High-quality endoscope reprocessing decreases endoscope contamination

被引:25
|
作者
Decristoforo, P. [1 ]
Kaltseis, J. [1 ]
Fritz, A. [1 ]
Edlinger, M. [2 ]
Posch, W. [1 ]
Wilflingseder, D. [1 ]
Lass-Floerl, C. [1 ]
Orth-Hoeller, D. [1 ]
机构
[1] Med Univ Innsbruck, Div Hyg & Med Microbiol, Schopfstr 41, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria
[2] Med Univ Innsbruck, Dept Med Stat Informat & Hlth Econ, Innsbruck, Austria
关键词
Automated endoscope reprocessor; Contamination; Gastrointestinal endoscope; Guideline; High-level disinfection; Microbiological surveillance; GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY; TRANSMISSION; INFECTION; SURVEILLANCE; COLONOSCOPY; FAILURE;
D O I
10.1016/j.cmi.2018.01.017
中图分类号
R51 [传染病];
学科分类号
100401 ;
摘要
Objectives: Several outbreaks of severe infections due to contamination of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopes, mainly duodenoscopes, have been described. The rate of microbial endoscope contamination varies dramatically in literature. The aim of this multicentre prospective study was to evaluate the hygiene quality of endoscopes and automated endoscope reprocessors (AERs) in Tyrol/Austria. Methods: In 2015 and 2016, a total of 463 GI endoscopes and 105 AERs from 29 endoscopy centres were analysed by a routine (R) and a combined routine and advanced (CRA) sampling procedure and investigated for microbial contamination by culture-based and molecular-based analyses. Results: The contamination rate of GI endoscopes was 1.3%-4.6% according to the national guideline, suggesting that 1.3-4.6 patients out of 100 could have had contacts with hygiene-relevant microorganisms through an endoscopic intervention. Comparison of R and CRA sampling showed 1.8% of R versus 4.6% of CRA failing the acceptance criteria in phase I and 1.3% of R versus 3.0% of CRA samples failing in phase II. The most commonly identified indicator organism was Pseudomonas spp., mainly Pseudomonas oleovorans. None of the tested viruses were detected in 40 samples. While AERs in phase I failed (n = 9, 17.6%) mainly due to technical faults, phase II revealed lapses (n = 6, 11.5%) only on account of microbial contamination of the last rinsing water, mainly with Pseudomonas spp. Conclusions: In the present study the contamination rate of endoscopes was low compared with results from other European countries, possibly due to the high quality of endoscope reprocessing, drying and storage. (c) 2018 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:1101.e1 / 1101.e6
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Minimizing the Risks of Simethicone in Endoscope Reprocessing
    Speer, Tony
    Vickery, Karen
    Alfa, Michelle
    Saenz, Roque
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2023, 57 (02) : 153 - 158
  • [22] Evaluation of Flexible Endoscope Reprocessing Programs
    Knight, Albert
    AORN JOURNAL, 2021, 114 (04) : 329 - 329
  • [23] Current Status of Endoscope Reprocessing in Korea
    Cho, Young-Seok
    CLINICAL ENDOSCOPY, 2015, 48 (01) : 1 - 3
  • [24] Worldwide practices on flexible endoscope reprocessing
    N. Kenters
    E. Tartari
    J. Hopman
    Rehab H. El-Sokkary
    M. Nagao
    K. Marimuthu
    M. C. Vos
    E. G. W. Huijskens
    Andreas Voss
    Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control, 7
  • [25] Sans Standardization: Effective Endoscope Reprocessing
    Avasarala, Sameer K.
    Muscarella, Lawrence F.
    Mehta, Atul C.
    RESPIRATION, 2021, : 1208 - 1217
  • [26] Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound endoscope reprocessing: Variables impacting contamination risk
    Ayres, Ashley M.
    Wozniak, Julia
    O'Neil, Jose
    Stewart, Kimberly
    St Leger, John
    Pasculle, A. William
    Lewis, Casey
    McGrath, Kevin
    Slivka, Adam
    Snyder, Graham M.
    INFECTION CONTROL & HOSPITAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2023, 44 (09) : 1485 - 1489
  • [27] Patient safety and reprocessing: A usability test of the endoscope reprocessing procedure
    Jolly, Jonathan D.
    Hildebrand, Emily A.
    Branaghan, Russell J.
    Garland, T. B.
    Epstein, Dana
    Babcock-Parziale, Judith
    Brown, Victoria
    HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS IN MANUFACTURING & SERVICE INDUSTRIES, 2012, 22 (01) : 39 - 51
  • [28] Inconsistencies in endoscope-reprocessing and infection-control guidelines: The importance of endoscope drying
    Muscarella, Lawrence F.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2006, 101 (09): : 2147 - 2154
  • [29] Patient safety and reprocessing: A usability test of the endoscope reprocessing procedure
    Jolly, Jonathan D.
    Hildebrand, Emily A.
    Branaghan, Russell J.
    Garland, T. B.
    Epstein, Dana
    Babcock-Parziale, Judith
    Brown, Victoria
    HUMAN FACTORS AND ERGONOMICS IN MANUFACTURING & SERVICE INDUSTRIES, 2016, 26 (04) : 443 - 454
  • [30] Procedures in endoscope reprocessing and monitoring: an Italian survey
    Cristina, M. L.
    Valeriani, F.
    Casini, B.
    Agodi, A.
    D'Errico, M. M.
    Gianfranceschi, G.
    Lagana, P.
    Liguori, G.
    Liguori, R.
    Mucci, N.
    Mura, I.
    Pasquarella, C.
    Piana, A.
    Sotgiu, G.
    Privitera, G.
    Protano, C.
    Quattrocchi, A.
    Ripabelli, G.
    Rossini, A.
    Scaramucci, E.
    Spagnolo, A. M.
    Tamburro, M.
    Tardivo, S.
    Veronesi, L.
    Vitali, M.
    Spica, V. Romano
    ANNALI DI IGIENE MEDICINA PREVENTIVA E DI COMUNITA, 2018, 30 (05): : 45 - 63