Multisociety guideline on reprocessing flexible GI endoscopes: 2016 update

Fluid retention in endoscopes: A real-world study on drying effectiveness

BACKGROUND

Outbreaks linked to inadequate endoscope drying have infected numerous patients, and current standards and guidelines recommend at least 10 minutes of forced air for drying channels. This study evaluated a new forced-air drying system (FADS) for endoscopes.

METHODS

Drying was assessed using droplet detection cards; visual inspection of air/water connectors, suction connectors, and distal ends; and borescope examinations of endoscope interiors. Assessments were performed after automated endoscope reprocessor (AER) alcohol flush and air purge cycles and after 10-minute FADS cycles.

RESULTS

Researchers evaluated drying during encounters with 22 gastroscopes and 20 colonoscopes. After default AER alcohol and air purge cycles, 100% (42/42) of endoscopes were still wet. Substantial fluid emerged from distal ends during the first 15 seconds of the FADS cycle, and droplets also emerged from air/water and suction connectors. Following FADS cycle completion, 100% (42/42) were dry, with no retained fluid detected by any of the assessment methods.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple endoscope ports and channels remained wet after AER cycles intended to aid in drying but were dry after the FADS cycle. This study reinforced the need to evaluate the effectiveness of current drying practices and illustrated the use of practical tools in a real-world setting.

Recommendations and guidelines for endoscope reprocessing: Current position statement of digestive endoscopic society of Taiwan

Reprocessing of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopes and accessories is an essential part of patient safety and quality control in GI endoscopy centers. However, current endoscopic reprocessing guidelines or procedures are not adequate to ensure patient-safe endoscopy. Approximately 5.4 % of the clinically used duodenoscopes remain contaminated with high-concern microorganisms. Thus, the Digestive Endoscopy Society of Taiwan (DEST) sets standards for the reprocessing of GI endoscopes and accessories in endoscopy centers. DEST organized a task force working group using the guideline-revision process. These guidelines contain principles and instructions of step-by-step for endoscope reprocessing. The updated guidelines were established after a thorough review of the existing global and local guidelines, systematic reviews, and health technology assessments of clinical effectiveness. This guideline aims to provide detailed recommendations for endoscope reprocessing to ensure adequate quality control in endoscopy centers.

Environmentally sustainable gastroenterology practice: Review of current state and future goals

OBJECTIVES

The health-care sector contributes 4.6% of global greenhouse gas emissions, with gastroenterology playing a significant role due to the widespread use of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. In this review, we aim to understand the carbon footprint in gastroenterology practice associated with GI endoscopy, conferences and recruitment, identify barriers to change, and recommend mitigating strategies.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was conducted to explore the carbon footprint in gastroenterology practice, focusing on endoscopy, inpatient and outpatient settings, and recruitment practices. Recommendations for mitigating the carbon footprint were derived.

RESULTS

This narrative review analyzed 34 articles on the carbon footprint in gastroenterology practice. Carbon footprint of endoscopy in the United States is approximately 85,768 metric tons of CO2 emission annually, equivalent to 9 million gallons of gasoline consumed, or 94 million pounds of coal burned. Each endoscopy generates 2.1 kg of disposable waste (46 L volume), of which 64% of waste goes to the landfill, 28% represents biohazard waste, and 9% is recycled. The per-case manufacturing carbon footprint for single-use devices and reusable devices is 1.37 kg CO2 and 0.0017 kg CO2, respectively. Inpatient and outpatient services contributed through unnecessary procedures, prolonged hospital stays, and excessive use of single-use items. Fellowship recruitment and gastrointestinal conferences added to the footprint, mainly due to air travel and hotel stays.

CONCLUSION

Gastrointestinal endoscopy and practice contribute to the carbon footprint through the use of disposables such as single-use endoscopes and waste generation. To achieve environmental sustainability, measures such as promoting reusable endoscopy equipment over single-use endoscopes, calculating institutional carbon footprints, establishing benchmarking standards, and embracing virtual platforms such as telemedicine and research meetings should be implemented.

The effective dose of remimazolam in adult gastroscopy

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to explore the median effective dose (ED50) and the dose required for successful anesthesia in 95% of the patients (ED95) of remimazolam for intravenous anesthesia in adult outpatients undergoing gastroscopy.

METHODS

This pilot study was conducted in patients scheduled to undergo painless gastroscopy at the authors' hospital between March 15, 2022 and March 25, 2022. The ED of remimazolam was determined using the modified Dixon sequential method, using an initial induction dose of 0.2 mg/kg. With successful or failed anesthesia, the remimazolam dose was decreased or increased by 0.05 mg/kg for the next patient, respectively.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients (43.6 ± 10.5 years of age) were enrolled. During gastroscopy, the remimazolam induction dose was 19.93 ± 2.96 mg (0.2-0.45 mg/kg). Eighteen patients could complete anesthesia with remimazolam alone, and four patients needed propofol to complete anesthesia. The induction time after the injection of remimazolam was 20.8 ± 8.4 s, the gastroscopy time was 5.1 ± 1.3 min, and the anesthesia recovery time was 17.5 ± 5.6 min. The ED50 and the ED95 of remimazolam were 0.362 mg/kg (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.313-0.455 mg/kg) and 0.464 mg/kg (95% CI: 0.403-2.242 mg/kg), respectively. The vital signs of all patients remained within the predefined acceptable limits. No patients required antagonist rescue.

CONCLUSION

The ED50 and ED95 of remimazolam for adult gastroscopy were 0.362 mg/kg and 0.464 mg/kg, respectively. Additional anesthetics might be required during gastroscopy in some patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered. The number is ChiCTR2200057446.

Asia-Pacific survey on green endoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Greenhouse gas emissions are the fundamental cause of global warming, with CO2 being the most contributive. Carbon reduction has been widely advocated to mitigate the climate crisis. The endoscopy unit is the third highest waste-generating department in a hospital. The awareness and acceptance of the practice of green endoscopy among healthcare workers is unclear.

METHOD

An online survey was conducted over a 5-week period from July to August 2023 in the Asia-Pacific region, which targeted endoscopists, nurses, and other healthcare professionals of the endoscopy unit. The primary outcome was the agreement to adopt green endoscopy. The secondary outcomes included views on sustainable practices, factors associated with increased acceptance of green endoscopy, the acceptance of different carbon reduction measures, and the perceived barriers to implementation.

