Endoscopy 2018; 50(04): S14
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1637066
ESGE Days 2018 oral presentations
20.04.2018 – Best care session 1
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY IN HEALTH 4.0: HOW SAFE ARE WE?

, TEHS Study group
P Decristoforo
1   Medical University of Innsbruck, Division of Hygiene and Medical Microbiology, Innsbruck, Austria
,
J Kaltseis
1   Medical University of Innsbruck, Division of Hygiene and Medical Microbiology, Innsbruck, Austria
,
A Fritz
1   Medical University of Innsbruck, Division of Hygiene and Medical Microbiology, Innsbruck, Austria
,
M Edlinger
2   Medical University of Innsbruck, Department of Medical Statistics, Informatics, and Health Economics, Innsbruck, Austria
,
W Posch
1   Medical University of Innsbruck, Division of Hygiene and Medical Microbiology, Innsbruck, Austria
,
D Wilflingseder
1   Medical University of Innsbruck, Division of Hygiene and Medical Microbiology, Innsbruck, Austria
,
C Lass-Floerl
1   Medical University of Innsbruck, Division of Hygiene and Medical Microbiology, Innsbruck, Austria
,
D Orth-Hoeller
1   Medical University of Innsbruck, Division of Hygiene and Medical Microbiology, Innsbruck, Austria
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
27 March 2018 (online)

 
 

    Aims:

    Several outbreaks of severe infections due to contamination of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopes have been described previously. However, the true rate of microbial contamination during endoscopy is unknown. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the hygiene quality of endoscopy units in Tyrol/Austria in a two point prevalence study.

    Methods:

    In 2015 and 2016, a total of 463 GI endoscopes and 105 automated endoscope reprocessors (AER) from 36 endoscopy centres were analysed by a routine and an advanced routine sampling method and investigated for microbial contamination by culture- and molecular-based analyses.

    Results:

    The contamination rate of GI endoscopes was 1.3 – 4.6% according to national and European guidelines, suggesting that 1.3 – 4.6 patients out of 100 had contacts with hygiene relevant microorganisms through an endoscopic intervention. The most commonly identified indicator organism was Pseudomonas spp., mainly P. oleovorans. None of the tested viruses were detected. The impact of the advanced study procedure, compared to routine sampling, on microbial recovery revealed only a very minor advantage. While AERs in phase I failed (n = 9) mainly due to technical faults, phase II revealed lapses (n = 6) only on account to microbial contamination of the last rinsing water, mainly with Pseudomonas spp.

    Conclusions:

    In the present study the contamination rate of endoscopes was low compared to results from other European countries, probably due to a high quality of endoscope reprocessing, drying and storage. Furthermore, this study demonstrates the need for harmonization of guidelines for endoscope reprocessing, microbial monitoring and reporting.


    #