Multisociety guideline on reprocessing flexible GI endoscopes: 2011

Gastrointestinal endoscope contamination rates - elevators are not only to blame: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Duodenoscopes that are contaminated due to inadequate reprocessing are well-documented. However, studies have demonstrated poor reprocessing of other kinds of endoscopes as well, including echoendoscopes, gastroscopes, and colonoscopes. We estimated the contamination rate beyond the elevator of gastrointestinal endoscopes based on available data. Methods  We searched PubMed and Embase from January 1, 2010 to October 10, 2020, for studies investigating contamination rates of reprocessed gastrointestinal endoscopes. A random-effects model was used to calculate the contamination rate of patient-ready gastrointestinal endoscopes. Subgroup analyses were conducted to investigate differences among endoscope types, countries, and colony-forming unit (CFU) thresholds. Results  Twenty studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, including 1,059 positive cultures from 7,903 samples. The total contamination rate was 19.98 % ± 0.024 (95 % confidence interval [Cl]: 15.29 %-24.68 %; I ²  = 98.6 %). The contamination rates of colonoscope and gastroscope channels were 31.95 % ± 0.084 and 28.22 % ± 0.076, respectively. Duodenoscope channels showed a contamination rate of 14.41 % ± 0.029. The contamination rates among studies conducted in North America and Europe were 6.01 % ± 0.011 and 18.16% ± 0.053 %, respectively. The contamination rate among studies using a CFU threshold > 20 showed contamination of 30.36 % ± 0.094, whereas studies using a CFU threshold < 20 showed a contamination rate of 11 % ± 0.026. Conclusions  On average, 19.98 % of reprocessed gastrointestinal endoscopes may be contaminated when used in patients and varies between different geographies. These findings highlight that the elevator mechanism is not the only obstacle when reprocessing reusable endoscopes; therefore, guidelines should recommend more surveillance of the endoscope channels as well.

Duodenoscope-associated infection prevention: A call for evidence-based decision making

Background  Recent outbreaks of duodenoscope-associated multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) have brought attention to the infection risk from procedures performed with duodenoscopes. Prior to these MDRO outbreaks, procedures with duodenoscopes were considered safe and low risk for exogenous infection transmission, provided they were performed in strict accordance with manufacturer instructions for use and multisociety reprocessing guidelines. The attention and efforts of the scientific community, regulatory agencies, and the device industry have deepened our understanding of factors responsible for suboptimal outcomes. These include instrument design, reprocessing practices, and surveillance strategies for detecting patient and instrument colonization. Various investigations have made it clear that current reprocessing methods fail to consistently deliver a pathogen-free instrument. The magnitude of infection transmission has been underreported due to several factors. These include the types of organisms responsible for infection, clinical signs presenting in sites distant from ERCP inoculation, and long latency from the time of acquisition to infection. Healthcare providers remain hampered by the ill-defined infectious risk innate to the current instrument design, contradictory information and guidance, and limited evidence-based interventions or reprocessing modifications that reduce risk. Therefore, the objectives of this narrative review included identifying outbreaks described in the peer-reviewed literature and comparing the findings with infections reported elsewhere. Search strategies included accessing peer-reviewed articles, governmental databases, abstracts for scientific conferences, and media reports describing outbreaks. This review summarizes current knowledge, highlights gaps in traditional sources of evidence, and explores opportunities to improve our understanding of actual risk and evidence-based approaches to mitigate risk.

Remote video auditing in the endoscopy unit for evaluation of duodenoscope reprocessing in a tertiary care center

BACKGROUND : A significant proportion of duodenoscope-transmitted infections have resulted from errors related to reprocessing. Remote video auditing (RVA) is a tool that can monitor reprocessing compliance but it has not been previously evaluated in a tertiary care setting. The aims of this study were to evaluate: 1) RVA feasibility in a tertiary care setting (defined as the ability to audit every step of duodenoscope reprocessing without delaying the next procedure due to unavailability of duodenoscopes); and 2) the use of RVA as a compliance monitoring tool. METHODS : This was a prospective study at a tertiary care center. A video camera with offsite monitoring was installed in March 2018. Auditors delivered a compliance score after each procedure. The duodenoscope was not used until it passed the audit. Feasibility and compliance data were collected from April 2018 to August 2019 after a 1-month run-in phase. Both per-step compliance and overall 100 % compliance rates were measured. RESULTS : Of 743 duodenoscope reprocessing procedures, 32 666 individual steps were audited and 99.9 % of the steps were fully viewable. The mean time per audit was 38.3 minutes, the mean duodenoscope turnover time was 76.1 minutes, and there were no delays to the next procedure due to unavailability of duodenoscopes. The per-step compliance rate was 99.5 % but the overall 100 % compliance rate was 90.3 %. CONCLUSIONS : The use of RVA in duodenoscope reprocessing was feasible and promoted sustained high-level compliance in a tertiary care center.

SpyGlass application for duodenoscope working channel inspection: Impact on the microbiological surveillance

BACKGROUND

Patient-ready duodenoscopes were designed with an assumed contamination rate of less than 0.4%; however, it has been reported that 5.4% of clinically used duodenoscopes remain contaminated with viable high-concern organisms despite following the manufacturer’s instructions. Visual inspection of working channels has been proposed as a quality control measure for endoscope reprocessing. There are few studies related to this issue.

