Dataset Information

The Effectiveness of Drying on Residual Droplets, Microorganisms, and Biofilms in Gastrointestinal Endoscope Reprocessing: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Despite endoscope reprocessing, residual droplets remain in gastrointestinal endoscope working channels. Inadequate drying of gastrointestinal endoscope working channels may promote microbial reproduction and biofilm formation, increasing the risk of infection in patients. This review was designed to provide the current status of gastrointestinal endoscope drying, emphasize the importance of gastrointestinal endoscope drying, and evaluate the effectiveness of different drying methods of gastrointestinal endoscope in reducing residual droplets and microbial growth risk.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting checklist. The PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, EMBASE, EBSCO, CNKI, CQVIP, and Wanfang Data databases were searched from 2010 to 2020 to identify eligible articles focused on methods of gastrointestinal endoscope drying and the status of endoscope drying. The following key points were analyzed: type of intervention, amount of residual droplets, major microbial types, and effectiveness of biofilm intervention. JBI quality assessment tool was used to determine bias risk for inclusion in the article.

Results

This review included twelve articles. Two of the articles reported lack of drying of gastrointestinal endoscopes while the other ten reported residual droplets, microbial growth, and biofilm formation after different methods of drying. Four articles reported 0 to 4.55 residual droplets; four articles reported that the main microbial types were cocci and bacilli, most commonly Staphylococcus, Escherichia coli, Bacillus maltophilia, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa; and two reported that drying could effectively reduce biofilm regeneration. The type of intervention is as follows: automatic endoscopy reprocessor (AER), manual compressed air drying, and the Dri-Scope Aid for automatic drying and drying cabinet.

Conclusions

While endoscope reprocessing may not always be effective, an automatic endoscope reprocessor plus the Dri-Scope Aid with automatic drying over 10 min or storage in a drying cabinet for 72 h may be preferred.

SUBMITTER: Tian H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8049816 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and study aims Duodenoscopes that are contaminated due to inadequate reprocessing are well-documented. However, studies have demonstrated poor reprocessing of other kinds of endoscopes as well, including echoendoscopes, gastroscopes, and colonoscopes. We estimated the contamination rate beyond the elevator of gastrointestinal endoscopes based on available data. Methods We searched PubMed and Embase from January 1, 2010 to October 10, 2020, for studies investigating contamination rates of reprocessed gastrointestinal endoscopes. A random-effects model was used to calculate the contamination rate of patient-ready gastrointestinal endoscopes. Subgroup analyses were conducted to investigate differences among endoscope types, countries, and colony-forming unit (CFU) thresholds. Results Twenty studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, including 1,059 positive cultures from 7,903 samples. The total contamination rate was 19.98 % ± 0.024 (95 % confidence interval [Cl]: 15.29 %-24.68 %; I 2 = 98.6 %). The contamination rates of colonoscope and gastroscope channels were 31.95 % ± 0.084 and 28.22 % ± 0.076, respectively. Duodenoscope channels showed a contamination rate of 14.41 % ± 0.029. The contamination rates among studies conducted in North America and Europe were 6.01 % ± 0.011 and 18.16% ± 0.053 %, respectively. The contamination rate among studies using a CFU threshold > 20 showed contamination of 30.36 % ± 0.094, whereas studies using a CFU threshold < 20 showed a contamination rate of 11 % ± 0.026. Conclusions On average, 19.98 % of reprocessed gastrointestinal endoscopes may be contaminated when used in patients and varies between different geographies. These findings highlight that the elevator mechanism is not the only obstacle when reprocessing reusable endoscopes; therefore, guidelines should recommend more surveillance of the endoscope channels as well.