Microbiological surveillance result of endoscopes after INTERCEPT Foam Spray: a quasi-experimental pilot study in Singapore

Caihong Wang; Rong Zhang; Ruhui Fan; Jiewen Low; Ruochen Du; Xueyun Ma; Congcong Cai

doi:10.5946/ce.2024.030

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Clin Endosc > Volume 57(6); 2024 > Article

Original Article Microbiological surveillance result of endoscopes after INTERCEPT Foam Spray: a quasi-experimental pilot study in Singapore: Caihong Wang^1,, Rong Zhang¹, Ruhui Fan¹, Jiewen Low¹, Ruochen Du², Xueyun Ma¹, Congcong Cai³; Clinical Endoscopy 2024;57(6):821-831.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2024.030
Published online: November 4, 2024

¹Endoscopy Centre, Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore

²Biostatics Unit, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

³Department of Physiotherapy, Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore

Correspondence: Caihong Wang Endoscopy Centre, Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, 1 Jurong East Street 21, Singapore 609606, Singapore E-mail: caihong_wang@nuhs.edu.sg

• Received: February 14, 2024 • Revised: June 14, 2024 • Accepted: July 2, 2024

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

327 Views
35 Download

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
Graphical abstract
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
Supplementary Material
NOTES
REFERENCES

Abstract

Background/Aims
This study aimed to assess the impact of INTERCEPT Foam Spray (IFS) application on delayed endoscope reprocessing through microbiological surveillance culture (MSC).
Methods
A quasi-experimental, matched-comparison pilot study was conducted using gastrointestinal endoscopy. IFS was applied to the endoscopes after precleaning and before reprocessing the next day. An equal number of endoscopes, matched by endoscope type, were subjected to routine reprocessing. The MSC were subjected to high-level disinfection to detect any contamination. Data were analyzed using the chi-square test or Fisher exact test (categorical data) and Student t-test (continuous data).
Results
In total, 150 MSCs were collected from 42 endoscopes. Positive MSCs were observed in 4.0% (4/75) of the sprayed group and 1.3% (1/75) of the control group (95% confidence interval, 30.34–0.31; p>0.05), all of which were contributed by colonoscopes. Colonoscope were more prone to positive MSC (mean difference in percentage, p<0.05). Mean spraying hours were not associated with detected growth (11.7% vs. 13.6%; 95% confidence interval, 1.43 to –5.27; p>0.05), with environmental and skin flora being the primary contaminants.
Conclusions
IFS may be applied when delayed endoscope processing is necessary, but with caution when applied to colonoscopes. However, further research is warranted to verify the result.
Keywords: Disinfection; Environmental monitoring; Gastrointestinal endoscopes; Pilots

Graphical abstract

INTRODUCTION

Currently, flexible endoscopes are required to undergo complex reprocessing after use: precleaning (bedside cleaning), leak testing, brushing, rinsing, visual inspection, high-level disinfection (HLD), drying, and storage.¹^-⁴ Failure in any of these steps leads to inadequately reprocessed endoscopes, and recent studies have reported infection outbreaks caused by breaches in reprocessing protocols.⁵^-⁹

Endoscope-associated nosocomial can develop despite adherence to reprocessing protocol.¹⁰ A major contributing factor is biofilm formation within endoscope channels,¹¹^-¹⁴ where they can persist even in completely reprocessed endoscopes.¹¹ After use, humid pockets inside channels permit the growth of microorganism communities, where microorganisms attach themselves to inner channel surfaces and produce extracellular polymeric material, forming a resistant matrix against HLD.¹⁵^,¹⁶ Such protection can also extend to sensitive indicator pathogens during biocidal actions, enabling their persistence in the environment.¹⁷ Delays in manual cleaning, inadequate drying, improper storage, and endoscope inner channel damage promote biofilm formation within the endoscope channels and parts.¹⁸^,¹⁹ Particularly, delayed manual cleaning was reported to harden the bioburden, thus reducing the cleaning and disinfection effect.²⁰

To effectively reprocess contaminated endoscopes, national and manufacturer guidelines recommend manual cleaning immediately or within an hour after use.¹^,²^,⁴^,²⁰ According to Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates, manual cleaning is the most critical step in endoscope reprocessing,¹³ with proper cleaning alone being capable of 6 log reductions in microbial load.²¹ However, clinical situations such as delayed transportation and staff shortages may not always allow timely reprocessing. For this purpose, Bromiley tested the INTERCEPT Foam Spray (IFS, Cantel Ltd.), which is designed to increase manual cleaning delay for up to 72 hours in endoscope reprocessing.²² Efficacy results showed, in comparison to un-conditioned endoscopes, the IFS achieved 6 log reduction of test bacteria (Pseudomonas aeruginosa), apart from preventing biofilm formation and hardening of bioburden by keeping the endoscope in moist conditions for 72 hours.²² In contrast to endoscopes that underwent manual cleaning after a 1-hour delay, reprocessing of conditioned endoscopes also attained more extensive bacterial reduction and biofilm prevention.²²

Despite the potential reduction in labor and cost demands and improved workflow with the use of IFS, there is currently limited evidence supporting its routine application in standard clinical practice. We conducted a quasi-experimental pilot study at a local hospital to evaluate efficacy of IFS and its effect on delayed endoscope reprocessing. The first objective of this preliminary study was to assess the effectiveness of IFS in keeping endoscopes in a pre-cleaned state beyond the 1-hour recommendation. Hence, endoscopes used out-of-hours were recruited to achieve the longest possible delay while minimizing interruptions to clinical work. As a pilot study, the team aimed to test the study's recruitment rate to inform further research on endoscopic reprocessing.

