Cargando…

A Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Duodenoscope Reprocessing Surveillance Methods

Duodenoscope use in healthcare facilities has been associated with transmission of multidrug resistant pathogens between patients. To assist healthcare facilities in monitoring the quality of their duodenoscope reprocessing procedures and limit patient risk of infection, the Centers for Disease Cont...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: De Wolfe, Travis J., Safdar, Nasia, Meller, Megan, Marx, John, Pfau, Patrick R., Nelsen, Eric M., Benson, Mark E., Soni, Anurag, Reichelderfer, Mark, Duster, Megan, Gopal, Deepak V.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6885784/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31828050
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/1959141
_version_ 1783474788408229888
author De Wolfe, Travis J.
Safdar, Nasia
Meller, Megan
Marx, John
Pfau, Patrick R.
Nelsen, Eric M.
Benson, Mark E.
Soni, Anurag
Reichelderfer, Mark
Duster, Megan
Gopal, Deepak V.
author_facet De Wolfe, Travis J.
Safdar, Nasia
Meller, Megan
Marx, John
Pfau, Patrick R.
Nelsen, Eric M.
Benson, Mark E.
Soni, Anurag
Reichelderfer, Mark
Duster, Megan
Gopal, Deepak V.
author_sort De Wolfe, Travis J.
collection PubMed
description Duodenoscope use in healthcare facilities has been associated with transmission of multidrug resistant pathogens between patients. To assist healthcare facilities in monitoring the quality of their duodenoscope reprocessing procedures and limit patient risk of infection, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) deployed voluntary interim duodenoscope sampling and culturing surveillance protocols in 2015. Though the interim methods were widely adopted, alternative surveillance protocols were developed and implemented at individual institutions. Here, we compared two sampling methods—the 2015 CDC interim protocol and an alternative protocol developed by the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics (UWHC). We hypothesized that the UWHC protocol would detect a higher incidence of bacterial contamination from reprocessed duodenoscopes. A total of 248 sampling events were performed at UWHC. The CDC protocol (n = 129 sampling events) required culturing samples collected from each duodenoscope after brushing its terminal end and flushing its lumen with sterile water. The UWHC protocol (n = 119 sampling events) required culturing samples collected from each duodenoscope after swabbing its elevator, immersing its terminal end into broth and flushing its lumen with saline. With the CDC method, 8.53% (n = 11) of the duodenoscopes sampled were positive for bacterial growth with 15 isolates recovered. Using the UWHC method, 15.13% (n = 18) of cultures were positive for bacterial growth with 20 isolates recovered. The relative risk of identifying a contaminated duodenoscope using the CDC interim method, however, was not different than when using the UWHC protocol. Mean processing time (27.35 and 5.11 minutes, p < 0.001) and total cost per sample event ($17.87 and $15.04) were lower using the UWHC method. As the UWHC protocol provides similar detection rates as the CDC protocol, the UWHC method is useful, provided the shorter processing time and lower cost to perform.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6885784
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68857842019-12-11 A Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Duodenoscope Reprocessing Surveillance Methods De Wolfe, Travis J. Safdar, Nasia Meller, Megan Marx, John Pfau, Patrick R. Nelsen, Eric M. Benson, Mark E. Soni, Anurag Reichelderfer, Mark Duster, Megan Gopal, Deepak V. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol Research Article Duodenoscope use in healthcare facilities has been associated with transmission of multidrug resistant pathogens between patients. To assist healthcare facilities in monitoring the quality of their duodenoscope reprocessing procedures and limit patient risk of infection, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) deployed voluntary interim duodenoscope sampling and culturing surveillance protocols in 2015. Though the interim methods were widely adopted, alternative surveillance protocols were developed and implemented at individual institutions. Here, we compared two sampling methods—the 2015 CDC interim protocol and an alternative protocol developed by the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics (UWHC). We hypothesized that the UWHC protocol would detect a higher incidence of bacterial contamination from reprocessed duodenoscopes. A total of 248 sampling events were performed at UWHC. The CDC protocol (n = 129 sampling events) required culturing samples collected from each duodenoscope after brushing its terminal end and flushing its lumen with sterile water. The UWHC protocol (n = 119 sampling events) required culturing samples collected from each duodenoscope after swabbing its elevator, immersing its terminal end into broth and flushing its lumen with saline. With the CDC method, 8.53% (n = 11) of the duodenoscopes sampled were positive for bacterial growth with 15 isolates recovered. Using the UWHC method, 15.13% (n = 18) of cultures were positive for bacterial growth with 20 isolates recovered. The relative risk of identifying a contaminated duodenoscope using the CDC interim method, however, was not different than when using the UWHC protocol. Mean processing time (27.35 and 5.11 minutes, p < 0.001) and total cost per sample event ($17.87 and $15.04) were lower using the UWHC method. As the UWHC protocol provides similar detection rates as the CDC protocol, the UWHC method is useful, provided the shorter processing time and lower cost to perform. Hindawi 2019-11-18 /pmc/articles/PMC6885784/ /pubmed/31828050 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/1959141 Text en Copyright © 2019 Travis J. De Wolfe et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
De Wolfe, Travis J.
