Contamination of single-use biopsy forceps: a prospective in vitro analysis

Single-use accessories and endoscopes in the era of sustainability and climate change-A balancing act

Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is among the highest waste generator in healthcare facilities. The major reasons include production of large-volume non-renewable waste, use of single-use devices, and reprocessing or decontamination processes. Single-use endoscopic accessories have gradually replaced reusable devices over last two decades contributing to the rising impact of GI endoscopy on ecosystem. Several reports of infection outbreaks with reusable duodenoscopes raised concerns regarding the efficacy and adherence to standard disinfection protocols. Even the enhanced reprocessing techniques like double high-level disinfection have not been found to be the perfect ways for decontamination of duodenoscopes and therefore, paved the way for the development of single-use duodenoscopes. However, the use of single-use endoscopes is likely to amplify the net waste generated and carbon footprint of any endoscopy unit. Moreover, single-use devices challenge one of the major pillars of sustainability, that is, "reuse." In the era of climate change, a balanced approach is required taking into consideration patient safety as well as financial and environmental implications. The possible solutions to provide optimum care while addressing the impact on climate include selective use of disposable duodenoscopes and careful selection of accessories during a case. Other options include use of disposable endcaps and development of effective high-level disinfection techniques. The collaboration between the healthcare professionals and the manufacturers is paramount for the development of environmental friendly devices with low carbon footprint.

Reducing the environmental footprint of gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) Position Statement

Climate change and the destruction of ecosystems by human activities are among the greatest challenges of the 21st century and require urgent action. Health care activities significantly contribute to the emission of greenhouse gases and waste production, with gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy being one of the largest contributors. This Position Statement aims to raise awareness of the ecological footprint of GI endoscopy and provides guidance to reduce its environmental impact. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) outline suggestions and recommendations for health care providers, patients, governments, and industry. MAIN STATEMENTS 1: GI endoscopy is a resource-intensive activity with a significant yet poorly assessed environmental impact. 2: ESGE-ESGENA recommend adopting immediate actions to reduce the environmental impact of GI endoscopy. 3: ESGE-ESGENA recommend adherence to guidelines and implementation of audit strategies on the appropriateness of GI endoscopy to avoid the environmental impact of unnecessary procedures. 4: ESGE-ESGENA recommend the embedding of reduce, reuse, and recycle programs in the GI endoscopy unit. 5: ESGE-ESGENA suggest that there is an urgent need to reassess and reduce the environmental and economic impact of single-use GI endoscopic devices. 6: ESGE-ESGENA suggest against routine use of single-use GI endoscopes. However, their use could be considered in highly selected patients on a case-by-case basis. 7: ESGE-ESGENA recommend inclusion of sustainability in the training curricula of GI endoscopy and as a quality domain. 8: ESGE-ESGENA recommend conducting high quality research to quantify and minimize the environmental impact of GI endoscopy. 9: ESGE-ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy companies assess, disclose, and audit the environmental impact of their value chain. 10:  ESGE-ESGENA recommend that GI endoscopy should become a net-zero greenhouse gas emissions practice by 2050.

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.

Reprocessing and Reuse of Endoscopic Accessories

Endoscopic accessories are critical devices that breach sterile body sites. They have unique reprocessing difficulties compared with other medical and surgical devices because of their complex structure, narrow lumens, thermolabile construction materials, and application through a semicritical endoscopic device. In addition, there is the possibility of functional derangement of endoscopic accessories with reprocessing, and most are now marketed as single-use devices. While reprocessing of endoscopes has been the subject of numerous societal guidelines, the issue of reprocessing endoscopic accessories and ancillary detachable devices used with the endoscope is seldom addressed. We summarize the existing data on the cleaning and reprocessing of endoscopic accessories.

Is peracetic acid suitable for the cleaning step of reprocessing flexible endoscopes?