METHODS

Settings

The study endoscopy unit performs a wide range of procedures annually (approximately 10,000 procedures). Given financial constraints and to minimize clinical interruption, the team adopted a prospective, quasi-experimental matched control approach, with a study period between April 2021 and December 2021.

Sampling strategy

1) Inclusion and exclusion criteria

A group of gastrointestinal scopes: GIF-HQ290, GIF-H290, GIF-FQ260Z, GIF-2T240, CF-HQ290L, CF-H290L, PCF-H290L, TJF-260, JF-260, GF-UCT260 (Olympus) in circulation (total 54) in the endoscopy unit were included in this study. Endoscopes in service and those that were limited in number were also excluded. All endoscopes had 1 month to 6 year’s-service.

2) Sample size

As this was a pilot quasi-experimental study, 150 samples were collected without sample size calculations. Samples were equally split into two groups: the sprayed (SP) group and the control group.

3) Sampling method

Whenever the following day was a working day, the flexible endoscopes used for emergency cases after office hours were used in the SP group. SP endoscopes were immediately pre-cleaned (bedside cleaning) after withdrawal from the patient using 0.25% INTERCEPT before spraying with IFS. They were then placed inside the scope trays and covered with a twinfoil plastic cover (Cantel Ltd.). The SP endoscopes were subsequently subjected to routine endoscope reprocessing on the following day. The exact number of endoscopes matched by the endoscope type was later selected, reprocessed within an hour after use, and assigned to the control group. Control recruitment occurred on any working day according to the prevailing clinical situation.

(1) Endoscope reprocessing process

The IFS was first removed from the SP endoscopes using gauze. Subsequent reprocessing proceeded in this manner: leak testing by Viriscan (Cantel Ltd.), manual cleaning of air and water channels, biopsy channels, and auxiliary channels (if applicable) with brushing six to ten times using a pull-through (Cantel Ltd.) and channel brush (Olympus). After brushing, endoscopes were flushed with freshly prepared 5% INTERCEPT and rinsed with water using Scope Buddy (Cantel Ltd.). The external surfaces of the endoscopes were rinsed with running-filter tap water. Visual inspection was conducted before placing the samples in an automated endoscope repressor (AER) to undergo HLD (Cantel Ltd.). Double HLD (DHLD) was performed for all endoscopes used in contagious cases, such as carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae human immunodeficiency virus, Hepatitis B and C, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, to comply with the current flexible endoscope reprocessing policy. Control endoscopes underwent bedside cleaning in which gastroscopes and colonoscopes were purged with 0.25% INTERCEPT for at least 10 seconds while duodenoscopes for 30 seconds, followed by leak testing, manual cleaning process within 1 hour and the same steps as the SP group except for applying and removing the INTERCEPT Foam.

(2) Microbiological surveillance culture procedure

After completing the AER cycle, the microbiological surveillance culture (MSC) test was performed using the brushing-flushing method for all endoscope channels. The endoscope channels were connected to sterilized reusable endoscope-cleaning tubing. Sterile 0.9% sodium chloride (0.9% normal saline, NS) was flushed into the endoscope channels using a 20 mL sterile syringe into each channel (biopsy channel, air/water channel, and auxiliar/elevator channel, if applicable) and collected at the distal tip of the endoscope using a sterile specimen bottle. If applicable, an additional reusable sterile tube was connected to the elevator port to flush through a 100 mL sample. The distal tips of the endoscopes used in the contagious cases were swabbed, collected, and placed into a specimen tube (COPAN). All MSC tests were conducted aseptically to prevent potential cross-contamination. The MSC samples were immediately dispatched for analysis to reduce the potential proliferation of microorganisms.

(3) Laboratory procedure

Each sample of endoscope flush water was processed using the disposable EZ-Fit Filtration unit (Millipore SAS) with the EZ-Stream pump and manifold system. The disposable cellulose membrane was removed from the filtration unit and placed on a Tryptone Soy Agar plate (Thermo Scientific). Agar plates were incubated at 35 ℃ in ambient air and examined daily for up to 2 days. Colonies growing during this period were identified using (matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization-time of flight) (Bruker Daltonics). Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase, imipenemase, oxacillinase-48, New Delhi metallo-β-lactamase, and Verona integron-encoded metallo-β-lactamase carbapenemase production in the Enterobacterales colonies was determined using the CARBA-5 test (NG Biotech).

Result interpretation

A microorganism threshold was developed to guide the decision of positive or negative MSC results: colony forming unit (CFU) equal to or greater than 10 or the identification of any critical microorganism was considered positive (Supplementary Table 1). Additionally, the carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae swab results were combined with the environmental culture as a single MSC. Therefore, if the swab result is negative and the environmental result is positive, the MSC result from the endoscope would still be considered positive, and vice versa.

Data collection

MSC results were obtained from the hospital laboratory once available. The results were then hand-copied to the study files by a research assistant. Two other research assistants independently transferred the results to the original laboratory copy and research computer weekly. The two research assistants verified all the results once all MSC results were available. Finally, the principal investigator rechecked all data before the analysis.

Data analysis

For the primary outcome, the chi-squared test (Microsoft 365 ver. 2016) or Fisher exact test (Free Statistic Calculators ver. 4.0), whichever was applicable, was used to compare the positivity rate between groups. Fisher exact test was also used to detect the types of endoscopes that were more prone to positive MSCs. A simple Student t-test (Microsoft 365 ver. 2016) was used to determine any association between the SP group’s spraying hours and cfu counts. 95% confidence interval was calculated based on the log odds ratio and then transformed back to odds ratio by taking exponential.

Ethical statement

Ethical approval was waived by the National Health Group of Singapore (NHG DSRB; Ref:2021/00090).

