Decontamination of laryngoscope blades: is our practice adequate?

Disinfection of Reusable Laryngoscopes: A Survey about the Clinical Practice in Spain

Airway device-associated infections resulting from the cross-contamination of reusable laryngoscopes are one of the main causes of healthcare-associated infections. Laryngoscope blades are highly contaminated with various pathogens, including Gram-negative bacilli, which can cause prolonged hospitalization, high morbidity and mortality risks, the development of antibiotic-resistant microorganisms, and significant costs. Despite the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Society of Anesthesiologists' recommendations, this national survey of 248 Spanish anesthesiologists showed that there is great variability in the processing of reusable laryngoscopes in Spain. Nearly a third of the respondents did not have an institutional disinfection protocol, and 45% of them did not know the disinfection procedure used. Good practices for the prevention and control of cross-contamination can be ensured through compliance with evidence-based guidelines, education of healthcare providers, and audits of clinical practices.

Bacterial Contamination and Disinfection Status of Laryngoscopes Stored in Emergency Crash Carts

Objectives

To identify bacterial contamination rates of laryngoscope blades and handles stored in emergency crash carts by hospital and area according to the frequency of intubation attempts.

Methods

One hundred forty-eight handles and 71 blades deemed ready for patient use from two tertiary hospitals were sampled with sterile swabs using a standardized rolling technique. Samples were considered negative (not contaminated) if no colonies were present on the blood agar plate after an 18-hour incubation period. Samples were stratified by hospital and according to the frequency of intubation attempts (10 attempts per year) using the χ²-test and Fisher exact test.

Results

One or more species of bacteria were isolated from 4 (5.6%) handle tops, 20 (28.2%) handles with knurled surfaces, and 27 (18.2%) blades. No significant differences were found in microbial contamination levels on the handle tops and blades between the two hospitals and two areas according to the frequency of intubation attempts. However, significant differences were found between the two hospitals and two areas in the level of microbial contamination on the handles with knurled surfaces (p<0.05).

Conclusions

Protocols and policies must be reviewed to standardize procedures to clean and disinfect laryngoscope blades and handles; handles should be re-designed to eliminate points of contact with the blade; and single-use, one-piece laryngoscopes should be introduced.

Comparison of efficacy and cost-effectiveness of 0.55% ortho-phthalaldehyde and 2% glutaraldehyde for disinfection of laryngoscopes: A prospective pilot study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The laryngoscope is a potential source of cross-infection as it involves contact with the mucous membrane, saliva and occasionally blood. This study compared efficacy and cost-effectiveness of two Centre for Disease Control approved agents for disinfection of laryngoscope blades.

METHODS

One hundred and sixty patients requiring laryngoscopy and intubation for general anaesthesia were randomly allocated into two groups. After tracheal intubation, used laryngoscope blades were cleaned with tap water. The blades were then immersed in either 2% w/v glutaraldehyde for a contact time of 20 min or 0.55% w/v ortho-phthalaldehyde (OPA) for 10 min. The handles were wiped with 0.5% w/v chlorhexidine wipes. Samples were collected using sterile cotton swabs from the tip, flange and light bulb area of the laryngoscope blade and one from the handle. They were cultured aerobically on blood and McConkey agar.

RESULTS

In 2% glutaraldehyde group, of 240 samples sent from the blades, 2 (0.8%) showed the growth of methicillin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococci (MRCONS) and Enterobacter. In OPA group, of 240 samples, 2 (0.8%) showed growth of MRCONS. Thus, 2% glutaraldehyde and 0.55% OPA were comparable in terms of efficacy of disinfection. Growth was seen on 4 out of 160 handles.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest OPA for high-level disinfection of laryngoscope blades as it is equally efficacious as compared to glutaraldehyde, with a shorter contact time and available as a ready to use formulation.

Disinfection of laryngoscopes: A survey of practice

Background and Aims:

The laryngoscope is a common piece of equipment used by anaesthesiologists. It has been identified as a potential source of cross infection. Although guidelines exist regarding appropriate disinfection practices, recent reviews suggest ineffectiveness of current methods of disinfection and poor compliance with the established protocols. We conducted a questionnaire-based survey to study the current disinfection practices being followed by a cross section of anaesthesiologists.

Methods:

A simple questionnaire containing 13 questions was distributed amongst anaesthesiologists in an anaesthesia conference. Data were analysed with percentage analysis.

Results:

Out of 250 delegates who attended the conference, 150 submitted the completed questionnaires. Residents constituted 41% and 46% were consultants. Eighteen (12%) used only tap water for cleaning and 132 (88%) used a chemical agent after rinsing with water. Out of 132, 76 (51%) used detergent/soap solution, 29 (19%) would wash and then soak in disinfectant or germicidal agents (glutaraldehyde, povidone iodine and chlorhexidine) and 18 (12%) would wipe the blade with an alcohol swab. With respect to disinfection of laryngoscope handles, 70% respondents said they used an alcohol swab, 18% did not use any method, 9% were not aware of the method being used, while 3% did not respond.

Conclusion:

Our results indicate wide variation in methods of decontamination of laryngoscopes. Awareness regarding laryngoscope as a potential source of infection was high. We need to standardise and implement guidelines on a national level and make available resources which will help to improve patient safety.

Laryngoscope decontamination techniques: A survey

Background and Aims:

India is a vast country with variable, nonuniform healthcare practices. A laryngoscope is an important tool during general anesthesia and resuscitation. The study aimed to determine the current practices of laryngoscope decontamination in India.

Material and Methods:

An online survey was conducted amongst 100 anesthesiologists to determine the common methods of laryngoscope decontamination adopted in their settings. The survey was done over 6 months after validating the questionnaire.

Results:

A total of 73 responses were received out of 100. The result of the survey revealed that there is no uniform technique of laryngoscope decontamination. There is marked variability in techniques followed not only among different institutions, but also within the same institution.

Conclusion:

There are no fixed protocols adopted for laryngoscope decontamination. Thus, there is a need to develop definitive guidelines on this subject, which can be implemented in India.

Laryngoscopes: Evaluation of microbial load of blades

BACKGROUND

Laryngoscope blades were analyzed, and the presence of blood, bodily fluids, and microorganisms was verified, indicating their potential as a source of cross contamination during clinical usage. The way in which the blades are cleaned and disinfected in daily practice may place the patient and health care team at risk. The aim of this study was to determine the bacterial and fungal load on this equipment.

METHODS

Descriptive cross-sectional study. A total of 83 laryngoscope blades, ready for use, were analyzed for their bacterial and fungal load at 2 university hospitals.

RESULTS

The microbiologic analysis revealed the presence of microorganisms in 76.2% of cases at institution 1 and 92.7% of cases at institution 2, with microbial loads >10(1) colony forming units in 31.2% and 44.7% of cases, respectively. At both institutions, potentially pathogenic microorganisms were found, including Candida sp, Staphylococcus aureus, Enterococcus faecalis, Streptococcus agalactiae, extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae, multiresistant Acinetobacter baumannii, Pantoea sp, Enterobacter gergoviae, Escherichia coli, and Proteus mirabilis.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that the use of laryngoscope blades at these 2 institutions present a potential risk. Based on these findings, action needs to be taken so a higher level of safety can be offered to patients and health care professionals who have direct contact with this equipment.