User login
The reprocessing of endoscopes following gastrointestinal endoscopy is highly effective for mitigating the risk of exogenous infections, yet challenges in duodenoscope reprocessing continue to persist. While several enhanced reprocessing measures have been developed to reduce duodenoscope-related infection risks, the effectiveness of these enhanced measures is largely unclear.
Rahul A. Shimpi, MD, and Joshua P. Spaete, MD, from Duke University, Durham, N.C., wrote in a paper in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy that novel disposable duodenoscope technologies offer promise for reducing infection risk and overcoming current reprocessing challenges. The paper notes that, despite this promise, there is a need to better define the usability, costs, and environmental impact of these disposable technologies.
Current challenges in endoscope reprocessing
According to the authors, the reprocessing of gastrointestinal endoscopes involves several sequential steps that require a “meticulous” attention to detail “to ensure the adequacy of reprocessing.” Human factors/errors are a major contributor to suboptimal reprocessing quality, and these errors are often related to varying adherence to current reprocessing protocols among centers and reprocessing staff members.
Despite these challenges, infectious complications associated with gastrointestinal endoscopy are rare, particularly in relation to end-viewing endoscopes. Many high-profile infectious outbreaks associated with duodenoscopes have been reported in recent years, however, which has heightened the awareness and corresponding concern with endoscope reprocessing. Many of these infectious outbreaks, the authors said, have involved multidrug-resistant organisms.
The complex elevator mechanism, which the authors noted “is relatively inaccessible during the precleaning and manual cleaning steps in reprocessing,” represents a paramount challenge in the reprocessing of duodenoscopes. The challenge related to this mechanism potentially contributes to greater biofilm formation and contamination. Other factors implicated in the transmission of duodenoscope-associated infections from patient to patient include other design issues, human errors in reprocessing, endoscope damage and channel defects, and storage and environmental factors.
“Given the reprocessing challenges posed by duodenoscopes, in 2015 the Food and Drug Administration issued a recommendation that one or more supplemental measures be implemented by facilities as a means to decrease the infectious risk posed by duodenoscopes,” the authors noted, including ethylene oxide (EtO) sterilization, liquid chemical sterilization, and repeat high-level disinfection (HLD). They added, however, that a recent U.S. multisociety reprocessing guideline “does not recommend repeat high-level disinfection over single high-level disinfection, and recommends use of EtO sterilization only for duodenoscopes in infectious outbreak settings.”
New sterilization technologies
Liquid chemical sterilization may be a promising alternative to EtO sterilization because it features a shorter disinfection cycle time and less endoscope wear or damage. However, clinical data for the effectiveness of LCS in endoscope reprocessing remains very limited.
The high costs and toxicities associated with EtO sterilization may be overcome by the plasma-activated gas, another novel low-temperature sterilization technology. This newer sterilization technique also features a shorter reprocessing time, thereby making it an attractive option for duodenoscope reprocessing. The authors noted that, although it showed promise in a proof-of-concept study, “plasma-activated gas has not been assessed in working endoscopes or compared directly to existing HLD and EtO sterilization technologies.”
Quality indicators in reprocessing
Recently, several quality indicators have been developed to assess the quality of endoscope reprocessing. The indicators, the authors noted, may theoretically allow “for point-of-care assessment of reprocessing quality.” To date, the data to support these indicators are limited.
Adenosine triphosphate testing has been the most widely studied indicator because this can be used to examine the presence of biofilms during endoscope reprocessing via previously established ATP benchmark levels, the authors wrote. Studies that have assessed the efficacy of ATP testing, however, are limited by their use of heterogeneous assays, analytical techniques, and cutoffs for identifying contamination.
Hemoglobin, protein, and carbohydrate are other point-of-care indicators that have previously demonstrated potential capability of assessing the achievement of adequate manual endoscope cleaning before high-level disinfection or sterilization.
Novel disposable duodenoscope technologies
Given that consistent research studies have shown the existence of residual duodenoscope contamination after standard and enhanced reprocessing, there has been increased attention placed on novel disposable duodenoscope technologies. In 2019, the FDA recommended a move toward duodenoscopes with disposable components because it could make reprocessing easier, more effective, or altogether unnecessary. According to the authors, there are currently six duodenoscopes with disposable components that are cleared by the FDA for use. These include three that use a disposable endcap, one that uses a disposable elevator and endcap, and two that are fully disposable. The authors stated that, while “improved access to the elevator facilitated by a disposable endcap may allow for improved cleaning” and reduce contamination and formation of biofilm, there are no data to confirm these proposed advantages.
There are several unanswered questions regarding new disposable duodenoscope technologies, including questions related to the usability, costs, and environmental impact of these technologies. The authors summarized several studies discussing these issues; however, a clear definition or consensus regarding how to approach these challenges has yet to be established. In addition to these unanswered questions, the authors also noted that identifying the acceptable rate of infectious risk associated with disposable duodenoscopes is another “important task” that needs to be accomplished in the near future.