RESULTS

During the study period, 150 MSCs (n=150), with 75 samples from each group, were collected from 25 gastroscopes, 12 colonoscopes, and four duodenoscopes. The endoscope model distributions are presented in Table 1. Overall, MSCs obtained from both groups did not show any statistically significant differences. Growth was observed in 17 (24.0%) and 18 (22.7%) samples collected from the SP and control groups, respectively (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.30–0.51; p>0.05) (Table 2). There were three out of 75 MSCs with positive growth (4%) in the SP group, in contrast to one out of 75 MSCs (1.33%) in the control group (95% CI, 0.31–30.34; p>0.05). Notably, there were a total of 40 samples collected after DHLD (19 from SP and 21 from control) from all types of gastrointestinal endoscopes, with only 1 positive MSC found in the control group. The result was not significant compared to that from single cycle of HLD (SHLD) (3/110) (p>0.99), in which three positive MSCs were found. Growth was 9/40 (DHLD) vs. 22/110 (SHLD) (p>0.05).

Positive growth was only detected in colonoscope samples, with three positive samples from the SP group when compared to those from the control group (Table 3). Colonoscopes were found to be more prone to positive MSCs than gastroscopes and duodenoscopes (p<0.001). Further stratified analysis was not conducted because of the small number of samples with positive growth or any growth.

The time between spraying and reprocessing (sprayed hours) was also analyzed according to the MSC results. Altogether, hours ranged from 4.83 to 24.5 hours, with a median of 10.92 hours and an interquartile range (IQR) of 9.00–13.25 hours (Table 4). The data for both groups were rightly skewed (Fig. 1), with a difference in spraying hours between endoscopes with and without growth (p>0.05, calculated as unequal variance). Endoscopes with growth registered a higher mean (13.6 vs. 11.7 hours), median (11.09 vs. 10.92 hours) and IQR (9.13–18.78 vs. 9.17–13.5 hours) as compared to those without.

The most commonly observed organisms were environmental contaminants or skin flora: Bacillus species (spp.) including Bacillus cereus, Bacillus simplex, and Micrococcus luteus (Fig. 2). All positive MSCs identified were due to more than ten cfu of microorganisms instead of high-concern pathogens, according to the hospital laboratory MSC response protocol (Supplementary Table 1). As pathogens such as P. aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and other gram-negative rods were not detected in the duodenoscopes, no remedial action was required. No further comparisons between the study groups were made because most endoscopes showed no growth.

DISCUSSION

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of IFS using flexible endoscope MSC. Overall, there was no significant concern about the sprayed endoscopes, indicating that the IFS spray may play a role in flexible endoscope reprocessing.

Flexible endoscopes should be kept as dry as possible throughout reprocessing and the preparation stage for clinical use.⁴^,¹³ Dry conditions are critical in preventing biofilm formation and reducing the risk of hospital-acquired infection,¹⁸ and excessive drying before manual cleaning can lead to the hardening of the bioburden, potentially reducing the efficacy of the subsequent disinfection steps.²³ However, logistical issues such as transportation or staff shortages in clinical settings may sometimes result in unavoidable reprocessing delays. The current recommendation is to follow the manufacturer's protocol for delayed cleaning and disinfection,¹³^,²³ which involves immersing gastrointestinal endoscopes in a suitable dilute detergent solution for at most 10 hours.²⁰ In comparison, IFS is advertised to afford delays in reprocessing for up to 72 hours while preventing overdrying and facilitating detachment of the bioburden.²²

IFS is a surfactant-based, non-enzymatic formulation containing quaternary ammonium compounds (QAC).²² QAC is a type of low-toxicity, cationic biocide widely employed as an active antibacterial agent in commercial disinfectants for healthcare facilities.²⁴ It can exert powerful antibiofilm properties at low concentrations through cell lysis, preventing microbial surface adhesion and biofilm maturation.²⁵ Antibiofilm efficacy of QACs on high-concern organisms such as Staphylococcus aureus, P. aeruginosa, Salmonella spp., Escherichia coli, and Acinetobacter spp. has been previously demonstrated.²⁴ Although there is widespread adoption of IFS in delayed endoscope reprocessing, it has yet to be intensively and rigorously studied.

The current study found no significant differences in MSC results after IFS application compared to routine practice. Prolonged detergent contact did not result in a more positive growth than the standard practice (p>0.05). In an in vitro study, IFS was able to reduce biofilm formation and achieve more than 6 log reductions (cfu/mL) of P. aeruginosa after 72 hours.²² After overnight enzymatic detergent soaking, Ofstead et al.²⁶ demonstrated negative MSC results from 8 gastroscopes and colonoscopes. Non-enzymatic detergent has a similar effect on biofilm removal and viable detection of enzymatic detergent.²⁷

In this study, although more growth was observed as sprayed hours increased (zero growth: 11.7 hours vs. any growth: 13.6 hours), it was not significant (p>0.05). A definite relationship between spraying duration and detectable growth could not be established owing to the small sample size and study design. Nonetheless, given that this was a real-world study, the results may provide insights into clinical applications and future study directions. IFS may be an alternative to the delayed reprocessing protocol with regular MSC and preventive maintenance to monitor the long-term impact. Given that the maximum soaking time allowed with IFS application is 72 hours, future studies should be undertaken on a larger scale, focusing on longer soaking times (more than 24 hours but less than 72 hours) for conclusive results.

