Echoing concerns related to endoscope reprocessing

Initial application of deep learning to borescope detection of endoscope working channel damage and residue

Background and study aims  Outbreaks of endoscopy-related infections have prompted evaluation for potential contributing factors. We and others have demonstrated the utility of borescope inspection of endoscope working channels to identify occult damage that may impact the adequacy of endoscope reprocessing. The time investment and training necessary for borescope inspection have been cited as barriers preventing implementation. We investigated the utility of artificial intelligence (AI) for streamlining and enhancing the value of borescope inspection of endoscope working channels. Methods  We applied a deep learning AI approach to borescope inspection videos of the working channels of 20 endoscopes in use at our academic institution. We evaluated the sensitivity, accuracy, and reliability of this software for detection of endoscope working channel findings. Results  Overall sensitivity for AI-based detection of borescope inspection findings identified by gold standard endoscopist inspection was 91.4 %. Labels were accurate for 67 % of these working channel findings and accuracy varied by endoscope segment. Read-to-read variability was noted to be minimal, with test-retest correlation value of 0.986. Endoscope type did not predict accuracy of the AI system ( P  = 0.26). Conclusions  Harnessing the power of AI for detection of endoscope working channel damage and residue could enable sterile processing department technicians to feasibly assess endoscopes for working channel damage and perform endoscope reprocessing surveillance. Endoscopes that accumulate an unacceptable level of damage may be flagged for further manual evaluation and consideration for manufacturer evaluation/repair.

Pediatric Endoscopy and High-risk Patients: A Clinical Report From the NASPGHAN Endoscopy Committee

Pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy has been established as safe and effective for diagnosis and management of many pediatric gastrointestinal diseases. Nevertheless, certain patient and procedure factors should be recognized that increase the risk of intra- and/or postprocedural adverse events (AEs). AEs associated with endoscopic procedures can broadly be categorized as involving sedation-related physiological changes, bleeding, perforation, and infection. Factors which may increase patient risk for such AEs include but are not limited to, cardiopulmonary diseases, anatomical airway or craniofacial abnormalities, compromised intestinal luminal wall integrity, coagulopathies, and compromised immune systems. Examples of high-risk patients include patients with congenital heart disease, craniofacial abnormalities, connective tissues diseases, inflammatory bowel disease, and children undergoing treatment for cancer. This clinical report is intended to help guide clinicians stratify patient risks and employ clinical practices that may minimize AEs during and after endoscopy. These include use of CO2 insufflation, endoscopic techniques for maneuvers such as biopsies, and endoscope loop-reduction to mitigate the risk of such complications such as bleeding and intestinal perforation. Endoscopic infection risk and guidance regarding periprocedural antibiotics are also discussed.

Elevating the standard of endoscope processing: Terminal sterilization of duodenoscopes using a hydrogen peroxide-ozone sterilizer

BACKGROUND

The health care community is increasingly aware of the processing challenges and infection risks associated with duodenoscopes owing to published reports of outbreaks and regulatory recalls. Studies have demonstrated that the current practices are inadequate for consistently producing patient-ready endoscopes. Alternatively, terminal sterilization would offer a greater margin of safety and potentially reduce the risk of patient infection. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a hydrogen peroxide-ozone sterilizer with regulatory clearance for terminal sterilization of duodenoscopes.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Validation studies were performed under laboratory simulated-use and clinical in-use conditions. The overkill method study demonstrated a reduction of at least 6-log of Geobacillus stearothermophilus spores at half-cycle, providing a sterility assurance level of 10^-6. In addition, the sterilizer achieved a 6-log reduction of G stearothermophilus in the presence of inorganic and organic soils in a simulated-use study. The clinical in-use study confirmed that the sterilizer achieved sterilization of patient-soiled duodenoscopes under actual use conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Simulated-use and clinical in-use studies demonstrated the efficacy of a hydrogen peroxide-ozone sterilizer for terminal sterilization of duodenoscopes. This offers health care facilities a viable alternative for duodenoscope processing to enhance patient safety as part of a comprehensive infection control strategy.

A randomized trial of single versus double high-level disinfection of duodenoscopes and linear echoendoscopes using standard automated reprocessing

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In a pilot study, we demonstrated that current guidelines for duodenoscope and linear echoendoscope (DLE) reprocessing using a single cycle of high-level disinfection (HLD) in an automated reprocessor may be inadequate. In August 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration offered double HLD as a possible response to address this concern. As a result, Providence Health and Services adopted double HLD as standard procedure for DLEs, but no rigorous clinical studies supported this practice. We undertook a quality improvement study to compare single HLD versus double HLD at 4 of our 34 hospitals.

METHODS

HLD of DLE was randomized, separately in each facility, to either single HLD or double HLD on weekdays, with standard double HLD on weekends or holidays. There was 99.7% compliance with the randomization scheme. Daily qualitative surveillance cultures of dried, post-HLD DLEs were collected for 6 months (1 swab sample from the elevator mechanism and 1 combined brush sample from the suction and working channels for each encounter), and each sample was incubated for 48 hours. Positivity rates of any microbial growth and growth of high-concern pathogens (potentially pathogenic enteric flora) were compared between the 2 study arms.

RESULTS

Altogether, 5850 surveillance culture specimens were obtained during 2925 encounters from the 45 DLEs in clinical use in the participating hospitals. Of these, 3052 (52.2%) were from endoscopes cleaned by double HLD. Double HLD demonstrated no benefit over single HLD because similar positivity rates were observed (all P > .05). The elevator mechanism was more frequently colonized than the biopsy channel (5.2% vs 2.9%, P < .001). Among the 224 encounters with positive growth, 140 (62.5%) recovered microbes from only the elevator mechanism specimens, 73 (32.6%) recovered microbes from only the channel specimens, and 11 (4.9%) recovered microbes from both types of specimens. Double HLD failed to improve contamination rates for either sample site at any of the 4 endoscopy facilities, although there were significant overall differences in contamination rates among the facilities (P < .001), as observed in our previous study. Only 8 high-concern pathogens were recovered from 5 DLEs, all from the elevator mechanism. Persistent growth was observed on 2 duodenoscopes. One grew Enterococcus spp (not vancomycin-resistant enterococci) on 3 occasions, and Escherichia coli was present on 2 of these occasions, 1 of which was a multidrug-resistant organism. The other grew different enteric flora on 2 specimens.

CONCLUSIONS

Our prospectively randomized study, involving 4 separate endoscopy facilities and standard automated endoscope reprocessing, showed that double HLD did not reduce culture positivity rates compared with single HLD in facilities with an already low positive culture rate. Alternative risk mitigation strategies will be assessed in an ongoing effort to reduce endoscope contamination.