RESULTS

A total of 259 valid responses were received. Overall, 79.5% of participants agreed to incorporate green endoscopy into their practice. Nevertheless, existing green policies were only reported by 12.7% of respondents. The level of understanding of green endoscopy is the only significant factor associated with its acceptance (odds ratio 3.10, P < 0.007). Potential barriers to implementation include healthcare cost increment, infection risk, inadequate awareness, and lack of policy and industrial support.

CONCLUSION

Green endoscopy is well accepted among healthcare workers but not widely implemented. The level of understanding is highly associated with its acceptance, highlighting the importance of education. A reliable assessment tool is needed to quantify the environmental impact of endoscopy. Further studies are needed to ascertain its benefit and cost effectiveness.

Identification and control of two outbreaks of unrelated New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase-producing carbapenem-resistant Escherichia coli traced to the same endoscope defect

We report 2 outbreaks of genetically unrelated carbapenem-resistant New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli caused by contaminated duodenoscopes. Using endoscopes with disposable end caps, adherence to the manufacturer's reprocessing instructions, routine audits, and manufacturer evaluation are critical in preventing such outbreaks.

Significant increased bacterial contamination with endoscope overnight and weekend storage times

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Forced-air drying (FAD) cabinets are recommended for storage of reprocessed endoscopes, but financial constraints prevent their universal application. The study aimed to determine bacterial contamination in flexible gastroscopes (FG) channels after storage, in a cabinet with filtered air and UV lights, but without FAD.

METHODS

Eight FG in clinical use in an endoscopy service of a large Brazilian hospital were sampled: immediately "Time zero" (N = 50), 12 h "Time 1" (N = 25), and 60 h "Time 2" (N = 25) after reprocessing. Following a flush-brush-flush of channels, 40-mL sterile water and 3 cm of the brush were collected. Each sample was divided, filtered onto two 0.22-μm membranes, and incubated in media without or with disinfectant neutralizer. Automated method was used for identification and antibiotic resistance test of isolated bacteria.

RESULTS

Bacterial contamination in times "1" and "2" was 5.9 and 16.1 times greater than that of "Time zero," respectively. Number of positive cultures in media with and without neutralizer was similar at times "1" and "2," while media with neutralizer produced more positive cultures at "Time zero." Most bacteria isolated at "Time 2" were Gram-negative rods (52.3%) and showed resistance to one or more antibiotics (65%).

CONCLUSION

Bacterial contamination was detected on reprocessed FG stored in non-FAD cabinets overnight (12 h) and increased with longer storage time (60 h). The contamination source is likely to be bacteria in biofilm which multiply in the absence of FAD. Evidence-based criteria should be available for storage time according to the cabinet available.

Costs of purchase, maintenance, microbiological control, and reprocessing of a reusable duodenoscope

Background and study aims The costs of reusable endoscope reprocessing have been evaluated, yet external validity of the findings remains challenging. The aim of this study was to assess the costs of purchase, maintenance, microbiological control, and reprocessing of a reusable duodenoscope per endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in France. Study findings exclude the costs of infection, downtime due to breakdown, reprocessing single-use material disposal, and device disposal, all of which should also be considered. Materials and methods The study encompassed both observational and theoretical approaches. Observational data were collected in four hospitals, from December 2019 to December 2020, with an ad hoc survey, based on 2016 and 2018 national guidelines for duodenoscope reprocessing. Costs were modeled, using the same guidelines, assuming a mean workload of 223 ERCP/duodenoscope/year. Results The mean observed cost of purchase, maintenance, microbiological control, reprocessing (human resources and consumables), and overhead (additional 35%) with a reusable duodenoscope was €80.23 (standard deviation €3.77) per ERCP. The corresponding mean theoretical cost was €182.71 for manual reprocessing without endoscope drying cabinet (EDC), €191.36 for manual reprocessing with EDC, €235.25 for automated endoscope reprocessing (AER) without EDC, and €253.62 for AER with EDC. Conclusions Because procedures, equipment, volume activity, number of duodenoscopes, human resources, and internal work organizations are hospital-dependent, observed costs varied between hospitals. Theoretical costs were higher than observed costs, showing that the theoretical approach is not sufficient. Hypotheses to explain the difference between the two approaches include failing to measure some costs in the survey and challenges in guideline implementation.

Bacterial contamination of endoscopist and assistant face visors during gastrointestinal endoscopy: a pilot study

Background and aim

During the COVID-19 pandemic, health workers' facial exposure to pathogens has been brought into focus. In this study, we aimed to determine the occurrence and degree of facial contamination to both endoscopists and their assistants during endoscopic procedures to help inform future safety measures.

Methods

Non-sterile visors worn by endoscopist, assistant and room control visors from 50 procedures were swabbed post procedure for culture. Procedure type, therapy, duration and evidence of visible visor contamination were recorded. After 48-hour incubation, all bacterial colonies were identified using matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionisation time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Organisms were classified into skin/environmental, oronasal and enteric.

Results

A total of 104 visors were available for assessment (93 staff; 11 control). In worn visors, skin/environmental flora were isolated from 70, oronasal flora from 8, and enteric flora from 3 with an average colony count of >9.5. Notably, bacteria of enteric origin (Escherichia coli and Enterobacter cloacae) were isolated from three worn visors. In room control, skin/environmental flora were isolated from seven and oronasal flora from one with average colony count of five. No room control visors grew enteric flora. Overall, 9.1% room control and 10.8% worn visors were contaminated with organisms that could possibly have originated from patients. However, enteric flora were only obtained from worn visors. No visors were visibly contaminated.

Conclusion

This pilot study demonstrates risk of contamination to faces of endoscopists and assistants. Larger studies are required to determine degree of risk and to give guidance on facial protection during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Minimizing the Risks of Simethicone in Endoscope Reprocessing

This statement was written under the auspices of the World Gastroenterology Organization's Guidelines Committee. The authors are members of the Review Team of the WGO Endoscope Disinfection Guideline and have experience in endoscopy, endoscope reprocessing, and microbiology, including biofilms. During the preparation of the WGO Update on Endoscope Disinfection Guidelines, concerns about simethicone on endoscope channel surfaces compromising cleaning and disinfection were raised. Publications on simethicone, including modes of delivery, effectiveness, and risks, have been reviewed. The paper was written as a companion to the new guidelines with a focus on minimizing the risks of simethicone in endoscope reprocessing.

