Comparison of Channel Sampling Methods and Brush Heads in Surveillance Culture of Endoscope Reprocessing: A Propensity Score Matching and Paired Study

Overview

Journal Saudi J Gastroenterol

Specialty Gastroenterology

Date 2021 Dec 3

PMID 34856726

Authors

Xue-Yue Ji

Pei-Yong Ning

Chun-Nan Fei

Jia Song

Xue-Mei Dou

Nan-Nan Zhang

Jun Liu

He Liu

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Endoscopy-related infections have caused multiple outbreaks. The importance of surveillance culture is gradually recognized, but sampling techniques are not consistent in many guidelines. It is unclear whether the Flush-Brush-Flush sampling method (FBFSM) is more sensitive than the conventional flush sampling method (CFSM) and whether different sampling brushes have different effects.

Methods: The propensity score matching method was done with two matching ways, 1:1 nearest neighbor propensity score matching and full matching was used to analyze the surveillance culture data collected by FBFSM and CFSM. We fit a confounder-adjusted multiple generalized linear logistic regression model to estimate the marginal odds ratio (OR). A paired study was applied to compare the sampling effect of polyurethane foam (PU) head brush and polyamide (PA) head brush.

Result: From 2016 to 2020, 316 reprocessed endoscope samples were collected from all 59 endoscopy centers in Tianjin. About 279 (88.3%) reprocessed endoscopes met the threshold of Chinese national standards (<20 CFU/Channel). The qualified rate of reprocessed endoscopes sampling by CFSM (91.8%) and FBFSM (81.6%) was statistically different (p < 0.05). The adjusted OR by full matching for FBFSM was 7.98 (95% confidence interval: 3.35-21.78). Forty one pairs of colonoscopes, after reprocessing from 27 centers, were tested by PA and PU brushes, and no difference was found in microbial recovery.

Conclusion: FBFSM was confirmed to be a more sensitive sampling technique. PU and PA brushes had no significant difference in sampling effect.

Citing Articles

Implementation of a Microbiological Surveillance Protocol in a Portuguese Tertiary Care Academic Endoscopy Unit.

Monteiro C, Lima J, Ribeiro T, Goncalves M, Goncalves N, Oliveira C GE Port J Gastroenterol. 2025; 32(1):67-74.

PMID: 39906516 PMC: 11790261. DOI: 10.1159/000539455.

References

Ma S, Feng L, Jiang Z, Gao X, Long X, Zhuang S . Comparative Study of Microbiological Monitoring Results from Three Types of Sampling Methods after Gastrointestinal Endoscope Reprocessing. Biomed Res Int. 2019; 2019:7940468. PMC: 6914964. DOI: 10.1155/2019/7940468. View

Austin P . Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med. 2009; 28(25):3083-107. PMC: 3472075. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3697. View

Beilenhoff U, Neumann C, Rey J, Biering H, Blum R, Schmidt V . ESGE-ESGENA guideline for quality assurance in reprocessing: microbiological surveillance testing in endoscopy. Endoscopy. 2007; 39(2):175-81. DOI: 10.1055/s-2006-945181. View

Nelson D . Recent advances in epidemiology and prevention of gastrointestinal endoscopy related infections. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2005; 18(4):326-30. DOI: 10.1097/01.qco.0000171925.47452.8f. View

Gado A, Ebeid B, Axon A . Quality assurance in gastrointestinal endoscopy: An Egyptian experience. Arab J Gastroenterol. 2016; 17(4):153-158. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajg.2016.11.002. View

Alfa M, Singh H, Nugent Z, Duerksen D, Schultz G, Reidy C . Sterile Reverse Osmosis Water Combined with Friction Are Optimal for Channel and Lever Cavity Sample Collection of Flexible Duodenoscopes. Front Med (Lausanne). 2017; 4:191. PMC: 5681997. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2017.00191. View

Babb J, Bradley C, Deverill C, AYLIFFE G, Melikian V . Recent advances in the cleaning and disinfection of fibrescopes. J Hosp Infect. 1981; 2(4):329-40. DOI: 10.1016/0195-6701(81)90065-7. View

Alvarado C, Reichelderfer M . APIC guideline for infection prevention and control in flexible endoscopy. Association for Professionals in Infection Control. Am J Infect Control. 2000; 28(2):138-55. View

Rauwers A, Voor In t Holt A, Buijs J, de Groot W, Hansen B, Bruno M . High prevalence rate of digestive tract bacteria in duodenoscopes: a nationwide study. Gut. 2018; 67(9):1637-1645. PMC: 6109280. DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-315082. View

10.

Cattoir L, Vanzieleghem T, Florin L, Helleputte T, De Vos M, Verhasselt B . Surveillance of Endoscopes: Comparison of Different Sampling Techniques. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2017; 38(9):1062-1069. PMC: 5647674. DOI: 10.1017/ice.2017.115. View

11.

Srinivasan A, Wolfenden L, Song X, Mackie K, Hartsell T, Jones H . An outbreak of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections associated with flexible bronchoscopes. N Engl J Med. 2003; 348(3):221-7. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa021808. View

12.

Cetre J, Nicolle M, Salord H, Perol M, Tigaud S, David G . Outbreaks of contaminated broncho-alveolar lavage related to intrinsically defective bronchoscopes. J Hosp Infect. 2005; 61(1):39-45. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2004.12.020. View

13.

Stuart E, Green K . Using full matching to estimate causal effects in nonexperimental studies: examining the relationship between adolescent marijuana use and adult outcomes. Dev Psychol. 2008; 44(2):395-406. PMC: 5784842. DOI: 10.1037/0012-1649.44.2.395. View

14.

Aumeran C, Poincloux L, Souweine B, Robin F, Laurichesse H, Baud O . Multidrug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae outbreak after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Endoscopy. 2010; 42(11):895-9. DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1255647. View

15.

Alfa M, Ribeiro M, da Costa Luciano C, Franca R, Olson N, DeGagne P . A novel polytetrafluoroethylene-channel model, which simulates low levels of culturable bacteria in buildup biofilm after repeated endoscope reprocessing. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017; 86(3):442-451.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.05.014. View

16.

Ji X, Ning P, Zhang W, Yang D, Liu H, Liu J . Microbiologic assessment of flexible gastrointestinal endoscope reprocessing using a pump-assisted sampling technique: an investigation involving all endoscopy units in Tianjin, China. Am J Infect Control. 2018; 46(7):e43-e48. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2018.04.216. View

17.

Aumeran C, Thibert E, Chapelle F, Hennequin C, Lesens O, Traore O . Assessment on experimental bacterial biofilms and in clinical practice of the efficacy of sampling solutions for microbiological testing of endoscopes. J Clin Microbiol. 2011; 50(3):938-42. PMC: 3295158. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.06221-11. View

18.

Gazdik M, Coombs J, Burke J, Lopansri B . Comparison of Two Culture Methods for Use in Assessing Microbial Contamination of Duodenoscopes. J Clin Microbiol. 2015; 54(2):312-6. PMC: 4733207. DOI: 10.1128/JCM.02754-15. View

19.

Buss A, Been M, Borgers R, Stokroos I, Melchers W, Peters F . Endoscope disinfection and its pitfalls--requirement for retrograde surveillance cultures. Endoscopy. 2008; 40(4):327-32. DOI: 10.1055/s-2007-995477. View

20.

Calderwood A, Day L, Muthusamy V, Collins J, Hambrick 3rd R, Brock A . ASGE guideline for infection control during GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018; 87(5):1167-1179. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.12.009. View