Reprocessing flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes after a period of disuse: is it necessary?

Storage of gastrointestinal endoscopes: when is the safe time for re-use?

ABSTRACT Objectives: to identify the safe storage time for the use of flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes after high-level disinfection, as well as the defining criteria for this time. Methods: an integrative literature review was carried out in the Virtual Health Library, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, considering original articles published since 2000. Results: eleven articles were selected, whose storage times ranged from 1 to 56 days, with a predominance of one to seven days (73%). Several criteria were used to define this time, predominantly the premise of efficient processing (100%), use of alcohol flush (64%), use of drying cabinets (18%), among others. Conclusions: the criteria for determining the storage time did not show a consensus for clinical practice. Expanding the discussion of this theme with the definition of the minimum necessary conditions is of fundamental importance for the reduction of risks and safety of the procedure and the patient.

Duodenoscope-Associated Infections: Update on an Emerging Problem

The duodenoscope is among the most complex medical instruments that undergo disinfection between patients. Transmission of infection by contaminated scopes has remained a challenge since its inception. Notable risk factors for pathogen transmission include non-adherence to disinfection guidelines, encouragement of biofilm deposition due to complex design and surface defects and contaminated automated endoscope reprocessors. The most common infections following endoscopy are endogenous infections involving the patient's own gut flora. Exogenous infections, on the other hand, are associated with contaminated scopes and can theoretically be prevented by effective reprocessing. Pseudomonas aeruginosa is currently the most common organism isolated from contaminated endoscopes. Of note, reports of multidrug-resistant duodenoscopy-associated outbreaks have surfaced recently, many of which occurred despite adequate reprocessing. The FDA and CDC currently recommend comprehensive cleaning followed with at least high-level disinfection for reprocessing of flexible GI endoscopes. Reports of duodenoscope-related outbreaks despite compliance with established guidelines have prompted professional and government bodies to revisit existing guidelines and offer supplementary recommendations for duodenoscope processing. For the purposes of this review, we identified reports of duodenoscope-associated infections from 2000 till date. For each outbreak, we noted the organisms isolated, the number of cases reported, any possible explanations of contamination, and the measures undertaken to end each outbreak. We have also attempted to present an overview of recent developments in this rapidly evolving field.

Evaluation of 12-Week Shelf Life of Patient-Ready Endoscopes

Current research suggests that for certain types of gastrointestinal endoscopes, longer shelf life (the interval of storage after which endoscopes should be reprocessed before their reuse) may not increase the likelihood of endoscope contamination. Scope contamination may, in fact, be related primarily to either inadequate disinfection processes or inadvertent contamination during storage, not to duration of storage. The purpose of this study evaluated the presence of bacteria and fungus following liquid chemical sterilization in colonoscopes and gastroscopes, after 12 weeks of shelf life during which time personal protective equipment was used during endoscope storage cabinet access. We stored four colonoscopes and two gastroscopes in a cabinet for 12 weeks after liquid chemical sterilization and the cabinet was only accessed during the 12-week period wearing personal protective equipment (gown and gloves). Scopes were tested for bacteria and fungus at the end of 12 weeks. No bacteria or fungus grew on any of the scopes. This study provides further support that contaminated endoscopes may be related to either inadequate disinfection or contamination during storage, not shelf life.

Bacterial presence on flexible endoscopes vs time since disinfection

AIM

To correlate the length of endoscope hang time and number of bacteria cultured prior to use.

METHODS

Prospectively, we cultured specimens from 19 gastroscopes, 24 colonoscopes and 5 side viewing duodenoscopes during the period of 2011 to 2015. A total of 164 results had complete data denoting date of cleansing, number of days stored and culture results. All scopes underwent initial cleaning in the endoscopy suite utilizing tap water, and then manually cleaned and flushed. High level disinfection was achieved with a Medivator^© DSD (Medivator Inc., United States) automated endoscope reprocessor following manufacturer instructions, with Glutacide^® (Pharmax Limited, Canada), a 2% glutaraldehyde solution. After disinfection, all scopes were stored in dust free, unfiltered commercial cabinets for up to 7 d. Prior to use, all scopes were sampled and plated on sheep blood agar for 48 h; the colony count was obtained from each plate. The length of endoscope hang time and bacterial load was analyzed utilizing unpaired t-tests. The overall percentage of positive and negative cultures for each type of endoscope was also calculated.