Investigation of the Internal Conditions of 213 Reprocessed Endoscopic Channels

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Studies have indicated that endoscope reprocessing failure might be attributed to internal damage or residual liquid in endoscopes. However, large-sample survey data on the internal conditions of endoscopic channels after reprocessing are lacking. This study used a borescope to investigate the internal cleanliness and damage of 213 endoscopic biopsy channels after reprocessing at the endoscopy center of the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, provided in theoretical basis for the efficacy of endoscope reprocessing and maintenance.

METHODS

A borescope was used to observe and analyze the inside of the endoscopic biopsy channel of 213 reprocessed endoscopes (in accordance with the Chinese health industry standard "Regulation for cleaning and disinfection technique of flexible endoscope (WS 507-2016). Each endoscope was observed for at least 10 minutes, and the results were recorded and evaluated by 5 researchers independently.

RESULTS

In all, 2504 images and 109 videos were recorded, and abnormal findings were classified into 10 categories: scratches (91.5%, 195/213), scratches with adherent peel (46.0%, 98/213), discolored areas (49.3%, 105/213), transparent drops (28.2%, 60/213), milky drops (23.9%, 51/213), white particles (46.9%, 100/213), attached materials (37.6%, 80/213), wear on metal parts (41.3%, 88/213), rust (23.9%, 51/213), and black spots (35.7%, 76/213). Among scratches, those in Teflon from 0-10 cm at the apex of the biopsy channel outlet and in metal from 0-5 cm at the biopsy channel inlet accounted for 58.4% (114/195) and 96.4% (188/195), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Scratches were the most common form of damage in the endoscopic biopsy channels investigated and were related to the use of endoscopic accessories and cleaning brush materials. The incidence of other abnormalities gradually increased with the duration of use and began to increase significantly after 18 months. All abnormalities have a certain impact on the quality of endoscope reprocessing. We recommend that a borescope be used to check the inside of endoscopic biopsy channels regularly to determine the damage and cleaning conditions and that these channels be reprocessed, repaired, or replaced in a timely manner.

Green endoscopy: British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), Joint Accreditation Group (JAG) and Centre for Sustainable Health (CSH) joint consensus on practical measures for environmental sustainability in endoscopy

GI endoscopy is highly resource-intensive with a significant contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and waste generation. Sustainable endoscopy in the context of climate change is now the focus of mainstream discussions between endoscopy providers, units and professional societies. In addition to broader global challenges, there are some specific measures relevant to endoscopy units and their practices, which could significantly reduce environmental impact. Awareness of these issues and guidance on practical interventions to mitigate the carbon footprint of GI endoscopy are lacking. In this consensus, we discuss practical measures to reduce the impact of endoscopy on the environment applicable to endoscopy units and practitioners. Adoption of these measures will facilitate and promote new practices and the evolution of a more sustainable specialty.

Infection control in the bronchoscopy suite: effective reprocessing and disinfection of reusable bronchoscopes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

With advancements in technology, flexible bronchoscopes have become thinner in diameter and in need of more thorough reprocessing to prevent infection transmission than ever before. Many experienced bronchoscopists are not aware of the critical steps involved in effective bronchoscope reprocessing and we hope to bridge this gap by describing this process in detail.

RECENT FINDINGS

Bronchoscope reprocessing includes several distinct steps (precleaning, leak testing, manual cleaning, visual inspection, terminal reprocessing, rinsing and drying). Each step is comprehensive and needs to be carried out systematically by trained personnel. Failure of any step can lead to serious downstream events such as outbreaks and pseudo-outbreaks. Some experts now recommend sterilization when feasible, although high-level disinfection remains the minimum standard. We also will review some literature on the utility of borescopes, automated endoscope reprocessors and disposable bronchoscopes.

SUMMARY

Our article will focus on the most recent recommendations for effective reprocessing and disinfection of reusable bronchoscopes.

Evaluation of the Application Effect of a New Anti-reflux Water Injection Tube Device in the Prevention of the Contamination of Endoscopy Water Injection Bottles

BACKGROUND

Water delivery tube reflux during gastrointestinal endoscopy examination is widespread and it is the leading cause of water injection bottle pollution.

AIM

To evaluate the application effect of a new anti-reflux water injection tube device in preventing the contamination of endoscopy water injection bottles.

METHODS

A total of 520 cases received gastrointestinal endoscopy examination were included. Patients were randomly divided into the experimental and control group. The experimental group used the anti-reflux injection tube device to assist with water injection, and the control group used the ordinary delivery tube. After every five cases of gastrointestinal endoscopy, water from the injection bottles was collected. Visual inspection, crystalline violet staining, microbial culture, and microbial species analysis were performed to analyze the contamination state of the water samples.

RESULTS

The contamination rate in the experimental group was 5.66%, significantly lower than 76.47% in the control group. Crystalline violet staining confirmed that microorganisms existed in contaminated water samples. Microbiological culture results showed that the experimental group's undetectable rate of bacteria and fungi was 100%, significantly higher than that of the control group (19.61% for bacteria and 25.49% for fungi). The mean values of the total bacterial and fungal colonies of the control samples were 9.80 × 10⁶ cfu/ml and 9.18 × 10⁶ cfu/ml, respectively. The microbial species in the contaminated samples of the control group were Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, and Proteus mirabilis.

CONCLUSION

The anti-reflux water injection tube device can effectively prevent the contamination of the endoscopy water injection bottles caused by the reflux of the ordinary water supply tube.

Efficacy of a novel channel-cleaning ball brush for endoscope reprocessing: a randomized controlled trial

Background/Aims

Endoscopic channels are difficult to clean and can cause infection transmission. We examined the effectiveness of a newly developed channel-cleaning ball brush (BB), which is sucked into the endoscopic channel and scrapes and cleans the lumen as it passes through.

