Endoscope disinfection and its pitfalls - requirement for retrograde surveillance cultures

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Background and study aims: Several endoscopy-related outbreaks of infection have been reported in recent years. For early recognition of inadequate disinfection of endoscopes we designed a microbiological surveillance system to evaluate the efficacy of the cleaning and disinfection procedure, and to trace disinfection problems to individual endoscopes or washer-disinfectors.

Methods: Our surveillance protocol included anterograde and retrograde sampling, a decision algorithm, genetic fingerprinting, and scanning electron microscopy.

Results: Over a period of 29 months we found an increasing number of patient-ready endoscopes testing positive for Candida species other than albicans, especially C. parapsilosis. These yeasts were also isolated from the washer-disinfectors. The number of positive tests for Candida species varied from 1 out of 21 to 14 out of 27 samples from nine frequently used endoscopes. The number of colony-forming units per milliliter ranged from 1 - 10 to 3000 for endoscopes and 0.002 to 0.06 for the washer disinfectors. DNA fingerprinting was not able to discriminate different strains within C. parapsilosis.

Conclusions: Our protocol was able to detect a structural problem in the endoscope disinfection process. Retrograde sampling was crucial for this purpose, because it has much higher sensitivity than anterograde sampling. Endoscopes with damaged working channels are probably the source of the contamination problem with Candida species.

References

• 1 Guideline of the Dutch Infection Prevention Working Party (WIP) for cleaning and disinfection of endoscopes [in English]. Available online only from: http://www.wip.nl/UK/ ; follow links to Documentation - guideline downloads - Hospitals - Cleaning, disinfection and sterilisation 2004
  Google Scholar
• 2 Nelson D B, Muscarella L F. Current issues in endoscope reprocessing and infection control during gastrointestinal endoscopy.  World J Gastroenterol. 2006;  12 3953-3964
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Spach D H, Silverstein F E, Stamm W E. Transmission of infection by gastrointestinal endoscopy and bronchoscopy.  Ann Intern Med. 1993;  118 117-128
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Sciortino Jr C V, Xia E L, Mozee A. Assessment of a novel approach to evaluate the outcome of endoscope reprocessing.  Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2004;  25 284-290
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Obee P C, Griffith C J, Cooper R A. et al . Real-time monitoring in managing the decontamination of flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes.  Am J Infect Control. 2005;  33 202-206
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Srinivasan A, Wolfenden L L, Song X. et al . An outbreak of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections associated with flexible bronchoscopes.  N Engl J Med. 2003;  348 221-227
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Cetre J C, Nicolle M C, Salord H. et al . Outbreaks of contaminated broncho-alveolar lavage related to intrinsically defective bronchoscopes.  J Hosp Infect. 2005;  61 39-45
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Rejchrt S, Cermak P, Pavlatova L. et al . Bacteriologic testing of endoscopes after high-level disinfection.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;  60 76-78
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Bonassoli L A, Bertoli M, Svidzinski T I. High frequency of Candida parapsilosis on the hands of healthy hosts.  J Hosp Infect. 2005;  59 159-162
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Krcmery V, Barnes A J. Non-albicans Candida spp. causing fungaemia: pathogenicity and antifungal resistance.  J Hosp Infect. 2002;  50 243-260
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Chapman R L. Candida infections in the neonate.  Curr Opin Pediatr. 2003;  15 97-102
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Wisplinghoff H, Bischoff T, Tallent S M. et al . Nosocomial bloodstream infections in US hospitals: analysis of 24 179 cases from a prospective nationwide surveillance study.  Clin Infect Dis. 2004;  39 309-317
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Bader L, Blumenstock G, Birkner B. et al . [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
• 14 Marion-Ferey K, Pasmore M, Stoodley P. et al . Biofilm removal from silicone tubing: an assessment of the efficacy of dialysis machine decontamination procedures using an in vitro model.  J Hosp Infect. 2003;  53 64-71
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Kampf G, Bloss R, Martiny H. Surface fixation of dried blood by glutaraldehyde and peracetic acid.  J Hosp Infect. 2004;  57 139-143
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Marion K, Freney J, James G. et al . Using an efficient biofilm detaching agent: an essential step for the improvement of endoscope reprocessing protocols.  J Hosp Infect. 2006;  64 136-142
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Zuhlsdorf B, Winkler A, Dietze B. et al . Gastroscope processing in washer-disinfectors at three different temperatures.  J Hosp Infect. 2003;  55 276-282
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

A. J. Buss, MD

Department of Medical Microbiology

University Medical Centre Groningen

PO Box 30001

9700 RB Groningen

The Netherlands

Fax: 0031-50-3619105

Email: a.j.buss@mmb.umcg.nl