Additionally, the MSC results from our current study were comparable to those of previous studies; overall, positive MSCs were detected in 1.3% of control and 4.0% of SP, and zero growth was detected in all duodenoscopes. Ma et al.²⁸ detected contamination in 1.1% (3/285) duodenoscope post-HLD. Another report showed a range of 0.8% to 9.1% positive MSC rate from 1,931 MSCs of different types of gastrointestinal endoscopes.²⁹ An earlier study demonstrated that duodenoscope undergoing double manual cleaning and DHLD resulted in 4.9% (38/783; 95% CI, 3.5%–6.6%) positive culture.³⁰ The enhanced endoscope reprocessing measures we adopted may explain our study's low positive MSC rate. Double manual cleaning and DHLD were implemented in our daily practice and reprocessing policy in 2019 to ensure effective flexible endoscope reprocessing. Meticulous manual cleaning (with mechanical friction) is the most effective method for removing bioburdens and biofilms.⁴^,³¹ DHLD was recommended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2015 to achieve better flexible reprocessing outcomes. Our low MSC rate may indicate that the current reprocessing practices were adequate. During the study period, thorough reprocessing was employed to render endoscopes safe for patient use, double-channel brushing was applied to all endoscopes, and double AER cycles were adapted for duodenoscopes and endoscopes used in infectious cases.

However, studies have not favored DHLD over SHLD on duodenoscopes or linear echoendoscopes. A recent large RCT showed a duodenoscope contamination rate of 4.2% (127/3,052) after DHLD versus 3.9% (108/2,798) after SHLD (p=0.64).³² Another randomized comparison study also demonstrated that 4.1% (7/169, DHLD) versus 2.3% (4/174, SHLD) duodenoscope had 10 or more cfu (p>0.05).³³ In our current study, positive growth or any growth from endoscopes that underwent DHLD was not significant compared to those that underwent SHLD. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the low positivity rate was attributable to DHLD.

On another hand, as mentioned earlier, positive culture of reusable endoscope is largely contributed by biofilm within the endoscope channels even after adequate reprocessing.¹¹^-¹⁴^,²⁷^,³⁴^-⁴¹ The good news is that meticulous channel brushing with detergent can significantly remove both traditional biofilm and build-up biofilm, thus ensuring the effectiveness of HLD.⁴² With a contact time of 1 minute, INTERCEPT is able to remove 100% protein and >99% of carbohydrate and can reduce 7.21 log of viables from biofilm.⁴³ Additionally, high speed flushing of detergent can also slow down biofilm generation.⁴¹ A study showed that after 3 minutes lavage at the rate of 250 mL/min with 0.5% INTERCEPT, there were no viables detected from the Teflon tube (endoscope material) which was contaminated with 10⁶ log of E. coli. No obvious biofilms were observed by electron microscopy, whereas large amounts of bacterial sediment were observed in the broth bottle after 72 hours. Biofilms became very loose with the high shear force created by INTERCEPT.⁴⁴ It was found that P. aeruginosa biofilm achieved more than 8 log reduction of viables after 10 seconds flushing with 500 mL of INTERCEPT.⁴⁵ In our study, endoscopes underwent a few rounds of INTERCEPT detergent high speed purging during reprocessing: 250 mL over 10 seconds or 500 mL over 30 seconds, more than 1 L over 1 minute through ScopeBuddy, and 5 L over 2 minutes during AER cycle. Subsequently, the standard AER disinfectant cycle removed most of the viables.⁴²^,⁴⁶ From this perspective, the effect of DHLD was not significant.

However, the current study also agreed that there were no bacterial-free endoscopes even after meticulous cleaning, and appropriate HLD¹¹ detected viables after a few rounds of reprocessing because of the build-up biofilm within endoscope channels, which is difficult to eliminate and may cause patient infection,²⁷^,³⁵^,³⁶^,³⁸ especially in biofilms within the air/water channel and the air/water junction. This was showed by Ren-Pei and colleagues that 76.9% (10/13) of air/ water channels were contaminated with obvious biofilm compared to 54.6% (36/66) of suction and biopsy channels.⁴⁷ Primo et al.³⁸ detected that 18/28 endoscope channels were stained with mixed bacterial of build-up biofilm after 30-60 days of clinical use from Scanning electron microscopy. Researchers explained that the sheer force of irrigation without friction from manual and auto cleaning are not sufficient to eliminate mature biofilm and bioburdens.

Overall, INTERCEPT is effective to remove biofilm during cleaning, on top of the thorough endoscope channel brushing. From this point, since the IFS was applied to the exterior surfaces of endoscope, it is difficult to distinguish the impact of INTERCEPT detergent and the IFS because of the low positive results that were observed from both groups.

The current study showed that colonoscopes was more prone to positive results than gastroscopes and duodenoscopes (p<0.001). Similar findings have been reported in other studies. Suction and biopsy channels had 20% (1/5) contamination in gastroscopes compared to 83.3% (5/6) in colonoscopes after HLD.²⁶ Biopsy channel contamination rate from colonoscopes (20.8%, 25/120) was significantly higher than gastroscopes (10.7%, 32/300) (p<0.05).⁴⁸ Significantly higher than gastroscopes and duodenoscopes, three colonoscopes had >100 cfu counts compared to one gastroscope.⁴⁹ This might be due to the nature of the endoscope procedure involved, whereby colonoscopes carry more bacteria than upper gastrointestinal endoscopes do. However, these results were consistent with those of previous studies. The earlier mentioned study showed no difference in their Phase II study among different types of endoscopes.⁴⁹ Moreover, the study by Chen and colleagues also showed 2.0% (15/765) contamination of gastroscopes, 1.9% (14/730) for colonoscopes, and 0.8% (3/379) for duodenoscopes.²⁹ But the result from Decristoforo et al.⁴⁹ was limited by the small sample size and study design. The differences observed by Chen et al.²⁹ were not significant. Thus, it was difficult to generate a conclusion. In addition, sampling and culturing techniques may play a decisive role in the recovery of viable bacteria and the interpretation of results.³^,¹⁵^,⁵⁰^,⁵¹ From the previously mentioned studies, Chen et al.²⁹ mainly employed flushing of endoscopes with 100 mL distilled water for culturing, while Decristoforo et al.⁴⁹ utilized flushing or brush-flushing with 20 mL of 0.9% NS.⁴⁹ In our study, 100 mL of 0.9% NS flushing was applied. Various laboratory analyses were performed. However, further studies are required to draw concrete conclusions.

The microorganisms discovered in our study were commonly isolated and were consistent with those reported in other studies. Although high-concern pathogens (Supplementary Table 1) were recovered from both groups, they were not detected at high cfu counts (Fig. 1, Table 5). Endoscopes with positive growth were cleared after another round of the reprocessing cycle (all double brushing and DHLD), except for one colonoscope that had six years of service. This particular colonoscope was subsequently found to have inner channel damage, was removed from service, and sent for repair. Inner-lumen damage is known to result in MSC positivity. ⁸^,²⁶^,⁵²^,⁵³ The loss in the endoscope's inner surface integrity compromised the reprocessing efficacy, rendering it inadequate, especially if there was prior biofilm formation and build-up.⁵⁴ On the other hand, our current study also confirmed that the present endoscope reprocessing process cannot produce bacteria-free endoscopes.¹⁰^,³²^,³³ Inner channel examination of flexible endoscopes should be routinely conducted to detect any damage or defect to reduce positive MSC and potential cross-contamination.⁵² Therefore, endoscope redesign, sterilization, and single-use endoscopes with the consideration of cost-effectiveness may be the solution to eliminate endoscope-related hospital-acquired infections.⁵⁵^-⁵⁷

In conclusion, the current study confirmed the feasibility of the out-of-hour use of IFS. Overall, no significant differences in the MSC results were observed between flexible endoscopes that underwent IFS application with delayed manual cleaning and those that adhered to the standard recommended practice. Moreover, when flexible endoscopes were sprayed for 24 hours in a sealed condition, longer spraying times did not result in significantly higher cfu counts. Colonoscopes were more prone to have positive growth than did gastroscopes and duodenoscopes. However, the long-term impact of IFS on the endoscope warrants large-scale studies and prolonged observation.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary Table 1. Response to positive flexible endoscope culture.

ce-2024-030-Supplementary-Table-1.pdf

Supplementary materials related to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2024.030.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no potential conflicts of interest.

Funding

None.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all staff, especially those who worked in the endoscope reprocessing area of the Ng Teng Fong General Hospital Endoscopy Centre. This requires great individual commitment to achieve teamwork. We also thank all other professionals involved in this study for their indirect contributions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: CW, RZ; Data curation: CW, RF, JL; Formal analysis: RD, CW; Supervision: RZ, XM, CC; Validation: CW, RZ; Writing–original draft: CW; Writing–review & editing: all authors.

Fig. 1.

Boxplot of sprayed hours for samples with growth and without growth.

Fig. 2.

Frequency of detection of microorganisms among gastroscopes and colonoscopes between study groups.

Table 1.

Distribution of flexible endoscope models between the sprayed group and control group

Model	Sprayed group (n=26)	Controlled group (n=32)
GIF-HQ290	9	8
GIF-H290	1	11
GIF-FQ260Z	2	1
GIF-2T240	3	0
CF-HQ290L	2	4
CF-H290L	4	4
PCF-H290L	1	1
TJF-260	4	3

All flexible endoscopes were from Olympus.

Table 2.

Overall growth detected between the sprayed and control group

	Sprayed group (n=75)	Control group (n=75)	95% CI	p-value
Positive growth^a)	3 (4.0)	1 (1.3)	0.31–30.34	>0.05
Any growth^b)	18 (24.0)	17 (22.7)	0.51–2.30	>0.05
No growth^c)	57 (76.0)	58 (77.3)

Values are presented as number (%) unless otherwise indicated. Percentage was calculated based on (1) no. of positive growth/no. of endoscope and (2) no. of any growth/no. of endoscope of the particular type of endoscope.

CI, confidence interval.

^a)Colony forming unit (cfu) equal to or more than 10 or the identification of any critical microorganisms,

^b)more than 0 cfu,

^c)0 cfu.

Table 3.

Analysis of positive growth and any growth based on the total samples collected from gastroscopes, colonoscopes, and duodenoscopes

	Gastroscope (n=113)	Colonoscope (n=23)	Duodenoscope (n=14)	p-value
Positive growth^a)	0 (0)	4 (17.4)	0 (0)	<0.001
Any growth^b)	28 (24.8)	7 (30.4)	0 (0)	>0.05

Values are presented as number (%). Percentage was calculated based on (1) no. of positive growth/number of endoscope and (2) no. of any growth/no. of endoscope of the particular type of endoscope. Analysis through: Free Statistic Calculators ver. 4.0 (https://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc/calculator.aspx?id=58).

^a)Colony forming unit (cfu) equal to or more than 10 or the identification of any critical microorganisms,

^b)more than 0 colony forming unit.

Table 4.

Relationship between sprayed hours and microorganisms detected in colony forming unit

cfu count	Range (hr)	Mean (hr)	Median (hr)	IQR (hr)	p-value
0	4.83–24.0	11.70	10.92	9.17–13.50
>0	5.33–24.5	13.60	11.09	9.13–18.78	>0.05
Overall	4.83–24.5	11.54	10.92	9.00–13.25

cfu, colony forming unit; IQR, interquartile range.

p-value calculated as unequal variance.

