Guideline Implementation: Processing Flexible Endoscopes

Endoscope channel drying, storage, and conditions after reprocessing: How safe are they in clinical practice?

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

Adequate drying and proper storage of flexible endoscopes are essential for maintaining quality in their reprocessing. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the drying stages, storage, and channel conditions of endoscopes through borescope inspection.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The personnel responsible for endoscope reprocessing were interviewed. Storage conditions at 10 endoscopy facilities were inspected and an internal examination of the channels and ports of the stored equipment was carried out, utilizing a borescope. A total of 74 stored endoscope channels were evaluated.

RESULTS

Only 10% of the facilities inspected utilized transport cases for storage and only 10% had rooms exclusively used for storage. Sixty percent of the facilities did not perform any shelf-life control. All the channels evaluated were scratched and fluids were present on 69% of them.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscope reprocessing can be improved through the implementation of drying and storage control and validation tools, as well as the use of borescopes and periodic clinical audits.

What Are the Ready-to-Use Endoscope Channels Hiding?: Unraveling the Risks of Safe Reuse

Contamination due to failures or omissions in the reprocessing steps of gastrointestinal endoscopes is common in clinical practice. Ensuring the proper execution of each step is a challenge for reprocessing personnel. This cross-sectional study was conducted in an endoscopy setting between March and May 2021. We performed interviews about reprocessing practices, analyzed the life history of the equipment, and performed inspections through a borescope video of gastrointestinal endoscope channels that were stored and ready for use. A borescope is a complementary tool used to validate endoscope reprocessing, evaluate the internal visualization of channels, and identify changes that can compromise the safety of its use, which are often not detected in the leak test. Thirteen biopsy channels from stored gastrointestinal endoscopes were inspected. We found that 85% had stains and grooves, 69% contained moisture, and 46% had debris. There was at least one noncompliance issue in all of the channels inspected.

Storage of gastrointestinal endoscopes: when is the safe time for re-use?

ABSTRACT Objectives: to identify the safe storage time for the use of flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes after high-level disinfection, as well as the defining criteria for this time. Methods: an integrative literature review was carried out in the Virtual Health Library, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, considering original articles published since 2000. Results: eleven articles were selected, whose storage times ranged from 1 to 56 days, with a predominance of one to seven days (73%). Several criteria were used to define this time, predominantly the premise of efficient processing (100%), use of alcohol flush (64%), use of drying cabinets (18%), among others. Conclusions: the criteria for determining the storage time did not show a consensus for clinical practice. Expanding the discussion of this theme with the definition of the minimum necessary conditions is of fundamental importance for the reduction of risks and safety of the procedure and the patient.

Sans Standardization: Effective Endoscope Reprocessing

Bronchoscopy is a commonly performed procedure within thoracic and critical care medicine. Modern bronchoscopes are technologically advanced tools made of fragile electronic components. Their design is catered to allow maximum maneuverability within the semi-rigid tracheobronchial tree. Effective cleaning and reprocessing of these tools can be a challenge. Although highly functional, the design poses several challenges when it comes to reprocessing. It is a very important step, and lapses in the procedure have been tied to nosocomial infections. The process lacks universal standardization; several organizations have developed their own recommendations. Data have shown that key stakeholders are not fully versed in the essentials of endoscope reprocessing. A significant knowledge gap exists between those performing bronchoscopy and those who are stewards of effective endoscope reprocessing. To service as a resource for bronchoscopists, this study summarizes the steps of effective reprocessing, details the important elements within a health-care facility that houses this process, and reviews some of the current data regarding the use of disposable endoscopes.

The Effectiveness of Drying on Residual Droplets, Microorganisms, and Biofilms in Gastrointestinal Endoscope Reprocessing: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Despite endoscope reprocessing, residual droplets remain in gastrointestinal endoscope working channels. Inadequate drying of gastrointestinal endoscope working channels may promote microbial reproduction and biofilm formation, increasing the risk of infection in patients. This review was designed to provide the current status of gastrointestinal endoscope drying, emphasize the importance of gastrointestinal endoscope drying, and evaluate the effectiveness of different drying methods of gastrointestinal endoscope in reducing residual droplets and microbial growth risk.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting checklist. The PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, EMBASE, EBSCO, CNKI, CQVIP, and Wanfang Data databases were searched from 2010 to 2020 to identify eligible articles focused on methods of gastrointestinal endoscope drying and the status of endoscope drying. The following key points were analyzed: type of intervention, amount of residual droplets, major microbial types, and effectiveness of biofilm intervention. JBI quality assessment tool was used to determine bias risk for inclusion in the article.