Methods

The upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopes used for patient examinations were randomly selected as the conventional brush (CB) or BB group. After manual cleaning, the presence or absence of carbohydrates, proteins, adenosine triphosphate, and hemoglobin was assessed.

Results

Fifty-six and 58 endoscopes were cleaned with the CB and BB, respectively. Carbohydrate and protein were detected in one (1.8%) and two endoscopes (3.4%) in the CB and BB groups, respectively (p=1.000). Hemoglobin was observed in one (1.8%) and three endoscopes (5.2%) in the CB and BB groups, respectively (p=0.636). The adenosine triphosphate levels were 10.6±15.9 and 12.5±14.3 relative light units in the CB and BB groups, respectively (p=0.496). Twenty-seven (48.2%) and 19 (32.8%) endoscopes were positive for microbial cultures in the CB and BB groups, respectively (p=0.136).

Conclusions

The efficacy of BB was not significantly different from that of CB in the endoscopic channel-cleaning process.

Assessment of postmanual cleaning adenosine triphosphate tests to prevent the use of contaminated duodenoscopes and linear echoendoscopes: the DETECT study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We investigated whether the use of postmanual cleaning adenosine triphosphate (ATP) tests lowers the number of duodenoscopes and linear echoendoscopes (DLEs) contaminated with gut flora.

METHODS

In this single-center before-and-after study, DLEs were ATP tested after cleaning. During the control period, participants were blinded to ATP results: ATP-positive DLEs were not recleaned. During the intervention period, ATP-positive DLEs were recleaned. DLEs underwent microbiologic sampling after high-level disinfection (HLD) with participants blinded to culture results.

RESULTS

Using 15 endoscopes of 5 different DLE types, we included 909 procedures (52% duodenoscopes, 48% linear echoendoscopes). During the intervention period, the absolute rate of contamination with gut flora was higher (16% vs 21%). The main analysis showed that contamination was less likely to occur in the intervention period (odds ratio, .32; 95% credible interval [CI], .12-.85). A secondary analysis showed that this effect was based on 1 particular duodenoscope type (estimated probability, 39% [95% CI, 18%-64%] vs 9% [95% CI, 2%-21%]), whereas no effect was seen in the other 4 DLE types. In detail, of the 4 duodenoscopes of this type, 2 had lower contamination rates (69% vs 39% and 36% vs 10%). During the control period, both these duodenoscopes had multiple episodes with ongoing contamination with the same microorganism that ended weeks before the start of the intervention period (ie, they were not terminated by ATP testing).

CONCLUSIONS

Postmanual cleaning ATP tests do not reduce post-HLD gut flora contamination rates of DLEs. Hence, postcleaning ATP tests are not suited as a means for quality control of endoscope reprocessing.

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy-Associated Infections: Update on an Emerging Issue

Over 17.7 million gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures are performed annually, contributing to 68% of all endoscopic procedures in the United States. Usually, endoscopic procedures are low risk, but adverse events may occur, including cardiopulmonary complications, bleeding, perforation, pancreatitis, cholangitis, and infection. Infections after the GI endoscopies most commonly result from the patient's endogenous gut flora. Although many studies have reported infection after GI endoscopic procedures, a true estimate of the incidence rate of post-endoscopy infection is lacking. In addition, the infection profile and causative organisms have evolved over time. In recent times, multi-drug-resistant microorganisms have emerged as a cause of outbreaks of endoscope-associated infections (EAI). In addition, lapses in endoscope reprocessing have been reported, with some but not all outbreaks in recent times. This systematic review summarizes the demographical, clinical, and management data of EAI events reported in the literature. A total of 117 articles were included in the systematic review, with the majority reported from North America and Western Europe. The composite infection rate was calculated to be 0.2% following GI endoscopic procedures, 0.8% following ERCP, 0.123% following non-ERCP upper GI endoscopic procedures, and 0.073% following lower GI endoscopic procedures. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the most common culprit organism, followed by other Enterobacteriaceae groups of organisms and Gram-positive cocci. We have also elaborated different prevention methods such as antimicrobial prophylaxis, adequate sterilization methods for reprocessing endoscopes, periodic surveillance, and current evidence supporting their utilization. Finally, we discuss disposable endoscopes, which could be an alternative to reprocessing to minimize the chances of EAIs with their effects on the environmental and financial situation.

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.

Accreditation program for gastrointestinal endoscopes reprocessing in Italy: An on-site survey

Background and study aims  Endoscope reprocessing has been associated with a variable failure rate. Our aim was to present an overview on current practices for reprocessing in Italian facilities and discuss the principle critical points. Methods  In 2014 the Italian Society for Digestive Diseases implemented an accreditation program in collaboration with an independent organization for certification and with the Italian Association for Endoscopy Technical Operators. During a 1-day site visit of the endoscopy center, two endoscopists, one nurse, and the representative of the certification body evaluated the endoscope reprocessing. Results  As of July 1, 2020, 28 endoscopy centers had been accredited. Ten centers are completing the measures to correct deficiencies found at the visit. Three centers withdrew from the program. The accreditation program has found variations between the various centers, confirming the poor compliance with guidelines. Major deviations from the standards, established by the model before the site visit according to national and international guidelines, concerned instrument cleaning (44.7 % of the centers), instrument storage (23.7 %), and microbiological tests (31.6 %). Conclusions  Our overview demonstrated the lack of many reprocessing phases, which are important to prevent endoscopy-associated infections. Accreditation can achieve a transformation in quality and safety of reprocessing with the Italian centrally-led approach.

Current State and Future of Infection Prevention in Endoscopy

Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy units tend to be busy environments in which numerous categories of staff provide moderately complex procedural care to high volumes of patients. The prevention of infections of both patients and staff is a never-ending endeavor for both inpatient and outpatient environments. Necessary considerations must address patient-to-staff, staff-to-patient, environmental, and device-related transmission of infection. In addition to the typical environmental and interpersonal infection risks present in all medical environments, the major concern within the endoscopy suite relates to contamination and potential transmission via reusable devices and endoscopes. Our understanding of this ever-present issue has evolved over time and has become a major focus of scrutiny in the past 5 years. This significant problem has stimulated guidance and ingenuity by regulators, investigators, and industry. Most recently, the COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 to 21 has also added significant burdens to our infection control efforts in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

The Future of Endoscopic Operations After the Coronavirus Pandemic

The unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic and its rapid global shutdowns have posed tremendous challenges for GI practices, including sudden delays in endoscopic procedures. As full reopening approaches, practices are wrestling with completely retooling their operations to ensure the resumption of high-quality, safe, and effective patient care. The pandemic's long-term effects on practice operations must be assessed: What will postpandemic GI care look like? Will some aspects of our work be changed forever, and if so, what are the practice management implications? This chapter surveys the pandemic's impact on US-based GI practices and discusses key "lessons learned" for future operations.

