Contamination of single-use bronchoscopes in critically ill patients

Clinical Issues-November 2022

Reuse of single-use bronchoscopes Key words: single use, bronchoscope, contamination, time limit, instructions for use (IFU). Endoscope processing room workflow Key words: one-room design, decontamination sink, droplets, clean storage, transport. Simethicone use during endoscopy Key words: adenosine triphosphate (ATP) testing, defoaming agent, water bottle, borescope inspection, residue. Implementing borescope inspection of flexible endoscopes Key words: visual inspection, cleaning verification, high-risk endoscopes, competency verification, prepurchase evaluation.

Performance of a new single-use bronchoscope versus a marketed single-use comparator: a bench study

BACKGROUND

Single-use flexible bronchoscopes eliminate cross contamination from reusable bronchoscopes and are cost-effective in a number of clinical settings. The present bench study aimed to compare the performance of a new single-use bronchoscope (Boston Scientific EXALT Model B) to a marketed single-use comparator (Ambu aScope 4), each in slim, regular and large diameters.

METHODS

Three bronchoscopy tasks were performed: water suction and visualization, "mucus" mass (synthetic mucoid mixture) suctioned in 30 s, and "mucus" plug (thicker mucoid mixture) suction. Suction ability, task completion times, and subjective ratings of visualization and overall performance on a scale of one to 10 (best) were compared. All bronchoscopy tasks were completed by 15 physicians representing diversity in specialization including pulmonary, interventional pulmonary, critical care, anesthesia, and thoracic surgery. Each physician utilized the six bronchoscope versions with block randomization by bronchoscope and task.

RESULTS

Aspirated mean mass of "mucus" using EXALT Model B Regular was comparable to that for an aScope 4 Large (41.8 ± 8.3 g vs. 41.5 ± 5.7 g respectively, p = 0.914). In comparisons of scopes with the same outer diameter, the aspirated mean mass by weight of water and "mucus" was significantly greater for EXALT Model B than for aScope 4 (p < 0.001 for all three diameters). Mean ratings for visualization attributes were significantly better for EXALT Model B compared to aScope 4 (p-value range 0.001-0.029).

CONCLUSION

A new single-use bronchoscope provided strong suction capability and visualization compared to same-diameter marketed single-use comparators in a bench model simulation.

Whole-Genome Sequencing Elucidates the Epidemiology of Multidrug-Resistant Acinetobacter baumannii in an Intensive Care Unit

The nosocomial pathogen Acinetobacter baumannii is a frequent cause of healthcare-acquired infections, particularly in critically ill patients, and is of serious concern due to its potential for acquired multidrug resistance. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) is increasingly used to obtain a high-resolution view of relationships between isolates, which helps in controlling healthcare-acquired infections. Here, we conducted a retrospective study to identify epidemic situations and assess the percentage of transmission in intensive care units (ICUs). Multidrug-resistant A. baumannii (MDR-AB) were continuously isolated from the lower respiratory tract of different patients (at the first isolation in our ICU). We performed WGS, pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), and multilocus-sequence typing (MLST) analyses to elucidate bacterial relatedness and to compare the performance of conventional methods with WGS for typing MDR-AB. From June 2017 to August 2018, A. baumannii complex strains were detected in 124 of 796 patients during their ICU stays, 103 of which were MDR-AB. Then we subjected 70 available MDR-AB strains to typing with WGS, PFGE, and MLST. Among the 70 A. baumannii isolates, 38 (54.29%) were isolated at admission, and 32(45.71%) were acquisition isolates. MLST identified 12 unique sequence types, a novel ST (ST2367) was founded. PFGE revealed 16 different pulsotypes. Finally, 38 genotypes and 23 transmissions were identified by WGS. Transmission was the main mode of MDR-AB acquisition in our ICU. Our results demonstrated that WGS was a discriminatory technique for epidemiological healthcare-infection studies. The technique should greatly benefit the identification of epidemic situations and controlling transmission events in the near future.