AIM

To investigate the types, severity rate, and locations of abnormal visual inspection findings inside patient-ready duodenoscopes and their microbiological significance.

METHODS

Visual inspections of channels were performed in 19 patient-ready duodenoscopes using the SpyGlass visualization system in two endoscopy units of tertiary care teaching hospitals (Tri-Service General Hospital and National Taiwan University Hospital) in Taiwan. Inspections were recorded and reviewed to evaluate the presence of channel scratches, buckling, stains, debris, and fluids. These findings were used to analyze the relevance of microbiological surveillance.

RESULTS

Seventy-two abnormal visual inspection findings in the 19 duodenoscopes were found, including scratches (n = 10, 52.6%), buckling (n = 15, 78.9%), stains (n = 14, 73.7%), debris (n = 14, 73.7%), and fluids (n = 6, 31.6%). Duodenoscopes > 12 mo old had a significantly higher number of abnormal visual inspection findings than those ≤ 12 mo old (46 findings vs 26 findings, P < 0.001). Multivariable regression analyses demonstrated that the bending section had a significantly higher risk of being scratched, buckled, and stained, and accumulating debris than the insertion tube. Debris and fluids showed a significant positive correlation with microbiological contamination (P < 0.05). There was no significant positive Spearman’s correlation coefficient between negative bacterial cultures and debris, between that and fluids, and the concomitance of debris and fluids. This result demonstrated that the presence of fluid and debris was associated with positive cultures, but not negative cultures. Further multivariate analysis demonstrated that fluids, but not debris, is an independent factor for bacterial culture positivity.

CONCLUSION

In patient-ready duodenoscopes, scratches, buckling, stains, debris, and fluids inside the working channel are common, which increase the microbiological contamination susceptibility. The SpyGlass visualization system may be recommended to identify suboptimal reprocessing.

Multidisciplinary and Multisociety Practice Guideline on Reprocessing Flexible Gastrointestinal Endoscopes and Endoscopic Accessories

The area of endoscopic application has been continuously expanded since its introduction in the last century and the frequency of its use also increased stiffly in the last decades. Because gastrointestinal endoscopy is naturally exposed to diseased internal organs and contact with pathogenic materials, endoscopy mediated infection or disease transmission becomes a major concern in this field. Gastrointestinal endoscopy is not for single use and the proper reprocessing process is a critical factor for safe and reliable endoscopy procedures. What needed in these circumstances is a practical guideline for reprocessing the endoscope and its accessories which is feasible in the real clinical field to guarantee acceptable prevention of pathogen transmission. This guideline contains principles and instructions of the reprocessing procedure according to the step by step. And it newly includes general information and updated knowledge about endoscopy-mediated infection and disinfection. Multiple societies and working groups participated to revise; Korean Association for the Study of the Liver, the Korean Society of Infectious Diseases, Korean College of Helicobacter and Upper Gastrointestinal Research, the Korean Society of Gastroenterology, Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Cancer, Korean Association for the Study of Intestinal Diseases, Korean Pancreatobiliary Association, the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Nurses and Associates and Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Through this cooperation, we enhanced communication and established a better concordance. We still need more researches in this field and fill up the unproven area. And our guidelines will be renewed accordingly.

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.

Pediatric Endoscopy and High-risk Patients: A Clinical Report From the NASPGHAN Endoscopy Committee

Pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy has been established as safe and effective for diagnosis and management of many pediatric gastrointestinal diseases. Nevertheless, certain patient and procedure factors should be recognized that increase the risk of intra- and/or postprocedural adverse events (AEs). AEs associated with endoscopic procedures can broadly be categorized as involving sedation-related physiological changes, bleeding, perforation, and infection. Factors which may increase patient risk for such AEs include but are not limited to, cardiopulmonary diseases, anatomical airway or craniofacial abnormalities, compromised intestinal luminal wall integrity, coagulopathies, and compromised immune systems. Examples of high-risk patients include patients with congenital heart disease, craniofacial abnormalities, connective tissues diseases, inflammatory bowel disease, and children undergoing treatment for cancer. This clinical report is intended to help guide clinicians stratify patient risks and employ clinical practices that may minimize AEs during and after endoscopy. These include use of CO2 insufflation, endoscopic techniques for maneuvers such as biopsies, and endoscope loop-reduction to mitigate the risk of such complications such as bleeding and intestinal perforation. Endoscopic infection risk and guidance regarding periprocedural antibiotics are also discussed.

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.

Duodenoscope reprocessing practice patterns in U.S. endoscopy centers: a survey study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

After recent outbreaks of duodenoscope-related infections from multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO), the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommended implementing 1 or more of 4 enhanced reprocessing measures in addition to updated manual cleaning methods and high-level disinfection (HLD). The implementation of these techniques in endoscopy facilities and provider opinions regarding reprocessing priorities remain unknown.

METHODS

Physicians, nurse managers, nurses, and infection control staff at endoscopy units performing ERCP in the United States were surveyed to assess current institutional practices and individual opinions regarding future reprocessing solutions.

