Literature DB >> 30148992

Comparison of automated and manual drying in the elimination of residual endoscope working channel fluid after reprocessing (with video).

Monique T Barakat1, Robert J Huang1, Subhas Banerjee1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Residual fluid within endoscope working channels after reprocessing may promote growth of pathogens. Current reprocessing guidelines therefore recommend endoscope drying with administration of forced filtered air; however, the duration and modality of administered air are not specified. The new DriScope Aid device enables automated administration of filtered air at controlled pressure through all internal endoscope channels. We systematically compared, for the first time, the impact of manual drying and automated drying on retained working channel fluid and bioburden after reprocessing.
METHODS: We assessed for residual working channel fluid after reprocessing and/or drying by using the SteriCam borescope. Drying was performed either manually (forced filtered air) or was automated (DriScope Aid) for either 5 or 10 minutes. Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) bioluminescence testing was performed on working channel rinsates after drying, to evaluate for residual bioburden.
RESULTS: Significantly more fluid droplets were evident after manual drying (4.55 ± 6.14) than with automated device-facilitated drying for either 5 minutes (0.83 ± 1.29; P = .007) or 10 minutes (0 ± 0; P = .001). ATP bioluminescence values were higher for manual drying compared with automated drying at 48 hours (P = .001) and 72 hours (P = .014) after reprocessing.
CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate significantly fewer water droplets and delayed ATP bioluminescence values within endoscope working channels after automated drying compared with manual drying. In particular, virtually no retained fluid was evident within endoscope working channels after automated drying for 10 minutes. These findings support recommendations for automation of as many reprocessing steps as possible. Automated drying may decrease the risk of transmission of infection related to endoscopy.
Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30148992      PMCID: PMC6748329          DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.08.033

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  5 in total

Review 1.  Duodenoscope-associated infection prevention: A call for evidence-based decision making.

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

Review 2.  The Effectiveness of Drying on Residual Droplets, Microorganisms, and Biofilms in Gastrointestinal Endoscope Reprocessing: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Hefeng Tian; Jiao Sun; Shaoning Guo; Xuanrui Zhu; Han Feng; Yijin Zhuang; Xiu Wang
Journal:  Gastroenterol Res Pract       Date:  2021-04-08       Impact factor: 2.260

Review 3.  SpyGlass application for duodenoscope working channel inspection: Impact on the microbiological surveillance.

Authors:  Tao-Chieh Liu; Chen-Ling Peng; Hsiu-Po Wang; Hsin-Hung Huang; Wei-Kuo Chang
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-07-14       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 4.  Recent Advances in Endoscope Disinfection: Where Do We Stand in the COVID era?

Authors:  Tiffany Chua; Nasir Halim; Sofiya Reicher
Journal:  Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2020-10-19

5.  Initial application of deep learning to borescope detection of endoscope working channel damage and residue.

Authors:  Monique T Barakat; Mohit Girotra; Subhas Banerjee
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2022-01-14
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.