RESULTS

All culture results were within the acceptable range (less than 200 cfu/mL). One colonoscope cultured 80 cfu/mL after hanging for 1 d, which was the highest count. ERCP scopes cultured at most 10 cfu, this occurred after 2 and 7 d, and gastroscopes cultured 50 cfu/mL at most, at 1 d. Most cultures were negative for growth, irrespective of the length of hang time. Furthermore, all scopes, with the exception of one colonoscope which had two positive cultures (each of 10 cfu/mL), had at most one positive culture. There was no significant difference in the number of bacteria cultured after 1 d compared to 7 d when all scopes were combined (day 2: P = 0.515; day 3: P = identical; day 4: P = 0.071; day 5: P = 0.470; day 6: P = 0.584; day 7: P = 0.575). There was also no significant difference in the number of bacteria cultured after 1 day compared to 7 d for gastroscopes (day 2: P = 0.895; day 3: P = identical; day 4: P = identical; day 5: P = 0.893; day 6: P = identical; day 7: P = 0.756), colonoscopes (day 2: P = 0.489; day 4: P = 0.493; day 5: P = 0.324; day 6: P = 0.526; day 7: P = identical), or ERCP scopes (day 2: P = identical; day 7: P = 0.685).

CONCLUSION

There is no correlation between hang time and bacterial load. Endoscopes do not need to be reprocessed if reused within a period of 7 d.

Endoscope drying and its pitfalls

Inadequate drying of endoscope channels is a possible cause of replication and survival of remaining pathogens during storage. The presence during storage of potentially contaminated water in endoscope channels may promote bacterial proliferation and biofilm formation. An incomplete drying procedure or lack of drying and not storing in a vertical position are the most usual problems identified during drying and endoscope storage. Inadequate drying and storage procedures, together with inadequate cleaning and disinfection, are the most important sources of endoscope contamination and post-endoscopic infection. Flexible endoscopes may be dried in automated endoscope reprocessors (AERs), manually, or in drying/storage cabinets. Flushing of the endoscope channels with 70-90% ethyl or isopropyl alcohol followed by forced air drying is recommended by several guidelines. Current guidelines recommend that flexible endoscopes are stored in a vertical position in a closed, ventilated cupboard. Drying and storage cabinets have a drying system that circulates and forces the dry filtered air through the endoscope channels. Endoscope reprocessing guidelines are inconsistent with one another or give no exact recommendations about drying and storage of flexible endoscopes. There is no conclusive evidence on the length of time endoscopes can be safely stored before requiring re-disinfection and before they pose a contamination risk. To minimize the risk of disease transmission and nosocomial infection, modification and revision of guidelines are recommended as required to be consistent with one another.

Guideline Implementation: Processing Flexible Endoscopes

The updated AORN "Guideline for processing flexible endoscopes" provides guidance to perioperative, endoscopy, and sterile processing personnel for processing all types of reusable flexible endoscopes and accessories in all procedural settings. This article focuses on key points of the guideline to help perioperative personnel safely and effectively process flexible endoscopes to prevent infection transmission. The key points address verification of manual cleaning, mechanical cleaning and processing, storage in a drying cabinet, determination of maximum storage time before reprocessing is needed, and considerations for implementing a microbiologic surveillance program. Perioperative RNs should review the complete guideline for additional information and for guidance when writing and updating policies and procedures.

Association Between Storage Interval and Contamination of Reprocessed Flexible Endoscopes in a Pediatric Gastrointestinal Procedural Unit

OBJECTIVE

The maximum safe storage interval after endoscope reprocessing remains unknown. We assessed the association between storage interval and endoscope contamination to evaluate the need for scope reprocessing prior to use.