RESULTS

A total of 249 distinct institutions participated in the survey. Of these, 223 (89.6%) implemented at least 1 of the 4 supplemental reprocessing methods after MDRO outbreaks. Overall, 63% of centers used repeat HLD, 53% performed surveillance microbiological culturing, 35% used liquid chemical sterilization, and 12% used ethylene oxide sterilization. Thirty-seven centers (15%) routinely screened patients for MDRO. Forced-air drying after reprocessing was used by 47.8% of centers. Fifty percent of individual respondents, including 58.6% of physicians, believed that redesign of the duodenoscope is the best long-term reprocessing solution. The majority (55.1%) identified efficacy to be the single most important factor in selecting a reprocessing technique.

CONCLUSIONS

Although most endoscopy centers have implemented enhanced duodenoscope reprocessing techniques, there is a large variation in practice. Most providers believe that duodenoscope redesign and identifying reprocessing techniques with maximal efficacy are the long-term priorities. Improved adherence to forced-air drying in duodenoscope reprocessing is needed.

Potential testing of reprocessing procedures by real-time polymerase chain reaction: A multicenter study of colonoscopy devices

BACKGROUND

Reprocessing of endoscopes is key to preventing cross-infection after colonoscopy. Culture-based methods are recommended for monitoring, but alternative and rapid approaches are needed to improve surveillance and reduce turnover times. A molecular strategy based on detection of residual traces from gut microbiota was developed and tested using a multicenter survey.

METHODS

A simplified sampling and DNA extraction protocol using nylon-tipped flocked swabs was optimized. A multiplex real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test was developed that targeted 6 bacteria genes that were amplified in 3 mixes. The method was validated by interlaboratory tests involving 5 reference laboratories. Colonoscopy devices (n = 111) were sampled in 10 Italian hospitals. Culture-based microbiology and metagenomic tests were performed to verify PCR data.

RESULTS

The sampling method was easily applied in all 10 endoscopy units and the optimized DNA extraction and amplification protocol was successfully performed by all of the involved laboratories. This PCR-based method allowed identification of both contaminated (n = 59) and fully reprocessed endoscopes (n = 52) with high sensibility (98%) and specificity (98%), within 3-4 hours, in contrast to the 24-72 hours needed for a classic microbiology test. Results were confirmed by next-generation sequencing and classic microbiology.

CONCLUSIONS

A novel approach for monitoring reprocessing of colonoscopy devices was developed and successfully applied in a multicenter survey. The general principle of tracing biological fluids through microflora DNA amplification was successfully applied and may represent a promising approach for hospital hygiene.

Outbreaks associated with duodenoscopes: new challenges and controversies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Recent outbreaks of carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae related to duodenoscopes in the United States and Europe have gained international attention and resulted in new regulations, especially in the United States, affecting healthcare facilities. In this review, we summarize findings from recent duodenoscope-related outbreaks, highlight what is known about the risk of transmission from these devices and discuss controversies about current recommendations to prevent transmission.

RECENT FINDINGS

Between 2013 and 2015, several US and European healthcare facilities reported outbreaks of carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae associated with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures. Unlike prior outbreaks (attributed to lapses in cleaning and reprocessing), the recent outbreaks occurred in spite of adherence to current reprocessing guidelines. Factors associated with infection transmission include a low margin of safety for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures and complex design features of duodenoscopes. Outbreaks were halted with enhanced cleaning and surveillance measures or by adopting gas sterilization methods. New guidance from manufacturers and federal agencies has been issued as a result of these recent outbreaks; however, concerns remain that the new measures may not eliminate risks to patients.

SUMMARY

Recent duodenoscope-related outbreaks have highlighted the need for a reassessment of current guidelines for endoscope reprocessing and for new design of duodenoscope components. Although we summarize the US experience, this review has global implications for the safe cleaning and disinfection of these instruments.

Morphological bactericidal fast-acting effects of peracetic acid, a high-level disinfectant, against Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms in tubing

Background

The bactericidal effect of disinfectants against biofilms is essential to reduce potential endoscopy-related infections caused by contamination. Here, we investigated the bactericidal effect of a high-level disinfectant, peracetic acid (PAA), against Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm models in vitro.

Methods

S. aureus and P. aeruginosa biofilms were cultured at 35 °C for 7 days with catheter tubes. The following high-level disinfectants (HLDs) were tested: 0.3% PAA, 0.55% ortho-phthalaldehyde (OPA), and 2.0% alkaline-buffered glutaraldehyde (GA). Biofilms were exposed to these agents for 1–60 min and observed after 5 min and 30 min by transmission and scanning electron microscopy. A Student’s t test was performed to compare the exposure time required for bactericidal effectiveness of the disinfectants.

Results

PAA and GA were active within 1 min and 5 min, respectively, against S. aureus and P. aeruginosa biofilms. OPA took longer than 10 min and 30 min to act against S. aureus and P. aeruginosa biofilms, respectively (p < 0.01). Treatment with PAA elicited changes in cell shape after 5 min and structural damage after 30 min.

Conclusions

Amongst the HLDs investigated, PAA elicited the most rapid bactericidal effects against both biofilms. Additionally, treatment with PAA induced morphological alterations in the in vitro biofilm models, suggesting that PAA exerts fast-acting bactericidal effects against biofilms associated with endoscopy-related infections. These findings indicate that the exposure time for bactericidal effectiveness of HLDs for endoscope reprocessing in healthcare settings should be reconsidered.

