High-quality endoscope reprocessing decreases endoscope contamination

被引:25
|
作者
Decristoforo, P. [1 ]
Kaltseis, J. [1 ]
Fritz, A. [1 ]
Edlinger, M. [2 ]
Posch, W. [1 ]
Wilflingseder, D. [1 ]
Lass-Floerl, C. [1 ]
Orth-Hoeller, D. [1 ]
机构
[1] Med Univ Innsbruck, Div Hyg & Med Microbiol, Schopfstr 41, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria
[2] Med Univ Innsbruck, Dept Med Stat Informat & Hlth Econ, Innsbruck, Austria
关键词
Automated endoscope reprocessor; Contamination; Gastrointestinal endoscope; Guideline; High-level disinfection; Microbiological surveillance; GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY; TRANSMISSION; INFECTION; SURVEILLANCE; COLONOSCOPY; FAILURE;
D O I
10.1016/j.cmi.2018.01.017
中图分类号
R51 [传染病];
学科分类号
100401 ;
摘要
Objectives: Several outbreaks of severe infections due to contamination of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopes, mainly duodenoscopes, have been described. The rate of microbial endoscope contamination varies dramatically in literature. The aim of this multicentre prospective study was to evaluate the hygiene quality of endoscopes and automated endoscope reprocessors (AERs) in Tyrol/Austria. Methods: In 2015 and 2016, a total of 463 GI endoscopes and 105 AERs from 29 endoscopy centres were analysed by a routine (R) and a combined routine and advanced (CRA) sampling procedure and investigated for microbial contamination by culture-based and molecular-based analyses. Results: The contamination rate of GI endoscopes was 1.3%-4.6% according to the national guideline, suggesting that 1.3-4.6 patients out of 100 could have had contacts with hygiene-relevant microorganisms through an endoscopic intervention. Comparison of R and CRA sampling showed 1.8% of R versus 4.6% of CRA failing the acceptance criteria in phase I and 1.3% of R versus 3.0% of CRA samples failing in phase II. The most commonly identified indicator organism was Pseudomonas spp., mainly Pseudomonas oleovorans. None of the tested viruses were detected in 40 samples. While AERs in phase I failed (n = 9, 17.6%) mainly due to technical faults, phase II revealed lapses (n = 6, 11.5%) only on account of microbial contamination of the last rinsing water, mainly with Pseudomonas spp. Conclusions: In the present study the contamination rate of endoscopes was low compared with results from other European countries, possibly due to the high quality of endoscope reprocessing, drying and storage. (c) 2018 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1101.e1 / 1101.e6
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Technologies for monitoring the quality of endoscope reprocessing
    Komanduri, Sri
    Abu Dayyeh, Barham K.
    Bhat, Yasser M.
    Chauhan, Shailendra S.
    Gottlieb, Klaus T.
    Hwang, Joo Ha
    Konda, Vani
    Lo, Simon K.
    Manfredi, Michael
    Maple, John T.
    Murad, Faris M.
    Siddiqui, Uzma D.
    Wallace, Michael B.
    Banerjee, Subhas
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2014, 80 (03) : 369 - 373
  • [2] Surveillance Culture of Endoscope to Monitor the Quality of High-Level Disinfection of Gastrointestinal Reprocessing
    Chiu, King-Wah
    Fong, Tze-Vun
    Wu, Keng-Liang
    Chiu, Yi-Chun
    Chou, Yeh-Pin
    Kuo, Chung-Mou
    Chuah, Seng-Kee
    Kuo, Chung-Huang
    Chiou, Shue-Shien
    ChangChien, Chi-Sin
    HEPATO-GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2010, 57 (99-100) : 531 - 534
  • [3] High-quality image compression for gastrointestinal endoscope
    Dung, Lan-Rong
    Chiang, Tsung-Hsi
    2007 IEEE BIOMEDICAL CIRCUITS AND SYSTEMS CONFERENCE, 2007, : 146 - 149
  • [4] Sans Standardization: Effective Endoscope Reprocessing
    Avasarala, Sameer K.
    Muscarella, Lawrence F.
    Mehta, Atul C.
    RESPIRATION, 2021, : 1208 - 1217
  • [5] Reported gastrointestinal endoscope reprocessing lapses: The tip of the iceberg
    Langlay, Alexandra M. Dirlam
    Ofstead, Cori L.
    Mueller, Natalie J.
    Tosh, Pritish K.
    Baron, Todd H.
    Wetzler, Harry P.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INFECTION CONTROL, 2013, 41 (12) : 1188 - 1194
  • [6] Endoscope reprocessing - painted into a corner?
    Aabakken, Lars
    ENDOSCOPY, 2016, 48 (07) : 605 - 606
  • [7] A comparative assessment of contamination rates in gastrointestinal endoscope reprocessing: sterilization versus high-level disinfection
    Chantarojanasiri, Tanyaporn
    Rungrueangmaitree, Rachanikorn
    Thongsri, Siriporn
    Jampa-ngern, Urasa
    Ratanachu-Ek, Thawee
    DEN OPEN, 2025, 5 (01):
  • [8] Worldwide practices on flexible endoscope reprocessing
    Kenters, N.
    Tartari, E.
    Hopman, J.
    El-Sokkary, Rehab H.
    Nagao, M.
    Marimuthu, K.
    Vos, M. C.
    Huijskens, E. G. W.
    Voss, Andreas
    ANTIMICROBIAL RESISTANCE AND INFECTION CONTROL, 2018, 7
  • [9] Challenges in achieving effective high-level disinfection in endoscope reprocessing
    Ofstead, Cori L.
    Hopkins, Krystina M.
    Buro, Brandy L.
    Eiland, John E.
    Wetzler, Harry P.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INFECTION CONTROL, 2020, 48 (03) : 309 - 315
  • [10] Clinical Practice Guidelines for Endoscope Reprocessing
    Oh, Hyun Jin
    Kim, Jin Su
    CLINICAL ENDOSCOPY, 2015, 48 (05) : 364 - 368