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
  • [31] Current issues in endoscope reprocessing and infection control during gastrointestinal endoscopy
    Nelson, Douglas B.
    Muscarella, Lawrence F.
    WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2006, 12 (25) : 3953 - 3964
  • [32] Inspection of endoscope instrument channels after reprocessing using a prototype borescope
    Thaker, Adarsh M.
    Kim, Stephen
    Sedarat, Alireza
    Watson, Rabindra R.
    Muthusamy, V. Raman
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2018, 88 (04) : 612 - 619
  • [33] Current issues in endoscope reprocessing and infection control during gastrointestinal endoscopy
    Douglas B Nelson
    Lawrence F Muscarella
    World Journal of Gastroenterology, 2006, (25) : 3953 - 3964
  • [34] Practical toolkit for monitoring endoscope reprocessing effectiveness: Identification of viable bacteria on gastroscopes, colonoscopes, and bronchoscopes
    Ofstead, Cori L.
    Doyle, Evan M.
    Eiland, John E.
    Amelang, Miriam R.
    Wetzler, Harry P.
    England, Dawn M.
    Mascotti, Kristin M.
    Shaw, Michael J.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INFECTION CONTROL, 2016, 44 (07) : 815 - 819
  • [35] Implementation of a systematic culturing program to monitor the efficacy of endoscope reprocessing: outcomes and costs
    Ma, Gene K.
    Pegues, David A.
    Kochman, Michael L.
    Alby, Kevin
    Fishman, Neil O.
    Saunders, Marianne
    Grous, Carolyn
    Dempsey, Daniel T.
    Ginsberg, Gregory G.
    GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2018, 87 (01) : 104 - +
  • [36] Contribution of usage to endoscope working channel damage and bacterial contamination
    Santos, L. C. S.
    Parvin, F.
    Huizer-Pajkos, A.
    Wang, J.
    Inglis, D. W.
    Andrade, D.
    Hu, H.
    Vickery, K.
    JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL INFECTION, 2020, 105 (02) : 176 - 182
  • [37] Increasing potential risks of contamination from repetitive use of endoscope
    Lee, Dae-Hyung
    Kim, Dong Bin
    Kim, Hyun Yong
    Baek, Hyun Sook
    Kwon, Soon-Young
    Lee, Mi Hee
    Park, Jong-Chul
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INFECTION CONTROL, 2015, 43 (05) : E13 - E17
  • [38] The Effectiveness of Drying on Residual Droplets, Microorganisms, and Biofilms in Gastrointestinal Endoscope Reprocessing: A Systematic Review
    Tian, Hefeng
    Sun, Jiao
    Guo, Shaoning
    Zhu, Xuanrui
    Feng, Han
    Zhuang, Yijin
    Wang, Xiu
    GASTROENTEROLOGY RESEARCH AND PRACTICE, 2021, 2021
  • [39] The importance of sampling technique and rinse water for assessing flexible gastrointestinal endoscope reprocessing: A 3-year study covering 59 centers
    Ji, Xue-Yue
    Ning, Pei-Yong
    Fei, Chun-Nan
    Liu, Jun
    Liu, He
    Song, Jia
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INFECTION CONTROL, 2020, 48 (01) : 19 - 25
  • [40] Recommendations and guidelines for endoscope reprocessing: Current position statement of digestive endoscopic society of Taiwan
    Chang, Wei-Kuo
    Peng, Chen-Ling
    Chen, Yen-Wei
    Sun, Cheuk-Kay
    Chen, Chieh-Chang
    Liu, Tao-Chieh
    Chu, Yin-Yi
    Tsai, I-Fang
    Chung, Chen-Shuan
    Lin, Hsiao-Fen
    Hsu, Fang-Yu
    Tai, Wei-Chen
    Lee, Hsi-Chang
    Yen, Hsu-Heng
    Wang, E-Ming
    Chen, Shu-Hui
    Chu, Cheng-Hsin
    Chen, Ming-Jen
    Lu, Ching-Liang
    Chiu, Cheng-Tang
    JOURNAL OF MICROBIOLOGY IMMUNOLOGY AND INFECTION, 2024, 57 (02) : 211 - 224