Graham M Snyder1, Sharon B Wright1, Anne Smithey2, Meir Mizrahi3, Michelle Sheppard3, Elizabeth B Hirsch4, Ram Chuttani5, Riley Heroux2, David S Yassa1, Lovisa B Olafsdottir6, Roger B Davis7, Jiannis Anastasiou3, Vijay Bapat3, Kiran Bidari3, Douglas K Pleskow5, Daniel Leffler5, Benjamin Lane6, Alice Chen2, Howard S Gold1, Anthony Bartley3, Aleah D King6, Mandeep S Sawhney8. 1. Division of Infection Control/Hospital Epidemiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Division of Infection Control/Hospital Epidemiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Pharmacy and Health Systems Sciences, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Division of Gastroenterology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Pharmacy and Health Systems Sciences, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Division of Gastroenterology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 6. Division of Infection Control/Hospital Epidemiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 7. Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 8. Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Division of Gastroenterology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: msawhney@bidmc.harvard.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Duodenoscopes have been implicated in the transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO). We compared the frequency of duodenoscope contamination with MDRO or any other bacteria after disinfection or sterilization by 3 different methods. METHODS: We performed a single-center prospective randomized study in which duodenoscopes were randomly reprocessed by standard high-level disinfection (sHLD), double high-level disinfection (dHLD), or standard high-level disinfection followed by ethylene oxide gas sterilization (HLD/ETO). Samples were collected from the elevator mechanism and working channel of each duodenoscope and cultured before use. The primary outcome was the proportion of duodenoscopes with an elevator mechanism or working channel culture showing 1 or more MDRO; secondary outcomes included the frequency of duodenoscope contamination with more than 0 and 10 or more colony-forming units (CFU) of aerobic bacterial growth on either sampling location. RESULTS: After 3 months of enrollment, the study was closed because of the futility; we did not observe sufficient events to evaluate the primary outcome. Among 541 duodenoscope culture events, 516 were included in the final analysis. No duodenoscope culture in any group was positive for MDRO. Bacterial growth of more than 0 CFU was noted in 16.1% duodenoscopes in the sHLD group, 16.0% in the dHLD group, and 22.5% in the HLD/ETO group (P = .21). Bacterial growth or 10 or more CFU was noted in 2.3% of duodenoscopes in the sHLD group, 4.1% in the dHLD group, and 4.2% in the HLD/ETO group (P = .36). MRDOs were cultured from 3.2% of pre-procedure rectal swabs and 2.5% of duodenal aspirates. CONCLUSIONS: In a comparison of duodenoscopes reprocessed by sHLD, dHLD, or HLD/ETO, we found no significant differences between groups for MDRO or bacteria contamination. Enhanced disinfection methods (dHLD or HLD/ETO) did not provide additional protection against contamination. However, insufficient events occurred to assess our primary study end-point. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT02611648.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Duodenoscopes have been implicated in the transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO). We compared the frequency of duodenoscope contamination with MDRO or any other bacteria after disinfection or sterilization by 3 different methods. METHODS: We performed a single-center prospective randomized study in which duodenoscopes were randomly reprocessed by standard high-level disinfection (sHLD), double high-level disinfection (dHLD), or standard high-level disinfection followed by ethylene oxide gas sterilization (HLD/ETO). Samples were collected from the elevator mechanism and working channel of each duodenoscope and cultured before use. The primary outcome was the proportion of duodenoscopes with an elevator mechanism or working channel culture showing 1 or more MDRO; secondary outcomes included the frequency of duodenoscope contamination with more than 0 and 10 or more colony-forming units (CFU) of aerobic bacterial growth on either sampling location. RESULTS: After 3 months of enrollment, the study was closed because of the futility; we did not observe sufficient events to evaluate the primary outcome. Among 541 duodenoscope culture events, 516 were included in the final analysis. No duodenoscope culture in any group was positive for MDRO. Bacterial growth of more than 0 CFU was noted in 16.1% duodenoscopes in the sHLD group, 16.0% in the dHLD group, and 22.5% in the HLD/ETO group (P = .21). Bacterial growth or 10 or more CFU was noted in 2.3% of duodenoscopes in the sHLD group, 4.1% in the dHLD group, and 4.2% in the HLD/ETO group (P = .36). MRDOs were cultured from 3.2% of pre-procedure rectal swabs and 2.5% of duodenal aspirates. CONCLUSIONS: In a comparison of duodenoscopes reprocessed by sHLD, dHLD, or HLD/ETO, we found no significant differences between groups for MDRO or bacteria contamination. Enhanced disinfection methods (dHLD or HLD/ETO) did not provide additional protection against contamination. However, insufficient events occurred to assess our primary study end-point. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT02611648.
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
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
Authors: Cori L Ofstead; Brandy L Buro; Krystina M Hopkins; John E Eiland; Harry P Wetzler; David R Lichtenstein Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2020-11-17
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
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
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