Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2023; 11(03): E247-E257
DOI: 10.1055/a-1991-1391
Original article

Endoscope reprocessing: Retrospective analysis of 90,311 samples

Lionel Pineau
1   Eurofins Biotech Germande, Medical Device Testing, Aix-en-Provence, France
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Referred to by:

Search better and you will find more: an important lesson in endoscope contaminationEndosc Int Open 2023; 11(04): E366-E367
DOI: 10.1055/a-2017-3933

Referred to by:

Microbiological surveillance – where do we stand?Endosc Int Open 2023; 11(04): E443-E445
DOI: 10.1055/a-2066-8222

Abstract

Background and study aims The contamination level of ready-to-use endoscopes published in the literature varies from 0.4 % to 49.0 %. Unfortunately, the comparison and the interpretation of these results are quite impossible, given the limited number of samples and sites included and the differences observed between sampling, culturing methods, and interpretation criteria.

Methods The objective of this retrospective study was to analyze the results of 90,311 endoscope samples collected between 2004 and 2021 in 490 private or public hospitals in France.

Results Through the full test period, the mean ratio of endoscopes at the action level was 12.6 % (19.5 % including alert level). Of the endoscopy units, 23.0 % had a ratio of compliant endoscopes ≤ 70.0 %. The overall microbial quality of gastroscopes, duodenoscopes, and colonoscopes is improving year by year, whereas an opposite trend is observed for ultrasound endoscopes and bronchoscopes. In 2021, following French guidelines, 13.0 % of the endoscopes should have been quarantined and 8.1 % were at the alert level, meaning that the contamination level of 21.1 % of the endoscopes exceeded what was defined as a maximum acceptable value.

Conclusions This study demonstrates that additional efforts, including implementation of microbial surveillance strategies using a standardized sampling method and periodic observational audits, must be made to improve the overall microbiological quality of endoscopes and reduce the risk associated with their use.



