{"title":"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。","authors":"Helena S Travis, Rasmus V Russell, 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":"{\"title\":\"Cross-contamination rate of reusable flexible bronchoscopes: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Helena S Travis, Rasmus V Russell, 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}","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}
Cross-contamination rate of reusable flexible bronchoscopes: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.
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.