RESULTS

This review included twelve articles. Two of the articles reported lack of drying of gastrointestinal endoscopes while the other ten reported residual droplets, microbial growth, and biofilm formation after different methods of drying. Four articles reported 0 to 4.55 residual droplets; four articles reported that the main microbial types were cocci and bacilli, most commonly Staphylococcus, Escherichia coli, Bacillus maltophilia, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa; and two reported that drying could effectively reduce biofilm regeneration. The type of intervention is as follows: automatic endoscopy reprocessor (AER), manual compressed air drying, and the Dri-Scope Aid for automatic drying and drying cabinet.

CONCLUSIONS

While endoscope reprocessing may not always be effective, an automatic endoscope reprocessor plus the Dri-Scope Aid with automatic drying over 10 min or storage in a drying cabinet for 72 h may be preferred.

Enzymatic detergent reuse in gastroscope processing: a potential source of microorganism transmission

OBJECTIVE

to evaluate the potential contamination of enzymatic detergent from its reuse and to identify the microbiological profile in the solution used to clean gastrointestinal endoscopic devices.

METHOD

cross-sectional study based on microbiological analysis of 76 aliquots of 19 different enzymatic detergent solutions used to clean endoscopic devices. The aliquots were homogenized, subjected to Millipore® 0.45 µm membrane filtration and the presumptive identification of microorganisms was performed by biochemical-physiological methods according to previously established specific bacterial groups that are of clinical and epidemiological relevance.

RESULTS

the mean values, as well as the standard deviation and the median, of the enzymatic detergent microbial load increased as the solution was reused. There was a significant difference between the means of after first use and after fifth reuse. A total of 97 microorganisms were identified, with predominance of the coagulase-negative Staphylococcus, Pseudomonas spp., Klebsiella spp., Enterobacter spp. genus, and Escherichia coli species.

CONCLUSION

the reuse of the enzymatic detergent solution is a risk to the safe processing of endoscopic devices, evidenced by its contamination with pathogenic potential microorganisms, since the enzymatic detergent has no bactericidal property and can contribute as an important source for outbreaks in patients under such procedures.

Endoscope reprocessing: Comparison of drying effectiveness and microbial levels with an automated drying and storage cabinet with forced filtered air and a standard storage cabinet

BACKGROUND

Automated drying may help prevent endoscopically transmitted infections. We aimed to assess the efficacy of an automated drying and storage cabinet compared to a standard storage cabinet in achieving endoscope dryness postreprocessing and in reducing the risk of microbial growth.

METHODS

Drying times of bronchoscopes, colonoscopes, and duodenoscopes using 2 drying platforms (an automated drying and storage cabinet vs a standard storage cabinet) were measured using cobalt chloride paper. Drying assessments occurred at: 30 minutes, 1 hour, 2 hours, 3 hours, and 24 hours. A simple linear regression analysis compared rates of microbial growth after inoculation with Pseudomonas aeruginosa following high-level disinfection at: 0, 3 hours, 12 hours, 24 hours, and 48 hours.

RESULTS

Using the automated drying and storage cabinet, internal channels were dry at 1 hour and external surfaces at 3 hours in all endoscopes. With the standard storage cabinet, there was residual internal fluid at 24 hours, whereas external surfaces were dry at 24 hours. For bronchoscopes, colonoscopes, and duodenoscopes, the standard cabinet allowed for an average rate of colony forming unit growth of 8.1 × 10⁶ per hour, 8.3 × 10⁶ per hour, and 7.0 × 10⁷ per hour, respectively; the automated cabinet resulted in colony forming unit growth at an average rate of -28.4 per hour (P = .02), -38.5 per hour (P = .01), and -200.2 per hour (P = .02), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

An automated cabinet is advantageous for rapid drying of endoscope surfaces and in reducing the risk of microbial growth postreprocessing.

