Literature DB >> 28414009

Adenosine Triphosphate Quantification Correlates Poorly with Microbial Contamination of Duodenoscopes.

Lovisa B Olafsdottir1, Sharon B Wright1, Anne Smithey1, Riley Heroux1, Elizabeth B Hirsch2, Alice Chen1, Benjamin Lane1, Mandeep S Sawhney3, Graham M Snyder1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to quantify the correlation between adenosine triphosphate (ATP) measurements and bacterial cultures from duodenoscopes for evaluation of contamination following high-level disinfection. DESIGN Duodenoscopes used for any intended endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedure were included. Microbiologic and ATP data were collected concomitantly and in the same manner from ERCP duodenoscopes. SETTING A high-volume endoscopy unit at a tertiary referral acute-care facility. METHODS Duodenoscopes were sampled for ATP and bacterial contamination in a contemporaneous and highly standardized fashion using a "flush-brush-flush" method for the working channel (WC) and a dry flocked swab for the elevator mechanism (EM). Specimens were processed for any aerobic bacterial growth (colony-forming units, CFU). Growth of CFU>0 and ATP relative light unit (RLU)>0 was considered a contaminated result. Frequency of discord between among WC and EM measurements were calculated using 2×2 contingency tables. The Spearman correlation coefficient was used to calculate the relatedness of bacterial contamination and ATP as continuous measurements. RESULTS The Spearman correlation coefficient did not demonstrate significant relatedness between ATP and CFU for either a WC or EM site. Among 390 duodenoscope sampling events, ATP and CFU assessments of contamination were discordant in 82 of 390 WC measurements (21%) and 331 of 390 of EM measurements (84.9%). The EM was frequently and markedly positive by ATP measurement. CONCLUSION ATP measurements correlate poorly with a microbiologic standard assessing duodenoscope contamination, particularly for EM sampling. ATP may reflect biological material other than nonviable aerobic bacteria and may not serve as an adequate marker of bacterial contamination. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:678-684.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28414009     DOI: 10.1017/ice.2017.58

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


  5 in total

Review 1.  Duodenoscope-associated infections: a review.

Authors:  Gheorghe G Balan; Catalin Victor Sfarti; Stefan Andrei Chiriac; Carol Stanciu; Anca Trifan
Journal:  Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis       Date:  2019-09-03       Impact factor: 3.267

2.  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

Review 3.  Gastrointestinal endoscope contamination rates - elevators are not only to blame: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hemant Goyal; Sara Larsen; Abhilash Perisetti; Nikolaj Birk Larsen; Lotte Klinten Ockert; Sven Adamsen; Benjamin Tharian; Nirav Thosani
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2022-06-10

4.  Prospective study of the feasibility of point-of-care testing strategy for carbapenem-resistant organism detection.

Authors:  Rahul Pannala; Bruce Baldwin; Vijay Aluru; Thomas E Grys; Jordan Holmes; Laurence J Miller; M Edwyn Harrison; Cuong C Nguyen; Fred C Tenover; David Persing; Douglas O Faigel
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2018-01-12

5.  Evaluation of an overnight non-culture test for detection of viable Gram-negative bacteria in endoscope channels.

Authors:  Harminder Singh; Donald R Duerksen; Gale Schultz; Carol Reidy; Pat DeGagne; Nancy Olson; Zoann Nugent; Michelle J Alfa
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2019-01-30
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.