Ultrasound endoscopes and routine microbiological surveillance - another critical device in reprocessing.

IF 3.1 3区医学 Q1 INFECTIOUS DISEASES

Journal of Hospital Infection Pub Date : 2025-10-09 DOI:10.1016/j.jhin.2025.09.015

Anna Mueller, Bhavya Chakrakodi, Marie-Theres Meier, Frank Bieger, Christoph Schlag, Branko Duvnjak, Silvio D Brugger, Walter Zingg, Peter W Schreiber

{"title":"Ultrasound endoscopes and routine microbiological surveillance - another critical device in reprocessing.","authors":"Anna Mueller, Bhavya Chakrakodi, Marie-Theres Meier, Frank Bieger, Christoph Schlag, Branko Duvnjak, Silvio D Brugger, Walter Zingg, Peter W Schreiber","doi":"10.1016/j.jhin.2025.09.015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Periodic routine microbiological surveillance of gastrointestinal endoscopes is recommended to ensure adequacy of reprocessing. We aimed to investigate whether there were differences in contamination depending on the type of endoscope.Methods: We analyzed 437 microbiological surveillance samples obtained from gastrointestinal endoscopes at a tertiary-care center in Switzerland. Sampling was carried out after reprocessing in washer-disinfectors according to Standard SN EN ISO 15883-4:2018. For microbiological analysis, endoscope irrigation solution was filtered and transferred to sheep blood agar. These plates were incubated at 37°C. If bacterial growth was detected, the species was identified using MALDI or other microbiological identification techniques, and colony forming units (CFUs) were counted. Contamination was defined as detection of any microorganism with ≥20 CFUs/20 mL or detection of Enterobacterales, Enterococcus spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa and other non-fermenters, Streptococcus viridans and Staphylococcus aureus, independent of CFU count.Results: Totally, 204 samples were gathered from 28 gastroscopes, 146 samples from 23 colonoscopes, 45 samples from 5 ultrasound endoscopes, 27 from 4 duodenoscopes and 15 from 3 enteroscopes, respectively. Eleven (2.5%) samples, gathered from 5 endoscopes, indicated contamination. The proportion of samples indicating contamination varied largely by endoscope type: 20.0% (9/45) of ultrasound endoscopes-derived, 1.4% (2/146) of colonoscope-derived, 0.5% (1/204) of gastroscope-derived, 0% (0/27) of duodenoscope-derived and 0% (0/15) enteroscope-derived samples were contaminated (P<0.001).Conclusions: Overall, a small proportion of endoscopes were contaminated. Significant differences were observed based on the type of endoscope, with ultrasound endoscopes performing worst.","PeriodicalId":54806,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hospital Infection","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hospital Infection","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2025.09.015","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFECTIOUS DISEASES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Periodic routine microbiological surveillance of gastrointestinal endoscopes is recommended to ensure adequacy of reprocessing. We aimed to investigate whether there were differences in contamination depending on the type of endoscope.

Methods: We analyzed 437 microbiological surveillance samples obtained from gastrointestinal endoscopes at a tertiary-care center in Switzerland. Sampling was carried out after reprocessing in washer-disinfectors according to Standard SN EN ISO 15883-4:2018. For microbiological analysis, endoscope irrigation solution was filtered and transferred to sheep blood agar. These plates were incubated at 37°C. If bacterial growth was detected, the species was identified using MALDI or other microbiological identification techniques, and colony forming units (CFUs) were counted. Contamination was defined as detection of any microorganism with ≥20 CFUs/20 mL or detection of Enterobacterales, Enterococcus spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa and other non-fermenters, Streptococcus viridans and Staphylococcus aureus, independent of CFU count.

Results: Totally, 204 samples were gathered from 28 gastroscopes, 146 samples from 23 colonoscopes, 45 samples from 5 ultrasound endoscopes, 27 from 4 duodenoscopes and 15 from 3 enteroscopes, respectively. Eleven (2.5%) samples, gathered from 5 endoscopes, indicated contamination. The proportion of samples indicating contamination varied largely by endoscope type: 20.0% (9/45) of ultrasound endoscopes-derived, 1.4% (2/146) of colonoscope-derived, 0.5% (1/204) of gastroscope-derived, 0% (0/27) of duodenoscope-derived and 0% (0/15) enteroscope-derived samples were contaminated (P<0.001).

Conclusions: Overall, a small proportion of endoscopes were contaminated. Significant differences were observed based on the type of endoscope, with ultrasound endoscopes performing worst.

查看原文本刊更多论文

超声内窥镜和常规微生物监测-再处理中的另一个关键设备。

背景：建议对胃肠道内窥镜进行定期常规微生物监测，以确保再处理的充分性。我们的目的是调查是否有污染的差异取决于内窥镜的类型。方法：我们分析了瑞士一家三级保健中心从胃肠道内窥镜获得的437份微生物监测样本。根据标准SN EN ISO 15883-4:2018在洗涤消毒器中进行再处理后进行采样。为了进行微生物学分析，将内窥镜冲洗液过滤后转移到羊血琼脂中。这些板在37℃孵育。如果检测到细菌生长，则使用MALDI或其他微生物鉴定技术鉴定菌种，并计数菌落形成单位（cfu）。污染定义为检测到任何微生物≥20 CFU /20 mL或检测到肠杆菌、肠球菌、铜绿假单胞菌等非发酵菌、绿链球菌和金黄色葡萄球菌，与CFU计数无关。结果：共收集28例胃镜标本204例，23例结肠镜标本146例，5例超声内窥镜标本45例，4例十二指肠镜标本27例，3例肠镜标本15例。从5个内窥镜采集的11个（2.5%）样本显示污染。不同内窥镜类型样品污染比例差异较大：超声内窥镜衍生样品污染比例为20.0%(9/45)，结肠镜衍生样品污染比例为1.4%(2/146)，胃镜衍生样品污染比例为0.5%(1/204)，十二指肠镜衍生样品污染比例为0%(0/27)，肠镜衍生样品污染比例为0%（0/15）。结论：总体而言，内窥镜衍生样品污染比例较小。内窥镜类型差异有统计学意义，超声内窥镜表现最差。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Hospital Infection 医学-传染病学

CiteScore

12.70

自引率

5.80%

发文量

271

审稿时长

19 days

期刊介绍： The Journal of Hospital Infection is the editorially independent scientific publication of the Healthcare Infection Society. The aim of the Journal is to publish high quality research and information relating to infection prevention and control that is relevant to an international audience. The Journal welcomes submissions that relate to all aspects of infection prevention and control in healthcare settings. This includes submissions that: provide new insight into the epidemiology, surveillance, or prevention and control of healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial resistance in healthcare settings; provide new insight into cleaning, disinfection and decontamination; provide new insight into the design of healthcare premises; describe novel aspects of outbreaks of infection; throw light on techniques for effective antimicrobial stewardship; describe novel techniques (laboratory-based or point of care) for the detection of infection or antimicrobial resistance in the healthcare setting, particularly if these can be used to facilitate infection prevention and control; improve understanding of the motivations of safe healthcare behaviour, or describe techniques for achieving behavioural and cultural change; improve understanding of the use of IT systems in infection surveillance and prevention and control.