Removal of biofilm from endoscopes: Evaluation of detergent efficiency

被引:103
作者
Vickery, K [1 ]
Pajkos, A [1 ]
Cossart, Y [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Sydney, Dept Infect Dis & Immunol, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
关键词
D O I
10.1016/j.ajic.2003.10.009
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
Background: Biofilm consisting of bacteria enclosed in a matrix of exopolysaccharide (EPS) forms on many medical devices such as catheters and implants. Nosocomial infection is, thus, a newly recognized scenario of biofilm development. Biofilm removal by physical methods such as ultrasound and mechanical cleaning is reasonably effective but difficult to supervise in practice. Chemical methods are often ineffective because of biofilm resistance to biocides. In this study, we compared the efficiency of different detergents used in endoscope reprocessing. Methods: Escherichia coli biofilm was generated on Teflon and medical grade PVC tubing under low flow conditions. Sections of biofilm covered tubing were washed using test detergents and biofilm removal was assessed by counting remaining adherent bacteria after washing and by scanning electron microscopy to qualitatively assess the amount and nature of the remaining biofilm. Results: Control tubing developed a multilayered biofilm consisting of > 10(5) bacterial cells/cm(2). Only Matrix (Whiteley Medical, Sydney, Australia) produced > 4 log reduction in viable bacterial numbers. Matrix and Epizyme Rapid (3M Australia, Pymble, Australia) were able to remove up to 75% and 60% of the biofilm, respectively Conclusions: Many commonly used enzymatic cleaners fail to reduce the viable bacterial load or remove the bacterial EPS. Cleaners with high enzyme activity Epizyme Rapid, removed more biofilm but failed to reduce bacterial numbers more than 2 logs. The only cleaner containing no enzymes, Matrix, significantly reduced bacterial viability and residual bacterial EPS.
引用
收藏
页码:170 / 176
页数:7
相关论文
共 28 条
[1]   Antibacterial cleaning and hygiene products as an emerging risk factor for antibiotic resistance in the community [J].
Aiello, AE ;
Larson, E .
LANCET INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 2003, 3 (08) :501-506
[2]   ENDOSCOPIC TRANSMISSION OF HEPATITIS-B VIRUS [J].
BIRNIE, GG ;
QUIGLEY, EM ;
CLEMENTS, GB ;
FOLLET, EAC ;
WATKINSON, G .
GUT, 1983, 24 (02) :171-174
[3]  
BOND WW, 1991, DISINFECTION STERILI, P1097
[4]  
Characklis W. G., 1990, BIOFILMS, P523
[5]  
Cheetham NWH, 2002, AUST INFECT CONTROL, V7, P105
[6]   Detection of persistent vegetative bacteria and amplified viral nucleic acid from in-use testing of gastrointestinal endoscopes [J].
Deva, AK ;
Vickery, K ;
Zou, J ;
West, RH ;
Selby, W ;
Benn, RAV ;
Harris, JP ;
Cossart, YE .
JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL INFECTION, 1998, 39 (02) :149-157
[7]   Biofilms and device-associated infections [J].
Donlan, RM .
EMERGING INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 2001, 7 (02) :277-281
[8]   A PROSPECTIVE RANDOMIZED TRIAL COMPARING MANUAL AND AUTOMATED ENDOSCOPE DISINFECTION METHODS [J].
FRASER, VJ ;
ZUCKERMAN, G ;
CLOUSE, RE ;
OROURKE, S ;
JONES, M ;
KLASNER, J ;
MURRAY, P .
INFECTION CONTROL AND HOSPITAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1993, 14 (07) :383-389
[9]   Biofilms: Their impact on health and their recalcitrance toward biocides [J].
Gilbert, P ;
McBain, AJ .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INFECTION CONTROL, 2001, 29 (04) :252-255
[10]  
Gilbert P, 1993, MICROBIAL BIOFILMS F, P29