ABSTRACT
Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) issued its guidelines for endoscope reprocessing for the first time in 1995, and the version of the guidelines has been updated in August 2009, August 2012 and March 2015, respectively. Guidelines for endoscope reprocessing should be revised continuously because new disinfectants and devices are introduced. The current official version of the KSGE guidelines for endoscope reprocessing is explained herein to assist the reader in understanding of KSGE requirements for cleaning and disinfection of endoscopes.
Subject(s)
Disinfectants , Disinfection , Endoscopes , Endoscopy , Endoscopy, GastrointestinalABSTRACT
The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) issued guidelines for endoscope reprocessing for the first time in 1995, and the version of the guidelines was updated in August 2009, August 2012, and March 2015. Guidelines for endoscope reprocessing should be revised continuously, because new disinfectants and devices are developed and introduced. The current official version of the KSGE guidelines for endoscope reprocessing is explained herein to assist the reader in understanding the KSGE requirements for cleaning and disinfecting endoscopes.
Subject(s)
Disinfectants , Endoscopes , Endoscopy , Endoscopy, GastrointestinalABSTRACT
A duodenoscope has a very complex structure that contains many small parts which make reprocessing more challenging. The difficulty in cleaning duodenoscopes contributes to a higher risk of infection than that of conventional gastrointestinal endoscopes. However, a duodenoscope shares similar disinfection process with other gastrointestinal endoscopes. Recent outbreaks of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) infections associated with duodenoscopes used for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures have raised many concerns worldwide. Duodenoscope-associated infections involving CRE or other multidrug-resistant bacteria pose a great threat to patients undergoing procedures using duodenoscopes and should be dealt with a great concern. Updated guidelines regarding cleaning and disinfection of duodenoscope needs to be developed urgently to prevent transmission of infection and ensure patient safety. Meanwhile, healthcare staff should pay special attention to thorough cleaning and disinfection of duodenoscopes.
Subject(s)
Humans , Bacteria , Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde , Delivery of Health Care , Disease Outbreaks , Disinfection , Duodenoscopes , Endoscopes, Gastrointestinal , Enterobacteriaceae , Patient SafetyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Since endoscopes are reusable apparatus classified as semicritical item, thorough reprocessing to achieve high-level disinfection is of utmost importance to prevent spread of infection. To improve disinfection efficacy and safety, disinfectants and endoscope reprocessors are continuously evolving. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of the combination of polyhexamethylenebiguanide hydrochloride-alkyldimethylbenzylammonium chloride (PHMB-DBAC) and orthophthalaldehyde (OPA) used respectively in ultrasonographic cleaning incorporated automated endoscope reprocessors: COOLENDO (APEX Korea) or OER-A (Olympus Optical). METHODS: A total of 86 flexible upper endoscopes were randomly reprocessed with either COOLENDO/PHMB-DBAC or OER-A/OPA. Culture samplings were done at two sites (endoscope tip and working channel) which were later incubated on blood agar plate. Bacterial colonies were counted and identified. RESULTS: The culture-positive rate at the endoscope tip and working channel was 0% and 2.33% for COOLENDO/PHMB-DBAC and 4.65% and 0% for OER-A/OPA. Staphylococcus hominis was cultured from one endoscope reprocessed with COOLENDO/PHMB-DBAC and Pseudomonas putida was isolated from two endoscopes reprocessed with OER-A/OPA. CONCLUSIONS: The reprocessing efficacy of COOLENDO/PHMB-DBAC was non-inferior to that of OER-A/OPA (p=0.032; confidence interval, -0.042 to 0.042). During the study period, significant side effect of PHMB-DBAC was not observed.