Advertisement
Original article Clinical endoscopy| Volume 88, ISSUE 2, P292-302, August 2018

Download started.

Ok

Impact of cleaning monitoring combined with channel purge storage on elimination of Escherichia coli and environmental bacteria from duodenoscopes

Published:February 21, 2018DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2018.02.018

      Background and Aims

      We aimed to determine whether monitoring of duodenoscope cleaning by rapid adenosine triphosphate (ATP) combined with channel-purge storage could eliminate high-concern microorganisms.

      Methods

      In a simulated-use study, suction channels, as well as lever recesses, from 2 duodenoscopes models and the unsealed elevator guidewire (EGW) channel from 1 of these 2 duodenoscopes (the other model has a sealed EGW) were perfused with ATS2015 containing approximately 8 Log10 colony-forming units (CFU)/mL of both Enterococcus faecalis and Escherichia coli. Pump-assisted cleaning was monitored by rapid ATP testing. Duodenoscopes exceeding 200 relative light units (RLUs) were recleaned. Clean duodenoscopes were processed through an automated endoscope reprocessor and then stored in a channel-purge storage cabinet for 1 to 3 days. Cultures of EGW channel and instrument channel combined with the lever recess (IC-LR) were taken after storage. The impacts of extended cleaning and alcohol flush were evaluated.

      Results

      E coli was reliably eliminated in IC-LR and EGW channels of 119 duodenoscope tests (59 with sealed EGW and 60 with nonsealed EGW). However, actionable levels of E faecalis and environmental bacteria persisted. Neither alcohol flush nor extended cleaning resulted in a reduction of actionable levels for these organisms. Identification of isolates indicated that residual organisms in duodenoscope channels were hardy Gram-positive bacteria (often spore formers) that likely originated from environmental sources.

      Conclusions

      These data indicate that high-concern Gram-negative bacteria but not E faecalis or environmental bacteria can be reliably eliminated by use of the manufacturer’s instructions for reprocessing with ATP monitoring of cleaning and channel-purge storage conditions.

      Abbreviations:

      AER (automated endoscope reprocessor), ATP (adenosine triphosphate), CDC (Centers for Disease Control), CFU (colony-forming unit), CP cabinet (channel-purge storage cabinet), EGW (elevator guidewire), IC-LR (instrument channel–lever recess), MALDI-TOF (matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight), MIFU (manufacturer’s instructions for use), RLU (relative light unit), sRO (sterile reverse osmosis), SS1E (Steris System 1E)
      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
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Epstein L.
        • Hunter J.C.
        • Arwady M.A.
        • et al.
        New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase-producing carbapenem-resistant Escherichia coli associated with exposure to duodenoscopes.
        JAMA. 2014; 312: 1447-1455
        • Aumeran C.
        • Poincloux L.
        • Souweine B.
        • et al.
        Multidrug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae outbreak after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.
        Endoscopy. 2010; 42: 895-899
        • Carbonne A.
        • Thiolet J.M.
        • Fournier S.
        • et al.
        Control of a multi-hospital outbreak of KPC-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae type 2 in France, September to October 2009.
        Euro Surveill. 2010; 15
        • Alrabaa S.F.
        • Nguyen P.
        • Sanderson R.
        • et al.
        Early identification and control of carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae, originating from contaminated endoscopic equipment.
        Am J Infect Control. 2013; 41: 562-564
        • 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
        • 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
        • 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
        • Muscarella L.F.
        Risk of transmission of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae and related “superbugs” during gastrointestinal endoscopy.
        World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2014; 6: 457-474
        • 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.e1
        • Gillespie E.E.
        • Kotsanas D.
        • Stuart R.L.
        Microbiological monitoring of endoscopes: 5-year review.
        J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008; 23: 1069-1074
        • Alfa M.J.
        • Sepehri S.
        • Olson N.
        • et al.
        Establishing a clinically relevant bioburden benchmark: a quality indicator for adequate reprocessing and storage of flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes.
        Am J Infect Control. 2012; 40: 233-236
        • Paula H.
        • Tribl B.
        • Presterl E.
        • et al.
        Prospective microbiologic evaluation of the forceps elevator in closed-channel duodenoscopes after reprocessing.
        Am J Infect Control. 2017; 45: 121-125
        • Olafsdottir L.B.
        • Wright S.B.
        • Smithey A.
        • et al.
        Adenosine triphosphate quantification correlates poorly with microbial contamination of duodenoscopes.
        Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2017; 38: 678-684
        • Ma G.K.
        • Pegues D.A.
        • Kochman M.L.
        • et al.
        Implementation of a systematic culturing program to monitor the efficacy of endoscope reprocessing: outcomes and costs.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2018; 87: 104-109.e3
        • 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.e3
        • Pineau L.
        • De Philippe E.
        Evaluation of endoscope cleanliness after reprocessing: a clinical-use study. Bewertung der Sauberkeit von Endoskopen nach der Aufbereitung: eine Studie aus der Klinischen Praxis.
        Zentralsterilisation. 2013; 21: 22-27
        • Saliou P.
        • Le Bars H.
        • Payan C.
        • et al.
        Measures to improve microbial quality surveillance of gastrointestinal endoscopes.
        Endoscopy. 2016; 48: 704-710
        • Saliou P.
        • Cholet F.
        • Jezequel J.
        • et al.
        The use of channel-purge storage for gastrointestinal endoscopes reduces microbial contamination.
        Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2015; 36: 1100-1102
        • Visrodia K.
        • Hanada Y.
        • Pennington K.M.
        • et al.
        Duodenoscope reprocessing surveillance with adenosine triphosphate testing and terminal cultures: a clinical pilot study.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2017; 86: 180-186
        • 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.e1
        • Ofstead C.L.
        • Wetzler H.P.
        • Heymann O.L.
        • et al.
        Longitudinal assessment of reprocessing effectiveness for colonoscopes and gastroscopes: results of visual inspections, biochemical markers, and microbial cultures.
        Am J Infect Control. 2017; 45: e26-e33
        • Ofstead C.L.
        • Wetzler H.P.
        • Eiland J.E.
        • et al.
        Assessing residual contamination and damage inside flexible endoscopes over time.
        Am J Infect Control. 2016; 44: 1675-1677
        • van Stiphout S.H.
        • Laros I.F.
        • van Wezel R.A.
        • et al.
        Crystallization in the waterjet channel in colonoscopes due to simethicone.
        Endoscopy. 2016; 48: E394-E395
        • Ofstead C.L.
        • Wetzler H.P.
        • Johnson E.A.
        • et al.
        Simethicone residue remains inside gastrointestinal endoscopes despite reprocessing.
        Am J Infect Control. 2016; 44: 1237-1240
        • Pineau L.
        • Villard E.
        • Duc D.L.
        • et al.
        Endoscope drying/storage cabinet: interest and efficacy.
        J Hosp Infect. 2008; 68: 59-65
        • Ofstead C.L.
        • Wetzler H.P.
        • Snyder A.K.
        • et al.
        Endoscope reprocessing methods: a prospective study on the impact of human factors and automation.
        Gastroenterol Nurs. 2010; 33: 304-311
        • McDonnell G.
        • Ehrman M.
        • Kiess S.
        Effectiveness of the SYSTEM 1E liquid chemical sterilant processing system for reprocessing duodenoscopes.
        Am J Infect Control. 2016; 44: 685-688
        • Alfa M.J.
        • Olson N.
        Physical and composition characteristics of clinical secretions compared with test soils used for validation of flexible endoscope cleaning.
        J Hosp Infect. 2016; 93: 83-88
      1. Olympus. EVIS EXERA II TJF TYPE Q180V Reprocessing manual. Volume 2017. Center Valley, Pa: Olympus America Inc, 2015.