Publication History

Received: 25 May 2022

Accepted after revision: 16 November 2022

Article published online:
17 March 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Beilenhoff U, Biering H, Blum R. et al. ESGE-ESGENA technical specification for process validation and routine testing of endoscope reprocessing in washer-disinfectors according to EN ISO 15883, parts 1, 4, and ISO/TS 15883-5. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 1262-1275
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Beilenhoff U, Biering H, Blum R. et al. Reprocessing of flexible endoscopes and endoscopic accessories used in gastrointestinal endoscopy: Position Statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) – Update 2018. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 1205-1234
    Google Scholar
  • 3 ISO 15883-4:2018. Washer-disinfectors – Part 4: Requirements and tests for washer-disinfectors employing chemical disinfection for thermolabile endoscopes. https://www.iso.org/standard/63696.html
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Pineau L, Desbuquois C, Marchetti B. et al. Comparison of the fixative properties of five disinfectant solutions. J Hosp Infect 2008; 68: 171-177
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Instruction n° DGOS/PF2/DGS/VSS1/2016/220 du 4 juillet 2016 relative au traitement des endoscopes souples thermosensibles à canaux au sein des lieux de soins. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/circulaire/id/41172
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Beilenhoff U, Neumann C, Rey J-F. et al. ESGE-ESGENA Guideline for quality assurance in reprocessing: microbiological surveillance testing in endoscopy. Endoscopy 2007; 39: 175-181
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Interim Protocol for Healthcare Facilities Regarding Surveillance for Bacterial Contamination of Duodenoscopes after Reprocessing. http://medbox.iiab.me/modules/en-cdc/www.cdc.gov/hai/organisms/cre/cre-duodenoscope-surveillance-protocol.html
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Chiu KW, Tsai MC, Wu KL. et al. Surveillance cultures of samples obtained from biopsy channels and automated endoscope reprocessors after high-level disinfection of gastrointestinal endoscopes. BMC Gastroenterol 2012; 12: 120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Saviuc P, Picot-Guéraud R, Shum Cheong Sing J. et al. Evaluation of the quality of reprocessing of gastrointestinal endoscopes. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015; 36: 1017-1023
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Bader L, Blumenstock G, Birkner B. et al. HYGEA (Hygiene in der Gastroenterologie - Endoskop-Aufbereitung): Studie zur Qualität der Aufbereitung von flexiblen Endoskopen in Klinik und Praxis* [HYGEA (Hygiene in gastroenterology--endoscope reprocessing): Study on quality of reprocessing flexible endoscopes in hospitals and in the practice setting]. Z Gastroenterol 2002; 40: 157-170
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Saliou P, Garlantézec R, Baron R. et al. Microbiological investigation of endoscopes at Brest Hospital over a period from 2007 to 2009. Pathol Biol 2011; 59: 88-93
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Okamoto N, Sczaniecka A, Hirano M. et al. A prospective, multicenter, clinical study of duodenoscope contamination after reprocessing. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2022; 18: 1-9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Gillespie E, Despina Kotsanas D, Stuart RL. Microbiological monitoring of endoscopes: 5-year review. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 23: 1069-1074
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Eléments d’assurance qualité en hygiène relatifs au contrôle microbiologique des endoscopes et à la traçabilité en endoscopie. Conseil supérieur d’hygiène publique de France. March 2007. https://solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/microbio_endoscopes-2.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Alfa MJ, Singh H. Contaminated flexible endoscopes: Review of impact of channel sampling methods on culture results and recommendations for root-cause analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2022; 43: 623-628
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 DGOS/PF2/DGS/VVS1/PP3/2018/195 du 2 août 2018 relative à l’actualisation du traitement des endoscopes souples thermosensibles à canaux de type duodénoscope au sein des structures de soins. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/download/pdf/circ?id=43880
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Buss A, Been M, Borgers R. et al. Endoscope disinfection and its pitfalls – requirement for retrograde surveillance cultures. Endoscopy 2008; 40: 327-332
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 ISO 11737-1:2018. Stérilisation des produits de santé — Méthodes microbiologiques — Partie 1: Détermination d'une population de microorganismes sur des produits. https://www.iso.org/fr/standard/66451.html
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Mark JA, Underberg K, Kramer RE. Results of duodenoscope culture and quarantine after manufacturer-recommended cleaning process. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91: 1328-1333
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Rauwers AW, Voor In't Holt AF, Buijs JG. et al. High prevalence rate of digestive tract bacteria in duodenoscopes: a nationwide study. Gut 2018; 67: 1637-1645
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Larsen S, Russell RV, Ockert LK. et al. Rate and impact of duodenoscope contamination: A systematic review and meta-analysis. E Clin Med 2020; 25: 100451
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Cottarelli A, De Giusti M, Solimini AG. et al. Microbiological surveillance of endoscopes and implications for current reprocessing procedures adopted by an Italian teaching hospital. Ann Ig 2020; 32: 166-177
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Marchese V, Di Carlo D, Fazio G. et al. Microbiological surveillance of endoscopes in a southern Italian transplantation hospital: a retrospective study from 2016 to 2019. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18: 3057
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Bartles RL, Leggett JE, Hove S. et al. A randomized trial of single versus double high-level disinfection of duodenoscopes and linear echoendoscopes using standard automated reprocessing. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 88: 306-313
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Ma GK, Pegues DA, Kochman ML. et al. Implementation of a systematic culturing program to monitor the efficacy of endoscope reprocessing: outcomes and costs. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 104-109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Chapman CG, Siddiqui UD, Manzano M. et al. Risk of infection transmission in curvilinear array echoendoscopes: results of a prospective reprocessing and culture registry. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 390-397
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Snyder GM, Wright SB, Smithey A. et al. Randomized comparison of 3 high-level disinfection and sterilization procedures for duodenoscopes. Gastroenterology 2017; 153: 1018-1025
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Paula H, Presterl E, Tribl B. et al. Microbiologic surveillance of duodenoscope reprocessing at the Vienna university hospital from November 2004 through March 2015. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015; 36: 1233-1235
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Ross AS, Baliga C, Verma P. et al. A quarantine process for the resolution of duodenoscope-associated transmission of multidrug-resistant Escherichia coli. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 82: 477-483
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Statement from Jeff Shuren, MD, Director of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, on continued efforts to assess duodenoscope contamination risk. US Food and Drug Administration website. Published April 12, 2019. https://www. accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMA/pss.cfm Accessed March 30, 2021
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Decristoforo P, Kaltseis J, Fritz A. et al. Tyrolean Endoscope Hygiene Surveillance Study Group. High-quality endoscope reprocessing decreases endoscope contamination. Clin Microbiol Infect 2018; 24: 1101.e1-1101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Aumeran C, Thibert E, Chapelle FA. et al. Assessment on experimental bacterial biofilms and in clinical practice of the efficacy of sampling solutions for microbiological testing of endoscopes. J Clin Microbiol 2012; 3: 938-942
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Richard M, Luu DucD, Pineau L. Efficacy of recovery solutions for endoscopes sampling: a comparative study. SHEA 19th Annual Scientific Meeting, San Diego, March 21st 2009.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Heuvelmans M, Wunderink HF, Van der Mei HC. et al. A narrative review on current duodenoscope reprocessing techniques and novel developments. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2021; 10: 171
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Kenters N, Huijskens EG, Meier C. et al. Infectious diseases linked to cross-contamination of flexible endoscopes. Endosc Int Open 2015; 3: E259-E265
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar