Evaluation of an overnight non-culture test for detection of viable Gram-negative bacteria in endoscope channels

Abstract

Background and study aims Prevention of infection transmission from contaminated endoscopes would benefit from a rapid test that could detect low levels of viable bacteria after high level disinfection. The aim of this study was to evaluate the rapid NOW! (RN) test’s ability to detect endoscope contamination.

Materials and methods The RN test kit and the accompanying fluorometer were evaluated. The manufacturer states that a fluorometer signal > 300 units is indicative of viable Gram-negative bacteria. Suspension testing of varying concentrations of Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterococcus faecalis were used to determine the RN test limit of detection. Simulated-use testing was done using a duodenoscope inoculated with 10 % blood containing approximately 35 CFU E. coli per channel. Samples were extracted from the duodenoscope instrument channel and tested using the manufacturer’s instructions.

Results The RN test could consistently detect 10 CFU of E. coli and P. aeruginosa (fluorescent signal of 9,000 to 11,000 units) but not E. faecalis. Sensitivity and specificity for Gram-negative bacteria were 93 % and 90 %, respectively, using all of the suspensions in the study. Extraction of E. coli from an inoculated duodenoscope instrument channel repeatedly provided a positive signal (i. e. > 2,000 units).

Conclusions The RN test can reliably detect low levels of Gram-negative bacteria in suspension as well as from samples extracted from endoscope channels. These preliminary findings are encouraging but further assessment of extraction efficacy, impact of organic residuals and clinical workflow are still needed.

• References

• 1 Epstein L, Hunter JC, Arwady MA. et al. New Delhi metallo-beta-lactamase-producing carbapenem-resistant Escherichia coli associated with exposure to duodenoscopes. JAMA 2014; 312: 1447-1455
• 2 Visrodia K, Hanada Y, Pennington KM. et al. Duodenoscope reprocessing surveillance with adenosine triphosphate testing and terminal cultures: a clinical pilot study. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 86: 180-186
• 3 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
• 4 Wendorf KA, Kay M, Baliga C. et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-associated AmpC Escherichia coli outbreak. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015; 36: 634-642
• 5 Kovaleva J, Peters FT, van der Mei HC. et al. Transmission of infection by flexible gastrointestinal endoscopy and bronchoscopy. Clin Microbiol Rev 2013; 26: 231-254
• 6 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 e3
• 7 US Food and Drug Administration. Supplemental measures to enhance duodenoscope reprocessing: FDA safety communication. Accessed November 23, 2018. Available at: https://www.fdanews.com/ext/resources/files/08-15/081015-duodenoscopes-fda.pdf?1520541508
• 8 US Food & Drug Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Society for Microbiology. Duodenoscope surveillance sampling & culture: Reducing the risks of infection. Accessed November 23, 2018. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/ReprocessingofReusableMedicalDevices/UCM597949.pdf
• 9 Alfa MJ, Singh H, Nugent Z. et al. Sterile reverse osmosis water combined with friction are optimal for channel and lever cavity sample collection of flexible duodenoscopes. Front Med (Lausanne) 2017; 4: 191
• 10 Cattoir L, Vanzieleghem T, Florin L. et al. Surveillance of endoscopes: comparison of different sampling techniques. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017; 38: 1062-1069
• 11 Saliou P, Le Bars H, Payan C. et al. Measures to improve microbial quality surveillance of gastrointestinal endoscopes. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 704-710
• 12 Saviuc P, Picot-Gueraud R, Shum Cheong Sing J. et al. Evaluation of the quality of reprocessing of gastrointestinal endoscopes. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015; 36: 1017-1023
• 13 Gazdik MA, Coombs J, Burke JP. et al. Comparison of two culture methods for use in assessing microbial contamination of duodenoscopes. J Clin Microbiol 2016; 54: 312-316
• 14 Ofstead CL, Wetzler HP, Eiland JE. et al. Assessing residual contamination and damage inside flexible endoscopes over time. Am J Infect Control 2016; 44: 1675-1677
• 15 Ofstead CL, Wetzler HP, Heymann OL. et al. Longitudinal assessment of reprocessing effectiveness for colonoscopes and gastroscopes: Results of visual inspections, biochemical markers, and microbial cultures. Am J Infect Control 2017; 45: e26-e33
• 16 Shin SP, Kim WH. Recent update on microbiological monitoring of gastrointestinal endoscopes after high-level disinfection. Clin Endosc 2015; 48: 369-373
• 17 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
• 18 Beilenhoff U, Neumann CS, Rey JF. et al. ESGE-ESGENA guideline for quality assurance in reprocessing: microbiological surveillance testing in endoscopy. Endoscopy 2007; 39: 175-181
• 19 Taylor A, Jones D, Everts R. et al. Infection control in endoscopy. Third Edition ed. Victoria, Australia: Gastroenterological Society of Australia; 2010
• 20 Instrumentation AftAoM. Flexible and semi-rigid endoscope processing in health care facilities (ANSI/AAMI ST91: 2015). Arlington, VA: Author 2015.
• 21 Petersen BT, Cohen J, Hambrick RD. et al. Multisociety guideline on reprocessing flexible GI endoscopes: 2016 update. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2017; 85: 282-294.e1
• 22 Herrin A, Loyola M, Bocian S. et al. Standards of infection prevention in reprocessing flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes. Gastroenterol Nurs 2016; 39: 404-418
• 23 Alfa MJ, Ribeiro MM, da Costa Luciano C. et al. A novel polytetrafluoroethylene-channel model, which simulates low levels of culturable bacteria in buildup biofilm after repeated endoscope reprocessing. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 86: 442-451 e1
• 24 Komanduri S, Abu Dayyeh BK, Bhat YM. et al. Technologies for monitoring the quality of endoscope reprocessing. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 369-373
• 25 Alfa MJ, Fatima I, Olson N. The adenosine triphosphate test is a rapid and reliable audit tool to assess manual cleaning adequacy of flexible endoscope channels. Am J Infect Control 2013; 41: 249-253
• 26 Alfa MJ, Fatima I, Olson N. Validation of adenosine triphosphate to audit manual cleaning of flexible endoscope channels. Am J Infect Control 2013; 41: 245-248
• 27 Parohl N, Stiefenhofer D, Heiligtag S. et al. Monitoring of endoscope reprocessing with an adenosine triphosphate (ATP) bioluminescence method. GMS Hyg Infect Control 2017; 12: Doc04
• 28 Alfa MJ, Olson N, Degagne P. et al. Development and validation of rapid use scope test strips to determine the efficacy of manual cleaning for flexible endoscope channels. Am J Infect Control 2012; 40: 860-865
• 29 Olafsdottir LB, Wright SB, Smithey A. et al. Adenosine triphosphate quantification correlates poorly with microbial contamination of duodenoscopes. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017; 38: 678-684
• 30 Gillespie EE, Kotsanas D, Stuart RL. Microbiological monitoring of endoscopes: 5-year review. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 23: 1069-1074
• 31 Sethi S, Huang RJ, Barakat MT. et al. Adenosine triphosphate bioluminescence for bacteriologic surveillance and reprocessing strategies for minimizing risk of infection transmission by duodenoscopes. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 1180-1187 e1
• 32 Washburn RE, Pietsch JJ. Assessment of test methods for evaluating effectiveness of cleaning flexible endoscopes. Am J Infect Control 2018; 46: 685-688