Sans Standardization: Effective Endoscope Reprocessing

Bronchoscopy is a commonly performed procedure within thoracic and critical care medicine. Modern bronchoscopes are technologically advanced tools made of fragile electronic components. Their design is catered to allow maximum maneuverability within the semi-rigid tracheobronchial tree. Effective cleaning and reprocessing of these tools can be a challenge. Although highly functional, the design poses several challenges when it comes to reprocessing. It is a very important step, and lapses in the procedure have been tied to nosocomial infections. The process lacks universal standardization; several organizations have developed their own recommendations. Data have shown that key stakeholders are not fully versed in the essentials of endoscope reprocessing. A significant knowledge gap exists between those performing bronchoscopy and those who are stewards of effective endoscope reprocessing. To service as a resource for bronchoscopists, this study summarizes the steps of effective reprocessing, details the important elements within a health-care facility that houses this process, and reviews some of the current data regarding the use of disposable endoscopes.

Medical Device Sterilization and Reprocessing in the Era of Multidrug-Resistant (MDR) Bacteria: Issues and Regulatory Concepts

The emergence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria threatens humans in various health sectors, including medical devices. Since formal classifications for medical device sterilization and disinfection were established in the 1970's, microbial adaptation under adverse environmental conditions has evolved rapidly. MDR microbial biofilms that adhere to medical devices and recurrently infect patients pose a significant threat in hospitals. Therefore, it is essential to mitigate the risk associated with MDR outbreaks by establishing novel recommendations for medical device sterilization, in a world of MDR. MDR pathogens typically thrive on devices with flexible accessories, which are easily contaminated with biofilms due to previous patient use and faulty sterilization or reprocessing procedures. To prevent danger to immunocompromised individuals, there is a need to regulate the classification of reprocessed medical device sterilization. This article aims to assess the risks of improper sterilization of medical devices in the era of MDR when sterilization procedures for critical medical devices are not followed to standard. Further, we discuss key regulatory recommendations for consistent sterilization of critical medical devices in contrast to the risks of disinfection reusable medical devices.

Single-Use (Disposable) Flexible Bronchoscopes: The Future of Bronchoscopy?

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has highlighted the importance of reducing occupational exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The reprocessing procedure for reusable flexible bronchoscopes (RFBs) involves multiple episodes of handling of equipment that has been used during an aerosol-generating procedure and thus is a potential source of transmission. Single-use flexible bronchoscopes (SUFBs) eliminate this source. Additionally, RFBs pose a risk of nosocomial infection transmission between patients with the identification of human proteins, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and pathogenic organisms on fully reprocessed bronchoscopes despite full adherence to the guidelines. Bronchoscopy units have been hugely impacted by the pandemic with restructuring of pre- and post-operative areas, altered patient protocols and the reassessment of air exchange and cleaning procedures. SUFBs can be incorporated into these protocols as a means of improving occupational safety. Most studies on the efficacy of SUFBs have occurred in an anaesthetic setting so it remains to be seen whether they will perform to an acceptable standard in complex respiratory procedures such as transbronchial biopsies and cryotherapy. Here, we outline their potential uses in a respiratory setting, both during and after the current pandemic.

Single-Use (Disposable) Flexible Bronchoscopes: The Future of Bronchoscopy?

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has highlighted the importance of reducing occupational exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The reprocessing procedure for reusable flexible bronchoscopes (RFBs) involves multiple episodes of handling of equipment that has been used during an aerosol-generating procedure and thus is a potential source of transmission. Single-use flexible bronchoscopes (SUFBs) eliminate this source. Additionally, RFBs pose a risk of nosocomial infection transmission between patients with the identification of human proteins, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and pathogenic organisms on fully reprocessed bronchoscopes despite full adherence to the guidelines. Bronchoscopy units have been hugely impacted by the pandemic with restructuring of pre- and post-operative areas, altered patient protocols and the reassessment of air exchange and cleaning procedures. SUFBs can be incorporated into these protocols as a means of improving occupational safety. Most studies on the efficacy of SUFBs have occurred in an anaesthetic setting so it remains to be seen whether they will perform to an acceptable standard in complex respiratory procedures such as transbronchial biopsies and cryotherapy. Here, we outline their potential uses in a respiratory setting, both during and after the current pandemic.

