Evaluation of an overnight non-culture test for detection of viable Gram-negative bacteria in endoscope channels

Contaminated flexible endoscopes: Review of impact of channel sampling methods on culture results and recommendations for root-cause analysis

Recently, infection transmission risk associated with contaminated, patient-ready flexible endoscopes has attracted attention. Outbreaks of multidrug-resistant organisms resulting in infection and/or colonization have been particularly concerning. Recent CDC and FDA recommendations focus on reducing "exogenous" infection transmission and specifically recommend that endoscopy sites have quality systems in place for endoscope reprocessing. Another key recommendation is the culture of patient-ready endoscopes to detect contamination with organisms of concern. Remaining gaps in the guidelines include ensuring that optimal endoscope-channel sample methods are used and ensuring effective root-cause analysis and remediation when contamination is detected. In this review, we summarize the critical aspects of endoscope sample collection and present a practical approach to root-cause analysis and remedial action plans.

Impact of wet storage and other factors on biofilm formation and contamination of patient-ready endoscopes: a narrative review

The 2019 U.S. Food and Drug Administration report indicates that the clinical studies undertaken by the 3 main GI endoscope manufacturers demonstrate 5.4% of patient-ready duodenoscopes remain culture positive for high-concern organisms. The root causes of this persistent contamination are poorly understood. The objectives of this review include summarizing (1) the impact of inadequate manual cleaning and inadequate drying during storage on the formation of build-up biofilm in endoscope channels, (2) the impact of defoaming agents used during patient procedures on drying efficacy, (3) the data showing the importance of build-up biofilm on persistent microbial survival, and (4) the potential impact of implementation of a quality systems approach in GI endoscopy reprocessing.

A Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Duodenoscope Reprocessing Surveillance Methods

Duodenoscope use in healthcare facilities has been associated with transmission of multidrug resistant pathogens between patients. To assist healthcare facilities in monitoring the quality of their duodenoscope reprocessing procedures and limit patient risk of infection, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) deployed voluntary interim duodenoscope sampling and culturing surveillance protocols in 2015. Though the interim methods were widely adopted, alternative surveillance protocols were developed and implemented at individual institutions. Here, we compared two sampling methods-the 2015 CDC interim protocol and an alternative protocol developed by the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics (UWHC). We hypothesized that the UWHC protocol would detect a higher incidence of bacterial contamination from reprocessed duodenoscopes. A total of 248 sampling events were performed at UWHC. The CDC protocol (n = 129 sampling events) required culturing samples collected from each duodenoscope after brushing its terminal end and flushing its lumen with sterile water. The UWHC protocol (n = 119 sampling events) required culturing samples collected from each duodenoscope after swabbing its elevator, immersing its terminal end into broth and flushing its lumen with saline. With the CDC method, 8.53% (n = 11) of the duodenoscopes sampled were positive for bacterial growth with 15 isolates recovered. Using the UWHC method, 15.13% (n = 18) of cultures were positive for bacterial growth with 20 isolates recovered. The relative risk of identifying a contaminated duodenoscope using the CDC interim method, however, was not different than when using the UWHC protocol. Mean processing time (27.35 and 5.11 minutes, p < 0.001) and total cost per sample event ($17.87 and $15.04) were lower using the UWHC method. As the UWHC protocol provides similar detection rates as the CDC protocol, the UWHC method is useful, provided the shorter processing time and lower cost to perform.