Unveiling 8 years of duodenoscope contamination: insights from a retrospective analysis in a large tertiary care hospital.

OBJECTIVE: Contaminated duodenoscopes caused several hospital outbreaks. Despite efforts to reduce contamination rates, 15% of patient-ready duodenoscopes are still contaminated with gastrointestinal microorganisms. This study aimed to provide an overview of duodenoscope contamination over time, identify risk factors and study the effects of implemented interventions. DESIGN: Duodenoscope culture sets between March 2015 and June 2022 at a Dutch tertiary care centre were analysed. Contamination was defined as (1) the presence of microorganisms of oral or gastrointestinal origin (MGO) or (2) any other microorganism with ≥20 colony-forming units/20 mL (AM20). A logistic mixed effects model was used to identify risk factors and assess the effect of interventions, such as using duodenoscopes with disposable caps, replacing automated endoscope reprocessors (AER) and conducting audits in the endoscopy department. RESULTS: A total of 404 culture sets were analysed. The yearly contamination rate with MGO showed great variation, ranging from 14.3% to 47.5%. Contamination with AM20 increased up to 94.7% by 2022. For both MGO and AM20, the biopsy and suction channels were the most frequently contaminated duodenoscope components. The studied interventions, including audits, AER replacement and implementation of duodenoscopes with disposable caps, did not show a clear association with contamination rates. CONCLUSION: Duodenoscope contamination remains a significant problem, with high contamination rates despite several interventions. Reprocessing the biopsy and suction channels is especially challenging. Changes in the design of reusable duodenoscopes, such as enabling sterilisation or easily replaceable channels, are necessary to facilitate effective duodenoscope reprocessing and to eliminate the risk of duodenoscope-associated infections.

Effect of a novel endoscope cleaning brush on duodenoscope contamination.

BACKGROUND: Current duodenoscope reprocessing protocols are insufficient to prevent contamination and require adaptations to prevent endoscopy-associated infections (EAIs). This study aimed to investigate the effect of a new endoscope cleaning brush on the contamination rate of ready-to-use duodenoscopes. METHODS: This retrospective before-and-after intervention study collected duodenoscope surveillance culture results from March 2018 to June 2022. Contamination was defined as ≥1 colony-forming unit of a microorganism of gut or oral origin (MGO). In December 2020, an endoscope cleaning brush with a sweeper design was introduced as an intervention in the manual cleaning of duodenoscopes. A logistic mixed-effects model was used to study the effects of this intervention. RESULTS: Data were collected from 176 culture sets before the new brush's introduction and 81 culture sets afterwards. Pre-introduction, culture sets positive with an MGO comprised 45.5% (95%CI 38.3%-52.8%; 80/176), decreasing to 17.3% (95%CI 10.6%-26.9%; 14/81) after implementation of the new brush. Compared with the former brush, duodenoscopes cleaned with the new brush had lower odds of contamination with MGOs (adjusted odds ratio 0.25, 95%CI 0.11-0.58; P=0.001) CONCLUSIONS: Use of the new brush in manual cleaning reduced contamination with MGOs and is expected to prevent EAIs. These findings should be confirmed in future prospective randomized studies.

No relation between adenosine triphosphate after manual cleaning and presence of microorganisms on endoscopes after automated high-level disinfection.

Background and study aims Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) tests are increasingly used to detect biological material; however, their reliability to detect bacterial contamination in endoscopes is not proven. We investigated the predictive value of ATP tests after manual cleaning for presence or absence of microorganisms as shown by culture after automated high-level disinfection (HLD) in duodenoscopes and linear echoendoscopes (DLEs). Patients and methods After manual cleaning, ATP tests were performed on swab samples taken from the detachable cap and forceps elevator, and on flush samples of the DLE working channels. These results were compared to the growth of any microorganisms in cultures acquired after automated HLD. ATP tests with > 200 relative light units (RLU) were considered positive. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were used to compare the RLU levels with microbial presence in cultures. Results In total, 903 procedures were performed involving 26 distinct DLEs. Depending on sample site, 20.8 % (cap) to 63.8 % (channel brush) of the ATP negative samples were accompanied by positive post-HLD cultures. 54.4 % of the cap samples with a positive culture (growth of any kind of microorganism) and 91.8 % of the channel samples with a positive culture had a negative ATP test after manual cleaning. ROC curves per sample site, DLE type and microorganism type all had area under the curves below 0.6. Conclusions In our study, ATP tests performed after manual cleaning could not predict presence or absence of microorganisms after automated HLD as shown by culture. More than half of the positive cultures were preceded by a negative ATP test.

