Cargando…

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound endoscope reprocessing: Variables impacting contamination risk

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate variables that affect risk of contamination for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound endoscopes. DESIGN: Observational, quality improvement study. SETTING: University medical center with a gastrointestinal endoscopy service performing ∼1,000...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ayres, Ashley M., Wozniak, Julia, O’Neil, Jose, Stewart, Kimberly, Leger, John St., Pasculle, A. William, Lewis, Casey, McGrath, Kevin, Slivka, Adam, Snyder, Graham M
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cambridge University Press 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10507511/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36645014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ice.2022.319
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: To evaluate variables that affect risk of contamination for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound endoscopes. DESIGN: Observational, quality improvement study. SETTING: University medical center with a gastrointestinal endoscopy service performing ∼1,000 endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and ∼1,000 endoscopic ultrasound endoscope procedures annually. METHODS: Duodenoscope and linear echoendoscope sampling (from the elevator mechanism and instrument channel) was performed from June 2020 through September 2021. Operational changes during this period included standard reprocessing with high-level disinfection with ethylene oxide gas sterilization (HLD–ETO) was switched to double high-level disinfection (dHLD) (June 16, 2020–July 15, 2020), and duodenoscopes changed to disposable tip model (March 2021). The frequency of contamination for the co-primary outcomes were characterized by calculated risk ratios. RESULTS: The overall pathogenic contamination rate was 4.72% (6 of 127). Compared to duodenoscopes, linear echoendoscopes had a contamination risk ratio of 3.64 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69–19.1). Reprocessing using HLD-ETO was associated with a contamination risk ratio of 0.29 (95% CI, 0.06–1.54). Linear echoendoscopes undergoing dHLD had the highest risk of contamination (2 of 18, 11.1%), and duodenoscopes undergoing HLD-ETO and the lowest risk of contamination (0 of 53, 0%). Duodenoscopes with a disposable tip had a 0% contamination rate (0 of 27). CONCLUSIONS: We did not detect a significant reduction in endoscope contamination using HLD-ETO versus dHLD reprocessing. Linear echoendoscopes have a risk of contamination similar to that of duodenoscopes. Disposable tips may reduce the risk of duodenoscope contamination.