Multisocieties position paper: Microbiological surveillance on flexible endoscopes

Transmission with endoscopes, particularly duodenoscope, of potential lethal infections prompted different scientific societies to deliver recommendations aimed reducing this risk. Some International societies extended recommendations on microbial surveillance to all the endoscopes and devices used in the reprocessing procedure. Considering the relevance of the topic, 8 Italian scientific societies of physicians, nurses and technical operators prepared a concerted document taking into account Institutional advisories and facilities in Italy. The rules for a correct microbial surveillance on endoscopes were detailed in term of what, how and when to perform the procedure, also suggesting behaviors in case of contamination.

Economic burden of enhanced practices of duodenoscopes reprocessing and surveillance: balancing risk and cost containment

Background and study aims  Recent outbreaks attributed to contaminated duodenoscopes have led to the development of enhanced surveillance and reprocessing techniques (enhanced-SRT) aimed at minimizing cross-contamination. Common enhanced-SRT include double high-level disinfection (HLD), ethylene oxide (EtO) gas sterilization, and culture-based monitoring of reprocessed scopes. Adoption of these methods adds to the operational costs and we aimed to assess its economic impact to an institution. Methods  We compared the estimated costs of three enhanced-SRT versus single-HLD using data from two institutions. We examined the cost of capital measured as scope inventory and frequency of scope use per unit time, the constituent reprocessing costs required on a per-cycle basis, and labor & staffing needs. The economic impact attributable to enhanced-SRT was defined as the difference between the total cost of enhanced-SRT and single HLD. Results  Compared to single HLD, adoption of double HLD increased the costs approximately by 47 % ($80 vs $118). Similarly, culture and quarantine and EtO sterilization increased costs by 160 % and 270 %, respectively ($80 vs $208 and $296). Enhanced-SRT introduced significant scope downtime due to prolonged techniques, necessitating a 3.4-fold increase in the number of scopes needed to maintain procedural volume. The additional annual budget required to implement enhanced-SRT approached $406,000 per year in high-volume centers. Conclusions  While enhanced-SRT may reduce patient risk of exposure to contaminated duodenoscopes, it significantly increases the cost of performing ERCP. Future innovation should focus on approaches that can ensure patient safety while maintaining the ability to perform ERCP in a cost-effective manner.

Gastrointestinal and hepatic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic: Manifestations, mechanism and management

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is considered the causative pathogen of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and has become an international danger to human health. Although respiratory transmission and symptoms are still the essential manifestations of COVID-19, the digestive system could be an unconventional or supplementary route for COVID-19 to be transmitted and manifested, most likely due to the presence of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) in the gastrointestinal tract. In addition, SARS-CoV-2 can trigger hepatic injury via direct binding to the ACE2 receptor in cholangiocytes, antibody-dependent enhancement of infection, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, inflammatory cytokine storms, ischemia/reperfusion injury, and adverse events of treatment drugs. Gastrointestinal symptoms, including anorexia, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea, which are unusual in patients with COVID-19, and some digestive signs may occur without other respiratory symptoms. Furthermore, SARS-CoV-2 can be found in infected patients' stool, demonstrating the likelihood of transmission through the fecal-oral route. In addition, liver function should be monitored during COVID-19, particularly in more severe cases. This review summarizes the evidence for extra-pulmonary manifestations, mechanisms, and management of COVID-19, particularly those related to the gastrointestinal tract and liver.

Gastrointestinal endoscopy in cirrhotic patient: Issues on the table

Patients with liver cirrhosis are fragile and present specific clinical hallmarks. When undergoing to gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, these subjects require an individual pre evaluation, taking into account: Level of haemostasis impairment, the individual risk of infection, the impact of sedation on hepatic encephalopathy and other factors. The overall assessment of liver function, employing common scoring systems, should be also assessed in the preprocedural phase. Beside some common general problems, regarding GI endoscopy in cirrhotic subjects, also specific issues are present for some frequent indications or procedures. For instance, despite an increased incidence of adenomas in cirrhosis, colon cancer screening remains suboptimal in subjects with this disease. Several studies in fact demonstrated liver cirrhosis as a negative factor for an adequate colon cleansing before colonoscopy. On the other hand, also the routine assessment of gastroesophageal varices during upper GI endoscopy presents some concern, since important inter-observer variability or incomplete description of endoscopic findings has been reported in some studies. In this review we discussed in details the most relevant issues that may be considered while performing general GI endoscopic practice, in patient with cirrhosis. For most of these issues there are no guidelines or clear indications. Moreover until now, few studies focused on these aspects. We believe that targeting these issues with corrective measures may be helpful to develop a tailored endoscopic approach for cirrhosis, in the future.

Does the Reprocessing of Endoscopes Have to Take Place Immediately after Pre-Cleaning? A First Evaluation

Background/Aims

The recommendations on the time interval between pre-cleaning and reprocessing of endoscopes differ in international guidelines, with a low level of evidence. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of postponing reprocessing on the reprocessing quality after pre-cleaning the flexible endoscopes.

Methods

We reprocessed 124 standardized test tubes simulating endoscope channels after soiling and contamination and determined the reprocessing performance. In addition, we examined contaminated gastroscopes, colonoscopes, and bronchoscopes. The duration of interim storage after pre-cleaning was 16 h for 100 test tubes and up to 24 h for 18 endoscopes. We determined the residual protein content and germ load as markers for cleaning and disinfection performance. In addition, we determined biofilm formation by photometry of crystal violet staining.

Results

All test tubes and flexible endoscopes showed residual protein content and germ load significantly below legally prescribed threshold values, independent of the interval between pre-cleaning and reprocessing.

