Literature DB >> 22608169

Analysis of the air/water channels of gastrointestinal endoscopies as a risk factor for the transmission of microorganisms among patients.

Maíra Marques Ribeiro1, Adriana Cristina de Oliveira.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: For the effective reprocessing of gastrointestinal endoscopes, contaminants must be removed from the entire surface. However, these devices have long and narrow channels that can make this process difficult.
METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, the staff assigned to reprocess gastroscopes and colonoscopes in 37 services located throughout Brazil completed a questionnaire regarding reprocessing practices geared toward the channels in these devices. In addition, samples from these air/water channels were collected for microbiological analysis.
RESULTS: Contamination was detected in 71.8% (28/39) of the samples obtained from the air/water channels of colonoscopes, and in 70% (42/60) of the samples from the air/water channels of gastroscopes. The median microbial load was 1,800 colony-forming units (CFU)/mL in the colonoscopes and 750 CFU/mL in the gastroscopes. The main microorganisms isolated from the air/water channels of gastroscopes were Pseudomonas aeruginosa (26.4%), Escherichia coli (18.9%), and Acinetobacter baumannii (9.4%), and those isolated from the colonoscopes included P aeruginosa (46.4%), A baumannii (14.3%), and Klebsiella pneumoniae (10.7%), among others. The possible causes of the contamination of these devices included the failure to fill these channels with cleaning solution, lack of friction during cleansing, and inadequate rinsing.
CONCLUSION: The contamination of the air/water channels did in fact represent a risk for the transmission of microorganisms during gastrointestinal endoscopy exams, possibly related to the inadequate reprocessing of these channels.
Copyright © 2012 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22608169     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2012.02.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Infect Control        ISSN: 0196-6553            Impact factor:   2.918


  6 in total

Review 1.  Klebsiella spp. in endoscopy-associated infections: we may only be seeing the tip of the iceberg.

Authors:  P Gastmeier; R-P Vonberg
Journal:  Infection       Date:  2013-10-29       Impact factor: 3.553

2.  A pilot study on using chlorine dioxide gas for disinfection of gastrointestinal endoscopes.

Authors:  Ying Yi; Li-Mei Hao; Shu-Ren Ma; Jin-Hui Wu; Tao Wang; Song Lin; Zong-Xing Zhang; Jian-Cheng Qi
Journal:  J Zhejiang Univ Sci B       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 3.066

Review 3.  An update on gastrointestinal endoscopy-associated infections and their contributing factors.

Authors:  Charles Eugenio McCafferty; Marra Jai Aghajani; David Abi-Hanna; Iain Bruce Gosbell; Slade Owen Jensen
Journal:  Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob       Date:  2018-10-10       Impact factor: 3.944

4.  Is Post-Reprocessing Microbiological Surveillance of Duodenoscopes Effective in Reducing the Potential Risk in Transmitting Pathogens?

Authors:  Maria Luisa Cristina; Marina Sartini; Elisa Schinca; Gianluca Ottria; Chiara Dupont; Palmira Bova; Gianni Coccia; Beatrice Casini; Anna Maria Spagnolo
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2019-12-24       Impact factor: 3.390

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

Authors:  Su Ma; Lili Feng; Ziyi Jiang; Xian Gao; Xisha Long; Shaonan Zhuang; Wenxia Ding; Taiyao Chen; Zhaoshen Li; Lingjuan Zhang; Huijun Xi; Hongzhi Zhang
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2019-12-03       Impact factor: 3.411

6.  Methodological proposal for validation of the disinfecting efficacy of an automated flexible endoscope reprocessor.

Authors:  Kazuko Uchikawa Graziano; Marta Elisa Auler Pereira; Elaine Koda
Journal:  Rev Lat Am Enfermagem       Date:  2016-08-08
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.