Is Reprocessing After Disuse a Safety Procedure for Bronchoscopy?: A Cross-sectional Study in a Teaching Hospital in Rome

Systematic Review and Cost-Consequence Analysis of Ambu aScope 5 Broncho Compared with Reusable Flexible Bronchoscopes: Insights from Two US University Hospitals and an Academic Institution

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review, meta-analysis and cost-consequence analysis of the single-use bronchoscope, Ambu aScope^TM 5 Broncho, in relation to reusable flexible bronchoscopes (RFB) available within three high procedure volume university hospitals and academic institutions in the USA.

METHODS

The primary outcome was incremental cost and the secondary outcome was incremental cross-infection risk of use for both the single-use flexible bronchoscope (SUFB) and RFBs. Cost estimates included capital, repair, and reprocessing costs derived from a prospective observational micro-costing approach within three large university hospitals and academic institutions. All costs were valued in 2022 US dollars (USD). A meta-analysis based on literature covering cross-contamination and infection from 2010 to 2020 investigated cross-infection risk following bronchoscopy procedures with RFBs. Capital costs were discounted at 3% over 5-8 years. All parameters were evaluated using both univariate deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

In high-volume hospitals, RFBs were cost minimizing compared to SUFBs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that RFBs were cost saving in 88% of iterations. Univariate analyses illustrated sensitivity of the base-case result to the procedure volume. Data from sensitivity analyses suggest that the two interventions are cost neutral at a break-even point of 756 procedures per year or 46 procedures per bronchoscope per year.

CONCLUSION

Assuming equivalent clinical performance, single-use flexible bronchoscopes are not cost minimizing when including the costs associated with cross-infection in high-volume US university hospitals and academic institutions. Overall, the benefits of conversion from RFBs to SUFBs are dependent on the annual procedure volume of individual hospitals, expected cross-infection risk, and purchase price of the aScope 5 Broncho.

Cross-contamination rate of reusable flexible bronchoscopes: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Background

Bronchoscopy is generally a safe and efficient procedure. However, the risk of cross-contamination with reusable flexible bronchoscopes (RFB) has been detected in several outbreaks worldwide.

Aim

To estimate the average cross-contamination rate of patient-ready RFBs based on available published data.

Methods

We performed a systematic literature review in PubMed and Embase to investigate the cross-contamination rate of RFB. Included studies identified indicator organisms or colony forming units (CFU) levels, and total number of samples >10. The Contamination threshold was defined according to the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Nurse and Associates (ESGE-ESGENA) guidelines. To calculate the total contamination rate, a random effects model was applied. Heterogeneity was analysed via a Q-test and illustrated in a forest plot. Publication bias was analysed via the Egger’s regression test and illustrated in a funnel plot.

Results

Eight studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The random effects model included 2169 samples and 149 events (positive tests). The total RFB cross-contamination rate was 8.69% ± 1.86 (standard division [SD]) (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.06–12.33%). The result showed significant heterogeneity of 90% and publication bias.

Discussion

Significant heterogeneity and publication bias is likely associated with varying methodology and aversion towards publishing negative findings, respectively. Based on the cross-contamination rate an infection control paradigm shift is needed to ensure patient safety. We recommend to follow the Spaulding classification and classify RFBs as critical items. Accordingly, infection control measures such as obligatory surveillance, and implementing single-use alternatives must be considered where feasible.

Both microbiological surveillance and audit of procedures improve reprocessing of flexible bronchoscopes and patient safety

BACKGROUND

Microbiological surveillance of bronchoscopes and automatic endoscope reprocessors (AERs)/washer disinfectors as a quality control measure is controversial. Experts also are divided on the infection risks associated with bronchoscopic procedures.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the impact of routine microbiological surveillance and audits of cleaning/disinfection practices on contamination rates of reprocessed bronchoscopes.

DESIGN

Audits were conducted of reprocessing procedures and microbiological surveillance on all flexible bronchoscopes used from January 2007 to June 2020 at a teaching hospital in France. Contamination rates per year were calculated and analyzed using a Poisson regression model. The risk factors for microbiological contamination were analyzed using a multivariable logistical regression model.

RESULTS

In total, 478 microbiological tests were conducted on 91 different bronchoscopes and 57 on AERs. The rate of bronchoscope contamination significantly decreased between 2007 and 2020, varying from 30.2 to 0% (P < .0001). Multivariate analysis confirmed that retesting after a previous contaminated test was significantly associated with higher risk of bronchoscope contamination (OR, 2.58; P = .015). This finding was explained by the persistence of microorganisms in bronchoscopes despite repeated disinfections. However, the risk of persistent contamination was not associated with the age of the bronchoscope.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results confirm that bronchoscopes can remain contaminated despite repeated reprocessing. Routine microbial testing of bronchoscopes for quality assurance and audit of decontamination and disinfection procedures can improve the reprocessing of bronchoscopes and minimize the rate of persistent contamination.

Guideline Implementation: Processing Flexible Endoscopes

The updated AORN "Guideline for processing flexible endoscopes" provides guidance to perioperative, endoscopy, and sterile processing personnel for processing all types of reusable flexible endoscopes and accessories in all procedural settings. This article focuses on key points of the guideline to help perioperative personnel safely and effectively process flexible endoscopes to prevent infection transmission. The key points address verification of manual cleaning, mechanical cleaning and processing, storage in a drying cabinet, determination of maximum storage time before reprocessing is needed, and considerations for implementing a microbiologic surveillance program. Perioperative RNs should review the complete guideline for additional information and for guidance when writing and updating policies and procedures.