Comparison of automated and manual drying in the elimination of residual endoscope working channel fluid after reprocessing (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Residual fluid within endoscope working channels after reprocessing may promote growth of pathogens. Current reprocessing guidelines therefore recommend endoscope drying with administration of forced filtered air; however, the duration and modality of administered air are not specified. The new DriScope Aid device enables automated administration of filtered air at controlled pressure through all internal endoscope channels. We systematically compared, for the first time, the impact of manual drying and automated drying on retained working channel fluid and bioburden after reprocessing.

METHODS

We assessed for residual working channel fluid after reprocessing and/or drying by using the SteriCam borescope. Drying was performed either manually (forced filtered air) or was automated (DriScope Aid) for either 5 or 10 minutes. Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) bioluminescence testing was performed on working channel rinsates after drying, to evaluate for residual bioburden.

RESULTS

Significantly more fluid droplets were evident after manual drying (4.55 ± 6.14) than with automated device-facilitated drying for either 5 minutes (0.83 ± 1.29; P = .007) or 10 minutes (0 ± 0; P = .001). ATP bioluminescence values were higher for manual drying compared with automated drying at 48 hours (P = .001) and 72 hours (P = .014) after reprocessing.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrate significantly fewer water droplets and delayed ATP bioluminescence values within endoscope working channels after automated drying compared with manual drying. In particular, virtually no retained fluid was evident within endoscope working channels after automated drying for 10 minutes. These findings support recommendations for automation of as many reprocessing steps as possible. Automated drying may decrease the risk of transmission of infection related to endoscopy.

New Developments in the Prevention of Gastrointestinal Scope-Related Infections

Gastrointestinal endoscopes are used for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes and are the most common medical device implicated in health care-associated outbreaks. Infections can be divided into endogenous or exogenous. Exogenous infections were associated with lapses in reprocessing. Recent outbreaks have occurred despite compliance with reprocessing guidelines and highlight the challenges with clearance of all organisms from the duodenoscopes and the potential role of biofilms in hindering adequate reprocessing. This review provides an overview of recent developments and the current understanding of the key contributing factors related to gastrointestinal endoscope-related infections and current approaches to identify and prevent these complications.

Endoscope drying and its pitfalls

Inadequate drying of endoscope channels is a possible cause of replication and survival of remaining pathogens during storage. The presence during storage of potentially contaminated water in endoscope channels may promote bacterial proliferation and biofilm formation. An incomplete drying procedure or lack of drying and not storing in a vertical position are the most usual problems identified during drying and endoscope storage. Inadequate drying and storage procedures, together with inadequate cleaning and disinfection, are the most important sources of endoscope contamination and post-endoscopic infection. Flexible endoscopes may be dried in automated endoscope reprocessors (AERs), manually, or in drying/storage cabinets. Flushing of the endoscope channels with 70-90% ethyl or isopropyl alcohol followed by forced air drying is recommended by several guidelines. Current guidelines recommend that flexible endoscopes are stored in a vertical position in a closed, ventilated cupboard. Drying and storage cabinets have a drying system that circulates and forces the dry filtered air through the endoscope channels. Endoscope reprocessing guidelines are inconsistent with one another or give no exact recommendations about drying and storage of flexible endoscopes. There is no conclusive evidence on the length of time endoscopes can be safely stored before requiring re-disinfection and before they pose a contamination risk. To minimize the risk of disease transmission and nosocomial infection, modification and revision of guidelines are recommended as required to be consistent with one another.

Adenosine triphosphate bioluminescence to validate decontamination of endoscopes

The reports of outbreaks involving carbapenemase-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) associated with gastrointestinal endoscopy prompted a review and study of a novel method of assessing cleaning. This study assessed adenosine triphosphate (ATP) bioluminescence to demonstrate cleanliness prior to endoscopy. ATP testing was compared with microbiological monitoring for 127 endoscopes. Samples were taken after cleaning, reprocessing and storage, but immediately before the endoscopy procedure. We recommend implementing ATP testing prior to endoscopy procedures as an alternative to microbiological testing at periodic intervals. ATP testing provides a convenient assessment of endoscopy hygiene to demonstrate safety and quality assurance.