Cross-contamination rate of reusable flexible bronchoscopes: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

Pub Date : 2023-05-01 DOI:10.1177/17571774231158203
Helena S Travis, Rasmus V Russell, Julia Kovaleva
{"title":"Cross-contamination rate of reusable flexible bronchoscopes: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Helena S Travis,&nbsp;Rasmus V Russell,&nbsp;Julia Kovaleva","doi":"10.1177/17571774231158203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Bronchoscopy is generally a safe and efficient procedure. However, the risk of cross-contamination with reusable flexible bronchoscopes (RFB) has been detected in several outbreaks worldwide.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To estimate the average cross-contamination rate of patient-ready RFBs based on available published data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a systematic literature review in PubMed and Embase to investigate the cross-contamination rate of RFB. Included studies identified indicator organisms or colony forming units (CFU) levels, and total number of samples >10. The Contamination threshold was defined according to the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Nurse and Associates (ESGE-ESGENA) guidelines. To calculate the total contamination rate, a random effects model was applied. Heterogeneity was analysed via a Q-test and illustrated in a forest plot. Publication bias was analysed via the Egger's regression test and illustrated in a funnel plot.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The random effects model included 2169 samples and 149 events (positive tests). The total RFB cross-contamination rate was 8.69% ± 1.86 (standard division [SD]) (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.06-12.33%). The result showed significant heterogeneity of 90% and publication bias.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Significant heterogeneity and publication bias is likely associated with varying methodology and aversion towards publishing negative findings, respectively. Based on the cross-contamination rate an infection control paradigm shift is needed to ensure patient safety. We recommend to follow the Spaulding classification and classify RFBs as critical items. Accordingly, infection control measures such as obligatory surveillance, and implementing single-use alternatives must be considered where feasible.</p>","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/8c/d9/10.1177_17571774231158203.PMC10090576.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17571774231158203","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Bronchoscopy is generally a safe and efficient procedure. However, the risk of cross-contamination with reusable flexible bronchoscopes (RFB) has been detected in several outbreaks worldwide.

Aim: To estimate the average cross-contamination rate of patient-ready RFBs based on available published data.

Methods: We performed a systematic literature review in PubMed and Embase to investigate the cross-contamination rate of RFB. Included studies identified indicator organisms or colony forming units (CFU) levels, and total number of samples >10. The Contamination threshold was defined according to the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Nurse and Associates (ESGE-ESGENA) guidelines. To calculate the total contamination rate, a random effects model was applied. Heterogeneity was analysed via a Q-test and illustrated in a forest plot. Publication bias was analysed via the Egger's regression test and illustrated in a funnel plot.

Results: Eight studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The random effects model included 2169 samples and 149 events (positive tests). The total RFB cross-contamination rate was 8.69% ± 1.86 (standard division [SD]) (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.06-12.33%). The result showed significant heterogeneity of 90% and publication bias.

Discussion: Significant heterogeneity and publication bias is likely associated with varying methodology and aversion towards publishing negative findings, respectively. Based on the cross-contamination rate an infection control paradigm shift is needed to ensure patient safety. We recommend to follow the Spaulding classification and classify RFBs as critical items. Accordingly, infection control measures such as obligatory surveillance, and implementing single-use alternatives must be considered where feasible.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

分享
查看原文
可重复使用柔性支气管镜的交叉污染率:系统文献综述和荟萃分析。
背景:支气管镜检查通常是一种安全有效的手术。然而,在世界各地的几次疫情中发现了可重复使用的柔性支气管镜(RFB)交叉污染的风险。目的:根据现有的已发表数据估计病人准备的rfb的平均交叉污染率。方法:我们在PubMed和Embase上进行了系统的文献综述,调查RFB的交叉污染率。纳入的研究确定了指示生物或菌落形成单位(CFU)水平,且样本总数>10。污染阈值根据欧洲胃肠内窥镜学会和欧洲胃肠内窥镜护士和助理学会(ESGE-ESGENA)指南确定。为了计算总污染率,采用随机效应模型。异质性通过q检验进行分析,并在森林图中说明。通过Egger’s回归检验分析发表偏倚,并以漏斗图表示。结果:8项研究符合我们的纳入标准。随机效应模型包括2169个样本和149个事件(阳性检验)。总RFB交叉污染率为8.69%±1.86(标准划分[SD])(95%可信区间[CI]: 5.06-12.33%)。结果显示有90%的显著异质性和发表偏倚。讨论:显著的异质性和发表偏倚可能分别与不同的方法和对发表负面研究结果的厌恶有关。根据交叉污染率,需要转变感染控制模式以确保患者安全。我们建议遵循spulding分类,将rfb分类为关键项目。因此,在可行的情况下,必须考虑采取感染控制措施,如强制性监测和实施一次性替代品。
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
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信