Dataset Information

A Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Duodenoscope Reprocessing Surveillance Methods.

ABSTRACT: Duodenoscope use in healthcare facilities has been associated with transmission of multidrug resistant pathogens between patients. To assist healthcare facilities in monitoring the quality of their duodenoscope reprocessing procedures and limit patient risk of infection, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) deployed voluntary interim duodenoscope sampling and culturing surveillance protocols in 2015. Though the interim methods were widely adopted, alternative surveillance protocols were developed and implemented at individual institutions. Here, we compared two sampling methods-the 2015 CDC interim protocol and an alternative protocol developed by the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics (UWHC). We hypothesized that the UWHC protocol would detect a higher incidence of bacterial contamination from reprocessed duodenoscopes. A total of 248 sampling events were performed at UWHC. The CDC protocol (n?=?129 sampling events) required culturing samples collected from each duodenoscope after brushing its terminal end and flushing its lumen with sterile water. The UWHC protocol (n?=?119 sampling events) required culturing samples collected from each duodenoscope after swabbing its elevator, immersing its terminal end into broth and flushing its lumen with saline. With the CDC method, 8.53% (n?=?11) of the duodenoscopes sampled were positive for bacterial growth with 15 isolates recovered. Using the UWHC method, 15.13% (n?=?18) of cultures were positive for bacterial growth with 20 isolates recovered. The relative risk of identifying a contaminated duodenoscope using the CDC interim method, however, was not different than when using the UWHC protocol. Mean processing time (27.35 and 5.11 minutes, p < 0.001) and total cost per sample event ($17.87 and $15.04) were lower using the UWHC method. As the UWHC protocol provides similar detection rates as the CDC protocol, the UWHC method is useful, provided the shorter processing time and lower cost to perform.

SUBMITTER: De Wolfe TJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6885784 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Duodenoscope Reprocessing Surveillance Methods.

De Wolfe Travis J TJ Safdar Nasia N Meller Megan M Marx John J Pfau Patrick R PR Nelsen Eric M EM Benson Mark E ME Soni Anurag A Reichelderfer Mark M Duster Megan M Gopal Deepak V DV

Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology 20191118

Duodenoscope use in healthcare facilities has been associated with transmission of multidrug resistant pathogens between patients. To assist healthcare facilities in monitoring the quality of their duodenoscope reprocessing procedures and limit patient risk of infection, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) deployed voluntary interim duodenoscope sampling and culturing surveillance protocols in 2015. Though the interim methods were widely adopted, alternative surveillance protoco ...[more]

PMID: 31828050

Similar Datasets

Project description:Wastewater1 surveillance of SARS-CoV-2 may be a useful supplement to clinical surveillance as it is shed in feces, there are many asymptomatic cases, and diagnostic testing can have capacity limitations and extended time to results. Although numerous studies have utilized wastewater surveillance for SARS-CoV-2, the methods used were developed and/or standardized for other pathogens. This study evaluates multiple methods for concentration and recovery of SARS-CoV-2 and seeded human coronavirus OC43 from municipal primary wastewater and/or sludge from the Greater Seattle Area (March-July 2020). Methods evaluated include the bag-mediated filtration system (BMFS), with and without Vertrel™ extraction, skimmed milk flocculation, with and without Vertrel™ extraction, polyethylene glycol (PEG) precipitation, ultrafiltration, and sludge extraction. Total RNA was extracted from wastewater concentrates and analyzed for SARS-CoV-2 and OC43 with RT-qPCR. Skimmed milk flocculation without Vertrel™ extraction performed consistently over time and between treatment plants in Seattle-area wastewater with the lowest average OC43 Cq value and smallest variability (24.3; 95% CI: 23.8-24.9), most frequent SARS-CoV-2 detection (48.8% of sampling events), and highest average OC43 percent recovery (9.1%; 95% CI: 6.2-11.9%). Skimmed milk flocculation is also beneficial because it is feasible in low-resource settings. While the BMFS had the highest average volume assayed of 11.9 mL (95% CI: 10.7-13.1 mL), the average OC43 percent recovery was low (0.7%; 95% CI: 0.4-1.0%). Ultrafiltration and PEG precipitation had low average OC43 percent recoveries of 1.0% (95% CI: 0.5-1.6%) and 3.2% (95% CI: 1.3-5.1%), respectively. The slopes and efficiency for the SARS-CoV-2 standard curves were not consistent over time, confirming the need to include a standard curve each run rather than using a single curve for multiple plates. Results suggest that the concentration and detection methods used must be validated for the specific water matrix using a recovery control to assess performance over time.

Project description:BackgroundLaparoscopy is a minimally-invasive surgical procedure that uses long slender instruments that require much smaller incisions than conventional surgery. This leads to faster recovery times, fewer post-surgical wound infections and shorter hospital stays. For these reasons, laparoscopy could be particularly advantageous to patients in low to middle income countries (LMICs). Unfortunately, sterile processing departments in LMIC hospitals are faced with limited access to equipment and trained staff which poses an obstacle to safe surgical care. The reprocessing of laparoscopic devices requires specialised equipment and training. Therefore, when LMIC hospitals invest in laparoscopy, an update of the standard operating procedure in sterile processing is required. Currently, it is unclear whether LMIC hospitals, that already perform laparoscopy, have managed to introduce updated reprocessing methods that minimally invasive equipment requires. The aim of this study was to identify the laparoscopic sterile reprocessing procedures in rural India and to test the effectiveness of the sterilisation equipment.MethodsWe assessed laparoscopic instrument sterilisation capacity in four rural hospitals in different states in India using a mixed-methods approach. As the main form of data collection, we developed a standardised observational checklist based on reprocessing guidelines from several sources. Steam autoclave performance was measured by monitoring the autoclave cycles in two hospitals. Finally, the findings from the checklist data was supported by an interview survey with surgeons and nurses.ResultsThe checklist data revealed the reprocessing methods the hospitals used in the reprocessing of laparoscopic instruments. It showed that the standard operating procedures had not been updated since the introduction of laparoscopy and the same reprocessing methods for regular surgical instruments were still applied. The interviews confirmed that staff had not received additional training and that they were unaware of the hazardous effects of reprocessing detergents and disinfectants.ConclusionAs laparoscopy is becoming more prevalent in LMICs, updated policy is needed to incorporate minimally invasive instrument reprocessing in medical practitioner and staff training programmes. While reprocessing standards improve, it is essential to develop instruments and reprocessing equipment that is more suitable for resource-constrained rural surgical environments.

Project description:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVESUse of arteriovenous fistulas, the most preferred type of access for hemodialysis, is limited by their high maturation failure rate. The aim of this study was to assess whether aggressive surveillance with routine duplex ultrasound and intervention can decrease the maturation failure rate of arteriovenous fistulas.DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTSWe conducted a single-center, parallel-group, randomized, controlled trial of patients undergoing autogenous arteriovenous fistula. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the routine duplex or selective duplex group. In the routine duplex group, duplex ultrasound and physical examination were performed 2, 4, and 8 weeks postoperatively. In the selective duplex group, duplex examination was performed only when physical examination detected an abnormality. The primary end point was the maturation failure rate 8 weeks after fistula creation. Maturation failure was defined as the inability to achieve clinical maturation (i.e., a successful first use) and failure to achieve sonographic maturation (fistula flow >500 ml/min and diameter >6 mm) within 8 weeks.RESULTSBetween June 14, 2012, and June 25, 2014, 150 patients were enrolled (75 patients in each group), and 118 of those were included in the final analysis. The maturation failure rate was lower in the routine duplex group (8 of 59; 13.6%) than in the selective duplex group (15 of 59; 25.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant (odds ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.18 to 1.19; P=0.10). Factors associated with maturation failure were women (odds ratio, 3.84; 95% confidence interval, 1.05 to 14.06; P=0.04), coronary artery disease (odds ratio, 6.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.62 to 24.95; P<0.01), diabetes (odds ratio, 6.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.76 to 21.19; P<0.01), and the preoperative cephalic vein diameter (odds ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.13 to 0.71; P<0.01).CONCLUSIONSPostoperative routine duplex surveillance failed to prove superiority compared with selective duplex after physical examination for reducing arteriovenous fistula maturation failure. However, the wide 95% confidence interval for the effect of intervention precludes a firm conclusion that routine duplex surveillance was not beneficial.

Project description:Background:The aim of our prospective study is to compare and analyze the results of two treatment methods of appendiceal mass and abscess: emergency surgery and conservative treatment with and without interval surgery. Materials and methods:74 Patients with the diagnosis of appendiceal mass or abscess were enrolled in this study. The patients were assigned into two groups: the emergency surgery group and the conservative management group. The conservative management group was subdivided into two groups: interval surgery group and the ambulatory follow-up observation group without interval surgery. Several clinical characteristics were determined and compared between the groups. Among patients who underwent surgery, the surgical methods, operation time, postoperative hospitalization period, and post-surgical complications were analyzed. In the ambulatory follow-up observation group, recurrence of appendicitis was assessed. Results:Comparison of the emergency surgery group and interval surgery group revealed that the interval surgery group was characterized by shorter operation time (P?=?0.008), a smallernumber of postoperative complications (P?=?0.02) and also shorter postoperative hospital stay (P?=?0.009). In the ambulatory follow-up observation group, recurrence of appendicitis developed in 3 (13%) patients. US or CT-guided PCD was performed in all 3 patients on the conservative treatment stage. Comparing the interval surgery and recurrent appendicitis groups revealed statistically significant difference: operation time (P?=?0.04) as well as postoperative hospital stay (P?=?0.04) were shorter in recurrent appendicitis group. In 3 (4.1%) patients, the cause of the appendiceal mass was caecal cancer (2 cases) and Crohn's disease. Conclusion:Conservative treatment without interval surgery seems to be the preferred method for treatment of appendiceal mass and abscess. Patients can be operated on only in case of recurrence of appendicitis. US or CT PCD of appendiceal abscess presents the risk-factor for the development of recurrence of appendicitis. CT and colonoscopy within 4-6 weeks after completing the conservative treatment is recommended to be performed in all patients.

Dataset Information

A Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Duodenoscope Reprocessing Surveillance Methods.

Publications

A Prospective, Randomized Comparison of Duodenoscope Reprocessing Surveillance Methods.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets