Recent Update on Microbiological Monitoring of Gastrointestinal Endoscopes after High-Level Disinfection

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy-Associated Infections: Update on an Emerging Issue

Over 17.7 million gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures are performed annually, contributing to 68% of all endoscopic procedures in the United States. Usually, endoscopic procedures are low risk, but adverse events may occur, including cardiopulmonary complications, bleeding, perforation, pancreatitis, cholangitis, and infection. Infections after the GI endoscopies most commonly result from the patient's endogenous gut flora. Although many studies have reported infection after GI endoscopic procedures, a true estimate of the incidence rate of post-endoscopy infection is lacking. In addition, the infection profile and causative organisms have evolved over time. In recent times, multi-drug-resistant microorganisms have emerged as a cause of outbreaks of endoscope-associated infections (EAI). In addition, lapses in endoscope reprocessing have been reported, with some but not all outbreaks in recent times. This systematic review summarizes the demographical, clinical, and management data of EAI events reported in the literature. A total of 117 articles were included in the systematic review, with the majority reported from North America and Western Europe. The composite infection rate was calculated to be 0.2% following GI endoscopic procedures, 0.8% following ERCP, 0.123% following non-ERCP upper GI endoscopic procedures, and 0.073% following lower GI endoscopic procedures. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the most common culprit organism, followed by other Enterobacteriaceae groups of organisms and Gram-positive cocci. We have also elaborated different prevention methods such as antimicrobial prophylaxis, adequate sterilization methods for reprocessing endoscopes, periodic surveillance, and current evidence supporting their utilization. Finally, we discuss disposable endoscopes, which could be an alternative to reprocessing to minimize the chances of EAIs with their effects on the environmental and financial situation.

The application of plan, do, check, act (PDCA) quality management in reducing nosocomial infections in endoscopy rooms: It does work

BACKGROUND

The role of plan, do, check, act (PDCA) cycle quality management in reducing nosocomial infections in endoscopy rooms remains unclear; we aimed to evaluate the effects of PDCA in the nosocomial infections control of endoscopy rooms.

METHODS

This present study was a before and after design. The patients treated in our endoscopy room from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019 were included in the control group, which were managed according to current department practice. The patients from 1 January 2020 to 31 December 2020 were included in the PDCA group, which were managed according to PDCA cycle quality management including formulation of cleaning and disinfection process, establishment of an infection control team and improvement of inspection standards. The nosocomial infections of patients, the pass rate of medical staff's knowledge on the nosocomial infection and hand hygiene, the pass rate of disinfection of endoscope cavity and surface, the incidence of sharp injury and biological pollution were compared between two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 1020 patients were included, with 512 patients in PDCA group and 508 patients in the control group. The incidence of nosocomial infections in PDCA group was significantly lower than that of control group (0.98% vs. 2.76%, P = .002). The pass rate of medical staff's knowledge on the nosocomial infection and hand hygiene was significantly higher than that of control group (all P < .05). The pass rate of disinfection of endoscope cavity in PDCA group was significantly higher than that of control group (P = .037). The incidence of sharp injury and biological pollution in PDCA group were significantly lower than that of control group (all P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

PDCA cycle management is beneficial to reduce the risk of nosocomial infection, enhance the awareness of infection control and reduce the risk of occupational exposure of medical staff in the endoscopy room.

Does the Reprocessing of Endoscopes Have to Take Place Immediately after Pre-Cleaning? A First Evaluation

Background/Aims

The recommendations on the time interval between pre-cleaning and reprocessing of endoscopes differ in international guidelines, with a low level of evidence. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of postponing reprocessing on the reprocessing quality after pre-cleaning the flexible endoscopes.

Methods

We reprocessed 124 standardized test tubes simulating endoscope channels after soiling and contamination and determined the reprocessing performance. In addition, we examined contaminated gastroscopes, colonoscopes, and bronchoscopes. The duration of interim storage after pre-cleaning was 16 h for 100 test tubes and up to 24 h for 18 endoscopes. We determined the residual protein content and germ load as markers for cleaning and disinfection performance. In addition, we determined biofilm formation by photometry of crystal violet staining.

Results

All test tubes and flexible endoscopes showed residual protein content and germ load significantly below legally prescribed threshold values, independent of the interval between pre-cleaning and reprocessing.

Conclusions

Our findings indicate that flexible endoscopes could be stored overnight after pre-cleaning without any influence on the quality of reprocessing. While ensuring patient safety, this could simplify logistical processes and enable cost savings.

Microbiological Surveillance of Endoscopes in a Southern Italian Transplantation Hospital: A Retrospective Study from 2016 to 2019

Endoscopes are medical instruments that are used routinely in health structures. Due to their invasive nature and contact with many patients, they may cause hospital-acquired infections if not disinfected correctly. To ensure a high-level disinfection procedure or reprocessing, since the methods currently adopted in our institute are adequate, we evaluated retrospectively the presence of microorganisms in our endoscopes after reprocessing. Microbiological surveillance was performed from January 2016 to December 2019 in the instruments in use in our endoscopic room after reprocessing. In total, 35 endoscopes (3 duodenoscopes, 3 echoendoscopes, 12 bronchoscopes, 5 colonoscopes, and 12 gastroscopes) were evaluated for the presence of microorganisms, including multidrug-resistant pathogens and indicator microorganisms (IMOs). Our procedures were in agreement with an internal protocol based on Italian, international, and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations. Of a total of 811 samples, 799 (98.5%) complied with the regulatory guidelines, while 9 (1.1%) were positive for IMOs, and 3 (0.4%) displayed more than 10 colony-forming units (CFU) of environmental and commensal pathogens. Our results show that the internal reprocessing protocol is very efficient, leading to a very low number of observed contaminations, and it could be easily implemented by other health facilities that face a huge number of hospital-acquired infections due to incorrectly disinfected endoscopes.

Duodenoscope as a Vector for Transmission

Elevator-based endoscope-related infections from patient cross-contamination is a multifactorial problem related to device design, maintenance, and function, with additional risk incurred from a high-level disinfection process that lacks quality controls. This article reviews the historical context for these outbreaks, technical aspects of scope design contributing to this risk, and innovations in endoscope technology that have the potential to overcome these shortcomings. Also reviewed are interim solutions and the data that support use of some of these interventions. Still needed are a validated manufacturer-recommended schedule for routine duodenoscope and echoendoscope maintenance with reprocessing protocols that can be implemented in endoscopy units.

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.

Comparative Study of Microbiological Monitoring Results from Three Types of Sampling Methods after Gastrointestinal Endoscope Reprocessing

Objective

Compare the effects of three sampling methods on the microbiological monitoring results after reprocessing of gastrointestinal endoscopes, providing scientific basis for improving the monitoring quality of gastrointestinal endoscope cleaning and disinfection.

Method

Gastrointestinal endoscopes after reprocessing were selected randomly at the gastrointestinal endoscopy center of a tertiary hospital in Shanghai from October 2018 to February 2019. The endoscopes selected were all sampled in three different methods under continuous sampling and intermittent sampling respectively. Methods used includes, the biopsy channel group (Group A), the entire channel group (Group B), and the disc brush group (Group C). Then the colony forming units (CFU/piece) were counted in the laboratory.

Results

A total of 12 endoscopes were sampled by using continuous sampling approach, in which the detection rate of bacteria in disc brush group (33.3%) and entire channel group (33.3%) was higher than biopsy channel group (8.3%). Among the 12 endoscopes sampled with intermittent approach, the detection rate of bacteria from high to low was the disc brush group (50%), the entire channel group (41.7%), and the biopsy channel group (8.3%).

Conclusion

Different sampling methods will lead to the difference of microbiological culture results after reprocessing of gastrointestinal endoscope, indicating that the improved sampling method is beneficial to objectively reflect the endoscope cleaning and disinfection effect, and improve the monitoring quality of endoscope disinfection.

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.

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.

The validity of adenosine triphosphate measurement in detecting endoscope contamination

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic procedures are vital to gastrointestinal disease diagnosis and management, but risk infection transmission. In Australia, endoscopes undergo monthly-to-quarterly microbiological testing, to prevent patient infection. Endoscopes are used more frequently, meaning contamination may not be detected by this surveillance before infection transmission occurs.

AIM

To evaluate the use of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) measurement, alongside standard microbiological cultures, in detecting endoscope contamination before high-level disinfection. Using these results, we also aimed to confirm the efficacy of manual cleaning in reducing levels of ATP and cfu/mL.

METHODS

Seventeen in-clinical-use gastroscopes and 24 in-clinical-use colonoscopes from the Liverpool Hospital Endoscopy unit were sampled across three separate cleaning stages before high-level disinfection. Colony counts and ATP measurements were then performed on these samples.

FINDINGS

The correlation between the cfu/mL and RLU of samples collected from colonoscopes was 0.497 (95% confidence interval: 0.28-0.66; P < 0.0001). The correlation between cfu/mL and RLU for samples collected from gastroscopes was 0.377 (0.08-0.61; P = 0.0138). RLU and cfu/mL values were shown to fall significantly (P < 0.005) following precleaning and manual cleaning.

CONCLUSION

There was a significant correlation between ATP and cfu/mL measured from samples collected before high-level disinfection. Precleaning and manual cleaning were shown to reduce ATP and microbiological load significantly. ATP measurement can be performed within minutes with little training and produces results that are easy to interpret. These findings warrant further research on the utility of ATP measurement as a screening tool for detecting endoscope contamination after high-level disinfection.

Microbiological monitoring of medical devices after cleaning, disinfection and sterilisation

The use of reusable semi-critical devices has been extended in current medical practice for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. However, reuse of these instruments carries the risk of cross-transmission of microorganisms from one patient to another. The process of cleaning and disinfecting these devices is complex, long, expensive and very error-prone. This paper analyses the epidemiological aspects of infections associated with the reuse of semi-critical devices and the role of the Microbiology laboratory in monitoring the cleaning and disinfecting process through microbiological controls. The recommendations of different scientific societies on the relevance of such controls are reviewed and specific recommendations are proposed for the taking and processing of the samples, interpretation of the results and measures to be taken depending on the results obtained.

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

Introduction

Simulated-use buildup biofilm (BBF) model was used to assess various extraction fluids and friction methods to determine the optimal sample collection method for polytetrafluorethylene channels. In addition, simulated-use testing was performed for the channel and lever cavity of duodenoscopes.

Materials and methods

BBF was formed in polytetrafluorethylene channels using Enterococcus faecalis, Escherichia coli, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Sterile reverse osmosis (RO) water, and phosphate-buffered saline with and without Tween80 as well as two neutralizing broths (Letheen and Dey-Engley) were each assessed with and without friction. Neutralizer was added immediately after sample collection and samples concentrated using centrifugation. Simulated-use testing was done using TJF-Q180V and JF-140F Olympus duodenoscopes.

Results

Despite variability in the bacterial CFU in the BBF model, none of the extraction fluids tested were significantly better than RO. Borescope examination showed far less residual material when friction was part of the extraction protocol. The RO for flush-brush-flush (FBF) extraction provided significantly better recovery of E. coli (p = 0.02) from duodenoscope lever cavities compared to the CDC flush method.

Discussion and conclusion

We recommend RO with friction for FBF extraction of the channel and lever cavity of duodenoscopes. Neutralizer and sample concentration optimize recovery of viable bacteria on culture.

Education and Training Guidelines for the Board of the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) developed a gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy board in 1995 and related regulations. Although the KSGE has acquired many specialists since then, the education and training aims and guidelines were insufficient. During GI fellowship training, obtaining sufficient exposure to some types of endoscopic procedures is difficult. Fellows should acquire endoscopic skills through supervised endoscopic procedures during GI fellowship training. Thus, the KSGE requires training guidelines for fellowships that allow fellows to perform independent endoscopic procedures without supervision. This document is intended to provide principles that the Committee of Education and Training of the KSGE can use to develop practical guidelines for granting privileges to perform accurate GI endoscopy safely. The KSGE will improve the quality of GI endoscopy by providing guidelines for fellowships and supervisors.

