Microbiologic assessment of flexible gastrointestinal endoscope reprocessing using a pump-assisted sampling technique: an investigation involving all endoscopy units in Tianjin, China

A narrative review on current duodenoscope reprocessing techniques and novel developments

Duodenoscopy-associated infections occur worldwide despite strict adherence to reprocessing standards. The exact scope of the problem remains unknown because a standardized sampling protocol and uniform sampling techniques are lacking. The currently available multi-society protocol for microbial culturing by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the American Society for Microbiology, published in 2018 is too laborious for broad clinical implementation. A more practical sampling protocol would result in increased accessibility and widespread implementation. This will aid to reduce the prevalence of duodenoscope contamination. To reduce the risk of duodenoscopy-associated pathogen transmission the FDA advised four supplemental reprocessing measures. These measures include double high-level disinfection, microbiological culturing and quarantine, ethylene oxide gas sterilization and liquid chemical sterilization. When the supplemental measures were advised in 2015 data evaluating their efficacy were sparse. Over the past five years data regarding the supplemental measures have become available that place the efficacy of the supplemental measures into context. As expected the advised supplemental measures have resulted in increased costs and reprocessing time. Unfortunately, it has also become clear that the efficacy of the supplemental measures falls short and that duodenoscope contamination remains a problem. There is a lot of research into new reprocessing methods and technical applications trying to solve the problem of duodenoscope contamination. Several promising developments such as single-use duodenoscopes, electrolyzed acidic water, and vaporized hydrogen peroxide plasma are already applied in a clinical setting.

Comparison of channel sampling methods and brush heads in surveillance culture of endoscope reprocessing: A propensity score matching and paired study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopy-related infections have caused multiple outbreaks. The importance of surveillance culture is gradually recognized, but sampling techniques are not consistent in many guidelines. It is unclear whether the Flush-Brush-Flush sampling method (FBFSM) is more sensitive than the conventional flush sampling method (CFSM) and whether different sampling brushes have different effects.

METHODS

The propensity score matching method was done with two matching ways, 1:1 nearest neighbor propensity score matching and full matching was used to analyze the surveillance culture data collected by FBFSM and CFSM. We fit a confounder-adjusted multiple generalized linear logistic regression model to estimate the marginal odds ratio (OR). A paired study was applied to compare the sampling effect of polyurethane foam (PU) head brush and polyamide (PA) head brush.

RESULT

From 2016 to 2020, 316 reprocessed endoscope samples were collected from all 59 endoscopy centers in Tianjin. About 279 (88.3%) reprocessed endoscopes met the threshold of Chinese national standards (<20 CFU/Channel). The qualified rate of reprocessed endoscopes sampling by CFSM (91.8%) and FBFSM (81.6%) was statistically different (p < 0.05). The adjusted OR by full matching for FBFSM was 7.98 (95% confidence interval: 3.35-21.78). Forty one pairs of colonoscopes, after reprocessing from 27 centers, were tested by PA and PU brushes, and no difference was found in microbial recovery.

CONCLUSION

FBFSM was confirmed to be a more sensitive sampling technique. PU and PA brushes had no significant difference in sampling effect.

The importance of sampling technique and rinse water for assessing flexible gastrointestinal endoscope reprocessing: A 3-year study covering 59 centers

BACKGROUND

Various guidelines recommend several sampling techniques to verify endoscope reprocessing, but a comparative study of the efficiency for recovering microorganisms was rare. Our goal was to compare different sampling techniques for the postreprocessing endoscope to assess residual bacterial contamination and analysis of the critical factors affecting the endoscope reprocessing failure.

METHODS

From 2016 to 2018, 3 techniques, the conventional flushing sampling method, flush-brush-flush sampling method (FBFSM), and pump-assisted sampling method (PASM), were compared covering all 59 endoscope units in Tianjin, China.

RESULTS

A total of 237 (84.64%) flushing channel samples and 110 (61.11%) final rinse water samples met the Chinese national standard. The univariate analysis showed that the qualified rates of endoscope reprocessing sampled by PASM (65.52%) and FBFSM (75%) were significantly lower than those of the conventional flushing sampling method (91.38%). Five other factors, including the final rinse water, dry, and hospital level, were potential factors besides sample technique. The multivariate logistic analysis indicated only 2 factors (sampling technique and final rinse water) remained in the model. FBFSM, PASM, and the purified water were significantly associated with the odds of endoscope reprocessing failure, with the odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of which were 4.206 (1.757-10.067), 5.326 (2.463-11.645), and 0.309 (0.137-0.695), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The problem of residual microorganisms of the postreprocessing endoscope was severe. Sampling technique and final rinse water were critical for endoscope reprocessing verification.

Turbulent fluid flow is a novel closed-system sample extraction method for flexible endoscope channels of various inner diameters

OVERVIEW

Effective sample extraction from endoscope channels is crucial for monitoring manual cleaning adequacy as well as for ensuring optimal sensitivity for culture after disinfection. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of Turbulent Fluid Flow (TFF) to Flush (F) or Flush-Brush-Flush (FBF) methods.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterococcus faecalis in artificial test soil-2015 (ATS2015) were used as bacterial markers while protein and carbohydrate were the organic markers for biofilm formed inside 3.2-mm and 1.37-mm polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) channels. TFF was generated using compressed air and sterile water to provide friction for sample extraction. Extraction for biofilm coated PTFE channels as well as for colonoscope channels perfused with ATS2015 containing 108 CFU/mL P. aeruginosa, E. faecalis and Candida albicans was determined using TFF compared to FBF and F.

RESULTS

The extraction ratio for P. aeruginosa and E. faecalis from biofilm extracted by TFF compared to the positive control was significantly better than F for 1.37-mm channels (≥0.94 for both bacteria by TFF versus 0.69 to 0.72 by F for P. aeruginosa and E. faecalis, respectively) but not significantly different between TFF and FBF for 3.2-mm channels. F was also ineffective for extraction of protein and carbohydrate from 1.37-mm channels. Extraction efficacy by TFF from inoculated colonoscope channels was >98% for all test markers.

CONCLUSIONS

The novel TFF method for extraction of samples from colonoscope channels is a more effective method than the existing FBF and F methods.