METHODS

We conducted a study in 2 phases. In phase 1, we cultured 9 gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopes that had been stored for at least 7 days since reprocessing. Each scope was cultured in 3 places: external surfaces of hand piece, insertion tube, and internal channels. In phase 2, after reprocessing these scopes, we hung and cultured them prospectively in a similar fashion at 1-, 2-, 4-, 6-, and 8-week intervals without patient use. We defined clinically relevant contamination as >100 colony-forming units per milliliter (CFU/mL).

RESULTS

In phase 1, median hang time was 69 days (range, 8–555 days). Considering the 27 total cultures, 3 of 27 GI endoscopes (11.1%) had positive cultures, all with nonpathogenic skin flora at ≤100 CFU/mL. Median hang time was not statistically different between scopes with positive and negative cultures (P=.82). In phase 2, 7 of 131 prospective cultures (5.3%) from 6 of 9 GI endoscopes at varying storage intervals were positive, all at ≤100 CFU/mL. At 56 days after reprocessing (the longest storage interval studied), 1 of 24 cultures (4.2%) was positive (100 CFU/mL ofBacillusspecies from external biopsy/suction ports).

CONCLUSIONS

No endoscopes demonstrated clinically relevant contamination at hang times ranging from 7 to 555 days, and most scopes remained uncontaminated up to 56 days after reprocessing. Our data suggest that properly cleaned and disinfected GI endoscopes could be stored safely for longer intervals than currently recommended.

Infect. Control Hosp. Epidemiol.2017;38:131–135

Infectious complications in gastrointestinal endoscopy and their prevention

Gastrointestinal endoscopes are medical devices that have been associated with outbreaks of health care-associated infections. Because of the severity and limited treatment options of infections caused by multidrug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, considerable attention has been paid to detection and prevention of these post-endoscopic outbreaks. Endoscope reprocessing involves cleaning, high-level disinfection/sterilization followed by rinsing and drying before storage. Failure of the decontamination process implies the risk of settlement of biofilm producing species in endoscope channels. This review covers the infectious complications in gastrointestinal endoscopy and their prevention and highlights the problem of infection risk associated with different steps of endoscope reprocessing.

Endoscope Reprocessing: Update on Controversial Issues

Several issues concerning endoscope reprocessing remain unresolved based on currently available data. Thus, further studies are required to confirm standard practices including safe endoscope shelf life, proper frequency of replacement of some accessories including water bottles and connecting tubes, and microbiological surveillance testing of endoscopes after reprocessing. The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of newer technology that allows automated cleaning and disinfection is one such controversial issue. In addition, there are no guidelines on whether delayed reprocessing and extended soaking may harm endoscope integrity or increase the bioburden on the external or internal device surfaces. In this review, we discuss the unresolved and controversial issues regarding endoscope reprocessing.

Endoscope storage time: assessment of microbial colonization up to 21 days after reprocessing

BACKGROUND

Insufficient data exist for how long endoscopes can be stored after reprocessing. Concern about possible microbial colonization has led to various recommendations for reprocessing intervals among institutions, with many as short as 5 days. A significant cost savings could be realized if it can be demonstrated that endoscopes may be stored for as long as 21 days without risk of clinically significant contamination.

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate whether flexible endoscopes may be stored for as long as 21 days after reprocessing without colonization by pathogenic microbes.

DESIGN

Prospective, observational study.

SETTING

Tertiary care center.

ENDOSCOPES

Four duodenoscopes, 4 colonoscopes, and 2 gastroscopes.

INTERVENTION

Microbial testing of endoscope channels.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Culture results at days 0, 7, 14, and 21.

RESULTS

There were 33 positive cultures from 28 of the 96 sites tested (29.2% overall contamination rate). Twenty-nine of 33 isolates were typical skin or environmental contaminants, thus clinically insignificant. Four potential pathogens were cultured, including Enterococcus, Candida parapsilosis, α-hemolytic Streptococcus, and Aureobasidium pullulans; all were likely clinically insignificant as each was only recovered at 1 time point at 1 site, and all grew in low concentrations. There were no definite pathogenic isolates.