Conclusions

Our findings indicate that flexible endoscopes could be stored overnight after pre-cleaning without any influence on the quality of reprocessing. While ensuring patient safety, this could simplify logistical processes and enable cost savings.

Two novel protocols for cleaning residual simethicone and fluid in patient-ready duodenoscopes

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Approximately 42-95% of working channels have been reported to show the presence of residual fluid despite endoscope reprocessing. The aim of this study was to design two novel protocols for cleaning residual simethicone and demonstrate its efficiency by evaluating the residual fluid and cleanliness in the working channels of patient-ready duodenoscopes.

METHODS

The designed protocol for cleaning residual simethicone was implemented in manual cleaning and/or high-level disinfection (HLD). The residual fluid inside the working channels was estimated by visual inspection. Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) values were evaluated to determine cleanliness after manual cleaning.

RESULTS

Manual cleaning with novel simethicone cleaning protocol demonstrated a significant decrease in fluid droplets (14.6 ± 29.9 vs 0 ± 0, P < 0.001) and ATP values (157 ± 196 relative light units [RLUs] vs 52 ± 41 RLUs, P = 0.031). HLD with simethicone cleaning protocol, using either enzymatic detergent with effective for cleaning simethicone or cleaning time set in the automatic endoscope reprocessor program for 8 min, demonstrated significant decrease in the number of fluid droplets. Follow-up after the implementation of the simethicone cleaning protocol showed a significant decrease in fluid droplets (37.4 ± 41.0 vs 2.1 ± 5.5, P = 0.003) and ATP values (271 ± 268 RLUs vs 82 ± 136 RLUs, P = 0.021).

CONCLUSIONS

Simethicone cleaning protocol is advantageous for significantly decreasing fluid droplets and ATP values within endoscope working channels. After manual cleaning with the simethicone cleaning protocol, in particular, no retained fluid droplet was observed in patient-ready duodenoscopes.

Device profile of the EXALT Model D single-use duodenoscope for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: overview of its safety and efficacy

Introduction: The management of pancreaticobiliary disorders relies heavily on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, which is performed with a duodenoscope. Bacterial colonization of reusable duodenoscopes leading to subsequent infectious outbreaks is well recognized and remains an issue despite efforts to optimize best practices in high-level disinfection. The EXALT Model D duodenoscope (EXALT) (Boston Scientific Corporation, Marlborough, MA) is a single-use device, designed to achieve technical equivalency with reusable devices while eliminating the potential for device-related outbreaks.Areas covered: This review covers the challenges associated with reprocessing duodenoscopes and the development of duodenoscope-related infections, with an emphasis on the use of single-use duodenoscopes as a potential solution to this issue.Expert Opinion: Duodenoscope-related infections are an increasingly recognized problem. Infectious outbreaks harm patients, significantly affect providers and medical centers, and can erode patient trust in the health-care system. Single-use duodenoscopes eliminate both the risk of device-related infection transmission and the need for burdensome duodenoscope reprocessing. In clinical evaluations, the EXALT device has demonstrated an equivalent technical performance and provider satisfaction compared to reusable duodenoscopes. Increasing use of this device will clarify how it compares to reusable duodenoscopes in a variety of clinical settings among endoscopists of varying skills levels.

Single-use duodenoscopes and duodenoscopes with disposable end caps

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Multidrug-resistant infectious outbreaks associated with duodenoscopes have been documented internationally. Single-use duodenoscopes, disposable distal ends, or distal end cap sealants could eliminate or reduce exogenous patient-to-patient infection associated with ERCP.

METHODS

This document reviews technologies that have been developed to help reduce or eliminate exogenous infections because of duodenoscopes.

RESULTS

Four duodenoscopes with disposable end caps, 1 end sheath, and 2 disposable duodenoscopes are reviewed in this document. The evidence regarding their efficacy in procedural success rates, reduction of duodenoscope bacterial contamination, clinical outcomes associated with these devices, safety, and the financial considerations are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Several technologies discussed in this document are anticipated to eliminate or reduce exogenous infections during endoscopy requiring a duodenoscope. Although disposable duodenoscopes can eliminate exogenous ERCP-related risk of infection, data regarding effectiveness are needed outside of expert centers. Additionally, with more widespread adoption of these new technologies, more data regarding functionality, medical economics, and environmental impact will accrue. Disposable distal end caps facilitate duodenoscope reprocessing; postmarketing surveillance culture studies and real-life patient infection analyses are important areas of future research.

Efficacy of flexible endoscope drying using novel endoscope test articles that allow direct visualization of the internal channel systems

BACKGROUND

Thorough drying of flexible endoscope channels has been identified as an essential reprocessing step. Yet, instructions are not specific on how to dry endoscopes. There is lack of data supporting efficacy of current drying practices, due to limitations in determining channel dryness.

METHODS

Novel endoscope test articles were used to evaluate the effectiveness of alcohol flush and hanging in an ambient endoscope storage cabinet. Prepared test articles were hung in a storage cabinet for 5 days and visually inspected for residual liquid. The procedure for preoperative inspection of endoscopic systems was performed to determine the procedure's efficacy for removing residual liquid. Then, testing was performed to assess the impact of pressure, residual liquid type and route of air application on time to dry using compressed air.

RESULTS

Alcohol flush followed by hanging in an ambient storage cabinet was not effective for drying endoscope channels, and residual liquid was not completely removed after performing the steps of the preoperative inspection of endoscopic channels. The factors impacting effective compressed air drying were channel dependent. For some channels, alcohol increased the time to dry.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscope drying is complex; borescope evaluation does not ensure a dry device.

Microbiological Surveillance of Endoscopes in a Southern Italian Transplantation Hospital: A Retrospective Study from 2016 to 2019

Endoscopes are medical instruments that are used routinely in health structures. Due to their invasive nature and contact with many patients, they may cause hospital-acquired infections if not disinfected correctly. To ensure a high-level disinfection procedure or reprocessing, since the methods currently adopted in our institute are adequate, we evaluated retrospectively the presence of microorganisms in our endoscopes after reprocessing. Microbiological surveillance was performed from January 2016 to December 2019 in the instruments in use in our endoscopic room after reprocessing. In total, 35 endoscopes (3 duodenoscopes, 3 echoendoscopes, 12 bronchoscopes, 5 colonoscopes, and 12 gastroscopes) were evaluated for the presence of microorganisms, including multidrug-resistant pathogens and indicator microorganisms (IMOs). Our procedures were in agreement with an internal protocol based on Italian, international, and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations. Of a total of 811 samples, 799 (98.5%) complied with the regulatory guidelines, while 9 (1.1%) were positive for IMOs, and 3 (0.4%) displayed more than 10 colony-forming units (CFU) of environmental and commensal pathogens. Our results show that the internal reprocessing protocol is very efficient, leading to a very low number of observed contaminations, and it could be easily implemented by other health facilities that face a huge number of hospital-acquired infections due to incorrectly disinfected endoscopes.