Table 5.

Positive growth^a) (n=4) obtained from colonoscopes with identified microorganisms

Endoscope^b)	cfu count	Microorganism
Colonoscope 1	21	Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Colonoscope 2	16	Candida albicans
Colonoscope 3	60	Bacillus cereus, Klebsiella variicola, Enterobacter cloacae
Colonoscope 4	101	Enteribacter aerogenes, Klebsiella pneumoniae

All flexible endoscopes were from Olympus. Colonoscope 1 was from control group and the rest of colonoscopes were from sprayed group.

^a)Colony forming unit (cfu) equal to or more than 10 or the identification of any critical microorganisms.

^b)There was no positive growth from both gastroscopes and duodenoscopes.

REFERENCES

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Infection control: disinfection and sterilization [Internet]. CDC; 2019 [cited 2023 Mar 18]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/infection-control/hcp/disinfection-and-sterilization/index.html
2. Beilenhoff U, Biering H, Blum R, et al. Reprocessing of flexible endoscopes and endoscopic accessories used in gastrointestinal endoscopy: position statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates (ESGENA): update 2018. Endoscopy 2018;50:1205–1234.Article PubMed
3. Reprocessing Guideline Task Force, Petersen BT, Cohen J, et al. Multisociety guideline on reprocessing flexible GI endoscopes: 2016 update. Gastrointest Endosc 2017;85:282–294.Article PubMed
4. Devereaux B, Jones D, Wardle E. Clinical update: infection prevention and control in endoscopy 2021. Gastroenterological Society of Australia; 2021. Avilable from: https://www.genca.org/public/5/files/Nurses%20info/IPCE%202021_Feb2022update.pdf.
5. Shenoy ES, Pierce VM, Walters MS, et al. Transmission of mobile colistin resistance (mcr-1) by duodenoscope. Clin Infect Dis 2019;68:1327–1334.Article PubMed
6. Grein JD, Murthy RK. New developments in the prevention of gastrointestinal scope-related infections. Infect Dis Clin North Am 2018;32:899–913.Article PubMed
7. Humphries RM, Yang S, Kim S, et al. Duodenoscope-related outbreak of a carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae identified using advanced molecular diagnostics. Clin Infect Dis 2017;65:1159–1166.Article PubMed
8. Marsh JW, Krauland MG, Nelson JS, et al. Genomic epidemiology of an endoscope-associated outbreak of Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)-producing K. pneumoniae. PLoS One 2015;10:e0144310.Article PubMed PMC
9. Wendorf KA, Kay M, Baliga C, et al. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-associated AmpC Escherichia coli outbreak. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2015;36:634–642.Article PubMed
10. McCafferty CE, Aghajani MJ, Abi-Hanna D, et al. An update on gastrointestinal endoscopy-associated infections and their contributing factors. Ann Clin Microbiol Antimicrob 2018;17:36.Article PubMed PMC PDF
11. Alfa MJ, Singh H, Nugent Z, et al. Simulated-use polytetrafluorethylene biofilm model: repeated rounds of complete reprocessing lead to accumulation of organic debris and viable bacteria. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:1284–1290.Article PubMed
12. Akinbobola AB, Sherry L, Mckay WG, et al. Tolerance of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in in-vitro biofilms to high-level peracetic acid disinfection. J Hosp Infect 2017;97:162–168.Article PubMed
13. Loyola M, Babb E, Bocian S, et al. Standards of infection prevention in reprocessing flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes. Gastroenterol Nurs 2020;43:E142–E158.Article PubMed
14. Roberts CG. The role of biofilms in reprocessing medical devices. Am J Infect Control 2013;41(5 Suppl):S77–S80.Article PubMed
15. Alfa MJ, Singh H. Contaminated flexible endoscopes: review of impact of channel sampling methods on culture results and recommendations for root-cause analysis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2022;43:623–638.Article PubMed
16. Kovaleva J, Peters FT, van der Mei HC, et al. Transmission of infection by flexible gastrointestinal endoscopy and bronchoscopy. Clin Microbiol Rev 2013;26:231–254.Article PubMed PMC PDF
17. Bridier A, Sanchez-Vizuete Mdel P, Le Coq D, et al. Biofilms of a Bacillus subtilis hospital isolate protect Staphylococcus aureus from biocide action. PLoS One 2012;7:e44506.Article PubMed PMC
18. Ofstead CL, Heymann OL, Quick MR, et al. Residual moisture and waterborne pathogens inside flexible endoscopes: evidence from a multisite study of endoscope drying effectiveness. Am J Infect Control 2018;46:689–696.Article PubMed
19. Naas T, Cuzon G, Babics A, et al. Endoscopy-associated transmission of carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae producing KPC-2 beta-lactamase. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010;65:1305–1306.Article PubMed
20. Benedict M. Delays in endoscope reprocessing … and the biofilms within [Internet]. Olympus America Inc.; 2018 [cited 2023 Jan 2]. Available from: https://medical.olympusamerica.com/sites/default/files/us/files/pdf/Whitepaper---Delays-in-Endoscope-Reprocessing-FINAL-APPROVED-single-page-version.pdf
21. Foliente RL, Kovacs BJ, Aprecio RM, et al. Efficacy of high-level disinfectants for reprocessing GI endoscopes in simulated-use testing. Gastrointest Endosc 2001;53:456–462.Article PubMed
22. Bromiley N. White paper: eliminating the need for Extended Endoscope Soak Times by the use of INTERCEPTTM Detergent and INTERCEPTTM Foam [Internet]. Medivators; 2018 [cited 2022 Jan 15]. Available from: https://www.medivators.com/sites/default/files/minntech/documents/INTERCEPT%20Foam%20White%20Paper%20%28Rev.%20C%29%20edit.pdf
23. Agrawal D, Muscarella LF. Delayed reprocessing of endoscopes. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;73:853–854.Article PubMed
24. Saverina EA, Frolov NA, Kamanina OA, et al. From antibacterial to antibiofilm targeting: an emerging paradigm shift in the development of quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs). ACS Infect Dis 2023;9:394–422.Article PubMed PDF
25. Nadagouda MN, Vijayasarathy P, Sin A, et al. Antimicrobial activity of quaternary ammonium salts: structure-activity relationship. Med Chem Res 2022;31:1663–1678.Article PDF
26. Ofstead CL, Wetzler HP, Doyle EM, et al. Persistent contamination on colonoscopes and gastroscopes detected by biologic cultures and rapid indicators despite reprocessing performed in accordance with guidelines. Am J Infect Control 2015;43:794–801.Article PubMed
