Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T03:58:18.543Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Survey of Reprocessing Methods, Residual Viable Bioburden, and Soil Levels in Patient-Ready Endoscopic Retrograde Choliangiopancreatography Duodenoscopes Used in Canadian Centers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Michelle J. Alfa ,
Nancy Olson ,
Pat DeGagne  and
Michele Jackson
Michelle J. Alfa*
Affiliation:
Microbiology Department, St. Boniface General Hospital, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan
Nancy Olson
Affiliation:
Microbiology Department, St. Boniface General Hospital, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Pat DeGagne
Affiliation:
Microbiology Department, St. Boniface General Hospital, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Michele Jackson
Affiliation:
Microbiology Department, St. Boniface General Hospital, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
*
Department of Clinical Laboratory Sciences, College of Pharmacy and Allied Health Professions, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48202
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives:

To obtain information about current reprocessing practices and to obtain samples from the biopsy channel to quantitate soil levels and bioburden in patient-ready flexible duodenoscopes used for endoscopic retrograde choliangiopancreatography (ERCP).

Design:

Participating centers were sent a questionnaire and a kit for on-site collection of samples from the biopsy channel of the duodenoscope.

Setting:

Thirty-seven hospitals from across Canada participated. The only criterion was that they currently used and reprocessed flexible duodenoscopes for ERCP procedures.

Methods:

The questionnaire obtained information on reprocessing practices. The kit included a detailed instruction booklet outlining sample collection and all of the tubes, sterile water, and brushes needed for it. Samples were collected on-site from all ERCP scopes in each center on Monday morning and shipped by overnight courier on ice to the research center. Each sample was assayed by routine microbiologic methods for total viable count and protein, blood, carbohydrate, and endotoxin levels.

Results:

Microbial overgrowth was present in 7% of 119 scope samples. Cleaning appeared to be reasonably well done in most of the centers, and 43% of the centers were in total compliance with basic national guidelines. The data from the scope samples indicated that there was significantly greater buildup of protein, carbohydrate, and endotoxin associated with ERCP scopes from centers using glutaraldehyde, compared with those using peracetic acid. Carbohydrate was the soil component detected most frequently and in the highest concentration in scope channels.

Conclusions:

