Sterile Reverse Osmosis Water Combined with Friction Are Optimal for Channel and Lever Cavity Sample Collection of Flexible Duodenoscopes

Endoscope sampling and culturing methods

BACKGROUND

Contamination rates reported in the literature for patient-ready flexible endoscopes vary from 0.4% to 49%. Unfortunately, the comparison and interpretation of these results is almost impossible since several factors including sampling and culturing methods, target levels for contamination, or definition of indicator micro-organisms vary widely from one study to the other.

AIM

To compare the efficacy of six duodenoscope sampling and culturing methods by means of extraction efficacy comparison, while at the same time identifying key parameters that provide optimal microbial recovery.

METHODS

The duodenoscope sample extraction efficacy of each method was assessed using the repetitive recovery method described in ISO 11737-1: 2018.

FINDINGS

Mean overall bioburden extraction efficacy varied from 1% for the Australian method to 39% for the French one. The lowest endoscope sample extraction efficacy was associated with the absence of any neutralizer, friction, or tensioactive agent, and when only a small portion of the sampling solution collected was inoculated on to culture media. The efficacy of the sampling and culturing methods also varied according to the nature of micro-organisms present in the endoscope, and the time between sampling and culturing.

CONCLUSION

This study supports the need for a harmonized and standardized sampling and culturing method for flexible endoscopes.

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.

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.

Comparison of channel sampling methods and brush heads in surveillance culture of endoscope reprocessing: A propensity score matching and paired study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopy-related infections have caused multiple outbreaks. The importance of surveillance culture is gradually recognized, but sampling techniques are not consistent in many guidelines. It is unclear whether the Flush-Brush-Flush sampling method (FBFSM) is more sensitive than the conventional flush sampling method (CFSM) and whether different sampling brushes have different effects.

METHODS

The propensity score matching method was done with two matching ways, 1:1 nearest neighbor propensity score matching and full matching was used to analyze the surveillance culture data collected by FBFSM and CFSM. We fit a confounder-adjusted multiple generalized linear logistic regression model to estimate the marginal odds ratio (OR). A paired study was applied to compare the sampling effect of polyurethane foam (PU) head brush and polyamide (PA) head brush.

RESULT

From 2016 to 2020, 316 reprocessed endoscope samples were collected from all 59 endoscopy centers in Tianjin. About 279 (88.3%) reprocessed endoscopes met the threshold of Chinese national standards (<20 CFU/Channel). The qualified rate of reprocessed endoscopes sampling by CFSM (91.8%) and FBFSM (81.6%) was statistically different (p < 0.05). The adjusted OR by full matching for FBFSM was 7.98 (95% confidence interval: 3.35-21.78). Forty one pairs of colonoscopes, after reprocessing from 27 centers, were tested by PA and PU brushes, and no difference was found in microbial recovery.

CONCLUSION

FBFSM was confirmed to be a more sensitive sampling technique. PU and PA brushes had no significant difference in sampling effect.

Introduction to Transmission of Infection: Potential Agents Transmitted by Endoscopy

Pathogen contamination of endoscopes depends on pathogen factors, surface factors, and environmental conditions. The most common pathogens associated with transmission and infections associated with gastrointestinal endoscope contamination are Klebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Biofilm production together with disruption to device surfaces play an outsized role in the risk of contamination. Sampling schemes are limited by these factors, and further developments are needed to improve the accuracy of sampling.

Turbulent fluid flow is a novel closed-system sample extraction method for flexible endoscope channels of various inner diameters

OVERVIEW

Effective sample extraction from endoscope channels is crucial for monitoring manual cleaning adequacy as well as for ensuring optimal sensitivity for culture after disinfection. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of Turbulent Fluid Flow (TFF) to Flush (F) or Flush-Brush-Flush (FBF) methods.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterococcus faecalis in artificial test soil-2015 (ATS2015) were used as bacterial markers while protein and carbohydrate were the organic markers for biofilm formed inside 3.2-mm and 1.37-mm polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) channels. TFF was generated using compressed air and sterile water to provide friction for sample extraction. Extraction for biofilm coated PTFE channels as well as for colonoscope channels perfused with ATS2015 containing 108 CFU/mL P. aeruginosa, E. faecalis and Candida albicans was determined using TFF compared to FBF and F.

RESULTS

The extraction ratio for P. aeruginosa and E. faecalis from biofilm extracted by TFF compared to the positive control was significantly better than F for 1.37-mm channels (≥0.94 for both bacteria by TFF versus 0.69 to 0.72 by F for P. aeruginosa and E. faecalis, respectively) but not significantly different between TFF and FBF for 3.2-mm channels. F was also ineffective for extraction of protein and carbohydrate from 1.37-mm channels. Extraction efficacy by TFF from inoculated colonoscope channels was >98% for all test markers.

CONCLUSIONS

The novel TFF method for extraction of samples from colonoscope channels is a more effective method than the existing FBF and F methods.

Elevating the standard of endoscope processing: Terminal sterilization of duodenoscopes using a hydrogen peroxide-ozone sterilizer

BACKGROUND

The health care community is increasingly aware of the processing challenges and infection risks associated with duodenoscopes owing to published reports of outbreaks and regulatory recalls. Studies have demonstrated that the current practices are inadequate for consistently producing patient-ready endoscopes. Alternatively, terminal sterilization would offer a greater margin of safety and potentially reduce the risk of patient infection. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a hydrogen peroxide-ozone sterilizer with regulatory clearance for terminal sterilization of duodenoscopes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Validation studies were performed under laboratory simulated-use and clinical in-use conditions. The overkill method study demonstrated a reduction of at least 6-log of Geobacillus stearothermophilus spores at half-cycle, providing a sterility assurance level of 10^-6. In addition, the sterilizer achieved a 6-log reduction of G stearothermophilus in the presence of inorganic and organic soils in a simulated-use study. The clinical in-use study confirmed that the sterilizer achieved sterilization of patient-soiled duodenoscopes under actual use conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Simulated-use and clinical in-use studies demonstrated the efficacy of a hydrogen peroxide-ozone sterilizer for terminal sterilization of duodenoscopes. This offers health care facilities a viable alternative for duodenoscope processing to enhance patient safety as part of a comprehensive infection control strategy.

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

Background and study aims  Prevention of infection transmission from contaminated endoscopes would benefit from a rapid test that could detect low levels of viable bacteria after high level disinfection. The aim of this study was to evaluate the rapid NOW! (RN) test's ability to detect endoscope contamination. Materials and methods  The RN test kit and the accompanying fluorometer were evaluated. The manufacturer states that a fluorometer signal > 300 units is indicative of viable Gram-negative bacteria. Suspension testing of varying concentrations of Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterococcus faecalis were used to determine the RN test limit of detection. Simulated-use testing was done using a duodenoscope inoculated with 10 % blood containing approximately 35 CFU E. coli per channel. Samples were extracted from the duodenoscope instrument channel and tested using the manufacturer's instructions. Results  The RN test could consistently detect 10 CFU of E. coli and P. aeruginosa (fluorescent signal of 9,000 to 11,000 units) but not E. faecalis. Sensitivity and specificity for Gram-negative bacteria were 93 % and 90 %, respectively, using all of the suspensions in the study. Extraction of E. coli from an inoculated duodenoscope instrument channel repeatedly provided a positive signal (i. e. > 2,000 units). Conclusions  The RN test can reliably detect low levels of Gram-negative bacteria in suspension as well as from samples extracted from endoscope channels. These preliminary findings are encouraging but further assessment of extraction efficacy, impact of organic residuals and clinical workflow are still needed.