Mark A Gromski1, Marnie S Sieber2, Stuart Sherman1, Douglas K Rex1. 1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. 2. Infection Prevention, IU Health, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The potential for transmission of pathogenic organisms is a problem inherent to the current reusable duodenoscope design. Recent outbreaks of multidrug-resistant pathogenic organisms transmitted via duodenoscopes has brought to light the urgency of this problem. Microbiologic culturing of duodenoscopes and reprocessing with repeat high-level disinfection (HLD) or liquid chemical sterilization (LCS) have been offered as supplemental measures to enhance duodenoscope reprocessing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. This study aims to compare the efficacy of reprocessing duodenoscopes with double HLD (DHLD) versus LCS. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated 2 different modalities of duodenoscope reprocessing from October 23, 2017 to September 24, 2018. Eligible duodenoscopes were randomly segregated to be reprocessed by either DHLD or LCS. Duodenoscopes were randomly cultured after reprocessing for surveillance based on an internal protocol. RESULTS: During the study period, there were 878 post-reprocessing surveillance cultures (453 in the DHLD group and 425 in the LCS group). Of all cultures, 17 were positive for any organism (1.9%). There was no significant difference of positive cultures when comparing the duodenoscopes undergoing DHLD (8 positive cultures, 1.8%) with duodenoscopes undergoing LCS (9 positive cultures, 2.1%; P = .8). Both groups had 2 cultures that grew high-concern organisms (.5% vs .5%, P=1.0). No multidrug-resistant organisms, including carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae, were detected. CONCLUSIONS: DHLD and LCS both resulted in a low rate of positive cultures, for all organisms and for high-concern organisms. However, neither process completely eliminated positive cultures from duodenoscopes reprocessed with 2 different supplemental reprocessing strategies.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The potential for transmission of pathogenic organisms is a problem inherent to the current reusable duodenoscope design. Recent outbreaks of multidrug-resistant pathogenic organisms transmitted via duodenoscopes has brought to light the urgency of this problem. Microbiologic culturing of duodenoscopes and reprocessing with repeat high-level disinfection (HLD) or liquid chemical sterilization (LCS) have been offered as supplemental measures to enhance duodenoscope reprocessing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. This study aims to compare the efficacy of reprocessing duodenoscopes with double HLD (DHLD) versus LCS. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated 2 different modalities of duodenoscope reprocessing from October 23, 2017 to September 24, 2018. Eligible duodenoscopes were randomly segregated to be reprocessed by either DHLD or LCS. Duodenoscopes were randomly cultured after reprocessing for surveillance based on an internal protocol. RESULTS: During the study period, there were 878 post-reprocessing surveillance cultures (453 in the DHLD group and 425 in the LCS group). Of all cultures, 17 were positive for any organism (1.9%). There was no significant difference of positive cultures when comparing the duodenoscopes undergoing DHLD (8 positive cultures, 1.8%) with duodenoscopes undergoing LCS (9 positive cultures, 2.1%; P = .8). Both groups had 2 cultures that grew high-concern organisms (.5% vs .5%, P=1.0). No multidrug-resistant organisms, including carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae, were detected. CONCLUSIONS:DHLD and LCS both resulted in a low rate of positive cultures, for all organisms and for high-concern organisms. However, neither process completely eliminated positive cultures from duodenoscopes reprocessed with 2 different supplemental reprocessing strategies.
Authors: Arjan W Rauwers; Annet Troelstra; Ad C Fluit; Camiel Wissink; Arjo J Loeve; Frank P Vleggaar; Marco J Bruno; Margreet C Vos; Lonneke G Bode; Jan F Monkelbaan Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2019-05-15 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Graham M Snyder; Sharon B Wright; Anne Smithey; Meir Mizrahi; Michelle Sheppard; Elizabeth B Hirsch; Ram Chuttani; Riley Heroux; David S Yassa; Lovisa B Olafsdottir; Roger B Davis; Jiannis Anastasiou; Vijay Bapat; Kiran Bidari; Douglas K Pleskow; Daniel Leffler; Benjamin Lane; Alice Chen; Howard S Gold; Anthony Bartley; Aleah D King; Mandeep S Sawhney Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2017-07-13 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Aymeric Becq; Graham M Snyder; Riley Heroux; Sharon B Wright; Shishira Bharadwaj; Jonah Cohen; Moamen Gabr; Tyler M Berzin; Douglas K Pleskow; Mandeep S Sawhney Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2019-01-14 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: V Raman Muthusamy; Marco J Bruno; Richard A Kozarek; Bret T Petersen; Douglas K Pleskow; Divyesh V Sejpal; Adam Slivka; Joyce A Peetermans; Matthew J Rousseau; Gregory P Tirrell; Andrew S Ross Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2019-11-06 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Kristen A Wendorf; Meagan Kay; Christopher Baliga; Scott J Weissman; Michael Gluck; Punam Verma; Marisa D'Angeli; Jennifer Swoveland; Mi-Gyeong Kang; Kaye Eckmann; Andrew S Ross; Jeffrey Duchin Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2015-03-30 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Douglas K Rex; Marnie Sieber; Glen A Lehman; Douglas Webb; Bryan Schmitt; Amy Beth Kressel; Ji Young Bang; Jeffery Easler; Lee McHenry; Ihab El-Hajj; Evan Fogel; James Watkins; Stuart Sherman Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2017-12-13 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Rebecca L Bartles; James E Leggett; Shannan Hove; Catherine D Kashork; Lian Wang; Margret Oethinger; Lynda Baxter; Jack J Brandabur Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2018-02-21 Impact factor: 9.427
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: 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