Surveillance of Endoscopes: Comparison of Different Sampling Techniques

30Citations
Citations of this article
39Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To compare different techniques of endoscope sampling to assess residual bacterial contamination. DESIGN Diagnostic study. SETTING The endoscopy unit of an 1,100-bed university hospital performing ~13,000 endoscopic procedures annually. METHODS In total, 4 sampling techniques, combining flushing fluid with or without a commercial endoscope brush, were compared in an endoscope model. Based on these results, sterile physiological saline flushing with or without PULL THRU brush was selected for evaluation on 40 flexible endoscopes by adenosine triphosphate (ATP) measurement and bacterial culture. Acceptance criteria from the French National guideline (<25 colony-forming units [CFU] per endoscope and absence of indicator microorganisms) were used as part of the evaluation. RESULTS On biofilm-coated PTFE tubes, physiological saline in combination with a PULL THRU brush generated higher mean ATP values (2,579 relative light units [RLU]) compared with saline alone (1,436 RLU; P=.047). In the endoscope samples, culture yield using saline plus the PULL THRU (mean, 43 CFU; range, 1-400 CFU) was significantly higher than that of saline alone (mean, 17 CFU; range, 0-500 CFU; P

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Cattoir, L., Vanzieleghem, T., Florin, L., Helleputte, T., De Vos, M., Verhasselt, B., … Leroux-Roels, I. (2017). Surveillance of Endoscopes: Comparison of Different Sampling Techniques. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, 38(9), 1062–1069. https://doi.org/10.1017/ice.2017.115

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free