Randomized Comparison of 3 High-Level Disinfection and Sterilization Procedures for Duodenoscopes.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Duodenoscopes have been implicated in the transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO). We compared the frequency of duodenoscope contamination with MDRO or any other bacteria after disinfection or sterilization by 3 different methods. METHODS: We performed a single-center prospective randomized study in which duodenoscopes were randomly reprocessed by standard high-level disinfection (sHLD), double high-level disinfection (dHLD), or standard high-level disinfection followed by ethylene oxide gas sterilization (HLD/ETO). Samples were collected from the elevator mechanism and working channel of each duodenoscope and cultured before use. The primary outcome was the proportion of duodenoscopes with an elevator mechanism or working channel culture showing 1 or more MDRO; secondary outcomes included the frequency of duodenoscope contamination with more than 0 and 10 or more colony-forming units (CFU) of aerobic bacterial growth on either sampling location. RESULTS: After 3 months of enrollment, the study was closed because of the futility; we did not observe sufficient events to evaluate the primary outcome. Among 541 duodenoscope culture events, 516 were included in the final analysis. No duodenoscope culture in any group was positive for MDRO. Bacterial growth of more than 0 CFU was noted in 16.1% duodenoscopes in the sHLD group, 16.0% in the dHLD group, and 22.5% in the HLD/ETO group (P = .21). Bacterial growth or 10 or more CFU was noted in 2.3% of duodenoscopes in the sHLD group, 4.1% in the dHLD group, and 4.2% in the HLD/ETO group (P = .36). MRDOs were cultured from 3.2% of pre-procedure rectal swabs and 2.5% of duodenal aspirates. CONCLUSIONS: In a comparison of duodenoscopes reprocessed by sHLD, dHLD, or HLD/ETO, we found no significant differences between groups for MDRO or bacteria contamination. Enhanced disinfection methods (dHLD or HLD/ETO) did not provide additional protection against contamination. However, insufficient events occurred to assess our primary study end-point. ClinicalTrials.gov no: NCT02611648.

Duodenoscope hang time does not correlate with risk of bacterial contamination.

BACKGROUND: Current professional guidelines recommend a maximum hang time for reprocessed duodenoscopes of 5-14 days. We sought to study the association between hang time and risk of duodenoscope contamination. METHODS: We analyzed cultures of the elevator mechanism and working channel collected in a highly standardized fashion just before duodenoscope use. Hang time was calculated as the time from reprocessing to duodenoscope sampling. The relationship between hang time and duodenoscope contamination was estimated using a calculated correlation coefficient between hang time in days and degree of contamination on the elevator mechanism and working channel. RESULTS: The 18 study duodenoscopes were cultured 531 times, including 465 (87.6%) in the analysis dataset. Hang time ranged from 0.07-39.93 days, including 34 (7.3%) with hang time ≥7.00 days. Twelve cultures (2.6%) demonstrated elevator mechanism and/or working channel contamination. The correlation coefficients for hang time and degree of duodenoscope contamination were very small and not statistically significant (-0.0090 [P = .85] for elevator mechanism and -0.0002 [P = 1.00] for working channel). Odds ratios for hang time (dichotomized at ≥7.00 days) and elevator mechanism and/or working channel contamination were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find a significant association between hang time and risk of duodenoscope contamination. Future guidelines should consider a recommendation of no limit for hang time.