Assessment of endoscope reprocessing at World Gastroenterology Organisation training centers using adenosine triphosphate testing

Abstract

Background and study aims Adequacy of endoscope disinfection in resource-limited settings is unknown. Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) testing is useful for evaluation of endoscope reprocessing, and ATP <200 relative light units (RLUs) after manual endoscope cleaning has been associated with adequacy of endoscope disinfection.

Methods Consecutive endoscopes undergoing reprocessing at five World Gastroenterology Organisation (WGO) training centers underwent ATP testing before and after an on-site educational intervention designed to optimize reprocessing practices.

Results A total of 343 reprocessing cycles of 65 endoscopes were studied. Mean endoscope age was 5.3 years (range 1–13 years). Educational interventions, based on direct observation of endoscope reprocessing practices at each site, included refinements in pre-cleaning, manual cleaning, high-level disinfection, and endoscope drying and storage. The percentage of reprocessing cycles with post-manual cleaning ATP ≧200 decreased from 21.4% prior to educational intervention to 14.8% post-intervention (P=0.11). In multivariable logistic modelling, gastroscopes were significantly less likely (odds ratio [OR] 0.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.01–0.19; P<0.001) than colonoscopes to achieve post-manual cleaning ATP < 200. No other factor (educational intervention, study site, endoscope age) was significantly associated with improved outcomes. Endoscope ID was not significantly associated with ATP values, and sites that performed manual versus automated HLD did not have significantly different likelihood of post-manual cleaning ATP <200 (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.56–2.50; P=0.67).

Conclusions In resource-limited settings, approximately 20% of endoscope reprocessing cycles may result in inadequate disinfection. This was not significantly improved by a comprehensive educational intervention. Alternative approaches to endoscope reprocessing are needed.

Keywords

Quality management - Hygiene - Quality and logistical aspects

• References

• 1 Dirlam Langlay AM, Ofstead CL. et al. Reported gastrointestinal endoscope reprocessing lapses: the tip of the iceberg. Am J Infect Control 2013; 41: 1188-1194
• 2 Beilenhoff U, Neumann CS, Rey JF. et al. ESGE-ESGENA guideline for quality assurance in reprocessing: microbiological surveillance testing in endoscopy. Endoscopy 2007; 39: 175-181
• 3 Sethi S, Huang RJ, Barakat MT. et al. Adenosine triphosphate bioluminescence for bacteriologic surveillance and reprocessing strategies for minimizing risk of infection transmission by duodenoscopes. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 1180-1187
• 4 Alfa MJ, Fatima I, Olson N. Validation of adenosine triphosphate to audit manual cleaning of flexible endoscope channels. Am J Infect Control 2013; 41: 245-248
• 5 Alfa MJ, Fatima I, Olson N. The adenosine triphosphate test is a rapid and reliable audit tool to assess manual cleaning adequacy of flexible endoscope channels. Am J Infect Control 2013; 41: 249-253
• 6 Rey JF, Bjorkman D, Nelson D. et al. Endoscope disinfection: A resource-sensitive approach. 2011 https://www.worldgastroenterology.org/UserFiles/file/guidelines/endoscope-disinfection-english-2011.pdf
• 7 Barakat MT, Girotra M, Huang RJ. et al. Scoping the scope: endoscopic evaluation of endoscope working channels with a new high-resolution inspection endoscope (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 88: 601-6117
• 8 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
• 9 Visrodia K, Hanada Y, Pennington KM. et al. Duodenoscope reprocessing surveillance with adenosine triphosphate testing and terminal cultures: a clinical pilot study. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 86: 180-186
• 10 Ofstead CL, Hopkins KM, Eiland JE. et al. Endoscope reprocessing: current practices and challenges in the field. PROCESS 2019; July/August: 60–71.