Contamination Rates in Duodenoscopes Reprocessed Using Enhanced Surveillance and Reprocessing Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Contamination Culture Duodenoscope sterilization Ethylene oxide sterilization High-level disinfection Surveillance

Journal

Clinical endoscopy
ISSN: 2234-2400
Titre abrégé: Clin Endosc
Pays: Korea (South)
ID NLM: 101576886

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jan 2022
Historique:
received: 03 08 2021
accepted: 26 08 2021
pubmed: 4 1 2022
medline: 4 1 2022
entrez: 3 1 2022
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Multiple outbreaks of multidrug-resistant organisms have been reported worldwide due to contaminated duodenoscopes. In 2015, the United States Food and Drug Administration recommended the following supplemental enhanced surveillance and reprocessing techniques (ESRT) to improve duodenoscope disinfection: (1) microbiological culture, (2) ethylene oxide sterilization, (3) liquid chemical sterilant processing system, and (4) double high-level disinfection. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the impact of ESRT on the contamination rates. A thorough and systematic search was performed across several databases and conference proceedings from inception until January 2021, and all studies reporting the effectiveness of various ESRTs were identified. The pooled contamination rates of post-ESRT duodenoscopes were estimated using the random effects model. A total of seven studies using various ESRTs were incorporated in the analysis, which included a total of 9,084 post-ESRT duodenoscope cultures. The pooled contamination rate of the post-ESRT duodenoscope was 5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.3%-10.8%, inconsistency index [I2]=97.97%). Pooled contamination rates for high-risk organisms were 0.8% (95% CI: 0.2%-2.7%, I2=94.96). While ESRT may improve the disinfection process, a post-ESRT contamination rate of 5% is not negligible. Ongoing efforts to mitigate the rate of contamination by improving disinfection techniques and innovations in duodenoscope design to improve safety are warranted.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND/AIMS OBJECTIVE
Multiple outbreaks of multidrug-resistant organisms have been reported worldwide due to contaminated duodenoscopes. In 2015, the United States Food and Drug Administration recommended the following supplemental enhanced surveillance and reprocessing techniques (ESRT) to improve duodenoscope disinfection: (1) microbiological culture, (2) ethylene oxide sterilization, (3) liquid chemical sterilant processing system, and (4) double high-level disinfection. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the impact of ESRT on the contamination rates.
METHODS METHODS
A thorough and systematic search was performed across several databases and conference proceedings from inception until January 2021, and all studies reporting the effectiveness of various ESRTs were identified. The pooled contamination rates of post-ESRT duodenoscopes were estimated using the random effects model.
RESULTS RESULTS
A total of seven studies using various ESRTs were incorporated in the analysis, which included a total of 9,084 post-ESRT duodenoscope cultures. The pooled contamination rate of the post-ESRT duodenoscope was 5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.3%-10.8%, inconsistency index [I2]=97.97%). Pooled contamination rates for high-risk organisms were 0.8% (95% CI: 0.2%-2.7%, I2=94.96).
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
While ESRT may improve the disinfection process, a post-ESRT contamination rate of 5% is not negligible. Ongoing efforts to mitigate the rate of contamination by improving disinfection techniques and innovations in duodenoscope design to improve safety are warranted.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34974676
pii: ce.2021.212
doi: 10.5946/ce.2021.212
pmc: PMC8831410
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

33-40

Références

Ann Intern Med. 2009 Aug 18;151(4):264-9, W64
pubmed: 19622511
Gastroenterology. 2017 Oct;153(4):1018-1025
pubmed: 28711629
Eur J Epidemiol. 2010 Sep;25(9):603-5
pubmed: 20652370
Gut. 2018 Sep;67(9):1637-1645
pubmed: 29636382
Gastrointest Endosc. 2021 Apr;93(4):927-931
pubmed: 32745532
EClinicalMedicine. 2020 Jul 15;25:100451
pubmed: 32954234
Gastrointest Endosc. 2020 Jul;92(1):199-208
pubmed: 32151661
Gastrointest Endosc. 2020 Jun;91(6):1328-1333
pubmed: 31945325
Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Aug;88(2):306-313.e2
pubmed: 29476847
Control Clin Trials. 1986 Sep;7(3):177-88
pubmed: 3802833
Gut. 2021 May;70(5):838-844
pubmed: 32895332
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Dec;64(12):1294-302
pubmed: 21803546
Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Aug;84(2):259-62
pubmed: 26855298
Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Aug;88(2):223-229
pubmed: 29476846
Endoscopy. 2018 Jun;50(6):588-596
pubmed: 29237202
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Sep;82(3):477-83
pubmed: 26092616
Gastrointest Endosc. 2020 Feb;91(2):396-403
pubmed: 31679738

Auteurs

Shivanand Bomman (S)

Digestive Disease Institute, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA.

Munish Ashat (M)

Indiana University Health, Indianapolis, IN, USA.

Navroop Nagra (N)

Digestive Disease Institute, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA.

Mahendran Jayaraj (M)

University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA.

Shruti Chandra (S)

Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.

Richard A Kozarek (RA)

Digestive Disease Institute, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA.

Andrew Ross (A)

Digestive Disease Institute, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA.

Rajesh Krishnamoorthi (R)

Digestive Disease Institute, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA.

Classifications MeSH