Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T22:51:51.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effectiveness of Flexible Gastrointestinal Endoscope Reprocessing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Maíra Marques Ribeiro ,
Adriana Cristina de Oliveira ,
Silma Maria Cunha Pinheiro Ribeiro ,
Evandro Watanabe ,
Maria Aparecida de Resende Stoianoff  and
José Antonio Guimarāes Ferreira
Maíra Marques Ribeiro*
Affiliation:
Service of Epidemiology and Safety Assistance, Hospital Unimed, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Adriana Cristina de Oliveira
Affiliation:
Department of Basic Nursing, School of Nursing, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Brazil National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, Brasilia, Brazil
Silma Maria Cunha Pinheiro Ribeiro
Affiliation:
Department of Basic Nursing, School of Nursing, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, Brazil Deceased
Evandro Watanabe
Affiliation:
Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry of Ribeirào Preto, University of Sāo Paulo, Sāo Paulo, Brazil
Maria Aparecida de Resende Stoianoff
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology, Institute of Biological Sciences, UFMG, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
José Antonio Guimarāes Ferreira
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology, Institute of Biological Sciences, UFMG, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
*
Sergipe Street, 85, 1802, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil (mairamarquesribeiro@ yahoo.com.br)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The practice of reprocessing endoscopes and its effectiveness was evaluated in 37 services. Contamination of at least 1 endoscope could be identified in 34 (91.6%) of 37 services. Bacteria, fungi, and/or mycobacteria were isolated from 84.6% (33/39) of the colonoscopes (110–32,000 colony-forming units [CFUs]/mL) and from 80.6% (50/62) of the gastroscopes (100–33,000 CFUs/mL). Not all services followed recommended guidelines. Therefore, patients who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopies were exposed to diverse pathogens.

Type
Concise Communication
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , March 2013 , pp. 309 - 312
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Spaulding, EH, Emmons, EK. Which solution to use and how to use it are influenced more by the types of bacteria to be destroyed than they are by the instrument or object to be disinfected. Am JNurs 1958;58:1238–1242.Google Scholar
2. Pajkos, A, Vickery, K, Cossart, EY. Is biofilm accumulation on endoscope tubing a contributor to the failure of cleaning and contamination? J Hosp Infect 2004;58:224–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Sociedade Brasileira de Enfermagem em Endoscopia Gastrointestinal (SOBEEG). Manual de Limpeza e Desinfecçâo de Aparelhos Endoscópios. Säo Paulo: SOBEEG, 2005.Google Scholar
4. Beilenhoff, U, Neumann, CS, Rey, JF, et al; European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Guidelines Committee. ESGE-ESGENA guideline: cleaning and disinfection in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Endoscopy 2008;40:939–957.Google Scholar
5. Aumeran, C, Poincloux, L, Souweine, B, et al. Multidrug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae outbreak after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Endoscopy 2010;42:895–899.Google Scholar
6. Ofstead, CL, Wetzler, HP, Snyder, AK, Horton, RA. Endoscope reprocessing methods: a prospective study on the impact of human factors and automation. Gastroenterol Nurs 2010;33:304–311.Google Scholar
7. Alfa, MJ, Olson, N, Degagne, P, Jackson, M. A survey of reprocessing methods, residual viable bioburden, and soil levels in patient-ready endoscopic retrograde choliangiopancreatography duodenoscopes used in Canadian centers. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2002;23:198–206.Google Scholar
8. Barbosa, JM, Souza, ACS, Tipple, AFV, Pimenta, FC, Leao, LSNO, Silva, SRMC. Endoscope reprocessing using glutaraldehyde in endoscopy services of Goiânia, Brazil. Arą Gastroenterol 2010; 47:219–224.Google ScholarPubMed
9. Zhang, X, Kong, J, Tang, P, et al. Current status of cleaning and disinfection for gastrointestinal endoscopy in China: a survey of 122 endoscopy units. Dig Liver Dis 2011;43:305–308.Google Scholar
10. FDA-cleared sterilants and high-level disinfectants with general claims for processing reusable medical and dental devices— March 2009. Food and Drug Administration website, http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/ReprocessingofSingle-UseDevices/ucml33514.htm. Accessed May 5, 2012.Google Scholar
11. Machado, AP, Pimenta, ATM, Contijo, PP, Geocze, S, Fischman, O. Microbiologic profile of flexible endoscope disinfection in two Brazilian hospitals. Arq Gastroenterol 2006;43:255–258.Google Scholar
12. Alfa, MJ, Sepehri, S, Olson, N, Diploma, AW. Establishing a clinically relevant bioburden benchmark: a quality indicator for adequate reprocessing and storage of flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes. Am J Infect Control 2012;40:233–236.Google Scholar
13. Beilenhoff, U, Neumann, CS, Rey, JF, Biering, H, Schmidt, V; European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Guidelines Committee. ESGE-ESGENA guideline for quality assurance in reprocessing: microbiological surveillance testing in endoscopy. Endoscopy 2007;39:175–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Bisset, L, Cossart, YE, Selby, W, et al. A prospective study of the efficacy of routine decontamination for gastrointestinal endoscopes and the risk factors for failure. Am J Infect Control 2006; 34:274–280.Google Scholar