The importance of sampling technique and rinse water for assessing flexible gastrointestinal endoscope reprocessing: A 3-year study covering 59 centers

• Published in: American journal of infection control Vol. 48; no. 1; pp. 19 - 25
• Main Authors: Ji, Xue-Yue, Ning, Pei-Yong, Fei, Chun-Nan, Liu, Jun, Liu, He, Song, Jia
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.01.2020
• Subjects: China; Contamination; Cross Infection - prevention & control; Disinfection - methods; Disinfection - standards; Endoscopes, Gastrointestinal - microbiology; Equipment Contamination - prevention & control; Equipment Reuse - standards; Flush-brush-flush sampling; Humans; Infection Control - methods; Infection Control - standards; Logistic Models; Pump-assisted sampling; Water - standards; Water Microbiology - standards; China; Pump-assisted sampling; Flush-brush-flush sampling; Contamination
• ISSN: 0196-6553; 1527-3296
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ajic.2019.07.008

[Display omitted] Various guidelines recommend several sampling techniques to verify endoscope reprocessing, but a comparative study of the efficiency for recovering microorganisms was rare. Our goal was to compare different sampling techniques for the postreprocessing endoscope to assess residual bacterial contamination and analysis of the critical factors affecting the endoscope reprocessing failure. From 2016 to 2018, 3 techniques, the conventional flushing sampling method, flush-brush-flush sampling method (FBFSM), and pump-assisted sampling method (PASM), were compared covering all 59 endoscope units in Tianjin, China. A total of 237 (84.64%) flushing channel samples and 110 (61.11%) final rinse water samples met the Chinese national standard. The univariate analysis showed that the qualified rates of endoscope reprocessing sampled by PASM (65.52%) and FBFSM (75%) were significantly lower than those of the conventional flushing sampling method (91.38%). Five other factors, including the final rinse water, dry, and hospital level, were potential factors besides sample technique. The multivariate logistic analysis indicated only 2 factors (sampling technique and final rinse water) remained in the model. FBFSM, PASM, and the purified water were significantly associated with the odds of endoscope reprocessing failure, with the odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of which were 4.206 (1.757-10.067), 5.326 (2.463-11.645), and 0.309 (0.137-0.695), respectively. The problem of residual microorganisms of the postreprocessing endoscope was severe. Sampling technique and final rinse water were critical for endoscope reprocessing verification.