LIMITATIONS

Single center.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopes can be stored for as long as 21 days after standard reprocessing with a low risk of pathogenic microbial colonization. Extension of reprocessing protocols to 21 days could effect significant cost savings.

New developments in reprocessing semicritical items

Semicritical medical devices are defined as items that come into contact with mucous membranes or nonintact skin (eg, gastrointestinal endoscopes). Such medical devices require minimally high-level disinfection. Because many of these items are temperature sensitive, low-temperature chemical methods must be used rather than steam sterilization. Strict adherence to current guidelines is required because more outbreaks have been linked to inadequately cleaned or disinfected endoscopes undergoing high-level disinfection than any other medical device.

Analysis of the air/water channels of gastrointestinal endoscopies as a risk factor for the transmission of microorganisms among patients

BACKGROUND

For the effective reprocessing of gastrointestinal endoscopes, contaminants must be removed from the entire surface. However, these devices have long and narrow channels that can make this process difficult.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, the staff assigned to reprocess gastroscopes and colonoscopes in 37 services located throughout Brazil completed a questionnaire regarding reprocessing practices geared toward the channels in these devices. In addition, samples from these air/water channels were collected for microbiological analysis.

RESULTS

Contamination was detected in 71.8% (28/39) of the samples obtained from the air/water channels of colonoscopes, and in 70% (42/60) of the samples from the air/water channels of gastroscopes. The median microbial load was 1,800 colony-forming units (CFU)/mL in the colonoscopes and 750 CFU/mL in the gastroscopes. The main microorganisms isolated from the air/water channels of gastroscopes were Pseudomonas aeruginosa (26.4%), Escherichia coli (18.9%), and Acinetobacter baumannii (9.4%), and those isolated from the colonoscopes included P aeruginosa (46.4%), A baumannii (14.3%), and Klebsiella pneumoniae (10.7%), among others. The possible causes of the contamination of these devices included the failure to fill these channels with cleaning solution, lack of friction during cleansing, and inadequate rinsing.

CONCLUSION

The contamination of the air/water channels did in fact represent a risk for the transmission of microorganisms during gastrointestinal endoscopy exams, possibly related to the inadequate reprocessing of these channels.

Establishing a clinically relevant bioburden benchmark: a quality indicator for adequate reprocessing and storage of flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes

BACKGROUND

Microbiological surveillance of patient-ready flexible endoscopes has been suggested as a tool for endoscope reprocessing quality assurance. However, a proper guideline defining the performance and the frequency of monitoring procedures and specifying how to interpret the results is lacking.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All channels from the 20 flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes (5 gastroscopes, 9 colonoscopes, and 6 duodenoscopes) used at an endoscopy clinic were tested for the presence of bacteria and fungi early every Monday morning over a 7-month period.

RESULTS

Bacteria and fungi were detected in 5.7% of the 383 channels tested. Of the 141 scopes tested, 14.1% had detectable growth in at least 1 channel. No significant relationship was detected between the scope or channel type and detection of microorganisms. Over the 7 months of testing, 99.5% of scope channels consistently demonstrated <100 cfu/mL of microbial growth.

CONCLUSION

Based on our clinical findings, we recommend 100 cfu/mL as a reliable and routinely achievable cutoff for bioburden residuals in reprocessed endoscope channels. This cutoff is the same as the Canadian cutoff for dialysis water.

Surveillance culture monitoring of double-balloon enteroscopy reprocessing with high-level disinfection

BACKGROUND

Inadequate reprocessing of double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) or of endoscopic accessories may result in iatrogenic infections and present a risk to public health.

