Literature DB >> 12002234

A survey of reprocessing methods, residual viable bioburden, and soil levels in patient-ready endoscopic retrograde choliangiopancreatography duodenoscopes used in Canadian centers.

Michefle J Alfa1, Nancy Olson, Pat DeGagne, Michele Jackson.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To obtain information about current reprocessing practices and to obtain samples from the biopsy channel to quantitate soil levels and bioburden in patient-ready flexible duodenoscopes used for endoscopic retrograde choliangiopancreatography (ERCP).
DESIGN: Participating centers were sent a questionnaire and a kit for on-site collection of samples from the biopsy channel of the duodenoscope.
SETTING: Thirty-seven hospitals from across Canada participated. The only criterion was that they currently used and reprocessed flexible duodenoscopes for ERCP procedures.
METHODS: The questionnaire obtained information on reprocessing practices. The kit included a detailed instruction booklet outlining sample collection and all of the tubes, sterile water, and brushes needed for it. Samples were collected on-site from all ERCP scopes in each center on Monday morning and shipped by overnight courier on ice to the research center. Each sample was assayed by routine microbiologic methods for total viable count and protein, blood, carbohydrate, and endotoxin levels.
RESULTS: Microbial overgrowth was present in 7% of 119 scope samples. Cleaning appeared to be reasonably well done in most of the centers, and 43% of the centers were in total compliance with basic national guidelines. The data from the scope samples indicated that there was significantly greater buildup of protein, carbohydrate, and endotoxin associated with ERCP scopes from centers using glutaraldehyde, compared with those using peracetic acid. Carbohydrate was the soil component detected most frequently and in the highest concentration in scope channels.
CONCLUSIONS: Although cleaning was generally well done, areas for improvement included ensuring the availability of written reprocessing protocols, immersion of scopes during manual cleaning, use of adequate fluid volume for rinsing, adequate drying of scopes prior to storage, and the separation of ERCP valves from scopes during storage.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12002234     DOI: 10.1086/502035

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol        ISSN: 0899-823X            Impact factor:   3.254


  7 in total

1.  Current GI endoscope disinfection and QA practices.

Authors:  Frank M Moses; Jennifer S Lee
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2004 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 2.  Current issues in endoscope reprocessing and infection control during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Authors:  Douglas B Nelson; Lawrence F Muscarella
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2006-07-07       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 3.  Is peracetic acid suitable for the cleaning step of reprocessing flexible endoscopes?

Authors:  Günter Kampf; Patricia M Fliss; Heike Martiny
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2014-09-16

4.  ATP measurement as method to monitor the quality of reprocessing flexible endoscopes.

Authors:  Dorothea Hansen; Daniel Benner; Martin Hilgenhöner; Therese Leisebein; Andreas Brauksiepe; Walter Popp
Journal:  Ger Med Sci       Date:  2004-04-26

5.  Comparative cost-efficiency of the EVOTECH endoscope cleaner and reprocessor versus manual cleaning plus automated endoscope reprocessing in a real-world Canadian hospital endoscopy setting.

Authors:  Lindy Forte; Cynthia Shum
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-10-03       Impact factor: 3.067

6.  Residual bioburden in reprocessed side-view endoscopes used for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

Authors:  D L N L Ubhayawardana; J Kottahachchi; M M Weerasekera; I W M P Wanigasooriya; S S N Fernando; M De Silva
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2013-12

7.  High prevalence rate of digestive tract bacteria in duodenoscopes: a nationwide study.

Authors:  Marco J Bruno; Margreet C Vos; Arjan W Rauwers; Anne F Voor In 't Holt; Jolanda G Buijs; Woutrinus de Groot; Bettina E Hansen
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2018-04-10       Impact factor: 23.059

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.