Prospective assessment of the effectiveness of standard high-level disinfection for echoendoscopes.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Duodenoscopes have been implicated in the transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs). Echoendoscopes could potentially transmit infection. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of standard high-level disinfection (HLD) for radial and linear echoendoscopes and to compare it with that of duodenoscopes. METHODS: We performed a prospective single-center study sampling echoendoscopes immediately before use, from the working channel (radial and linear echoendoscopes) and the transducer (radial echoendoscope) or elevator mechanism and transducer (linear echoendoscope). The primary outcome was the proportion of echoendoscopes with any culture showing ≥1 MDRO; secondary outcomes included bacterial growth >0 colony forming units (CFUs) and ≥10 CFUs on either sampling location. We compared these findings with duodenoscope cultures from the previously published DISINFECTS trial. RESULTS: During the study period, 101 echoendoscopes were sampled (n = 50 radial echoendoscopes, n = 51 linear echoendoscopes). No MDROs were recovered. Bacterial growth >0 CFUs was noted in 6% and ≥10 CFUs in 3% of all echoendoscopes. There was no significant difference in growth between radial and linear echoendoscopes (P = .4 for >0 CFU growth; P = .6 for ≥10 CFUs growth). The proportion of transducer and/or elevator mechanism positive for bacterial growth was significantly higher in duodenoscopes as compared with echoendoscopes (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: After standard HLD, no echoendoscope showed MDRO growth, 6% showed >0 CFUs, and 3% showed ≥10 CFUs bacterial growth. Bacterial growth was higher in duodenoscopes at the level of the transducer and/or elevator mechanism when compared with echoendoscopes.

Malnutrition: laboratory markers vs nutritional assessment.

Malnutrition is an independent risk factor for patient morbidity and mortality and is associated with increased healthcare-related costs. However, a major dilemma exists due to lack of a unified definition for the term. Furthermore, there are no standard methods for screening and diagnosing patients with malnutrition, leading to confusion and varying practices among physicians across the world. The role of inflammation as a risk factor for malnutrition has also been recently recognized. Historically, serum proteins such as albumin and prealbumin (PAB) have been widely used by physicians to determine patient nutritional status. However, recent focus has been on an appropriate nutrition-focused physical examination (NFPE) for diagnosing malnutrition. The current consensus is that laboratory markers are not reliable by themselves but could be used as a complement to a thorough physical examination. Future studies are needed to identify serum biomarkers in order to diagnose malnutrition unaffected by inflammatory states and have the advantage of being noninvasive and relatively cost-effective. However, a thorough NFPE has an unprecedented role in diagnosing malnutrition.