Literature DB >> 32745532

Double high-level disinfection versus liquid chemical sterilization for reprocessing of duodenoscopes used for ERCP: a prospective randomized study.

Mark A Gromski1, Marnie S Sieber2, Stuart Sherman1, Douglas K Rex1.   

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.
Copyright © 2020 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32745532      PMCID: PMC8101057          DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.07.057

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


  11 in total

1.  Independent root-cause analysis of contributing factors, including dismantling of 2 duodenoscopes, to investigate an outbreak of multidrug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae.

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

2.  Randomized Comparison of 3 High-Level Disinfection and Sterilization Procedures for Duodenoscopes.

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

3.  Prospective assessment of the effectiveness of standard high-level disinfection for echoendoscopes.

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

4.  Clinical Evaluation of a Single-Use Duodenoscope for Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography.

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

5.  Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-associated AmpC Escherichia coli outbreak.

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

6.  A double-reprocessing high-level disinfection protocol does not eliminate positive cultures from the elevators of duodenoscopes.

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

7.  A randomized trial of single versus double high-level disinfection of duodenoscopes and linear echoendoscopes using standard automated reprocessing.

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

8.  New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase-producing carbapenem-resistant Escherichia coli associated with exposure to duodenoscopes.

Authors:  Lauren Epstein; Jennifer C Hunter; M Allison Arwady; Victoria Tsai; Linda Stein; Marguerite Gribogiannis; Mabel Frias; Alice Y Guh; Alison S Laufer; Stephanie Black; Massimo Pacilli; Heather Moulton-Meissner; J Kamile Rasheed; Johannetsy J Avillan; Brandon Kitchel; Brandi M Limbago; Duncan MacCannell; David Lonsway; Judith Noble-Wang; Judith Conway; Craig Conover; Michael Vernon; Alexander J Kallen
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2014-10-08       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Risk factors associated with the transmission of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae via contaminated duodenoscopes.

Authors:  Stephen Kim; Dana Russell; Mehdi Mohamadnejad; Jitin Makker; Alireza Sedarat; Rabindra R Watson; Shangxin Yang; Peera Hemarajata; Romney Humphries; Zachary Rubin; V Raman Muthusamy
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2016-03-16       Impact factor: 9.427

10.  Notes from the Field: New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli associated with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography - Illinois, 2013.

Authors: 
Journal:  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep       Date:  2014-01-03       Impact factor: 17.586

View more
  4 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

2.  Contamination Rates in Duodenoscopes Reprocessed Using Enhanced Surveillance and Reprocessing Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Shivanand Bomman; Munish Ashat; Navroop Nagra; Mahendran Jayaraj; Shruti Chandra; Richard A Kozarek; Andrew Ross; Rajesh Krishnamoorthi
Journal:  Clin Endosc       Date:  2022-01-03

3.  Esophageal Perforation after Using a Single-Use Disposable Duodenoscope.

Authors:  Bakht S Cheema; Maged Ghali; Ron Schey; Ziad Awad; Bruno Ribeiro
Journal:  Case Rep Gastroenterol       Date:  2021-12-23

Review 4.  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

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.