Results of duodenoscope culture and quarantine after manufacturer-recommended cleaning process.

Clicks: 465
ID: 80957
2020
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #1 of 117 articles by views in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Outbreaks of infections transmitted by duodenoscopes have prompted changes to duodenoscope cleaning protocols. However, little is known about effectiveness of clinical cleaning practices. We present culture data after duodenoscope manufacturer-recommended high-level disinfection (HLD) and quarantine.Our institution adopted a combination of manufacturer-recommended cleaning with the CDC-recommended culture and quarantine in 2015. Duodenoscopes (Olympus models TJF-Q180V, TJF-160, PJF-160) underwent HLD according to the manufacturer's reprocessing manual protocols after use. Two culture specimens were then obtained using a sterile brush from the distal tip, including elevator mechanism, and by flushing sterile water through the working channel. Duodenoscopes were quarantined until cultures resulted. Positive cultures were defined as >10 colony-forming units (CFUs) of low-concern organisms, or any CFUs of high-concern organisms according to CDC recommendations. If either culture specimen was positive, the process was repeated until cultures were negative. Data were collected from December 2015 to July 2018.There were 140 instances of duodenoscope cleaning with 280 specimens. Twenty-eight of 234 (12%) initial culture specimens (18% of cultured duodenoscopes) were positive. Five of 36 (14%) second cultures were positive. Two of 8 (25%) third cultures were positive. Ninety-eight percent of organisms cultured were gram positive. There were 8 instances when both culture methods (brushing and flush) were positive; otherwise only one method was positive. There were 11 instances (8%) of duodenoscope removals from quarantine before final culture results. No patients had infections related to ERCP.18% of duodenoscopes had a positive culture after initial HLD. Only 3% were gram negative bacteria. Repeated HLD was 86% and 75% effective at eliminating initial and repeat positive cultures respectively. Initial HLD per manufacturer recommendations is not always effective at eliminating bacterial contamination. Additional steps are necessary to decrease risks of duodenoscope-transmitted infections.
Reference Key
mark2020resultsgastrointestinal Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Mark, Jacob;Underberg, Karin;Kramer, Robert;
Journal gastrointestinal endoscopy
Year 2020
DOI
S0016-5107(20)30032-8
URL
Keywords
prevalence intellectual disability mental health genetic disorder

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.