Study on the Efficacy of Peracetic Acid Disinfectant (Type III) on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Disinfection

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the disinfection efficacy of peracetic acid disinfectant (Type III) on gastrointestinal endoscopy.

METHODS

Endoscopes were disinfected, respectively, by 2% glutaraldehyde and peracetic acid disinfectant (Type III) according to the procedures stipulated by the 2016 version of "Regulation for cleaning and disinfection technique of flexible endoscope," then samples were collected through biopsy channel at the specified steps. The bacterial count and pathogenic bacteria of these samples were detected, and hepatitis B virus surface antigen, hepatitis C virus antibody, and Treponemiapallidum antibody were detected by chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay in peracetic acid disinfectant (Type III) group. The samples from the peracetic acid disinfectant (Type III) group were collected for 5 days continuously.

RESULTS

In total, 56 gastroscopes and 16 colonoscopes were disinfected by 2% glutaraldehyde (GA Group), 46 gastroscopes, and 15 colonoscopes were disinfected by peracetic acid disinfectant (Type III) (PAA Group). After disinfection, the bacterial count was significantly reduced in the 2 groups (P<0.05). In terms of the qualified rate of gastroscopes and total qualified rate, the PAA Group was better than GA Group [the qualified rate of gastroscopes: 97.83% (45/46) vs. 92.86% (52/56), P>0.05; total qualified rate: 98.36% (60/61) vs. 94.44% (68/72), P>0.05], the qualified rate of colonoscopes in the 2 groups were both 100.00% (15/15, 16/16). After disinfecting by peracetic acid disinfectant (Type III), hepatitis B virus surface antigen, anti-hepatitis C virus, and Treponemiapallidum antibody were negative. In term of colonies number detected for 5 days continuously, there was no significant difference at different collection steps (P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Peracetic acid disinfectant (Type III) can be well applied to clinical with meeting the standard of high-level disinfection for gastrointestinal endoscopy, and after disinfecting by peracetic acid disinfectant (Type III), there was no obvious bacterial residue in the biopsy channel.

Improving the Reprocessing Quality of Flexible Thermolabile Endoscopes: How to Learn from Mistakes

Background: Failure in the reprocessing of thermolabile flexible endoscopes has been reported as one of the most important threats to patient health. Method: A case report and observational study was conducted, from August 2014 to December 2019, in the Digestive Endoscopy Unit of a University Hospital in Italy, where two cases of Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae infections in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography were observed. Following the risk/safety management practices, an epidemiological investigation was started, duodenoscopes were removed from use and the reprocessing practices reviewed. Moreover, microbiological surveillance of endoscopes was carried out according to the CDC guidelines. Results: In the first phase of sampling, 10/10 (100%) endoscopes were found to be non-compliant, of which 7 showed results for high-concern organisms (HCOs), such as KPC-K. pneumoniae, P. aeruginosa and E. coli. After implementing corrective actions, 12 out of 17 endoscopes were found to be non-compliant (70.5%), of which 8 showed results for HCOs, such as KPC-K. oxytoca and P. aeruginosa. During the last year of regular microbiological surveillance, only 23% of endoscopes (35/152) were found to be non-compliant, of which 7 showed results for HCOs, such as NDM-K. pneumoniae, P. aeruginosa and A. baumannii. The crucial issues were related to samples collected from the internal channels of duodenoscopes. Conclusion: Managing the risk associated with the reprocessing of digestive endoscopes, through risk assessment at every stage of the process, is important for the prevention of infections associated with the use of these device.

Guidelines for accreditation of endoscopy units: quality measures from the Korean Society of Coloproctology

Purpose

Colonoscopy is an effective method of screening for colorectal cancer (CRC), and it can prevent CRC by detection and removal of precancerous lesions. The most important considerations when performing colonoscopy screening are the safety and satisfaction of the patient and the diagnostic accuracy. Accordingly, the Korean Society of Coloproctology (KSCP) herein proposes an optimal level of standard performance to be used in endoscopy units and by individual colonoscopists for screening colonoscopy. These guidelines establish specific criteria for assessment of safety and quality in screening colonoscopy.

Methods

The Colonoscopy Committee of the KSCP commissioned this Position Statement. Expert gastrointestinal surgeons representing the KSCP reviewed the published evidence to identify acceptable quality indicators and indicators that lacked sufficient evidence.

Results

The KSCP recommends an optimal standard list for quality control of screening colonoscopy in the following 6 categories: training and competency of the colonoscopist, procedural quality, facilities and equipment, performance indicators and auditable outcomes, disinfection of equipment, and sedation and recovery of the patient.

Conclusion

The KSCP recommends that endoscopy units performing CRC screening evaluate 6 key performance measures during daily practice.

Is a Fundamental Design Change for Gastrointestinal Endoscopes Required?

Since the first fiberoptic instruments, gastrointestinal endoscopy has shaped the field of gastroenterology and is now a key diagnostic and therapeutic tool. Compared with the initial fiberoptic endoscopes state-of-the-art optical chips (or charge-coupled device technology) allowed a quantum leap in image quality. Despite these advances, gastrointestinal endoscopy is far from being perfect. The diagnostic yield (eg, for adenoma detection rates) is highly operator dependent and there is still the need for sedation or even anesthesia to address discomfort during the procedure. Despite highly standardized cleaning and high-level disinfection the reuse of contemporary (and difficult to clean) endoscopes with multiple channels exposes patients to the risk of transmission of infections. Artificial intelligence and pattern recognition should eliminate interindividual variability including polyp detection rates, self-propelled, and (potentially remotely controlled) scopes with a soft shaft could reduce the discomfort during procedures and abolish the need for sedation and anesthesia altogether and single-use designs should eliminate the risk of patient-to-patient transmission of infections. While these innovations are feasible and could be implemented rapidly utilizing available technology, they require a paradigm shift affecting all levels of the value chain from the supplier of the instruments to the end-users. Some may negate the need for a paradigm shift, but it is evident that a major redesign of the endoscopic equipment is overdue to fully utilize novel technologies and most importantly ensure the best possible outcomes for patients.