Adenosine triphosphate bioluminescence for bacteriologic surveillance and reprocessing strategies for minimizing risk of infection transmission by duodenoscopes

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Recent outbreaks of duodenoscope-transmitted infections underscore the importance of adequate endoscope reprocessing. Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) bioluminescence testing allows rapid evaluation of endoscopes for bacteriologic/biologic residue. In this prospective study we evaluate the utility of ATP in bacteriologic surveillance and the effects of endoscopy staff education and dual cycles of cleaning and high-level disinfection (HLD) on endoscope reprocessing.

METHODS

ATP bioluminescence was measured after precleaning, manual cleaning, and HLD on rinsates from suction-biopsy channels of all endoscopes and elevator channels of duodenoscopes/linear echoendoscopes after use. ATP bioluminescence was remeasured in duodenoscopes (1) after re-education and competency testing of endoscopy staff and subsequently (2) after 2 cycles of precleaning and manual cleaning and single cycle of HLD or (3) after 2 cycles of precleaning, manual cleaning, and HLD.

RESULTS

The ideal ATP bioluminescence benchmark of <200 relative light units (RLUs) after manual cleaning was achieved from suction-biopsy channel rinsates of all endoscopes, but 9 of 10 duodenoscope elevator channel rinsates failed to meet this benchmark. Re-education reduced RLUs in duodenoscope elevator channel rinsates after precleaning (23,218.0 vs 1340.5 RLUs, P < .01) and HLD (177.0 vs 12.0 RLUs, P < .01). After 2 cycles of manual cleaning/HLD, duodenoscope elevator channel RLUs achieved levels similar to sterile water, with corresponding negative cultures.

CONCLUSIONS

ATP testing offers a rapid, inexpensive alternative for detection of endoscope microbial residue. Re-education of endoscopy staff and 2 cycles of cleaning and HLD decreased elevator channel RLUs to levels similar to sterile water and may therefore minimize the risk of transmission of infections by duodenoscopes.

Adenosine Triphosphate Quantification Correlates Poorly with Microbial Contamination of Duodenoscopes

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to quantify the correlation between adenosine triphosphate (ATP) measurements and bacterial cultures from duodenoscopes for evaluation of contamination following high-level disinfection. DESIGN Duodenoscopes used for any intended endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedure were included. Microbiologic and ATP data were collected concomitantly and in the same manner from ERCP duodenoscopes. SETTING A high-volume endoscopy unit at a tertiary referral acute-care facility. METHODS Duodenoscopes were sampled for ATP and bacterial contamination in a contemporaneous and highly standardized fashion using a "flush-brush-flush" method for the working channel (WC) and a dry flocked swab for the elevator mechanism (EM). Specimens were processed for any aerobic bacterial growth (colony-forming units, CFU). Growth of CFU>0 and ATP relative light unit (RLU)>0 was considered a contaminated result. Frequency of discord between among WC and EM measurements were calculated using 2×2 contingency tables. The Spearman correlation coefficient was used to calculate the relatedness of bacterial contamination and ATP as continuous measurements. RESULTS The Spearman correlation coefficient did not demonstrate significant relatedness between ATP and CFU for either a WC or EM site. Among 390 duodenoscope sampling events, ATP and CFU assessments of contamination were discordant in 82 of 390 WC measurements (21%) and 331 of 390 of EM measurements (84.9%). The EM was frequently and markedly positive by ATP measurement. CONCLUSION ATP measurements correlate poorly with a microbiologic standard assessing duodenoscope contamination, particularly for EM sampling. ATP may reflect biological material other than nonviable aerobic bacteria and may not serve as an adequate marker of bacterial contamination. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:678-684.

Association Between Storage Interval and Contamination of Reprocessed Flexible Endoscopes in a Pediatric Gastrointestinal Procedural Unit

OBJECTIVE

The maximum safe storage interval after endoscope reprocessing remains unknown. We assessed the association between storage interval and endoscope contamination to evaluate the need for scope reprocessing prior to use.

METHODS

We conducted a study in 2 phases. In phase 1, we cultured 9 gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopes that had been stored for at least 7 days since reprocessing. Each scope was cultured in 3 places: external surfaces of hand piece, insertion tube, and internal channels. In phase 2, after reprocessing these scopes, we hung and cultured them prospectively in a similar fashion at 1-, 2-, 4-, 6-, and 8-week intervals without patient use. We defined clinically relevant contamination as >100 colony-forming units per milliliter (CFU/mL).

RESULTS

In phase 1, median hang time was 69 days (range, 8–555 days). Considering the 27 total cultures, 3 of 27 GI endoscopes (11.1%) had positive cultures, all with nonpathogenic skin flora at ≤100 CFU/mL. Median hang time was not statistically different between scopes with positive and negative cultures (P=.82). In phase 2, 7 of 131 prospective cultures (5.3%) from 6 of 9 GI endoscopes at varying storage intervals were positive, all at ≤100 CFU/mL. At 56 days after reprocessing (the longest storage interval studied), 1 of 24 cultures (4.2%) was positive (100 CFU/mL ofBacillusspecies from external biopsy/suction ports).

CONCLUSIONS

No endoscopes demonstrated clinically relevant contamination at hang times ranging from 7 to 555 days, and most scopes remained uncontaminated up to 56 days after reprocessing. Our data suggest that properly cleaned and disinfected GI endoscopes could be stored safely for longer intervals than currently recommended.

Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol.2017;38:131–135

Infectious complications in gastrointestinal endoscopy and their prevention

Gastrointestinal endoscopes are medical devices that have been associated with outbreaks of health care-associated infections. Because of the severity and limited treatment options of infections caused by multidrug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, considerable attention has been paid to detection and prevention of these post-endoscopic outbreaks. Endoscope reprocessing involves cleaning, high-level disinfection/sterilization followed by rinsing and drying before storage. Failure of the decontamination process implies the risk of settlement of biofilm producing species in endoscope channels. This review covers the infectious complications in gastrointestinal endoscopy and their prevention and highlights the problem of infection risk associated with different steps of endoscope reprocessing.

Disinfection and Sterilization in Health Care Facilities: An Overview and Current Issues

When properly used, disinfection and sterilization can ensure the safe use of invasive and noninvasive medical devices. The method of disinfection and sterilization depends on the intended use of the medical device: critical items (contact sterile tissue) must be sterilized before use; semicritical items (contact mucous membranes or nonintact skin) must be high-level disinfected; and noncritical items (contact intact skin) should receive low-level disinfection. Cleaning should always precede high-level disinfection and sterilization. Current disinfection and sterilization guidelines must be strictly followed.

Surveillance of guideline practices for duodenoscope and linear echoendoscope reprocessing in a large healthcare system

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

To assess the adequacy of currently recommended duodenoscope and linear echoendoscope (DLE) automatic endoscope reprocessing (AER) and high-level disinfection (HLD), we collected daily post-reprocessing surveillance cultures of 106 DLEs in 21 Providence and Affiliate Hospitals.

METHODS

Daily qualitative surveillance of dried, post-HLD DLEs was conducted for a minimum of 30 days at each facility. Positivity rates for any microbial growth and growth of high-concern pathogens were reported. Potential effects of DLE manufacturer, age, and AER processor on culture-positivity rate were assessed.

RESULTS

Microbial growth was recovered from 201 of 4032 specimens (5%) or 189 of 2238 encounters (8.4%), including 23 specimens (.6%) or 21 encounters (.9%) for a high-concern pathogen. Wide variations in culture-positivity rate were observed across facilities. No striking difference in culture-positivity rate was seen among 8 DLE models, 3 DLE manufacturers, DLE age, manual or bedside cleanser, or automatic flushing system use. However, there was suggestive evidence that Custom Ultrasonics AER (Warminster, Pa, USA) had a lower culture-positivity rate than Medivators AER (Cantel Medical Corp., Little Falls, NJ, USA) for high-concern pathogen growth (0/1079 vs 21/2735 specimens or 0/547 vs 20/1582 encounters). Two endoscopes grew intestinal flora on several occasions despite multiple HLD. No multidrug-resistant organism was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

In this multicenter DLE surveillance study, microbial growth was recovered in 5.0% of specimens (8.4% of encounters), with most being environmental microbes. Enteric bacterial flora was recovered in .6% of specimens (.9% of encounters), despite compliance with 2014 U.S. guidelines and manufacturers' recommendations for cleaning and HLD process. The observed better performance of Custom Ultrasonics AER deserves further investigation.

Assessment of Endoscope Reprocessing Using Peer-to-Peer Assessment Through a Clinical Community

BACKGROUND

Cleaning, disinfection, and sterilization (CDS) of medical devices are intended to help prevent health care-associated infections (HAIs), a significant cause of mortality and morbidity. In February 2013 the Johns Hopkins Health System (JHHS; Baltimore) formed a clinical community of experts and stakeholders--physicians, nurses, administrators, infection control practitioners, risk managers, and regulatory staff--to assess CDS practices across facilities.

METHODS

A survey administered to leadership indicated endoscopy areas of risk. An endoscopy tracer tool with eight major performance areas was then created from best practices identified in the literature, regulatory requirements, and national guidelines for endoscope reprocessing. Peer-to-peer (P2P) assessments using the tracer tool were performed at five Johns Hopkins Medicine gastrointestinal endoscopy sites (three hospital-based; two freestanding ambulatory surgery centers) selected on the basis of their large procedural volumes and their operational ability to participate in further areas of the project.

RESULTS

The P2P assessments revealed that 20 (42%) of the 48 possible criteria had a noted deficiency at one or more sites. Three of the eight major performance areas on the tracer tool had no deficiencies identified at any of the five sites. Deficiencies were mostly minor process improvements, and only one critical process required immediate alteration of practice. Because the assessments were nonpunitive, horizontal communication enabled feedback on process improvements, alternate methods to achieve outcomes, and solutions to common issues.

CONCLUSIONS

A nonpunitive and collaborative peer methodology was successful in capturing and sharing best practices in endoscopy areas. Successful replication in other clinical areas can be an effective way to assess CDS processes and facilitate dialogue for improvements.

Developing the Pediatric Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit: A Clinical Report by the Endoscopy and Procedures Committee

There is significant variability in the design and management of pediatric endoscopy units. Although there is information on adult endoscopy units, little guidance is available to the pediatric endoscopy practitioner. The purpose of this clinical report, prepared by the NASPGHAN Endoscopy and Procedures Committee, is to review the important considerations for setting up an endoscopy unit for children. A systematic review of the literature was undertaken in the preparation of this report regarding the design, management, needed equipment, motility setup, billing and coding, and pediatric specific topics.

