ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Contamination rates reported in the literature for patient-ready flexible endoscopes vary from 0.4% to 49%. Unfortunately, the comparison and interpretation of these results is almost impossible since several factors including sampling and culturing methods, target levels for contamination, or definition of indicator micro-organisms vary widely from one study to the other. AIM: To compare the efficacy of six duodenoscope sampling and culturing methods by means of extraction efficacy comparison, while at the same time identifying key parameters that provide optimal microbial recovery. METHODS: The duodenoscope sample extraction efficacy of each method was assessed using the repetitive recovery method described in ISO 11737-1: 2018. FINDINGS: Mean overall bioburden extraction efficacy varied from 1% for the Australian method to 39% for the French one. The lowest endoscope sample extraction efficacy was associated with the absence of any neutralizer, friction, or tensioactive agent, and when only a small portion of the sampling solution collected was inoculated on to culture media. The efficacy of the sampling and culturing methods also varied according to the nature of micro-organisms present in the endoscope, and the time between sampling and culturing. CONCLUSION: This study supports the need for a harmonized and standardized sampling and culturing method for flexible endoscopes.