Effect of an automated flexible endoscope channel brushing system on improving reprocessing quality: a randomized controlled study

Abstract

Background Qualified reprocessing, of which meticulous channel brushing is the most crucial step, is essential for prevention and control of endoscopy-associated infections. However, channel brushing is often omitted in practice. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of an automated flexible endoscope channel brushing system (AECBS) on improving the quality of endoscope reprocessing.

Methods This prospective, randomized controlled study was conducted between 24 November 2021 and 22 January 2022 at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China. Eligible endoscopes were randomly allocated to the auto group (channels brushed by AECBS) or the manual group (channels brushed manually), with sampling and culturing after high-level disinfection and drying. The primary end point was the proportion of endoscopes with positive cultures.

Results 204 endoscopes in the auto group and 205 in the manual group were analyzed. The proportion of endoscopes with positive cultures was significantly lower in the auto group (15.2 % [95 %CI 10.7 %–21.0 %]) than in the manual group (23.4 % [95 %CI 17.9 %–29.9 %]).

Conclusions AECBS could effectively reduce bioburden and improve reprocessing quality of gastroscopes and colonoscopes. AECBS has the potential to replace manual brushing and lower the risk of endoscopy-associated infections, providing a new option for the optimization of reprocessing.

^‡ Co-first authors.

Publication History

Received: 30 July 2022

Accepted after revision: 09 January 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
09 January 2023

Article published online:
24 February 2023

• References

• 1 Seoane-Vazquez E, Rodriguez-Monguio R, Visaria J. et al. Endoscopy-related infections and toxic reactions: an international comparison. Endoscopy 2007; 39: 742-746
• 2 McCafferty CE, Aghajani MJ, Abi-Hanna D. et al. An update on gastrointestinal endoscopy-associated infections and their contributing factors. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob 2018; 17: 36
• 3 Ong J, Cross GB, Dan YY. Prevention of nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 transmission in endoscopy: international recommendations and the need for a gold standard. Gut 2020; 69: 1145-1148
• 4 Devereaux BM, Jones D, Wardle E. et al. Infection Prevention and Control in Endoscopy 2021. Melbourne: Gastroenterological Society of Australia; 2021
• 5 Herrin A, Loyola M, Bocian S. et al. Standards of infection prevention in reprocessing flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes. Gastroenterol Nurs 2016; 39: 404-418
• 6 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
• 7 Day LW, Muthusamy VR, Collins J. et al. Multisociety guideline on reprocessing flexible GI endoscopes and accessories. Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 93: 11-33
• 8 Roberts CG. The role of biofilms in reprocessing medical devices. Am J Infect Control 2013; 41: S77-80
• 9 Parsi MA, Sullivan SA, Goodman A. et al. Automated endoscope reprocessors. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 84: 885-892
• 10 Moses FM, Lee JS. Current GI endoscope disinfection and QA practices. Dig Dis Sci 2004; 49: 1791-1797
• 11 Ofstead CL, Wetzler HP, Snyder AK. et al. Endoscope reprocessing methods: a prospective study on the impact of human factors and automation. Gastroenterol Nurs 2010; 33: 304-311
• 12 Rutala WA, Weber DJ. Gastrointestinal endoscopes: a need to shift from disinfection to sterilization?. JAMA 2014; 312: 1405-1406
• 13 US Food and Drug Administration. Infections associated with reprocessed duodenoscopes. https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/reprocessing-reusable-medical-devices/infections-associated-reprocessed-duodenoscopes Accessed: 30 June 2022
• 14 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
• 15 Gromski MA, Sieber MS, Sherman S. et al. Double high-level disinfection versus liquid chemical sterilization for reprocessing of duodenoscopes used for ERCP: a prospective randomized study. Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 93: 927-931
• 16 Sahakian AB, Siddiqui UD. Single-use duodenoscopes: the next disruptor or passing fad?. Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 94: 1056-1058
• 17 Ji XY, Ning PY, Fei CN. et al. The importance of sampling technique and rinse water for assessing flexible gastrointestinal endoscope reprocessing: a 3-year study covering 59 centers. Am J Infect Control 2020; 48: 19-25
• 18 Ofstead CL, Heymann OL, Quick MR. et al. Residual moisture and waterborne pathogens inside flexible endoscopes: evidence from a multisite study of endoscope drying effectiveness. Am J Infect Control 2018; 46: 689-696
• 19 Sfeir MM. Burkholderia cepacia complex infections: more complex than the bacterium name suggest. J Infect 2018; 77: 166-170
• 20 Bin S, Li-hua L, Song-mei Y. et al. Effect of cleaning brush material and brushing speed on the quality of suction pipe cleaning in endoscopy light hose. China Journal of Endoscopy 2019; 25: 12-16