Recent Advances in Endoscope Disinfection: Where Do We Stand in the COVID era?

Over 16 million cases worldwide, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has profoundly affected healthcare as we know it. Given reports of gastrointestinal involvement and viral shedding in the stool, it is unsurprising there are concerns that endoscopic equipment may be a potential vector of viral transmission. Here, we provide an overview of existing practices for endoscope reprocessing, recent developments in the field, and challenges in the COVID-19 environment. Current multi-society guidelines do not advise any change to endoscope disinfection protocols but emphasize strict adherence to recommended practices. However, endoscopy reprocessing staff may benefit from supplemental personal protective equipment measures, especially in high risk situations. Because thorough endoscope reprocessing is highly operator dependent, adequate training of personnel is critical for proper manual cleaning and disinfection of endoscopes that have potential to harbor virus. Bacterial contamination of duodenoscopes has caused outbreaks of infection from multidrug-resistant organisms, highlighting vulnerable areas. The emphasis of current studies is on optimization of disinfection and drying, minimization of simethicone use, and on quality control of endoscope reprocessing with sampling and microbiological culturing. Recent advances include novel approaches to endoscope sterilization, infection barrier methods, and design of partially or fully disposable duodenoscopes. Overall, the available data indicate that, when correctly executed, current reprocessing practices are sufficient in preventing SARS-COV-2 transmission.

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.

Endoscopic transmission of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae: implications for U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval and postmarket surveillance of endoscopic devices

Since the first widely reported case cluster of duodenoscope-associated transmission of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) in 2013 that affected 38 patients, similar outbreaks have occurred throughout the world. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, professional gastroenterology societies, and endoscope manufacturers have taken multiple steps to address this issue. Unlike prior outbreaks attributed to lapses in cleaning and reprocessing, transmission and outbreaks have continued to occur despite compliance with current reprocessing guidelines. A definitive method of duodenoscope reprocessing remains elusive, and the FDA recently recommended transition to new designs with disposable components that do not require reprocessing. The first fully disposable duodenoscope received FDA clearance as a "breakthrough" device in December 2019. Although the human, microbiologic, and endoscopic design factors responsible for infectious transmissions and disinfecting techniques to avoid them have been examined, discussion has not included the critical role of FDA regulation of duodenoscopes through the 510(k) clearance pathway and the mechanisms of postmarket surveillance, including adverse event reporting. We present an overview of the FDA approval of duodenoscopes by analyzing the FDA's 510(k) premarket notification database for data supporting clearance of duodenoscope models implicated in CRE-related outbreaks as well as subsequently required postmarket studies. We address the policy implications of CRE outbreaks on postmarketing surveillance and the need for increased gastroenterologist involvement in the life cycle of duodenoscopes and other medical devices. This includes reporting thorough adverse event data to the FDA and device manufacturers, supporting active surveillance studies to ensure safety and effectiveness, and evaluating implementation of recommendations to reduce adverse events.

Chemical disinfection in healthcare settings: critical aspects for the development of global strategies

Chemical disinfection is an indispensable means of preventing infection. This holds true for healthcare settings, but also for all other settings where transmission of pathogens poses a potential health risk to humans and/or animals. Research on how to ensure effectiveness of disinfectants and the process of disinfection, as well as on when, how and where to implement disinfection precautions is an ongoing challenge requiring an interdisciplinary team effort. The valuable resources of active substances used for disinfection must be used wisely and their interaction with the target organisms and the environment should be evaluated and monitored closely, if we are to reliable reap the benefits of disinfection in future generations. In view of the global threat of communicable diseases and emerging and re-emerging pathogens and multidrug-resistant pathogens, the relevance of chemical disinfection is continually increasing. Although this consensus paper pinpoints crucial aspects for strategies of chemical disinfection in terms of the properties of disinfectant agents and disinfection practices in a particularly vulnerable group and setting, i.e., patients in healthcare settings, it takes a comprehensive, holistic approach to do justice to the complexity of the topic of disinfection.

Review of Duodenoscope Infection Prevention Practices at the Medical University of South Carolina

A rise in duodenoscope-associated infections, especially in regard to multidrug-resistant organisms, has led to an increase in scrutiny regarding duodenoscope reprocessing. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography scopes have a specialized elevator wire channel, allowing more flexible duct cannulation; however, this channel can be difficult to reprocess with standard techniques. Although strict adherence to manufacturer reprocessing protocols remains the primary means of infection prevention, periodic microbiological surveillance is a Food and Drug Administration-recommended practice that the Medical University of South Carolina has implemented to further prevent duodenoscope-associated infections. The Medical University of South Carolina obtains 2 separate cultures from 2 duodenoscopes every 2 months, which undergo standard speciation and sensitivity and are returned to use once negative at 48 hours. The initial results of the Medical University of South Carolina's surveillance cultures are negative for any multidrug-resistant organisms; however, other centers should consider implementing surveillance cultures into their reprocessing practices and closely monitoring for future endoscope infection prevention modalities.

Novel Algorithms for Reprocessing, Drying and Storing Endoscopes

After outbreaks of duodenoscope-transmitted infection with multidrug-resistant organisms, it has become clear that institutions must optimize their endoscope reprocessing programs. Standard endoscope reprocessing practices may not represent the ideal approach for preventing transmission of infection related to endoscopy. We discuss multiple approaches to enhance and optimize reprocessing, drying, and storage of standard duodenoscopes. The optimal enhanced duodenoscope reprocessing modality remains to be determined. Acknowledging the challenges and limitations in effectively reprocessing duodenoscopes, the FDA issued a safety communiqué recommending transitioning to either single use disposable duodenoscopes or duodenoscopes with innovative designs that allow more effective reprocessing.