Advertisement

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

Published:April 06, 2019DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2019.02.016

      Highlights

      • Storage in automated cabinets with forced filtered air hastens endoscope drying.
      • Automated cabinets can reduce microbial growth due to residual endoscope moisture.
      • Automated cabinets facilitate compact horizontal endoscope storage.
      • Automated cabinets curtail the need for repeat reprocessing of unused endoscopes.

      Background

      Automated drying may help prevent endoscopically transmitted infections. We aimed to assess the efficacy of an automated drying and storage cabinet compared to a standard storage cabinet in achieving endoscope dryness postreprocessing and in reducing the risk of microbial growth.

      Methods

      Drying times of bronchoscopes, colonoscopes, and duodenoscopes using 2 drying platforms (an automated drying and storage cabinet vs a standard storage cabinet) were measured using cobalt chloride paper. Drying assessments occurred at: 30 minutes, 1 hour, 2 hours, 3 hours, and 24 hours. A simple linear regression analysis compared rates of microbial growth after inoculation with Pseudomonas aeruginosa following high-level disinfection at: 0, 3 hours, 12 hours, 24 hours, and 48 hours.

      Results

      Using the automated drying and storage cabinet, internal channels were dry at 1 hour and external surfaces at 3 hours in all endoscopes. With the standard storage cabinet, there was residual internal fluid at 24 hours, whereas external surfaces were dry at 24 hours. For bronchoscopes, colonoscopes, and duodenoscopes, the standard cabinet allowed for an average rate of colony forming unit growth of 8.1 × 106 per hour, 8.3 × 106 per hour, and 7.0 × 107 per hour, respectively; the automated cabinet resulted in colony forming unit growth at an average rate of –28.4 per hour (P = .02), –38.5 per hour (P = .01), and –200.2 per hour (P = .02), respectively.

