Investigation of the efficacy of an innovative endoscope drying and storage method in a simulated ERCP setting

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims Drying after cleaning and disinfection is essential in the reprocessing of endoscopes since microorganisms can grow and form biofilms on wet surfaces. In this experimental non-clinical study, we investigated the efficacy of a novel, fast-drying method when reprocessing duodenoscopes.

Methods During a series of 40 tests, three duodenoscopes were exposed to an artificial test soil containing supraphysiological loads of four types of gut microorganisms in a non-clinical ERCP simulation, followed by reprocessing and drying with the PlasmaTYPHOON. Cultures of the distal tip and working channel were acquired immediately after automated decontamination and after drying with the PlasmaTYPHOON. Cobalt chloride paper tests and borescope inspections were used to evaluate drying efficacy.

Results Contamination of the working channels dropped from 86.4 % post-decontamination to 33.6 % post-drying, with 94 % of the positive post-drying samples belonging to one duodenoscope. This duodenoscope showed persistent contamination with P. aeruginosa in the working channel. The other two duodenoscopes only showed low levels of P. aeruginosa in post-decontamination channel samples, but not after drying. Cobalt chloride paper tests and borescope inspections revealed good drying efficacy.

Conclusions Positive cultures for gut microorganisms were often found in wet endoscopes post-decontamination. The PlasmaTYPHOON is an effective fast-drying method capable of abolishing nearly all remaining microorganisms after decontamination provided no biofilm has developed, even when using a supraphysiological concentration of bacterial load. The clinical use of the PlasmaTYPHOON has the potential to reduce endoscope contamination, the use of wet contaminated endoscopes and therefore the risk of patient infection.

Publication History

Received: 02 December 2022

Accepted: 30 December 2022

Article published online:
28 April 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

• References

• 1 Balan GG, Sfarti CV, Chiriac SA. et al. Duodenoscope-associated infections: a review. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 2019; 38: 2205-2213
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Higa JT, Gluck M, Ross AS. Duodenoscope-Associated bacterial infections: a review and update. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol 2016; 14: 185-193
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Rubin ZA, Murthy RK. Outbreaks associated with duodenoscopes: new challenges and controversies. Curr Opin Infect Dis 2016; 29: 407-414
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Johani K, Hu H, Santos L. et al. Determination of bacterial species present in biofilm contaminating the channels of clinical endoscopes. Infect, Dis & Health 2018; 23: 189-196
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Donlan RM. Biofilms: microbial life on surfaces. Emerg Infect Dis 2002; 8: 881-890
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Kovaleva J, Degener JE, van der Mei HC. Mimicking disinfection and drying of biofilms in contaminated endoscopes. J Hosp Infect 2010; 76: 345-350
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Perumpail RB, Marya NB, McGinty BL. et al. Endoscope reprocessing: Comparison of drying effectiveness and microbial levels with an automated drying and storage cabinet with forced filtered air and a standard storage cabinet. Am J Infect Control 2019; 47: 1083-1089
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Tian H, Sun J, Guo S. et al. The effectiveness of drying on residual droplets, microorganisms, and biofilms in gastrointestinal endoscope reprocessing: a systematic review. Gastroenterology Research and Practice 2021; 2021: 6615357
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Beilenhoff U, Biering H, Blum R. et al. Reprocessing of flexible endoscopes and endoscopic accessories used in gastrointestinal endoscopy: Position Statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) – Update 2018. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 1205-1234
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Kwakman JA, Bexkens ML, Bruno MJ. et al. Persistent contamination of a duodenoscope working channel in a non-clinical simulated ERCP setting. Endoscopy 2022; 54: 1085-1090
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control, American Society for Microbiology. Duodenoscope surveillance sampling and culturing; reducing the risk of infection. https://www.fda.gov/media/111081/download
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Dutch Association for Medical Microbiology. Guideline control of microbiological safety of thermolabile flexible high-risk gastrointestinal endoscopes. https://www.nvmm.nl/media/2222/180627-richtlijn-controle-op-microbiologische-veiligheid-van-thermolabiele-flexibele-gi-endoscopen-juiste-versie.pdf
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Saliou P, Cholet F, Jézéquel J. et al. The use of channel-purge storage for gastrointestinal endoscopes reduces microbial contamination. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015; 36: 1100-1102
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Pineau L, Villard E, Duc DL. et al. Endoscope drying/storage cabinet: interest and efficacy. J Hosp Infect 2008; 68: 59-65
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Alfa MJ, Sitter DL. In-hospital evaluation of contamination of duodenoscopes: a quantitative assessment of the effect of drying. J Hosp Infect 1991; 19: 89-98
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Advisory Board Cleaning and Disinfection Flexible Endoscopes (SFERD). Professional standard handbook, version 5.0. Flexible endoscope cleaning and disinfection. https://www.vdsmh.nl/publicaties/flexibele-endoscopen/sferd-handboek-versie-50-2019
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Alfa MJ, 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Kovaleva J, Meessen NE, Peters FT. et al. Is bacteriologic surveillance in endoscope reprocessing stringent enough?. Endoscopy 2009; 41: 913-916
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Qiu L, Zhou Z, Liu Q. et al. Investigating the failure of repeated standard cleaning and disinfection of a Pseudomonas aeruginosa-infected pancreatic and biliary endoscope. Am J Infect Control 2015; 43: e43-46
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Alfa MJ, Ribeiro MM, 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 e441
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Simões LC, Simões M, Vieira MJ. Adhesion and biofilm formation on polystyrene by drinking water-isolated bacteria. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 2010; 98: 317-329
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Okamoto N, Sczaniecka A, Hirano M. et al. A prospective, multicenter, clinical study of duodenoscope contamination after reprocessing. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2022; 43: 1901-1909
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Nerandzic M, Antloga K, Litto C. et al. Efficacy of flexible endoscope drying using novel endoscope test articles that allow direct visualization of the internal channel systems. American Journal of Infection Control 2021; 49: 614-621
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar