Antimicrobial efficacy of endoscopic disinfection procedures: a controlled, multifactorial investigation

Background: Adequate disinfection of endoscopes is essential to prevent environmental and patient-to-patient transmission of infectious agents, but data from controlled studies are limited. Moreover, there is controversy regarding current guidelines for disinfection. We compared the antimicrobial ef...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Gastrointestinal endoscopy 1999-08, Vol.50 (2), p.152-158
Hauptverfasser: Cronmiller, James R., Nelson, Daniel K., Salman, Ghassan, Jackson, Dana K., Dean, Robert S., Hsu, Joseph J., Kim, Chung H.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 158
container_issue 2
container_start_page 152
container_title Gastrointestinal endoscopy
container_volume 50
creator Cronmiller, James R.
Nelson, Daniel K.
Salman, Ghassan
Jackson, Dana K.
Dean, Robert S.
Hsu, Joseph J.
Kim, Chung H.
description Background: Adequate disinfection of endoscopes is essential to prevent environmental and patient-to-patient transmission of infectious agents, but data from controlled studies are limited. Moreover, there is controversy regarding current guidelines for disinfection. We compared the antimicrobial efficacy of several endoscopic disinfection procedures controlling for multiple factors that affect reprocessing. Methods: A colonoscope was contaminated with 108 CFU/mL of Enterococcus faecalis as a standardized inoculum. The colonoscope was passed through 1 of 16 study arms (5 reps/arm for a total of 80 runs) that were controlled for all possible combinations of the following variables: manual precleaning; 10-, 20-, or 45-minute glutaraldehyde exposure; air or ethanol drying; or automated reprocessing with peracetic acid (liquid sterilization system). Suction accessory channels and air-water channels were harvested for microbiologic culture. Results: Control runs (no cleaning or disinfection) recovered more than 5 × 107 CFU/mL from each sampling site. When each processing variable was isolated independent of other variables, the benefits of manual precleaning, longer soak times, and ethanol drying were apparent. When factors were combined, manual precleaning followed by 20- and 45-minute glutaraldehyde exposure and ethanol drying removed all test organisms, as did processing with the liquid sterilization system. Conclusion: Although the initial cost is higher, the automated liquid sterilization system provides effective sterilization and minimizes worker exposure. In units where chemical disinfection is used, our results suggest that manual precleaning followed by at least 20-minute glutaraldehyde exposure and ethanol rinse drying are sufficient to achieve complete disinfection. (Gastrointest Endosc 1999;50:152-8.)
doi_str_mv 10.1016/S0016-5107(99)70217-8
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69922125</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0016510799702178</els_id><sourcerecordid>69922125</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c456t-af33b3d87f37d5ee5e85f2dec230a8808ffe0e5589b073ed49709e4ffe5bfbd63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkE2LFDEQhoMo7rj6E5Q-iCjYWkl3OokXWRa_YMGDeg7ppKIl3Z0x6V7Yf29mZ1BvXipQPG9V5WHsMYdXHPjw-gvU2koO6rkxLxQIrlp9h-04GNUOSpm7bPcHOWMPSvkJAFp0_D4749AL2YPcsR8Xy0oz-ZxGclODMZJ3_qZJscElpOLTnnwTqNAS0a-Ulmafk8ewZSxvGtf4tKw5TROGl828TStF59eUD8Noucay0nd3iD1k96KbCj46vefs2_t3Xy8_tlefP3y6vLhqfS-HtXWx68YuaBU7FSSiRC2jCOhFB05r0DEioJTajKA6DL1RYLCvXTnGMQzdOXt2nFvP_LXV_Xam4nGa3IJpK3YwRgguZAXlEax_LyVjtPtMs8s3loM9KLa3iu3BnzXG3iq2uuaenBZs44zhn9TRaQWengBXvJtidoun8pczQoLhFXt7xLDauCbMtnjCpaqlXE3bkOg_l_wGOIKbOA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>69922125</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Antimicrobial efficacy of endoscopic disinfection procedures: a controlled, multifactorial investigation</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete - AutoHoldings</source><source>MEDLINE</source><creator>Cronmiller, James R. ; Nelson, Daniel K. ; Salman, Ghassan ; Jackson, Dana K. ; Dean, Robert S. ; Hsu, Joseph J. ; Kim, Chung H.</creator><creatorcontrib>Cronmiller, James R. ; Nelson, Daniel K. ; Salman, Ghassan ; Jackson, Dana K. ; Dean, Robert S. ; Hsu, Joseph J. ; Kim, Chung H.</creatorcontrib><description>Background: Adequate disinfection of endoscopes is essential to prevent environmental and patient-to-patient transmission of infectious agents, but data from controlled studies are limited. Moreover, there is controversy regarding current guidelines for disinfection. We compared the antimicrobial efficacy of several endoscopic disinfection procedures controlling for multiple factors that affect reprocessing. Methods: A colonoscope was contaminated with 108 CFU/mL of Enterococcus faecalis as a standardized inoculum. The colonoscope was passed through 1 of 16 study arms (5 reps/arm for a total of 80 runs) that were controlled for all possible combinations of the following variables: manual precleaning; 10-, 20-, or 45-minute glutaraldehyde exposure; air or ethanol drying; or automated reprocessing with peracetic acid (liquid sterilization system). Suction accessory channels and air-water channels were harvested for microbiologic culture. Results: Control runs (no cleaning or disinfection) recovered more than 5 × 107 CFU/mL from each sampling site. When each processing variable was isolated independent of other variables, the benefits of manual precleaning, longer soak times, and ethanol drying were apparent. When factors were combined, manual precleaning followed by 20- and 45-minute glutaraldehyde exposure and ethanol drying removed all test organisms, as did processing with the liquid sterilization system. Conclusion: Although the initial cost is higher, the automated liquid sterilization system provides effective sterilization and minimizes worker exposure. In units where chemical disinfection is used, our results suggest that manual precleaning followed by at least 20-minute glutaraldehyde exposure and ethanol rinse drying are sufficient to achieve complete disinfection. (Gastrointest Endosc 1999;50:152-8.)</description><identifier>ISSN: 0016-5107</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-6779</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/S0016-5107(99)70217-8</identifier><identifier>PMID: 10425405</identifier><identifier>CODEN: GAENBQ</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York, NY: Mosby, Inc</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Colony Count, Microbial ; Disinfection - methods ; Endoscopes ; Enterococcus faecalis - drug effects ; Equipment Contamination - prevention &amp; control ; Ethanol - pharmacology ; Glutaral - pharmacology ; Humans ; Medical sciences ; Peracetic Acid - pharmacology ; Radiotherapy. Instrumental treatment. Physiotherapy. Reeducation. Rehabilitation, orthophony, crenotherapy. Diet therapy and various other treatments (general aspects) ; Technology. Biomaterials. Equipments. Material. Instrumentation ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 1999-08, Vol.50 (2), p.152-158</ispartof><rights>1999 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy</rights><rights>1999 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c456t-af33b3d87f37d5ee5e85f2dec230a8808ffe0e5589b073ed49709e4ffe5bfbd63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c456t-af33b3d87f37d5ee5e85f2dec230a8808ffe0e5589b073ed49709e4ffe5bfbd63</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0016-5107(99)70217-8$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,3539,27907,27908,45978</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=1925091$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10425405$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cronmiller, James R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nelson, Daniel K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salman, Ghassan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jackson, Dana K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dean, Robert S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hsu, Joseph J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Chung H.</creatorcontrib><title>Antimicrobial efficacy of endoscopic disinfection procedures: a controlled, multifactorial investigation</title><title>Gastrointestinal endoscopy</title><addtitle>Gastrointest Endosc</addtitle><description>Background: Adequate disinfection of endoscopes is essential to prevent environmental and patient-to-patient transmission of infectious agents, but data from controlled studies are limited. Moreover, there is controversy regarding current guidelines for disinfection. We compared the antimicrobial efficacy of several endoscopic disinfection procedures controlling for multiple factors that affect reprocessing. Methods: A colonoscope was contaminated with 108 CFU/mL of Enterococcus faecalis as a standardized inoculum. The colonoscope was passed through 1 of 16 study arms (5 reps/arm for a total of 80 runs) that were controlled for all possible combinations of the following variables: manual precleaning; 10-, 20-, or 45-minute glutaraldehyde exposure; air or ethanol drying; or automated reprocessing with peracetic acid (liquid sterilization system). Suction accessory channels and air-water channels were harvested for microbiologic culture. Results: Control runs (no cleaning or disinfection) recovered more than 5 × 107 CFU/mL from each sampling site. When each processing variable was isolated independent of other variables, the benefits of manual precleaning, longer soak times, and ethanol drying were apparent. When factors were combined, manual precleaning followed by 20- and 45-minute glutaraldehyde exposure and ethanol drying removed all test organisms, as did processing with the liquid sterilization system. Conclusion: Although the initial cost is higher, the automated liquid sterilization system provides effective sterilization and minimizes worker exposure. In units where chemical disinfection is used, our results suggest that manual precleaning followed by at least 20-minute glutaraldehyde exposure and ethanol rinse drying are sufficient to achieve complete disinfection. (Gastrointest Endosc 1999;50:152-8.)</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Colony Count, Microbial</subject><subject>Disinfection - methods</subject><subject>Endoscopes</subject><subject>Enterococcus faecalis - drug effects</subject><subject>Equipment Contamination - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Ethanol - pharmacology</subject><subject>Glutaral - pharmacology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Peracetic Acid - pharmacology</subject><subject>Radiotherapy. Instrumental treatment. Physiotherapy. Reeducation. Rehabilitation, orthophony, crenotherapy. Diet therapy and various other treatments (general aspects)</subject><subject>Technology. Biomaterials. Equipments. Material. Instrumentation</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>0016-5107</issn><issn>1097-6779</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1999</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkE2LFDEQhoMo7rj6E5Q-iCjYWkl3OokXWRa_YMGDeg7ppKIl3Z0x6V7Yf29mZ1BvXipQPG9V5WHsMYdXHPjw-gvU2koO6rkxLxQIrlp9h-04GNUOSpm7bPcHOWMPSvkJAFp0_D4749AL2YPcsR8Xy0oz-ZxGclODMZJ3_qZJscElpOLTnnwTqNAS0a-Ulmafk8ewZSxvGtf4tKw5TROGl828TStF59eUD8Noucay0nd3iD1k96KbCj46vefs2_t3Xy8_tlefP3y6vLhqfS-HtXWx68YuaBU7FSSiRC2jCOhFB05r0DEioJTajKA6DL1RYLCvXTnGMQzdOXt2nFvP_LXV_Xam4nGa3IJpK3YwRgguZAXlEax_LyVjtPtMs8s3loM9KLa3iu3BnzXG3iq2uuaenBZs44zhn9TRaQWengBXvJtidoun8pczQoLhFXt7xLDauCbMtnjCpaqlXE3bkOg_l_wGOIKbOA</recordid><startdate>19990801</startdate><enddate>19990801</enddate><creator>Cronmiller, James R.</creator><creator>Nelson, Daniel K.</creator><creator>Salman, Ghassan</creator><creator>Jackson, Dana K.</creator><creator>Dean, Robert S.</creator><creator>Hsu, Joseph J.</creator><creator>Kim, Chung H.</creator><general>Mosby, Inc</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19990801</creationdate><title>Antimicrobial efficacy of endoscopic disinfection procedures: a controlled, multifactorial investigation</title><author>Cronmiller, James R. ; Nelson, Daniel K. ; Salman, Ghassan ; Jackson, Dana K. ; Dean, Robert S. ; Hsu, Joseph J. ; Kim, Chung H.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c456t-af33b3d87f37d5ee5e85f2dec230a8808ffe0e5589b073ed49709e4ffe5bfbd63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1999</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Colony Count, Microbial</topic><topic>Disinfection - methods</topic><topic>Endoscopes</topic><topic>Enterococcus faecalis - drug effects</topic><topic>Equipment Contamination - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Ethanol - pharmacology</topic><topic>Glutaral - pharmacology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Peracetic Acid - pharmacology</topic><topic>Radiotherapy. Instrumental treatment. Physiotherapy. Reeducation. Rehabilitation, orthophony, crenotherapy. Diet therapy and various other treatments (general aspects)</topic><topic>Technology. Biomaterials. Equipments. Material. Instrumentation</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cronmiller, James R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nelson, Daniel K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salman, Ghassan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jackson, Dana K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dean, Robert S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hsu, Joseph J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Chung H.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Gastrointestinal endoscopy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cronmiller, James R.</au><au>Nelson, Daniel K.</au><au>Salman, Ghassan</au><au>Jackson, Dana K.</au><au>Dean, Robert S.</au><au>Hsu, Joseph J.</au><au>Kim, Chung H.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Antimicrobial efficacy of endoscopic disinfection procedures: a controlled, multifactorial investigation</atitle><jtitle>Gastrointestinal endoscopy</jtitle><addtitle>Gastrointest Endosc</addtitle><date>1999-08-01</date><risdate>1999</risdate><volume>50</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>152</spage><epage>158</epage><pages>152-158</pages><issn>0016-5107</issn><eissn>1097-6779</eissn><coden>GAENBQ</coden><abstract>Background: Adequate disinfection of endoscopes is essential to prevent environmental and patient-to-patient transmission of infectious agents, but data from controlled studies are limited. Moreover, there is controversy regarding current guidelines for disinfection. We compared the antimicrobial efficacy of several endoscopic disinfection procedures controlling for multiple factors that affect reprocessing. Methods: A colonoscope was contaminated with 108 CFU/mL of Enterococcus faecalis as a standardized inoculum. The colonoscope was passed through 1 of 16 study arms (5 reps/arm for a total of 80 runs) that were controlled for all possible combinations of the following variables: manual precleaning; 10-, 20-, or 45-minute glutaraldehyde exposure; air or ethanol drying; or automated reprocessing with peracetic acid (liquid sterilization system). Suction accessory channels and air-water channels were harvested for microbiologic culture. Results: Control runs (no cleaning or disinfection) recovered more than 5 × 107 CFU/mL from each sampling site. When each processing variable was isolated independent of other variables, the benefits of manual precleaning, longer soak times, and ethanol drying were apparent. When factors were combined, manual precleaning followed by 20- and 45-minute glutaraldehyde exposure and ethanol drying removed all test organisms, as did processing with the liquid sterilization system. Conclusion: Although the initial cost is higher, the automated liquid sterilization system provides effective sterilization and minimizes worker exposure. In units where chemical disinfection is used, our results suggest that manual precleaning followed by at least 20-minute glutaraldehyde exposure and ethanol rinse drying are sufficient to achieve complete disinfection. (Gastrointest Endosc 1999;50:152-8.)</abstract><cop>New York, NY</cop><pub>Mosby, Inc</pub><pmid>10425405</pmid><doi>10.1016/S0016-5107(99)70217-8</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0016-5107
ispartof Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 1999-08, Vol.50 (2), p.152-158
issn 0016-5107
1097-6779
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69922125
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete - AutoHoldings; MEDLINE
subjects Biological and medical sciences
Colony Count, Microbial
Disinfection - methods
Endoscopes
Enterococcus faecalis - drug effects
Equipment Contamination - prevention & control
Ethanol - pharmacology
Glutaral - pharmacology
Humans
Medical sciences
Peracetic Acid - pharmacology
Radiotherapy. Instrumental treatment. Physiotherapy. Reeducation. Rehabilitation, orthophony, crenotherapy. Diet therapy and various other treatments (general aspects)
Technology. Biomaterials. Equipments. Material. Instrumentation
Treatment Outcome
title Antimicrobial efficacy of endoscopic disinfection procedures: a controlled, multifactorial investigation
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T16%3A19%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Antimicrobial%20efficacy%20of%20endoscopic%20disinfection%20procedures:%20a%20controlled,%20multifactorial%20investigation&rft.jtitle=Gastrointestinal%20endoscopy&rft.au=Cronmiller,%20James%20R.&rft.date=1999-08-01&rft.volume=50&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=152&rft.epage=158&rft.pages=152-158&rft.issn=0016-5107&rft.eissn=1097-6779&rft.coden=GAENBQ&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/S0016-5107(99)70217-8&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E69922125%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=69922125&rft_id=info:pmid/10425405&rft_els_id=S0016510799702178&rfr_iscdi=true