Literature DB >> 25026614

The use of rapid indicators for the detection of organic residues on clinically used gastrointestinal endoscopes with and without visually apparent debris.

Kavel H Visrodia1, Cori L Ofstead, Hannah L Yellin, Harry P Wetzler, Pritish K Tosh, Todd H Baron.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Outbreaks of multidrug-resistant organisms have been linked to endoscope reprocessing lapses. Meticulous manual cleaning before high-level disinfection (HLD) is essential in reducing residual contamination that can interfere with HLD. Current reprocessing guidelines state that visual inspection is sufficient to confirm adequate cleaning.
OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to evaluate contamination of clinically used endoscopes, using visual inspection and rapid indicator tests before and after manual cleaning. A second objective was to determine which rapid indicator instruments and methods could be used for quality improvement initiatives in endoscope reprocessing.
DESIGN: Clinical use study of endoscope reprocessing effectiveness.
SETTING: Tertiary care teaching hospital with an inpatient endoscopy center.
METHODS: Researchers sampled endoscopes used for gastrointestinal procedures before and after manual cleaning. The external surfaces and 1 channel of each endoscope were visually inspected and tested with rapid indicators to measure protein, blood, and adenosine triphosphate (ATP) contamination levels.
RESULTS: Multiple components were sampled during 37 encounters with 12 unique endoscopes. All bedside-cleaned endoscopes had high levels of ATP and detectable blood or protein, whether or not any residue was visible. Although there was no visible residue on any endoscopes after manual cleaning, 82% had at least 1 positive rapid indicator test.
CONCLUSIONS: Relying solely on visual inspection of endoscopes prior to HLD is insufficient to ensure reprocessing effectiveness. For quality assurance initiatives, tests of different endoscope components using more than 1 indicator may be necessary. Additional research is needed to validate specific monitoring protocols.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25026614     DOI: 10.1086/677148

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


  5 in total

1.  Rate and impact of duodenoscope contamination: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Sara Larsen; Rasmus Vinther Russell; Lotte Klinten Ockert; Stephen Spanos; Helena Strømstad Travis; Lars Holger Ehlers; Anders Mærkedahl
Journal:  EClinicalMedicine       Date:  2020-07-15

2.  Monitoring of endoscope reprocessing with an adenosine triphosphate (ATP) bioluminescence method.

Authors:  Nina Parohl; Doris Stiefenhöfer; Sabine Heiligtag; Henning Reuter; Dana Dopadlik; Frank Mosel; Guido Gerken; Alexander Dechêne; Evelyn Heintschel von Heinegg; Christoph Jochum; Jan Buer; Walter Popp
Journal:  GMS Hyg Infect Control       Date:  2017-03-27

3.  Evaluation of the total adenylate (ATP + ADP + AMP) test for cleaning verification in healthcare settings.

Authors:  M Bakke; S Suzuki; E Kirihara; S Mikami
Journal:  J Prev Med Hyg       Date:  2019-06-28

4.  Simulated-use validation of a sponge ATP method for determining the adequacy of manual cleaning of endoscope channels.

Authors:  Michelle J Alfa; Nancy Olson
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2016-05-04

Review 5.  A narrative review on current duodenoscope reprocessing techniques and novel developments.

Authors:  Maarten Heuvelmans; Herman F Wunderink; Henny C van der Mei; Jan F Monkelbaan
Journal:  Antimicrob Resist Infect Control       Date:  2021-12-23       Impact factor: 4.887

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.