Literature DB >> 22170930

Assessment on experimental bacterial biofilms and in clinical practice of the efficacy of sampling solutions for microbiological testing of endoscopes.

C Aumeran1, E Thibert, F A Chapelle, C Hennequin, O Lesens, O Traoré.   

Abstract

Opinions differ on the value of microbiological testing of endoscopes, which varies according to the technique used. We compared the efficacy on bacterial biofilms of sampling solutions used for the surveillance of the contamination of endoscope channels. To compare efficacy, we used an experimental model of a 48-h Pseudomonas biofilm grown on endoscope internal tubing. Sampling of this experimental biofilm was performed with a Tween 80-lecithin-based solution, saline, and sterile water. We also performed a randomized prospective study during routine clinical practice in our hospital sampling randomly with two different solutions the endoscopes after reprocessing. Biofilm recovery expressed as a logarithmic ratio of bacteria recovered on bacteria initially present in biofilm was significantly more effective with the Tween 80-lecithin-based solution than with saline solution (P = 0.002) and sterile water (P = 0.002). There was no significant difference between saline and sterile water. In the randomized clinical study, the rates of endoscopes that were contaminated with the Tween 80-lecithin-based sampling solution and the saline were 8/25 and 1/25, respectively (P = 0.02), and the mean numbers of bacteria recovered were 281 and 19 CFU/100 ml (P = 0.001), respectively. In conclusion, the efficiency and therefore the value of the monitoring of endoscope reprocessing by microbiological cultures is dependent on the sampling solutions used. A sampling solution with a tensioactive action is more efficient than saline in detecting biofilm contamination of endoscopes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22170930      PMCID: PMC3295158          DOI: 10.1128/JCM.06221-11

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Microbiol        ISSN: 0095-1137            Impact factor:   5.948


  21 in total

Review 1.  Reprocessing of flexible endoscopes.

Authors:  J W Leung
Journal:  J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 4.029

2.  Is biofilm accumulation on endoscope tubing a contributor to the failure of cleaning and decontamination?

Authors:  A Pajkos; K Vickery; Y Cossart
Journal:  J Hosp Infect       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 3.926

3.  Natural bioburden levels detected on flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes after clinical use and manual cleaning.

Authors:  N S Chu; D McAlister; P A Antonoplos
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 9.427

4.  [Validation of a sampling method for the channels of a flexible endoscope which is experimentally contaminated].

Authors:  D Luu Duc; J Shum Cheong Sing; H Soule; J Fauconnier; B Marchetti; M R Mallaret; N Lerroux; G Ducel; J Calop
Journal:  Pathol Biol (Paris)       Date:  1998-01

5.  Multisociety guideline on reprocessing flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes: 2011.

Authors:  Bret T Petersen; Jennifer Chennat; Jonathan Cohen; Peter B Cotton; David A Greenwald; Thomas E Kowalski; Mary L Krinsky; Walter G Park; Irving M Pike; Joseph Romagnuolo; William A Rutala
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 9.427

6.  Automatic washer disinfector for flexible endoscopes: a new evaluation process.

Authors:  L Pineau; C Roques; J Luc; G Michel
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 10.093

7.  Quality improvement in gastrointestinal endoscopy: microbiologic surveillance of disinfection.

Authors:  A Merighi; E Contato; R Scagliarini; G Mirolo; M L Tampieri; P Pazzi; S Gullini
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 9.427

8.  Disinfection of gastrointestinal fibrescopes: an evaluation of the Pauldrach Endocleaner, and various chemical agents.

Authors:  D Felmingham; J Mowles; K Thomas; G L Ridgway
Journal:  J Hosp Infect       Date:  1985-12       Impact factor: 3.926

9.  Endoscope decontamination: a comparison of the Wolf 35100 and DSD-91 systems.

Authors:  G D Corcoran; J Holton; G L Ridgway
Journal:  J Hosp Infect       Date:  1994-08       Impact factor: 3.926

10.  Multi-society guideline for reprocessing flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes. Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.

Authors:  Douglas B Nelson; William R Jarvis; William A Rutala; Amy E Foxx-Orenstein; Gerald Isenberg; Georgia R Dash; Carla J Alvarado; Marilee Ball; Joyce Griffin-Sobel; Carol Petersen; Kay A Ball; Jerry Henderson; Rachel L Stricof
Journal:  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 3.254

View more
  13 in total

Review 1.  High-level disinfection of gastrointestinal endoscope reprocessing.

Authors:  King-Wah Chiu; Lung-Sheng Lu; Shue-Shian Chiou
Journal:  World J Exp Med       Date:  2015-02-20

Review 2.  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

Review 3.  Duodenoscope-Associated Bacterial Infections: A Review and Update.

Authors:  Jennifer T Higa; Michael Gluck; Andrew S Ross
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-06

4.  Activity of ethanol and daptomycin lock on biofilm generated by an in vitro dynamic model using real subcutaneous injection ports.

Authors:  C Aumeran; P Guyot; M Boisnoir; C Robin-Hennequin; M Vidal; C Forestier; O Traore; O Lesens
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2012-10-19       Impact factor: 3.267

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

Authors:  Seo Yean Sohn; Michelle J Alfa; Richard Lai; Yacoob Tabani; Mohamed E Labib
Journal:  J Microbiol Methods       Date:  2019-11-20       Impact factor: 2.363

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

Authors:  Michelle J Alfa; Harminder Singh; Zoann Nugent; Donald Duerksen; Gale Schultz; Carol Reidy; Patricia DeGagne; Nancy Olson
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2017-11-07

7.  Surveillance of Endoscopes: Comparison of Different Sampling Techniques.

Authors:  Lien Cattoir; Thomas Vanzieleghem; Lisa Florin; Tania Helleputte; Martine De Vos; Bruno Verhasselt; Jerina Boelens; Isabel Leroux-Roels
Journal:  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol       Date:  2017-06-21       Impact factor: 3.254

8.  Surveillance cultures of samples obtained from biopsy channels and automated endoscope reprocessors after high-level disinfection of gastrointestinal endoscopes.

Authors:  King-Wah Chiu; Ming-Chao Tsai; Keng-Liang Wu; Yi-Chun Chiu; Ming-Tzung Lin; Tsung-Hui Hu
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-09-03       Impact factor: 3.067

9.  Antibacterial activity of Staphylococcus aureus biofilm under combined exposure of glutaraldehyde, near-infrared light, and 405-nm laser.

Authors:  Van Nam Tran; Chakradhar Dasagrandhi; Van Gia Truong; Young-Mog Kim; Hyun Wook Kang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-08-27       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.