Safdar, Nasia
Meller, Megan
Marx, John
Pfau, Patrick R.
Nelsen, Eric M.
Benson, Mark E.
Soni, Anurag
Reichelderfer, Mark
Duster, Megan
Gopal, Deepak V.
A Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Duodenoscope Reprocessing Surveillance Methods
title A Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Duodenoscope Reprocessing Surveillance Methods
title_full A Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Duodenoscope Reprocessing Surveillance Methods
title_fullStr A Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Duodenoscope Reprocessing Surveillance Methods
title_full_unstemmed A Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Duodenoscope Reprocessing Surveillance Methods
title_short A Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Duodenoscope Reprocessing Surveillance Methods
title_sort prospective, randomized comparison of duodenoscope reprocessing surveillance methods
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6885784/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31828050
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/1959141
work_keys_str_mv AT dewolfetravisj aprospectiverandomizedcomparisonofduodenoscopereprocessingsurveillancemethods
AT safdarnasia aprospectiverandomizedcomparisonofduodenoscopereprocessingsurveillancemethods
AT mellermegan aprospectiverandomizedcomparisonofduodenoscopereprocessingsurveillancemethods
AT marxjohn aprospectiverandomizedcomparisonofduodenoscopereprocessingsurveillancemethods
AT pfaupatrickr aprospectiverandomizedcomparisonofduodenoscopereprocessingsurveillancemethods
AT nelsenericm aprospectiverandomizedcomparisonofduodenoscopereprocessingsurveillancemethods
AT bensonmarke aprospectiverandomizedcomparisonofduodenoscopereprocessingsurveillancemethods
AT sonianurag aprospectiverandomizedcomparisonofduodenoscopereprocessingsurveillancemethods
AT reichelderfermark aprospectiverandomizedcomparisonofduodenoscopereprocessingsurveillancemethods
AT dustermegan aprospectiverandomizedcomparisonofduodenoscopereprocessingsurveillancemethods
AT gopaldeepakv aprospectiverandomizedcomparisonofduodenoscopereprocessingsurveillancemethods
AT dewolfetravisj prospectiverandomizedcomparisonofduodenoscopereprocessingsurveillancemethods
AT safdarnasia prospectiverandomizedcomparisonofduodenoscopereprocessingsurveillancemethods
AT mellermegan prospectiverandomizedcomparisonofduodenoscopereprocessingsurveillancemethods
AT marxjohn prospectiverandomizedcomparisonofduodenoscopereprocessingsurveillancemethods
AT pfaupatrickr prospectiverandomizedcomparisonofduodenoscopereprocessingsurveillancemethods
AT nelsenericm prospectiverandomizedcomparisonofduodenoscopereprocessingsurveillancemethods
AT bensonmarke prospectiverandomizedcomparisonofduodenoscopereprocessingsurveillancemethods
AT sonianurag prospectiverandomizedcomparisonofduodenoscopereprocessingsurveillancemethods
AT reichelderfermark prospectiverandomizedcomparisonofduodenoscopereprocessingsurveillancemethods
AT dustermegan prospectiverandomizedcomparisonofduodenoscopereprocessingsurveillancemethods
AT gopaldeepakv prospectiverandomizedcomparisonofduodenoscopereprocessingsurveillancemethods