Although cleaning was generally well done, areas for improvement included ensuring the availability of written reprocessing protocols, immersion of scopes during manual cleaning, use of adequate fluid volume for rinsing, adequate drying of scopes prior to storage, and the separation of ERCP valves from scopes during storage.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 23 , Issue 4 , April 2002 , pp. 198 - 206
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Bond, WW. Overview of infection control problems. In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders; 2000:199–213.Google Scholar
2.Van Dam, J, Brugge, WR. Endoscopy of the upper gastrointestinal tract. N Engl J Med 1999;341:1738–1748.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.DiMarino, AJ Jr, Gage, T, Leung, J, et al. Reprocessing of flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes. Gastrointest Endosc 1996;43:540–546.Google Scholar
4.Martin, MA, Reichelderfer, M, Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. 1991, 1992, and 1993 APIC Guidelines Committee. APIC guideline for infection prevention and control in flexible endoscopy. APIC Guidelines 1994;22:19–38.Google Scholar
5.Schembre, DB. Infectious complications associated with gastrointestinal endoscopy. In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders; 2000:215–232.Google Scholar
6.Allen, JI, Allen, MO, Olson, MM, et al. Pseudomonas infection of the biliary system resulting from use of a contaminated endoscope. Gastroenterology 1987;92:759–763.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Blanc, DS, Parret, T, Janin, B, Raselli, P, Francioli, P. Nosocomial infections and pseudoinfections from contaminated bronchoscopes: two-year follow up using molecular markers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1997;18:134–136.Google Scholar
8.Feigal, DW, Hughes, JM. FDA and CDC Public Health Advisory: infection from endoscopes inadequately reprocessed by an automated endoscope reprocessing system. Available at www.fda/gov/cdrh/safety/endoreprocess.html.Google Scholar
9.Michele, TM, Cronin, WA, Graham, NMH, et al. Transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis by a fiberoptic bronchoscope. JAMA 1997;278:1093–1095.Google Scholar
10.Nicolle, LE, McLeod, J, Romance, L, Parker, S, Paraskevas, M. Pseudo-outbreak of blastomycosis associated with contaminated bronchoscopes. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1992;13:324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Agerton, T, Valway, S, Gore, B, Pozsik, C, Plikaytis, B, Woodley, C. Transmission of a highly drug-resistant strain (strain W1) of Mycobacterium tuberculosis: community outbreak and nosocomial transmission via a contaminated bronchoscope. JAMA 1997;278:1073–1077.Google Scholar
12.Urayama, S, Kozarek, RA, Sumida, S, Raltz, S, Merriam, L, Pethigal, P. Mycobacteria and glutaraldehyde: is high-level disinfection of endoscopes possible? Gastrointest Endosc 1996;43:451–456.Google Scholar
13.Deva, AK, Vickery, K, Zou, J, et al. Detection of persistent vegetative bacteria and amplified viral nucleic acid from in-use testing of gastrointestinal endoscopes. J Hosp Infect 1998;39:149–157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Spach, DH, Silverstein, FE, Stamm, WE. Transmission of infection by gastrointestinal endoscopy and bronchoscopy. Ann Intern Med 1993; 118:117–128.Google Scholar
15.Bronowicki, JP, Venard, V, Botte, C, et al. Patient-to-patient transmission of hepatitis C virus during colonoscopy. N Engl J Med 1997;337:237–240.Google Scholar
16.Alfa, M, Sitter, DL. In-hospital evaluation of contamination of duodenoscopes: a quantitative assessment of the effect of drying. J Hosp Infect 1991;19:89–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Wenzel, RP, Edmond, MB. Tuberculosis infection after bronchoscopy. JAMA 1997;278:111.Google Scholar
18.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Bronchoscopy-related infections and pseudoinfections—New York, 1996 and 1998. MMWR 1997;48:557–560.Google Scholar
19.BSG Endoscopy Committee Working Party. Cleaning and disinfection of equipment for gastrointestinal endoscopy: report of a Working Party of the British Society of Gastroenterology Endoscopy Committee. Gut 1998;42:585–593.Google Scholar
20.Cowen, A, ed. Infection Control in Endoscopy Guidelines 1999, 4th ed. Sydney, Australia: Gastroenterological Society of Australia; 1999.Google Scholar
21.Kaczmarek, RG, Moore, RM, McCrohan, J, et al. Multi-state investigation of the actual disinfection/sterilization of endoscopes in health care facilities. Am J Med 1992;92:257–261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Reynolds, CD, Rhinehart, E, Dreyer, P, Goldmann, DA. Variability in reprocessing policies and procedures for flexible fiberoptic endoscopes in Massachusetts hospitals. Am J Infect Control 1992;20:283–290.Google Scholar
23.Rutala, WA, Gergen, MF, Jones, JF, Weber, DJ. Levels of microbial contamination on surgical instruments. Am J Infect Control 1998;26:143–145.Google Scholar
24.Chan-Myers, H, McAlister, D, Antonoplos, P. Natural bioburden levels detected on rigid lumened medical devices before and after cleaning. Am J Infect Control 1997;25:471–476.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Chu, NS, McAlister, D, Antonoplos, PA. Natural bioburden levels detected on flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes after clinical use and manual cleaning. Gastrointest Endosc 1998;48:137–142.Google Scholar
26.Chu, NS, Chan-Myers, H, Ghazanfari, N, Antonoplos, P. Levels of naturally occurring microorganisms on surgical instruments after clinical use and after washing. Am J Infect Control 1999;27:315–319.Google Scholar
27.Isenberg, HD, ed. Clinical Microbiology Procedures Handbook. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology; 1994.Google Scholar
28.Alfa, MJ, DeGagne, P, Olson, N. Worst-case soiling levels for patient-used flexible endoscopes before and after cleaning. Am J Infect Control 1999;27:392–401.Google Scholar
29.Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates. Guideline for the use of high-level disinfectants and sterilants for reprocessing of flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes. Gastroenterology Nursing 1999;22:127–134.Google Scholar
30.Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. Water quality for dialysis. In: AAMI Standards and Recommended Practices, vol. 3. Arlington, VA: Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation; 1996:1–9.Google Scholar
31.Environmental Health Directorate Health Canada. Summary of Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Environmental Health Directorate Health Canada, Federal-Provincial Subcommittee on Drinking Water and Secretariat; 1999.Google Scholar
32.Walter, VA, DiMarino, AJ. American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy-Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates Endoscope Reprocessing Guidelines. In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America: Endoscopic Disinfection and Reprocessing of Endoscopic Accessories. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders; 2000;10:265–273.Google Scholar
33.Tandon, RK, Ahuja, V. Non-United States guidelines for endoscope reprocessing. In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Clinics of North America. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders; 2000:295–318.Google Scholar
34.Riouful, C, Devys, C, Meunier, G, Perraud, M, Goullet, D. Quantitative determination of endotoxins released by bacterial biofilms. J Hosp Infect 1999;43:203–209.Google Scholar
35.Tucker, RC, Lestini, BJ, Marchant, RE. Surface analysis of clinically used expanded PTFE endoscopic tubing treated by the STERIS process. ASAIO J 1996;42:306–313.Google Scholar
36.McDonnell, G, Russell, AD. Antiseptics and disinfectants: activity, action, and resistance. Clin Microbiol Rev 1999;12:147–179.Google Scholar
37.Karon, R, Jacobson, D, Wittrock, B, Lavin, MA, Wurtz, R. Open or closed: how do you store your endoscopes? Am J Infect Control 1999:218.Google Scholar
38.Jette, LP, Ringuette, L, Ishak, M, Miller, M, Saint-Antoine, P. Evaluation of three glutaraldehyde-based disinfectants used in endoscopy. J Hosp Infect 1995;30:295–303.Google Scholar
39.Rutala, WA, Weber, DJ. Disinfection of endoscopes: review of new chemical sterilants used for high-level disinfection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1999;20:69–76.Google Scholar
40.Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. Safe Handling and Biological Decontamination of Medical Devices in Health Care Facilities and in Nonclinical Settings. ANSI/AAMIST35. Arlington, VAAssociation for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation; 1996:1–15.Google Scholar
41.West, AB, Kuan, SF, Bennick, M, Lagarde, S. Glutaraldehyde colitis following endoscopy: clinical and pathological features and investigation of an outbreak. Gastroenterology 1995;108:1250–1255.Google Scholar
42.Fraser, VJ, Zuckerman, G, Clouse, RE, et al. A prospective randomized trial comparing manual and automated endoscope disinfection methods. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 1993;14:383–389.Google Scholar