Nationwide risk analysis of duodenoscope and linear echoendoscope contamination.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Contaminated duodenoscopes and linear echoendoscopes (DLEs) pose a risk for infectious outbreaks. To identify DLEs and reprocessing risk factors, we combined the data from the previously published nationwide cross-sectional PROCESS 1 study (Prevalence of contamination of complex endoscopes in the Netherlands) with the follow-up PROCESS 2 study. METHODS: We invited all 74 Dutch DLE centers to sample ≥2 duodenoscopes during PROCESS 1, and all duodenoscopes as well as linear echoendoscopes during PROCESS 2. The studies took place 1 year after another. Local staff sampled each DLE at ≤6 sites according to uniform methods explained by online videos. We used 2 contamination definitions: (1) any microorganism with ≥20 colony-forming units (CFU)/20 mL (AM20) and (2) presence of microorganisms with GI or oral origin, independent of CFU count (MGOs). We assessed the factors of age and usage by performing an analysis of pooled data of both PROCESS studies; additional factors including reprocessing characteristics were only recorded in PROCESS 2. RESULTS: Ninety-seven percent of all Dutch centers (72 of 74; PROCESS 1, 66; PROCESS 2, 61) participated in one of the studies, sampling 309 duodenoscopes and 64 linear echoendoscopes. In total, 54 (17%) duodenoscopes and 8 (13%) linear echoendoscopes were contaminated according to the AM20 definition. MGOs were detected on 47 (15%) duodenoscopes and 9 (14%) linear echoendoscopes. Contamination was not age or usage dependent (all P values ≥.27) and was not shown to differ between the reprocessing characteristics (all P values ≥.01). CONCLUSIONS: In these nationwide studies, we found that DLE contamination was independent of age and usage. These results suggest that old and heavily used DLEs, if maintained correctly, have a similar risk for contamination as new DLEs. The prevalence of MGO contamination of ∼15% was similarly high for duodenoscopes as for linear echoendoscopes, rendering patients undergoing ERCP and EUS at risk for transmission of microorganisms.

High prevalence rate of digestive tract bacteria in duodenoscopes: a nationwide study.

OBJECTIVE: Increasing numbers of outbreaks caused by contaminated duodenoscopes used for Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures have been reported, some with fatal outcomes. We conducted a nationwide cross-sectional study to determine the prevalence of bacterial contamination of reprocessed duodenoscopes in The Netherlands. DESIGN: All 73 Dutch ERCP centres were invited to sample ≥2 duodenoscopes using centrally distributed kits according to uniform sampling methods, explained by video instructions. Depending on duodenoscope type, four to six sites were sampled and centrally cultured. Contamination was defined as (1) any microorganism with ≥20 colony forming units (CFU)/20 mL (AM20) and (2) presence of microorganisms with gastrointestinal or oral origin, independent of CFU count (MGO). RESULTS: Sixty-seven out of 73 centres (92%) sampled 745 sites of 155 duodenoscopes. Ten different duodenoscope types from three distinct manufacturers were sampled including 69 (46%) Olympus TJF-Q180V, 43 (29%) Olympus TJF-160VR, 11 (7%) Pentax ED34-i10T, 8 (5%) Pentax ED-3490TK and 5 (3%) Fujifilm ED-530XT8. Thirty-three (22%) duodenoscopes from 26 (39%) centres were contaminated (AM20). On 23 (15%) duodenoscopes MGO were detected, including Enterobacter cloacae, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumonia and yeasts. For both definitions, contamination was not duodenoscope type dependent (p values: 0.20 and higher). CONCLUSION: In 39% of all Dutch ERCP centres, at least one AM20-contaminated patient-ready duodenoscope was identified. Fifteen per cent of the duodenoscopes harboured MGO, indicating residual organic material of previous patients, that is, failing of disinfection. These results suggest that the present reprocessing and process control procedures are not adequate and safe.

5 years of experience implementing a methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus search and destroy policy at the largest university medical center in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a rigorous search and destroy policy for controlling methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection or colonization. DESIGN: Hospital-based observational follow-up study. SETTING: Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam, a 1,200-bed tertiary care center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. METHODS: Outbreak control was accomplished by the use of active surveillance cultures for persons at risk, by the preemptive isolation of patients at risk, and by the strict isolation of known MRSA carriers and the eradication of MRSA carriage. For unexpected cases of MRSA colonization or infection, patients placed in strict isolation or contact isolation and healthcare workers (HCWs) were screened. We collected data from 2000-2004. RESULTS: During the 5-year study period, 51,907 MRSA screening cultures were performed for 21,598 persons at risk (8,403 patients and 13,195 HCWs). By screening, it was determined that 123 (1.5%) of 8,403 patients and 31 (0.2%) of 13,195 HCWs were MRSA carriers. From the performance of clinical cultures, it was determined that 54 additional patients were MRSA carriers, resulting in a total of 177 patients carrying MRSA. Of the 177 patients carrying MRSA, 144 (81%) were primary patients, and 33 (19%) secondary patients. The average number of nosocomial transmissions was 6.7 per year. The cumulative incidence of MRSA colonization among this group of patients was 0.10 cases per 100 admissions. Of 156 cases of MRSA colonization, 44 (28%) were acquired in a foreign healthcare institution, and 45 (29%) were acquired in other Dutch hospitals, 22 (47%) of which were acquired in a single hospital in our region. There were 16 cases (10%) that occurred in a nursing home and another 16 cases (10%) that fulfilled our definition of community-acquired MRSA colonization; there were 4 cases (3%) categorized as "other" and 31 cases (20%) for which the source of MRSA acquisition remained unknown. The basic reproduction rate was 10-fold less for patients isolated on admission, compared with those who were not. During the 5-year study period, 5 episodes of MRSA bacteremia occurred in which 4 patients died, an incidence rate of 0.28 cases of infection per 100,000 patient-days per year. CONCLUSION: Our results show that, during a rigorous search and destroy policy, a low incidence of MRSA in our medical center was continuously observed and that this policy most likely contributed to a very low nosocomial transmission rate.