NASPGHAN Clinical Report: Surveillance, Diagnosis, and Prevention of Infectious Diseases in Pediatric Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease Receiving Tumor Necrosis Factor-α Inhibitors

Children and adolescents with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) receiving therapy with tumor necrosis factor α inhibitors (anti-TNFα) pose a unique challenge to health care providers in regard to the associated risk of infection. Published experience in adult populations with distinct autoinflammatory and autoimmune diseases treated with anti-TNFα therapies demonstrates an increased risk of serious infections with intracellular bacteria, mycobacteria, fungi, and some viruses; however, there is a paucity of robust pediatric data. With a rising incidence of pediatric IBD and increasing use of biologic therapies, heightened knowledge and awareness of infections in this population is important for primary care pediatricians, pediatric gastroenterologists, and infectious disease (ID) physicians. This clinical report is the result of a consensus review performed by pediatric ID and gastroenterology physicians detailing relevant published literature regarding infections in pediatric patients with IBD receiving anti-TNFα therapies. The objective of this document is to provide comprehensive information for prevention, surveillance, and diagnosis of infections based on current knowledge, until additional pediatric data are available to inform evidence-based recommendations.

Practical toolkit for monitoring endoscope reprocessing effectiveness: Identification of viable bacteria on gastroscopes, colonoscopes, and bronchoscopes

BACKGROUND

Experts have recommended microbiologic surveillance by external reference laboratories for certain flexible endoscopes. There is currently insufficient evidence on the feasibility and utility of cultures. Researchers evaluated a preassembled toolkit for collecting and processing samples from endoscopes.

METHODS

A pilot study was performed in a large academic medical center. A toolkit was used to aseptically sample biopsy ports and suction/biopsy channels of 5 gastroscopes, 5 colonoscopes, and 5 bronchoscopes after full reprocessing. Blinded specimens were packaged and transported on icepacks to a reference laboratory that used standard methodologies for microbial cultures.

RESULTS

The laboratory detected bacteria in samples from 60% of patient-ready endoscopes, including gram-positive and gram-negative species. Viable microbes (<10 CFU) were recovered from 2 gastroscopes, 3 colonoscopes, and 4 bronchoscopes. Stenotrophomonas maltophilia and Delftia acidovorans were recovered from all 3 endoscope types. Subsequent environmental testing detected S maltophilia in the reprocessing rinse water.

CONCLUSIONS

A preassembled toolkit facilitated the aseptic collection of samples for culturing by a reference laboratory that detected viable microbes on fully reprocessed endoscopes. Speciation allowed identification of potential pathogens and a possible common contamination source, demonstrating that microbial cultures may have value even when colony counts are low.

Outbreaks of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae infections associated with duodenoscopes: What can we do to prevent infections?

Recent outbreaks with carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) in patients who have undergone endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) have raised concerns of whether current endoscope reprocessing guidelines are adequate to ensure a patient-safe endoscope. Unlike previous outbreaks, these CRE outbreaks occurred even though manufacturer's instructions and professional guidelines were followed correctly. This article reviews why outbreaks associated with endoscopes continue to occur; what alternatives exist that might improve the margin of safety associated with duodenoscope reprocessing; and how to prevent future outbreaks associated with ERCP procedures. The advantages and disadvantages for the proposed enhancements for reprocessing duodenoscopes are reviewed as well as future strategies to prevent GI endoscope-related outbreaks.

Reprocessing semicritical items: Current issues and new technologies

Semicritical medical devices are defined as items that come into contact with mucous membranes or nonintact skin (eg, gastrointestinal endoscopes, endocavitary probes). Such medical devices minimally require high-level disinfection. Because many of these items are temperature sensitive, low-temperature chemical methods are usually used rather than steam sterilization. Strict adherence to current guidelines is required because more outbreaks have been linked to inadequately cleaned or disinfected endoscopes and other semicritical items undergoing high-level disinfection than any other reusable medical device.

Comparison of the efficacy of disinfectants in automated endoscope reprocessors for colonoscopes: tertiary amine compound (Sencron2®) versus ortho-phthalaldehyde (Cidex®OPA)

Background/Aims

To prevent the transmission of pathogens by endoscopes, following established reprocessing guidelines is critical. An ideal reprocessing step is simple, fast, and inexpensive. Here, we evaluated and compared the efficacy and safety of two disinfectants, a tertiary amine compound (TAC) and ortho-phthalaldehyde (OPA).

Methods

A total of 100 colonoscopes were randomly reprocessed using two same automated endoscope reprocessors, according to disinfectant. The exposure time was 10 minutes for 0.55% OPA (Cidex® OPA, Johnson & Johnson) and 5 minutes for 4% TAC (Sencron2®, Bab Gencel Pharma & Chemical Ind. Co.). Three culture samples were obtained from each colonoscope after reprocessing.

Results

A total of nine samples were positive among the 300 culture samples. The positive culture rate was not statistically different between the two groups (4% for OPA and 2% for TAC, P=0.501). There were no incidents related to safety during the study period.

Conclusions

TAC was non-inferior in terms of reprocessing efficacy to OPA and was safe to use. Therefore, TAC seems to be a good alternative disinfectant with a relatively short exposure time and is also less expensive than OPA.