        • Alfa M.J.
        • Olson N.
        • Murray B.L.
        Comparison of clinically relevant benchmarks and channel sampling methods used to assess manual cleaning compliance for flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes.
        Am J Infect Control. 2014; 42: e1-e5
        • Parohl N.
        • Stiefenhofer D.
        • Heiligtag S.
        • et al.
        Monitoring of endoscope reprocessing with an adenosine triphosphate (ATP) bioluminescence method.
        GMS Hyg Infect Control. 2017; 12: Doc04
      2. Centers for Disease Control. Interim sampling method for the duodenoscope: distal end and instrument channel. 2015. (Superceded in March 2018. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/ReprocessingofReusableMedicalDevices/UCM597949.pdf).

        • Bernard K.A.
        • Pacheco A.L.
        • Loomer C.
        • et al.
        Corynebacterium lowii sp. nov. and Corynebacterium oculi sp. nov., derived from human clinical disease and an emended description of Corynebacterium mastitidis.
        Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2016; 66: 2803-2812
        • Bernard K.A.
        • Shuttleworth L.
        • Munro C.
        • et al.
        Propionibacterium australiense sp. nov. Derived from granulomatous bovine lesions.
        Anaerobe. 2002; 8: 41-47
        • Cattoir L.
        • Vanzieleghem T.
        • Florin L.
        • et al.
        Surveillance of endoscopes: comparison of different sampling techniques.
        Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2017; 38: 1062-1069
      3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim protocol for healthcare facilities regarding surveillance for bacterial contamination of duodenoscopes after reprocessing. 2015. (Superceded in March 2018. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/ReprocessingofReusableMedicalDevices/UCM597949.pdf).

        • Naryzhny I.
        • Silas D.
        • Chi K.
        Impact of ethylene oxide gas sterilization of duodenoscopes after a carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae outbreak.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2016; 84: 259-262
        • Taylor A.
        • Jones D.
        • Everts R.
        • et al.
        Infection control in endoscopy.
        Third ed. Gastroenterological Society of Australia, Victoria, Australia2010
        • U. S. Food and Drug Administration
        Supplemental measures to enhance duodenoscope reprocessing. FDA Safety Communication.
        Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC2015
        • Rutala W.A.
        • Weber D.J.
        Gastrointestinal endoscopes: a need to shift from disinfection to sterilization?.
        JAMA. 2014; 312: 1405-1406

      Linked Article

      • Antimicrobial decontamination of endoscopes: Are we there yet?
        Gastrointestinal EndoscopyVol. 88Issue 2
        • Preview
          The growth of GI endoscopy provision globally has mirrored developments in the management of GI disease. Endoscopic procedures have become increasingly complex and are often performed in critically ill patients. All endoscopes have the potential to harbor and transmit pathogens, which could cause lethal healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) suggest that the prevalence of HAIs has been on the decline.1 Endoscopy is generally safe, and HAIs associated with endoscopy have been uncommon despite the volume of procedures performed annually.
        • Full-Text
        • PDF