Surveillance of Endoscopes: Comparison of Different Sampling Techniques

OBJECTIVE To compare different techniques of endoscope sampling to assess residual bacterial contamination. DESIGN Diagnostic study. SETTING The endoscopy unit of an 1,100-bed university hospital performing ~13,000 endoscopic procedures annually. METHODS In total, 4 sampling techniques, combining flushing fluid with or without a commercial endoscope brush, were compared in an endoscope model. Based on these results, sterile physiological saline flushing with or without PULL THRU brush was selected for evaluation on 40 flexible endoscopes by adenosine triphosphate (ATP) measurement and bacterial culture. Acceptance criteria from the French National guideline (<25 colony-forming units [CFU] per endoscope and absence of indicator microorganisms) were used as part of the evaluation. RESULTS On biofilm-coated PTFE tubes, physiological saline in combination with a PULL THRU brush generated higher mean ATP values (2,579 relative light units [RLU]) compared with saline alone (1,436 RLU; P=.047). In the endoscope samples, culture yield using saline plus the PULL THRU (mean, 43 CFU; range, 1-400 CFU) was significantly higher than that of saline alone (mean, 17 CFU; range, 0-500 CFU; P<.001). In samples obtained using the saline+PULL THRU brush method, ATP values of samples classified as unacceptable were significantly higher than those of samples classified as acceptable (P=.001). CONCLUSION Physiological saline flushing combined with PULL THRU brush to sample endoscopes generated higher ATP values and increased the yield of microbial surveillance culture. Consequently, the acceptance rate of endoscopes based on a defined CFU limit was significantly lower when the saline+PULL THRU method was used instead of saline alone. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:1062-1069.

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

Duodenoscope-Associated Bacterial Infections: A Review and Update

OPINION STATEMENT

Physicians depend on the use of flexible endoscopes for delivery of vital care that is morbidity sparing compared to surgical alternatives. Iatrogenic infection is a well-documented complication of therapeutic endoscopy. Recent emergence of unique antimicrobial resistance patterns and molecular "fingerprinting" of bacteria harken a new era in duodenoscope-related infections which occur in spite of compliance with device manufacturer-recommended protocols for high-level disinfection (HLD). Further studies suggest that these protocols are likely inadequate. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) remains critical in the provision of minimally invasive diagnostic, therapeutic, and palliative care for patients with pancreaticobiliary disease. This manuscript reviews the history of duodenoscope-related infections, current challenges to scope reprocessing, and recommendations from regulatory agencies.

Effect of nursing intervention on gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients with coronary heart disease

AIM: To evaluate the effect of nursing intervention on gastrointestinal endoscopy in elderly patients with coronary heart disease, in order to provide better nursing guidance for patients with coronary heart disease.

METHODS: One hundred and ten elderly patients with coronary heart disease who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy at our hospital from June 2013 to June 2015 were randomly divided into either an intervention group or a conventional group, with 55 cases in each group. The conventional group received conventional nursing care during gastrointestinal endoscopy, and the intervention group received nursing intervention during gastrointestinal endoscopy. Nursing effects were observed in both groups.

RESULTS: The endoscopy examination time and clinical nursing satisfaction score differed significantly between the intervention group and conventional group (22.7 min ± 6.3 min vs 33.8 min ± 7.1 min, 92.5 ± 4.7 vs 77.9 ± 5.2, P < 0.05 for both). After nursing intervention, SAS and SDS scores were statistically significant between the intervention group and conventional group (23.6 ± 4.2 vs 36.2 ± 5.1, 22.1 ± 3.7 vs 37.2 ±3.3, P < 0.05). The rate of complications was significantly lower in the intervention group than in the conventional group (7.3% vs 20.0%, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION: For elderly patients with coronary heart disease patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy, implementation of full intervention is feasible, can shorten the examination time, alleviate psychological pressure of patients, reduce complications, and improve clinical nursing satisfaction.