27. da Costa Luciano C, Olson N, DeGagne P, et al. A new buildup biofilm model that mimics accumulation of material in flexible endoscope channels. J Microbiol Methods 2016;127:224–229.Article PubMed
28. Ma GK, Pegues DA, Kochman ML, et al. Implementation of a systematic culturing program to monitor the efficacy of endoscope reprocessing: outcomes and costs. Gastrointest Endosc 2018;87:104–109.Article PubMed
29. Chen SH, Liu T, Lai HW, et al. Monthly endoscopy surveillance culture facilitates detection of breaches in the scope reprocessing procedure: 5‐year experience in an endoscopy center. Adv Dig Med 2022;9:103–111.Article PDF
30. Rex DK, Sieber M, Lehman GA, et al. A double-reprocessing high-level disinfection protocol does not eliminate positive cultures from the elevators of duodenoscopes. Endoscopy 2018;50:588–596.Article PubMed
31. Vickery K, Pajkos A, Cossart Y. Removal of biofilm from endoscopes: evaluation of detergent efficiency. Am J Infect Control 2004;32:170–176.Article PubMed
32. Bartles RL, Leggett JE, Hove S, et al. A randomized trial of single versus double high-level disinfection of duodenoscopes and linear echoendoscopes using standard automated reprocessing. Gastrointest Endosc 2018;88:306–313.Article PubMed
33. Snyder GM, Wright SB, Smithey A, et al. Randomized comparison of 3 high-level disinfection and sterilization procedures for duodenoscopes. Gastroenterology 2017;153:1018–1025.Article PubMed
34. Alfa MJ. Biofilms on instruments and environmental surfaces: do they interfere with instrument reprocessing and surface disinfection?: review of the literature. Am J Infect Control 2019;47S:A39–A45.Article PubMed
35. Alfa MJ, Howie R. Modeling microbial survival in buildup biofilm for complex medical devices. BMC Infect Dis 2009;9:56.Article PubMed PMC PDF
36. Akinbobola AB, Amaeze NJ, Mackay WG, et al. ‘Secondary biofilms’ could cause failure of peracetic acid high-level disinfection of endoscopes. J Hosp Infect 2021;107:67–75.Article PubMed
37. Marion K, Freney J, James G, et al. Using an efficient biofilm detaching agent: an essential step for the improvement of endoscope reprocessing protocols. J Hosp Infect 2006;64:136–142.Article PubMed
38. Primo MG, Tipple AF, Costa DM, et al. Biofilm accumulation in new flexible gastroscope channels in clinical use. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2022;43:174–180.Article PubMed
39. Qiu L, Zhou Z, Liu Q, et al. Investigating the failure of repeated standard cleaning and disinfection of a Pseudomonas aeruginosa-infected pancreatic and biliary endoscope. Am J Infect Control 2015;43:e43–e46.Article PubMed
40. Rutala WA, Weber DJ. Reprocessing semicritical items: an overview and an update on the shift from HLD to sterilization for endoscopes. Am J Infect Control 2023;51(11S):A96–A106.Article PubMed
41. Vickery K, Ngo QD, Zou J, et al. The effect of multiple cycles of contamination, detergent washing, and disinfection on the development of biofilm in endoscope tubing. Am J Infect Control 2009;37:470–475.Article PubMed
42. Ribeiro MM, Graziano KU, Olson N, et al. The polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) channel model of cyclic-buildup biofilm and traditional biofilm: the impact of friction, and detergent on cleaning and subsequent high-level disinfection. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2020;41:172–180.Article PubMed
43. Gentle TM Jr, Kippenham RC Jr, Matta JJ. Improved endoscope cleaning performance with biofilm-removing detergents [Internet]. Medivators; 2009 [cited 2024 Mar 20]. Available from: https://www.medivators.com/sites/default/files/minntech/documents/InterceptWhitePaper-October2009.pdf
44. Fang Y, Shen Z, Li L, et al. A study of the efficacy of bacterial biofilm cleanout for gastrointestinal endoscopes. World J Gastroenterol 2010;16:1019–1024.Article PubMed PMC
45. Murphy K, Sanow WR, Samantha Meuwissen MS, et al. Improved robustness of cleaning performance with non-enzymatic [Internet]. Medivators; 2019 [cited 2024 Mar 20]. Available from: https://content.visionsfirst.com/Clients/Medivators/LIT-00049A.pdf
46. Neves MS, da Silva MG, Ventura GM, et al. Effectiveness of current disinfection procedures against biofilm on contaminated GI endoscopes. Gastrointest Endosc 2016;83:944–953.Article PubMed
47. Ren-Pei W, Hui-Jun X, Ke Q, et al. Correlation between the growth of bacterial biofilm in flexible endoscopes and endoscope reprocessing methods. Am J Infect Control 2014;42:1203–1206.Article PubMed
48. Chiu KW, Tsai MC, Wu KL, et al. Surveillance cultures of samples obtained from biopsy channels and automated endoscope reprocessors after high-level disinfection of gastrointestinal endoscopes. BMC Gastroenterol 2012;12:120.Article PubMed PMC PDF
49. Decristoforo P, Kaltseis J, Fritz A, et al. High-quality endoscope reprocessing decreases endoscope contamination. Clin Microbiol Infect 2018;24:1101.Article
50. Cattoir L, Vanzieleghem T, Florin L, et al. Surveillance of endoscopes: comparison of different sampling techniques. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:1062–1069.Article PubMed PMC
51. Thornhill G, David M. Endoscope-associated infections: a microbiologist's perspective on current technologies. Tech Gastrointest Endosc 2019;21:150625.Article
52. Barakat MT, Girotra M, Huang RJ, et al. Scoping the scope: endoscopic evaluation of endoscope working channel damage/debris using a novel flexible inspection scope and assessment of the impact of automated drying and simethicone use on working channel fluid residue. Gastrointest Endosc 2018;87(6 Supplement):AB166–AB167.Article
53. Thaker AM, Kim S, Sedarat A, et al. Inspection of endoscope instrument channels after reprocessing using a prototype borescope. Gastrointest Endosc 2018;88:612–619.Article PubMed
54. Lineback CB, Nkemngong CA, Wu ST, et al. Hydrogen peroxide and sodium hypochlorite disinfectants are more effective against Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms than quaternary ammonium compounds. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control 2018;7:154.Article PubMed PMC PDF
55. Ciocîrlan M. Low-cost disposable endoscope: pros and cons. Endosc Int Open 2019;7:E1184–E1186.Article PubMed PMC
56. Rauwers AW, Kwakman JA, Vos MC, et al. Endoscope-associated infections: a brief summary of the current state and views toward the future. Tech Gastroint Endosc 2019;21:150608.Article
57. Rutala WA, Kanamori H, Sickbert-Bennett EE, et al. What’s new in reprocessing endoscopes: are we going to ensure “the needs of the patient come first” by shifting from disinfection to sterilization? Am J Infect Control 2019;47S:A62–A66.Article PubMed

