hde.cfm
14. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPCD/classification.cfm
15. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfStandards/search.cfm
16. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFRSearch.cfm
17. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPCD_RH/classification.cfm
18. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfAssem/assembler.cfm
19. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/Medsun/searchReportText.cfm
20. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfClia/Search.cfm
21. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfTPLC/tplc.cfm
22. /scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfTPLC/inspect.cfm
23. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/ListofRecalls/default.htm
24. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/medwatch/
25. ../cfPCD/classification.cfm?start_search=&ProductCode=FDS
Page Last Updated: 09/30/2015
Note: If you need help accessing information in different file formats, see Instructions for Downloading Viewers
and Players.
Accessibility Contact FDA Careers FDA Basics FOIA No Fear Act Site Map Transparency Website Policies

U.S. Food and Drug Administration
10903 New Hampshire Avenue
Silver Spring, MD 20993
Ph. 1-888-INFO-FDA (1-888-463-6332)
Contact FDA
For Government For Press
Combination Products Advisory Committees Science & Research Regulatory Information Safety Emergency
Preparedness International Programs News & Events Training and Continuing Education
Inspections/Compliance State & Local Officials Consumers Industry Health Professionals FDA Archive

Links on this page:https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfmaude/detail.cfm?mdrfoi id=2999... 10/29/2015

Virginia Mason Hospital and Medical CenterSeattle, Washington