Setting up the Pediatric Endoscopy Unit

As pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy continues to develop and evolve, pediatric gastroenterologists are more frequently called on to develop and direct a pediatric endoscopy unit. Lack of published literature and focused training in fellowship can render decision making about design, capacity, operation, equipment purchasing, and staffing challenging. To help guide management decisions, we distributed a short survey to 18 pediatric gastroenterology centers throughout the United States and Canada. This article provides practical guidance by summarizing available expert opinions on the topic of setting up a pediatric endoscopy unit.

Persistent contamination on colonoscopes and gastroscopes detected by biologic cultures and rapid indicators despite reprocessing performed in accordance with guidelines

BACKGROUND

Pathogens have been transmitted via flexible endoscopes that were reportedly reprocessed in accordance with guidelines.

METHODS

Researchers observed reprocessing activities to ensure guideline compliance in a large gastrointestinal endoscopy unit. Contamination was assessed immediately after bedside cleaning, manual cleaning, high-level disinfection, and overnight storage via visual inspection, aerobic cultures, and tests for adenosine triphosphate (ATP), protein, carbohydrate, and hemoglobin.

RESULTS

All colonoscopes and gastroscopes were reprocessed in accordance with guidelines during the study. Researchers collected and tested samples during 60 encounters with 15 endoscopes. Viable microbes were recovered from bedside-cleaned (92%), manually cleaned (46%), high-level disinfected (64%), and stored (9%) endoscopes. Rapid indicator tests detected contamination (protein, carbohydrate, hemoglobin, or ATP) above benchmarks on bedside-cleaned (100%), manually cleaned (92%), high-level disinfected (73%), and stored (82%) endoscopes. Visible residue was never observed on endoscopes, but it was often seen on materials used to sample endoscopes. Seven endoscopes underwent additional reprocessing in response to positive rapid indicators. Control endoscope channels were free of biologic residue and viable microbes.

CONCLUSION

Despite reprocessing in accordance with US guidelines, viable microbes and biologic debris persisted on clinically used gastrointestinal endoscopes, suggesting current reprocessing guidelines are not sufficient to ensure successful decontamination.

The Use of Channel-Purge Storage for Gastrointestinal Endoscopes Reduces Microbial Contamination

Storage cabinets for heat-sensitive endoscopes (SCHEs) are designed to store gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopes in a clean, dry and well-ventilated cupboard to prevent microbiological proliferation. The use of SCHEs in a GI endoscopy unit has significally reduced the rate of contaminated endoscopes (13.0% vs 45.0%, P<.001).

Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol. 2015;36(9):1100–1102

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.

The use of rapid indicators for the detection of organic residues on clinically used gastrointestinal endoscopes with and without visually apparent debris

BACKGROUND

Outbreaks of multidrug-resistant organisms have been linked to endoscope reprocessing lapses. Meticulous manual cleaning before high-level disinfection (HLD) is essential in reducing residual contamination that can interfere with HLD. Current reprocessing guidelines state that visual inspection is sufficient to confirm adequate cleaning.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to evaluate contamination of clinically used endoscopes, using visual inspection and rapid indicator tests before and after manual cleaning. A second objective was to determine which rapid indicator instruments and methods could be used for quality improvement initiatives in endoscope reprocessing.

DESIGN

Clinical use study of endoscope reprocessing effectiveness.

SETTING

Tertiary care teaching hospital with an inpatient endoscopy center.

METHODS

Researchers sampled endoscopes used for gastrointestinal procedures before and after manual cleaning. The external surfaces and 1 channel of each endoscope were visually inspected and tested with rapid indicators to measure protein, blood, and adenosine triphosphate (ATP) contamination levels.

RESULTS

Multiple components were sampled during 37 encounters with 12 unique endoscopes. All bedside-cleaned endoscopes had high levels of ATP and detectable blood or protein, whether or not any residue was visible. Although there was no visible residue on any endoscopes after manual cleaning, 82% had at least 1 positive rapid indicator test.

CONCLUSIONS

Relying solely on visual inspection of endoscopes prior to HLD is insufficient to ensure reprocessing effectiveness. For quality assurance initiatives, tests of different endoscope components using more than 1 indicator may be necessary. Additional research is needed to validate specific monitoring protocols.

How and how much do endoscopy professionals protect themselves against infection?

PURPOSE

It is aimed to identify, the educations given to professionals working in endoscopy units against infectious risks during the endoscopic procedures and awareness of professionals for protection from these infections.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

After obtaining the required ethic committee permissions, 50 physicians and 34 nurses, working in the endoscopy units of three university and one training and research hospital, were included in this study. A survey with 37 questions, prepared in accordance with the literature was applied to the participating endoscopist (E) and endoscopy nurses (EN). SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences) for Windows 16.0 program was used for statistical evaluation of the obtained data.

FINDINGS

Forty-four (52%) of the subjects were female and 40 (48%) were male, and their average age was 39 (±6.82) years. When trainings on endoscopy of E and EN were evaluated, it was found that 44% (n = 37) of them precise an endoscopy course on endoscopy training, %56 (n = 47) received no training and they learned through master/apprentice system. Furthermore, it was found that 65% (n = 55) of the E and EN received no training on universal precautions procedures, infection and risks endoscopic procedures and only 35% (n = 29) received a specific course or on-the-job training. Nevertheless, rates of wearing protective gowns and gloves were high both for E and EN; but rate of other precautions such as wearing mask, using special gloves and face shields were found to be low. It was found that the rate of "receiving an education on endoscopy" for E was significantly higher than that of EN (p < 0001). The rate of reporting emergency situations such as contact with blood/body fluids or percutaneous injuries and the rate of taking universal precautions of EN who received an education, was statistically higher than that of EN who did not (p < 0.001 and p < 0008).