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Microbiological surveillance result of endoscopes after INTERCEPT Foam Spray: a quasi-experimental pilot study in Singapore

Clin Endosc. 2024;57(6):821-831. Published online November 4, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2024.030

XML Download

Figure

Microbiological surveillance result of endoscopes after INTERCEPT Foam Spray: a quasi-experimental pilot study in Singapore

Fig. 1. Boxplot of sprayed hours for samples with growth and without growth.

Fig. 2. Frequency of detection of microorganisms among gastroscopes and colonoscopes between study groups.

Graphical abstract

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Graphical abstract

Microbiological surveillance result of endoscopes after INTERCEPT Foam Spray: a quasi-experimental pilot study in Singapore

Model	Sprayed group (n=26)	Controlled group (n=32)
GIF-HQ290	9	8
GIF-H290	1	11
GIF-FQ260Z	2	1
GIF-2T240	3	0
CF-HQ290L	2	4
CF-H290L	4	4
PCF-H290L	1	1
TJF-260	4	3

	Sprayed group (n=75)	Control group (n=75)	95% CI	p-value
Positive growth^a)	3 (4.0)	1 (1.3)	0.31–30.34	>0.05
Any growth^b)	18 (24.0)	17 (22.7)	0.51–2.30	>0.05
No growth^c)	57 (76.0)	58 (77.3)

	Gastroscope (n=113)	Colonoscope (n=23)	Duodenoscope (n=14)	p-value
Positive growth^a)	0 (0)	4 (17.4)	0 (0)	<0.001
Any growth^b)	28 (24.8)	7 (30.4)	0 (0)	>0.05

cfu count	Range (hr)	Mean (hr)	Median (hr)	IQR (hr)	p-value
0	4.83–24.0	11.70	10.92	9.17–13.50
>0	5.33–24.5	13.60	11.09	9.13–18.78	>0.05
Overall	4.83–24.5	11.54	10.92	9.00–13.25

Endoscope^b)	cfu count	Microorganism
Colonoscope 1	21	Pseudomonas aeruginosa
Colonoscope 2	16	Candida albicans
Colonoscope 3	60	Bacillus cereus, Klebsiella variicola, Enterobacter cloacae
Colonoscope 4	101	Enteribacter aerogenes, Klebsiella pneumoniae

Table 1. Distribution of flexible endoscope models between the sprayed group and control group

All flexible endoscopes were from Olympus.

Table 2. Overall growth detected between the sprayed and control group

CI, confidence interval.

Colony forming unit (cfu) equal to or more than 10 or the identification of any critical microorganisms,

more than 0 cfu,

0 cfu.

Table 3. Analysis of positive growth and any growth based on the total samples collected from gastroscopes, colonoscopes, and duodenoscopes

Colony forming unit (cfu) equal to or more than 10 or the identification of any critical microorganisms,

more than 0 colony forming unit.

Table 4. Relationship between sprayed hours and microorganisms detected in colony forming unit

cfu, colony forming unit; IQR, interquartile range.

p-value calculated as unequal variance.

Table 5. Positive growtha) (n=4) obtained from colonoscopes with identified microorganisms

All flexible endoscopes were from Olympus. Colonoscope 1 was from control group and the rest of colonoscopes were from sprayed group.

Colony forming unit (cfu) equal to or more than 10 or the identification of any critical microorganisms.