Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Advanced searchSave search
Original article Clinical endoscopy| Volume 88, ISSUE 2, P306-313.e2, August 2018

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

Published:February 21, 2018DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2018.02.016
A randomized trial of single versus double high-level disinfection of duodenoscopes and linear echoendoscopes using standard automated reprocessing
Previous ArticleAntimicrobial decontamination of endoscopes: Are we there yet?
Next ArticleDuodenoscope-related and echoendoscope-related infections: Is “never” possible?

      Background and Aims

      In a pilot study, we demonstrated that current guidelines for duodenoscope and linear echoendoscope (DLE) reprocessing using a single cycle of high-level disinfection (HLD) in an automated reprocessor may be inadequate. In August 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration offered double HLD as a possible response to address this concern. As a result, Providence Health and Services adopted double HLD as standard procedure for DLEs, but no rigorous clinical studies supported this practice. We undertook a quality improvement study to compare single HLD versus double HLD at 4 of our 34 hospitals.

      Methods

      HLD of DLE was randomized, separately in each facility, to either single HLD or double HLD on weekdays, with standard double HLD on weekends or holidays. There was 99.7% compliance with the randomization scheme. Daily qualitative surveillance cultures of dried, post-HLD DLEs were collected for 6 months (1 swab sample from the elevator mechanism and 1 combined brush sample from the suction and working channels for each encounter), and each sample was incubated for 48 hours. Positivity rates of any microbial growth and growth of high-concern pathogens (potentially pathogenic enteric flora) were compared between the 2 study arms.

      Results

      Altogether, 5850 surveillance culture specimens were obtained during 2925 encounters from the 45 DLEs in clinical use in the participating hospitals. Of these, 3052 (52.2%) were from endoscopes cleaned by double HLD. Double HLD demonstrated no benefit over single HLD because similar positivity rates were observed (all P > .05). The elevator mechanism was more frequently colonized than the biopsy channel (5.2% vs 2.9%, P < .001). Among the 224 encounters with positive growth, 140 (62.5%) recovered microbes from only the elevator mechanism specimens, 73 (32.6%) recovered microbes from only the channel specimens, and 11 (4.9%) recovered microbes from both types of specimens. Double HLD failed to improve contamination rates for either sample site at any of the 4 endoscopy facilities, although there were significant overall differences in contamination rates among the facilities (P < .001), as observed in our previous study. Only 8 high-concern pathogens were recovered from 5 DLEs, all from the elevator mechanism. Persistent growth was observed on 2 duodenoscopes. One grew Enterococcus spp (not vancomycin-resistant enterococci) on 3 occasions, and Escherichia coli was present on 2 of these occasions, 1 of which was a multidrug-resistant organism. The other grew different enteric flora on 2 specimens.

      Conclusions

      Our prospectively randomized study, involving 4 separate endoscopy facilities and standard automated endoscope reprocessing, showed that double HLD did not reduce culture positivity rates compared with single HLD in facilities with an already low positive culture rate. Alternative risk mitigation strategies will be assessed in an ongoing effort to reduce endoscope contamination.

      Abbreviations:

      AER (automated endoscope reprocessor), DLE (duodenoscope and linear echoendoscope), FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration), HLD (high-level disinfection)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Register: Create an account
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Peterson B.T.
        • Koch J.
        • Ginsberg G.G.
        Infection using ERCP endoscopes.
        Gastroenterology. 2016; 151: 46-50
        View in Article
        • Epstein L.
        • Hunter J.C.
        • Arwady M.A.
        • et al.
        New Delhi metallo-betalactamase-producing carbapenem-resistant Escherichia coli associated with exposure to duodenoscopes.
        JAMA. 2014; 312: 1447-1455
        View in Article
        • Kovaleva J.
        • Peters F.T.
        • van der Mei H.C.
        • et al.
        Transmission of infection by flexible gastrointestinal endoscopy and bronchoscopy.
        Clin Microbiol Rev. 2013; 26: 231-254
        View in Article
        • Wendorf K.A.
        • Kay M.
        • Baliga C.
        • et al.
        Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-associated AmpC Escherichia coli outbreak.
        Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015; 36: 634-642
        View in Article

      5. Division of Industry and Consumer Education, U.S. FDA. Design of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) duodenoscopes may impede effective cleaning: FDA safety communication. Available at: https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170723124406/https://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/MedicalDevices/MedicalDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/Gastroenterology-UrologyDevicesPanel/UCM445596.pdf. Accessed September 13, 2017.

        View in Article

      6. Center for Devices and Radiological Health, U.S. FDA. Meeting of the Gastroenterology and Urology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee: effective reprocessing of endoscopes used in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancratography (ERCP) procedures, May 14-15, 2015. Available at: https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170113091323/http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/MedicalDevices/MedicalDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/Gastroenterology-UrologyDevicesPanel/UCM445592.pdf. Accessed September 13, 2017.