AIM

To use microbiological surveillance culture monitoring (SCM) to assess the adequacy of high-level disinfection (HLD) with standard reprocessing procedures of DBE.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a prospective study on cultures collected from DBEs that had been treated by HLD by an automated endoscope washing machine (AEWM) decontamination cycle. This study included 42 cases with 57 cultures, which were collected consecutively between October 2009 and December 2010. In 31 cases, 31 cultures were collected from oral route DBE (mean patient age, 68·9 years), and in 23 cases, 26 cultures were collected from anal route DBE (mean patient age, 67·9 years). The results obtained were compared with those of our previous study of SCM on gastroscopy (GS) and colonoscopy (CS). The samples were collected by flushing 50 mL sterile distilled water into the suction channel and collecting the flow-through in a sterile container. The samples were then incubated at 37 °C and examined for bacterial growth.

RESULTS

Before HLD, the positive culture rate was 83·9% (26/31) for the oral route DBE and 100% (26/26) for the anal route DBE (P = 0·0406). After HLD, the positive culture rate was 12·9% (4/31) for the oral route DBE and 19·2% (5/26) for the anal route DBE (P > 0·05). A linear trend relationship was found between positive SCM and the length and category of diagnostic instruments--GS, CS, oral route DBE and anal route DBE.

CONCLUSIONS

Surveillance culture monitoring is a useful method to assess the effectiveness of HLD reprocessing of DBE. Machine washing may not achieve complete disinfection. Using AEWM regularly is mandatory to minimize cross-contamination and to ensure quality assurance. Additional procedures are necessary to employ for the longer and anal route DBE.

Reducing infection risk in colonoscopy

Colonoscopy is a well recognized diagnostic and therapeutic tool. Endoscope reprocessing must be done correctly every time; a breach of protocol leading to transmission of infection has the potential to bring endoscopy to a halt. Standards exist that guide the practitioner in all health care settings to minimize the chance of transmission of infection. Safe injection practices and reprocessing of endoscopes using high-level disinfection and sterilization methods may help avert the risk of contracting possible infections during colonoscopy procedures.

Endoscopy-related infection: relic of the past?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Recent outbreaks of nosocomial infection and pseudoinfection have been linked to contaminated endoscopes. This review summarizes the recent literature, analyzes the latest published information related to the epidemiology, examines potential causes for the outbreaks, and discusses current alternatives for preventing infection.

RECENT FINDINGS

A systematic follow-up of patients revealed that the risk of infection attributed to inadequate endoscope reprocessing was very low. Nevertheless, inadequate reprocessing practices are still considered the main culprit underlying contamination from endoscopy procedures. Moreover, standards of care are difficult to maintain given the numerous inconsistencies that exist among reprocessing guidelines and manufacturer's recommended practices. Exposure to contaminated equipment could be prevented through better reprocessing practices and adherence to decontamination guidelines. Recent literature reinforces the need for endoscopy drying after each reprocessing cycle, endoscope reprocessing after short periods of disuse, surveillance, and for a coordinated approach to handle postcontamination responses. Additional analyses such as health technology assessment and cost analysis are needed to identify control alternatives that are most effective.

SUMMARY

Although the risk of endoscopy-related infection is very low, continued efforts are needed to ensure that quality is maintained during endoscope reprocessing to reduce the incidence of endoscopy-related infections.

[Five years of the Robert Koch Institute guidelines for reprocessing of flexible endoscopes. A look back and a look forward]

In a short review the national and international reception of the German guidelines for reprocessing flexible endoscopes is presented. The recommendations of the guidelines are discussed in view of recent knowledge on old problems such as prion inactivation and new infectious diseases and new microorganisms such as SARS, avian influenza and C. difficile. New disinfectants and new methods for endoscope disinfection are mentioned, the importance of careful cleaning is underlined. The German guidelines of the Robert Koch Institute and the US Multi-Society guidelines, published in 2003, are compared. The discrepancies concerning recommendations for water quality for final rinsing and need of microbiological controls of endoscope reprocessing are stressed. Aspects not mentioned in the German guidelines, e.g. duration of storage after reprocessing and risk of infection transmission by the endo-washer, are discussed.