The bioburden (blood, protein, pathogens and biofilm) on flexible endoscopes after use is often high and its removal is essential to allow effective disinfection, especially in the case of peracetic acid-based disinfectants, which are easily inactivated by organic material. Cleaning processes using conventional cleaners remove a variable but often sufficient amount of the bioburden. Some formulations based on peracetic acid are recommended by manufacturers for the cleaning step. We performed a systematic literature search and reviewed the available evidence to clarify the suitability of peracetic acid-based formulations for cleaning flexible endoscopes. A total of 243 studies were evaluated. No studies have yet demonstrated that peracetic acid-based cleaners are as effective as conventional cleaners. Some peracetic acid-based formulations have demonstrated some biofilm-cleaning effects and no biofilm-fixation potential, while others have a limited cleaning effect and a clear biofilm-fixation potential. All published data demonstrated a limited blood cleaning effect and a substantial blood and nerve tissue fixation potential of peracetic acid. No evidence-based guidelines on reprocessing flexible endoscopes currently recommend using cleaners containing peracetic acid, but some guidelines clearly recommend not using them because of their fixation potential. Evidence from some outbreaks, especially those involving highly multidrug-resistant gram-negative pathogens, indicated that disinfection using peracetic acid may be insufficient if the preceding cleaning step is not performed adequately. Based on this review we conclude that peracetic acid-based formulations should not be used for cleaning flexible endoscopes.

Klebsiella spp. in endoscopy-associated infections: we may only be seeing the tip of the iceberg

PURPOSE

Two endoscopy-associated nosocomial outbreaks caused by carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae (CPKP) were recently observed in two German hospitals. In this study, we performed a systematic search of the medical literature in order to elucidate the epidemiology of Klebsiella spp. in endoscopy-associated outbreaks.

METHODS

Medline, the Outbreak Database ( http://www.outbreak-database.com ) and reference lists of articles extracted from these databases were screened for descriptions of endoscopy-associated nosocomial outbreaks. The data extracted and analysed were: (1) the type of medical department affected; (2) characterisation of pathogen to species and conspicuous resistance patterns (if applicable); (3) type of endoscope and the grade of its contamination; (4) number and the types of infections; (5) actual cause of the outbreak.

RESULTS

A total of seven nosocomial outbreaks were identified, of which six were outbreaks of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-related infections and caused by contaminated duodenoscopes. Including our own outbreaks in the analysis, we identified one extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing K. pneumoniae strain and six CPKP strains. Insufficient reprocessing after the use of the endoscope was the main reason for subsequent pathogen transmission.

CONCLUSIONS

There were only two reports of nosocomial outbreaks due to Klebsiella spp. in the first three decades of endoscopic procedures, but seven additional outbreaks of this kind have been reported within the last 4 years. It is very likely that many of such outbreaks have been missed in the past because this pathogen belongs to the physiological gut flora. However, with the emergence of highly resistant (carbapenemase-producing) strains, strict adherence to infection control guidelines is more important than ever.

Variation in clinical presentation of childhood group A streptococcal pharyngitis in four countries

We conducted a cross-sectional study from September 2001 to August 2003 during which children between 2 and 12 years of age presenting with complaint of sore throat were recruited from urban pediatric clinics in Brazil, Croatia, Egypt and Latvia. The objective of the study was to compare clinical signs and symptoms of children presenting to urban pediatric clinics with sore throat in and between countries and to identify common clinical criteria predicting group A beta hemolytic streptococcal (GAS) pharyngitis. Using a single standard protocol in all four sites, clinical data were recorded and throat swabs obtained for standard GAS culture in 2040 children. Signs and symptoms were tested for statistical association with GAS positive/negative pharyngitis, and were compared using chi(2) tests, ANOVA and Odds Ratios. Clinical signs of GAS pharyngitis in children presenting to clinics varied significantly between countries, and there were few signs or symptom that could statistically be associated with GAS pharyngitis in all four countries, though several were useful in two or three countries. Our results indicate that the clinical manifestations of pharyngitis in clinics may vary by region. It is therefore critical that clinical decision rules for management of pharyngitis should have local validation.

Biopsy forceps: reusable or disposable?

Reusable and disposable biopsy forceps are both widely available for use in gastrointestinal endoscopy units. Biopsy forceps have design and material features that may interfere with cleaning, and reusable devices must be designed to function safely and effectively following sterilization in a healthcare setting. During the last decade, endoscopic accessories have evolved from reusable to disposable in many parts of the world. Although use of disposable devices helps reduce the potential risk of cross-contamination and spread of infection, there remains the factor of cost. Major concerns for reuse of endoscopic accessories center on two main areas: sterility, and the capability of the equipment to perform its function satisfactorily after repeated uses and sterilizations. Reusable biopsy forceps perform a designated number of procedures, thus becoming more cost-effective than disposable forceps, which are impossible to clean and sterilize. The potential risk of infectious disease transmission must be taken into account. There is also the consideration that reprocessing of disposable forceps may damage or destroy the fragile devices.

Comparison of air-coupled balloon esophageal and anorectal manometry catheters with solid-state esophageal manometry and water-perfused anorectal manometry catheters

Clinical gastrointestinal manometry studies are currently performed with multilumen water-perfused polyvinyl or strain gauge sensor solid-state catheters. A disposable catheter incorporating air-filled balloons has been developed with performance characteristics suitable for esophageal and anorectal manometry studies. Our aim was to compare esophageal and anorectal pressure measurements using this newly developed catheter with measurements obtained using standard solid-state or water-perfused catheters. Measurements of resting LES pressure, esophageal contraction amplitudes, and anorectal rest and squeeze pressures were obtained in 10 healthy volunteers using a solid-state esophageal catheter, a water-perfused anorectal catheter, and air-filled balloon esophageal and anorectal catheters. Correlation coefficient analysis demonstrated that LES pressures, esophageal contraction amplitudes, and anorectal resting and squeeze pressures were not significantly among between the different catheters. We conclude that recently developed air-filled balloon esophageal and anorectal manometry catheters provide very similar measurements of LES, esophageal body, and anorectal sphincter pressures compared to presently used manometry catheters.

Reprocessing endoscopes: United States perspective

Endoscopes are used frequently for the diagnosis and therapy of medical disorders. For example, greater than 10000000 gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are performed each year in the United States. Failure to employ appropriate cleaning and disinfection/sterilization of endoscopes has been responsible for multiple nosocomial outbreaks and serious, sometimes life-threatening, infections. Flexible endoscopes, by virtue of the site of use, have a high bioburden of microorganisms after use. The bioburden found on flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes following use has ranged from 10(5) to 10(10)CFU/ml, with the highest levels being found in the suction channels. Cleaning dramatically reduces the bioburden on endoscopes. Several investigators have shown a mean log(10) reduction factor of 4 (99.99%) in the microbial contaminants with cleaning alone. Cleaning should be done promptly following each use of an endoscope to prevent drying of secretions, allow removal of organic material, and decrease the number of microbial pathogens. Because the endoscope comes into intimate contact with mucous membranes, high-level disinfection is the reprocessing standard after each patient use. High-level disinfection refers to the use of a disinfectant (e.g., FDA-cleared chemical sterilant or high-level disinfectant) that inactivates all microorganisms (i.e., bacteria, viruses, fungi, mycobacteria) but not high levels of bacterial spores. The disinfection process requires immersion of the endoscope in the high-level disinfectant and ensuring all channels are perfused for the approved contact time (e.g., for ortho-phthaladehyde this is 12 min in the US). Following disinfection, the endoscope and channels are rinsed with sterile water, filtered water, or tapwater. The channels are then flushed with alcohol and dried using forced air. The endoscope should be stored in a manner that prevents recontamination. A protocol that describes the meticulous manual cleaning process, the appropriate training and evaluation of the reprocessing personnel, and a quality assurance program for endoscopes should be adopted and enforced by each unit performing endoscopic reprocessing.

Interventional endoscopy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review provides an updated summary of gastric interventional endoscopy. Relevant original articles and topic reviews are highlighted in the areas of infection control, light sedation, hemostasis, endoscopic mucosal resection, and endoscopic placement of enteric devices.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several key findings are worth noting: the increased use of propofol by nonanesthesiologists for deep sedation with minimal adverse side effects, the adaptation of tissue adhesive agents for the treatment of bleeding gastric varices, the successful treatment of early gastric cancer by endoscopic mucosal resection, and the development of direct percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy tubes for patients at high risk of aspiration.

SUMMARY

These recent developments in the field of interventional endoscopy have already made a great impact on clinical care. More advanced procedures can be performed safely while the patient is under deep sedation. Yet, these developments have not slowed down the need for improvement in interventional endoscopy. Researchers continue to look for smaller instruments, better optics, and more advanced accessories. This constant state of flux marks the field of interventional endoscopy and ensures its progress.