        View in Article
        • Rutala W.A.
        • Weber D.J.
        ERCP scopes: What can we do to prevent infections?.
        Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015; 36: 643-648
        View in Article
        • Brandabur J.J.
        • Leggett J.E.
        • Wang L.
        • et al.
        Surveillance of guideline practices for duodenoscope and linear echoendoscope reprocessing in a large healthcare system.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2016; 84: 392-399
        View in Article
        • Ross A.S.
        • Baliga C.
        • Verma P.
        • et al.
        A quarantine process for the resolution of duodenoscope-associated transmission of multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2015; 82: 477-483
        View in Article
        • Rutala W.A.
        • Weber D.J.
        Outbreaks of carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae infections associated with duodenoscopes: What can we do to prevent infections?.
        Am J Infect Control. 2016; 44: e47-e51
        View in Article

      11. U.S. FDA. Supplemental measures to enhance duodenoscope reprocessing: FDA Safety Communication 2015. Available at: https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170111065959/http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm454766.htm. Accessed September 13, 2017.

        View in Article
        • Petersen B.T.
        Duodenoscope reprocessing: risk and options coming into view.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2015; 82: 484-487
        View in Article
        • Visrodia K.
        • Petersen B.T.
        Echoing concerns related to endoscope reprocessing.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2017; 85: 398-400
        View in Article
        • Petersen B.T.
        • Cohen J.
        • Hambrick R.D.
        • et al.
        Multisociety guideline on reprocessing flexible GI endoscopes: 2016 update.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2017; 85: 282-294
        View in Article

      15. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim protocol for healthcare facilities regarding surveillance for bacterial contamination of duodenoscopes after reprocessing. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/hai/organisms/cre/cre-duodenoscope-surveillance-protocol.html. Accessed September 13, 2017.

        View in Article
        • Chapman C.G.
        • Siddiqui U.D.
        • Manzano M.
        • et al.
        Risk of infection transmission in curvilinear array echoendoscopes: results of a prospective reprocessing and culture registry.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2017; 85: 390-397
        View in Article
        • Alfa M.J.
        • Ribeiro M.M.
        • da Costa Luciano C.
        • et al.
        A novel polytetrafluoroethylene-channel model, which simulates low levels of culturable bacteria in buildup biofilm after repeated endoscope reprocessing.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2017; 86: 442-451
        View in Article
        • Almario C.V.
        • May F.P.
        • Shaheen N.J.
        • et al.
        Cost utility of competing strategies to prevent endoscopic transmission of carbapenem-resistant enterobacteriaceae.
        Am J Gastroenterol. 2015; 110: 1666-1674
        View in Article
        • Gazdik M.A.
        • Coombs J.
        • Burke J.P.
        • et al.
        Comparison of two culture methods for use in assessing microbial contamination of duodenoscopes.
        J Clin Microbiol. 2016; 54: 312-316
        View in Article

      20. Department of Health and Human Services (2018). Duodenoscope surveillance sampling and culturing: reducing the risks of infection. Available at at: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/ReprocessingofReusableMedicalDevices/UCM597949.pdf. Accessed March 14, 2018.

        View in Article
        • Beekmann S.E.
        • Palmore T.N.
        • Polgreen P.M.
        • et al.
        Adequacy of duodenoscope reprocessing methods as reported by infectious disease physicians.
        Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2016; 37: 226-228
        View in Article
        • Pineau L.
        • De Philippe E.
        Evaluation of endoscope cleanliness after reprocessing: a clinical-use study.
        Central Service. 2013; 1: 22-27
        View in Article
        • Alfa M.J.
        • Fatima I.
        • Olson N.
        The adenosine triphosphate test is a rapid and reliable audit tool to assess manual cleaning adequacy of flexible endoscope channels.
        Am J Infect Control. 2013; 41: 249-253
        View in Article

      24. Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. Safe handling and biological decontamination of medical devices in health care facilities and in nonclinical settings. AN SI/AA MI ST35: 2003. Available at: http://www.aami.org/. Accessed September 1, 2017.

        View in Article

      25. Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. A compendium of processes, materials, test methods, and acceptance criteria for cleaning reusable medical devices. AAMI TIR 30: 2003. Available at: http://www.aami.org/. Accessed September 1, 2017.

        View in Article

      Article info

      Publication history

      Published online: February 21, 2018
      Accepted: February 7, 2018
      Received: November 6, 2017

      Footnotes

      DISCLOSURE: All authors disclosed no financial relationships relevant to this publication.

      See CME section; p. 397.

      Identification

      DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2018.02.016

      Copyright

      © 2018 by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

      ScienceDirect

      Access this article on ScienceDirect

      Linked Article

      • Duodenoscope-related and echoendoscope-related infections: Is “never” possible?
        Gastrointestinal EndoscopyVol. 88Issue 2
        • Preview
          In 1999, the term “never event” was introduced by the National Quality Forum (NQF) to refer to particularly egregious and entirely preventable errors such as wrong-site surgery.1 The NQF more recently transitioned toward using the slightly more flexible term “serious reportable events” to describe events that are “unambiguous, usually preventable, serious,” “indicative of a problem in a health care facility's safety systems,” and/or “important for public credibility or…accountability.”2 The widely reported duodenoscope-related outbreaks in the past several years, which have been associated with equipment from all 3 major endoscope manufacturers, meet the NQF criteria for “serious reportable events.”
        • Full-Text
        • PDF
      We use cookies to help provide and enhance our service and tailor content. To update your cookie settings, please visit the for this site.
      Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. except certain content provided by third parties. The content on this site is intended for healthcare professionals.


      RELX