      Conclusions

      An automated cabinet is advantageous for rapid drying of endoscope surfaces and in reducing the risk of microbial growth postreprocessing.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Infection Control
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Peery AF
        • Crockett SD
        • Murphy CC
        • Lund JL
        • Dellon ES
        • Williams JL
        • et al.
        Burden and cost of gastrointestinal, liver, and pancreatic disease in the United States: update 2018.
        Gastroenterology. 2019; 156 (e11): 254-272
        • Petersen BT
        • Chennat J
        • Cohen J
        • Cotton PB
        • Greenwald DA
        • Kowalski TE
        • et al.
        Multisociety guideline on reprocessing flexible GI endoscopes: 2011.
        Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011; 32: 527-537
        • Epstein L
        • Hunter JC
        • Arwady MA
        • Tsai V
        • Stein L
        • Gribogiannis M
        • et al.
        New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase-producing carbapenem-resistant Escherichia coli associated with exposure to duodenoscopes.
        JAMA. 2014; 312: 1447-1455
        • Jorgensen SB
        • Bojer MS
        • Boll EJ
        • Martin Y
        • Helmersen K
        • Skogstad M
        • et al.
        Heat-resistant, extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae in endoscope-mediated outbreak.
        J Hosp Infect. 2016; 93: 57-62
        • Gastmeier P
        • Vonberg RP
        Klebsiella spp. in endoscopy-associated infections: we may only be seeing the tip of the iceberg.
        Infection. 2014; 42: 15-21
        • Bajolet O
        • Ciocan D
        • Vallet C
        • de Champs C
        • Vernet-Garnier V
        • Guillard T
        • et al.
        Gastroscopy-associated transmission of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
        J Hosp Infect. 2013; 83: 341-343
        • Allen JI
        • Allen MO
        • Olson DN
        • Gerding DN
        • Shanholtzer CJ
        • Meier PB
        • et al.
        Pseudomonas infection of the biliary system resulting from use of a contaminated endoscope.
        Gastroenterology. 1987; 92: 759-763
        • Classen DC
        • Jacobson JA
        • Burke JP
        • Jacobson JT
        • Evans RS
        Serious Pseudomonas infections associated with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.
        Am J Med. 1988; 84: 590-596
        • Rutala WA
        • Weber DJ
        Outbreaks of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae infections associated with duodenoscopes: what can we do to prevent infections?.
        Am J Infect Control. 2016; 44: e47-e51
        • Petersen BT
        • Cohen J
        • Hambrick 3rd, RD
        • Buttar N
        • Greenwald DA
        • Buscaglia JM
        • et al.
        Multisociety guideline on reprocessing flexible GI endoscopes: 2016 update.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2017; 85 (e1): 282-294
        • Bhatt S
        • Mehta P
        • Chen C
        • Schneider CL
        • White LN
        • Chen HL
        • et al.
        Efficacy of low-temperature plasma-activated gas disinfection against biofilm on contaminated GI endoscope channels.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2019; 89: 105-114
        • Bartles RL
        • Leggett JE
        • Hove S
        • Kashork CD
        • Wang L
        • Oethinger M
        • et al.
        A randomized trial of single versus double high-level disinfection of duodenoscopes and linear echoendoscopes using standard automated reprocessing.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2018; 88: 306-313
        • Singh H
        • Duerksen DR
        • Schultz G
        • Reidy C
        • DeGagne P
        • Olson N
        • et al.
        Impact of cleaning monitoring combined with channel purge storage on elimination of Escherichia coli and environmental bacteria from duodenoscopes.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2018; 88: 292-302
        • 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
        • Snyder GM
        • Wright SB
        • Smithey A
        • Mizrahi M
        • Sheppard M
        • Hirsch EB
        • et al.
        Randomized comparison of 3 high-level disinfection and sterilization procedures for duodenoscopes.
        Gastroenterology. 2017; 153: 1018-1025
        • Barakat MT
        • Huang RJ
        • Banerjee S
        Comparison of automated and manual drying in the eliminating residual endoscope working channel fluid after reprocessing (with video).
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2019; 89 (e2): 124-132
        • Thaker AM
        • Kim S
        • Sedarat A
        • Watson RR
        • Muthusamy VR
        Inspection of endoscope instrument channels after reprocessing using a prototype borescope.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2018; 88: 612-619
        • Barakat MT
        • Girotra M
        • Huang RJ
        • Banerjee S
        Scoping the scope: endoscopic evaluation of endoscope working channels with a new high-resolution inspection endoscope (with video).
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2018; 88: 601-611
        • Ofstead CL
        • Wetzler HP
        • Heymann OL
        • Johnson EA
        • Eiland JE
        • Shaw MJ
        Longitudinal assessment of reprocessing effectiveness for colonoscopes and gastroscopes: results of visual inspections, biochemical markers, and microbial cultures.
        Am J Infect Control. 2017; 45: e26-e33
        • Pajkos A
        • Vickery K
        • Cossart Y
        Is biofilm accumulation on endoscope tubing a contributor to the failure of cleaning and decontamination?.
        J Hosp Infect. 2004; 58: 224-229
        • Kovaleva J
        Endoscope drying and its pitfalls.
        J Hosp Infect. 2017; 97: 319-328
        • Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee
        Essential Elements of a Reprocessing Program for Flexible Endoscopes–The Recommendations of the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC).
        (Available at:)
        • Van Wicklin SA
        • Spry C
        • Conner R
        Guideline for Processing Flexible Endoscopes.
        in: Connor R. AORN Guidelines for Perioperative Practice. AORN, 2016
      1. Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates (SGNA). Standards of infectious prevention in reprocessing of flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes. (2016). Published 1996. Revised 2000, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2011, 2012, 2015, and 2016. Available from: https://www.sgna.org/Portals/0/SGNA%20Standards%20of%20infection%20prevention%20in%20reprocessing_FINAL.pdf?ver=2018-11-16-084835-387. Accessed October 7, 2018.

        • Alfa MJ
        • Ribeiro MM
        • da Costa Luciano C
        • Franca R
        • Olson N
        • DeGagne P
        • et al.
        A novel polytetrafluoroethylene-channel model, which stimulates low levels of culturable bacteria in buildup biofilm after repeated endoscope reprocessing.
        Gastrointest Endosc. 2017; 86: 442-451
        • BS EN 16442:2015
        Controlled environment storage cabinet for processed thermolabile endoscopes.
        British Standards Institution, London (UK)2015
        • Bashaw MA
        Guideline implementation: processing flexible endoscopes.
        AORN J. 2016; 104: 225-236
        • British Society of Gastroenterology
        BSG guidelines for decontamination of equipment for gastrointestinal endoscopy.
        (Available from)
        • Rutala WA
        • Weber DJ
        Gastrointestinal endoscopes: a need to shift from disinfection to sterilization?.
        JAMA. 2014; 312: 1405-1406