A systematic review and cost effectiveness analysis of reusable vs. single-use flexible bronchoscopes

The cost effectiveness of reusable vs. single‐use flexible bronchoscopy in the peri‐operative setting has yet to be determined. We therefore aimed to determine this and hypothesised that single‐use flexible bronchoscopes are cost effective compared with reusable flexible bronchoscopes. We conducted a systematic review of the literature, seeking all reports of cross‐contamination or infection following reusable bronchoscope use in any clinical setting. We calculated the incidence of these outcomes and then determined the cost per patient of treating clinical consequences of bronchoscope‐induced infection. We also performed a micro‐costing analysis to quantify the economics of reusable flexible bronchoscopes in the peri‐operative setting from a high‐throughput tertiary centre. This produced an accurate estimate of the cost per use of reusable flexible bronchoscopes. We then performed a cost effectiveness analysis, combining the data obtained from the systematic review and micro‐costing analysis. We included 16 studies, with a reported incidence of cross‐contamination or infection of 2.8%. In the micro‐costing analysis, the total cost per use of a reusable flexible bronchoscope was calculated to be £249 sterling. The cost per use of a single‐use flexible bronchoscope was £220 sterling. The cost effectiveness analysis demonstrated that reusable flexible bronchoscopes have a cost per patient use of £511 sterling due to the costs of treatment of infection. The findings from this study suggest benefits from the use of single‐use flexible bronchoscopes in terms of cost effectiveness, cross‐contamination and resource utilisation.

Prevention of hospital-acquired pneumonia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) is the leading cause of death from hospital-acquired infection. Little work has been done on strategies for prevention of HAP. This review aims to describe potential HAP prevention strategies and the evidence supporting them. Oral care and aspiration precautions may attenuate some risk for HAP. Oral and digestive decontamination with antibiotics may be effective but could increase risk for resistant organisms. Other preventive measures, including isolation practices, remain theoretical or experimental.

RECENT FINDINGS

Hospital-acquired pneumonia occurs because of pharyngeal colonization with pathogenic organisms and subsequent aspiration of these pathogens.

SUMMARY

Most potential HAP prevention strategies remain unproven.

Anesthesia in patients with infectious disease caused by multi-drug resistant bacteria

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Up to 50% of specific bacterial strains in healthcare admission facilities are multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs). Involvement of anesthesiologists in management of patients carrying/at risk of carrying MDROs may decrease transmission in the Operating Room (OR).

RECENT FINDINGS

Anesthesiologists, their work area and tools have all been implicated in MDRO outbreaks. Causes include contamination of external ventilation circuits and noncontribution of filters to prevention, inappropriate decontamination procedures for nondisposable equipment (e.g. laryngoscopes, bronchoscopes and stethoscopes) and the anesthesia workplace (e.g. external surfaces of cart and anesthesia machine, telephones and computer keyboards) during OR cleaning and lack of training in sterile drug management.

SUMMARY

Discussions regarding the management of potential MDRO carriers must include anesthesia providers to optimize infection control interventions as well as the anesthesia method, the location of surgery and recovery and the details of patient transport. Anesthesia staff must learn to identify patients at risk for MDRO infection. Antibiotic prophylaxis, although not evidence based, should adhere to known best practices. Adjuvant therapies (e.g. intranasal Mupirocin and bathing with antiseptics) should be considered. Addition of nonmanual OR cleaning methods such as ultraviolet irradiation or gaseous decontamination is encouraged. Anesthesiologists must undergo formal training in sterile drug preparation and administration.