RESULTS

As a result of our investigation, it was determined that the endoscopists and endoscopy nurses did not effectively apply the universal precautions against infectious risks faced during endoscopic procedures and did not receive the basic trainings. The professionals who received training were more responsive for this issue. According to our results, organizing continuous training programs through endoscopy professionals is necessary to provide the universal precautions of avoiding exposure to blood and body fluids.

Reported gastrointestinal endoscope reprocessing lapses: the tip of the iceberg

BACKGROUND

Most cases of microbial transmission to patients via contaminated endoscopes have resulted from nonadherence to reprocessing guidelines. We evaluated the occurrence, features, and implications of reprocessing lapses to gauge the nature and breadth of the problem in the context of widely available and accepted practice guidelines.

METHODS

We examined peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed literature to identify lapses reported in North America during 2005 to 2012 resulting in patient exposure to potentially contaminated gastrointestinal endoscopes.

RESULTS

Lapses occurred in various types of facilities and involved errors in all major steps of reprocessing. Each lapse continued for several months or years until the problem was discovered except for one that was described as a single incident. There were significant implications for patients, including notification and testing, microbial transmission, and increased morbidity and mortality. Only 1 reprocessing lapse was found in a peer-reviewed journal article, and other incidents were reported in governmental reports, legal documents, conference abstracts, and media reports.

CONCLUSION

Reprocessing lapses are an ongoing and widespread problem despite the existence of guidelines. Lack of publication in peer-reviewed literature contributes to the perception that lapses are rare and inconsequential. Reporting requirements and epidemiologic investigations are needed to develop better evidence-based policies and practices.

A microbiological evaluation of level of disinfection for flexible cystoscopes protected by disposable endosheaths

BACKGROUND

Flexible cystoscopy is used in urological outpatient departments for diagnostic cystoscopy of bladder cancer and requires a high-level disinfection between each patient. The purpose of this study was to make a microbiological post disinfection efficacy assessment of flexible cystoscopes (FC) using disposable sterile endosheaths.

METHODS

One hundred endosheaths underwent a leak-test for barrier integrity after cystoscopy. Microbiological samples from these cystoscopies were obtained; after removal of the endosheath, and after cleaning the scope with a detergent cloth, rinsing with tap water followed by 70% ethanol disinfection and subsequent drying. The number of colony forming units (cfu) from the samples was counted after 72 hours and then divided in three categories, Clean FC (<5 cfu/sample), Critical FC (5-50 cfu/sample) and High-risk FC (>50 cfu/sample). The result was compared with data of 10 years continuous control sampling recorded in the Copenhagen Clean-Endoscope Quality Control Database (CCQCD) and analyzed with a Chi-square test for homogeneity.

RESULTS

All 100 endosheaths passed the leak-test. All samples showed a Clean FC and low means of cfu. A query to the CCQCD, showed that 99.8% (1264/1267) of all FC with a built-in work-channel reprocessed in a WD were clean before use.

CONCLUSION

The reprocessing of FC using endosheaths, as preformed in this study, provides a patient-ready procedure. The results display a reprocessing procedure with low risk of pathogen transmission, high patient safety and a valid alternative to the recommended high-level disinfection procedure of FC. However, the general impression was that sheaths slightly reduced vision and resulted in some patient discomfort.

Transmission of infection by flexible gastrointestinal endoscopy and bronchoscopy

Flexible endoscopy is a widely used diagnostic and therapeutic procedure. Contaminated endoscopes are the medical devices frequently associated with outbreaks of health care-associated infections. Accurate reprocessing of flexible endoscopes involves cleaning and high-level disinfection followed by rinsing and drying before storage. Most contemporary flexible endoscopes cannot be heat sterilized and are designed with multiple channels, which are difficult to clean and disinfect. The ability of bacteria to form biofilms on the inner channel surfaces can contribute to failure of the decontamination process. Implementation of microbiological surveillance of endoscope reprocessing is appropriate to detect early colonization and biofilm formation in the endoscope and to prevent contamination and infection in patients after endoscopic procedures. This review presents an overview of the infections and cross-contaminations related to flexible gastrointestinal endoscopy and bronchoscopy and illustrates the impact of biofilm on endoscope reprocessing and postendoscopic infection.

Assessing the risk of disease transmission to patients when there is a failure to follow recommended disinfection and sterilization guidelines

Medical devices that enter body tissues should be sterile, whereas devices that contact mucous membranes should be high-level disinfected between patients. Failure to ensure proper cleaning and sterilization or disinfection may lead to patient-to-patient transmission of pathogens. This paper describes a protocol that can guide an institution in managing potential disinfection and sterilization failures.

New developments in reprocessing semicritical items

Semicritical medical devices are defined as items that come into contact with mucous membranes or nonintact skin (eg, gastrointestinal endoscopes). Such medical devices require minimally high-level disinfection. Because many of these items are temperature sensitive, low-temperature chemical methods must be used rather than steam sterilization. Strict adherence to current guidelines is required because more outbreaks have been linked to inadequately cleaned or disinfected endoscopes undergoing high-level disinfection than any other medical device.