Environmental impact
The authors stated that the health care system in the United States is directly responsible for up to 10% of total U.S. greenhouse emissions. Additionally, the substantial use of chemicals and water in endoscope reprocessing represents a “substantial” concern for the environment. One estimate suggested that a mean of 40 total endoscopies per day generates around 15.78 tons of CO2 per year.
Given the unclear impact disposable endoscopes may have on the environment, the authors suggested that there is a clear need to discover interventions that reduce their potential negative impact. Strategies that reduce the number of endoscopies performed, increased recycling and use of recyclable materials, and use of renewable energy sources in endoscopy units have been proposed.
“The massive environmental impact of gastrointestinal endoscopy as a whole has become increasingly recognized,” the authors wrote, “and further study and interventions directed at improving the environmental footprint of endoscopy will be of foremost importance.”
The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.
The future remains to be seen
Solutions surrounding proper endoscope reprocessing and infection prevention have become a major focus of investigation and innovation in endoscope design, particularly related to duodenoscopes. As multiple infectious outbreaks associated with duodenoscopes have been reported, the complex mechanism of the duodenoscope elevator has emerged as the target for modification because it is somewhat inaccessible and difficult to adequately clean.
One of the major considerations related to disposable duodenoscopes is the cost. Currently, the savings from removing the need for reprocessing equipment, supplies, and personnel does not balance the cost of the disposable duodenoscope. Studies on the environmental impact of disposable duodenoscopes suggest a major increase in endoscopy-related waste.
In summary, enhanced reprocessing techniques and modified scope design elements may not achieve adequate thresholds for infection prevention. Furthermore, while fully disposable duodenoscopes offer promise, questions remain about overall functionality, cost, and the potentially profound environmental impact. Further research is warranted on feasible solutions for infection prevention, and the issues of cost and environmental impact must be addressed before the widespread adoption of disposable duodenoscopes.
Jennifer Maranki, MD, MSc, is professor of medicine and director of endoscopy at Penn State Hershey (Pennsylvania) Medical Center. She reports being a consultant for Boston Scientific.
The future remains to be seen
Solutions surrounding proper endoscope reprocessing and infection prevention have become a major focus of investigation and innovation in endoscope design, particularly related to duodenoscopes. As multiple infectious outbreaks associated with duodenoscopes have been reported, the complex mechanism of the duodenoscope elevator has emerged as the target for modification because it is somewhat inaccessible and difficult to adequately clean.
One of the major considerations related to disposable duodenoscopes is the cost. Currently, the savings from removing the need for reprocessing equipment, supplies, and personnel does not balance the cost of the disposable duodenoscope. Studies on the environmental impact of disposable duodenoscopes suggest a major increase in endoscopy-related waste.
In summary, enhanced reprocessing techniques and modified scope design elements may not achieve adequate thresholds for infection prevention. Furthermore, while fully disposable duodenoscopes offer promise, questions remain about overall functionality, cost, and the potentially profound environmental impact. Further research is warranted on feasible solutions for infection prevention, and the issues of cost and environmental impact must be addressed before the widespread adoption of disposable duodenoscopes.
Jennifer Maranki, MD, MSc, is professor of medicine and director of endoscopy at Penn State Hershey (Pennsylvania) Medical Center. She reports being a consultant for Boston Scientific.
The future remains to be seen
Solutions surrounding proper endoscope reprocessing and infection prevention have become a major focus of investigation and innovation in endoscope design, particularly related to duodenoscopes. As multiple infectious outbreaks associated with duodenoscopes have been reported, the complex mechanism of the duodenoscope elevator has emerged as the target for modification because it is somewhat inaccessible and difficult to adequately clean.
One of the major considerations related to disposable duodenoscopes is the cost. Currently, the savings from removing the need for reprocessing equipment, supplies, and personnel does not balance the cost of the disposable duodenoscope. Studies on the environmental impact of disposable duodenoscopes suggest a major increase in endoscopy-related waste.
In summary, enhanced reprocessing techniques and modified scope design elements may not achieve adequate thresholds for infection prevention. Furthermore, while fully disposable duodenoscopes offer promise, questions remain about overall functionality, cost, and the potentially profound environmental impact. Further research is warranted on feasible solutions for infection prevention, and the issues of cost and environmental impact must be addressed before the widespread adoption of disposable duodenoscopes.
Jennifer Maranki, MD, MSc, is professor of medicine and director of endoscopy at Penn State Hershey (Pennsylvania) Medical Center. She reports being a consultant for Boston Scientific.
The reprocessing of endoscopes following gastrointestinal endoscopy is highly effective for mitigating the risk of exogenous infections, yet challenges in duodenoscope reprocessing continue to persist. While several enhanced reprocessing measures have been developed to reduce duodenoscope-related infection risks, the effectiveness of these enhanced measures is largely unclear.
Rahul A. Shimpi, MD, and Joshua P. Spaete, MD, from Duke University, Durham, N.C., wrote in a paper in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy that novel disposable duodenoscope technologies offer promise for reducing infection risk and overcoming current reprocessing challenges. The paper notes that, despite this promise, there is a need to better define the usability, costs, and environmental impact of these disposable technologies.
Current challenges in endoscope reprocessing
According to the authors, the reprocessing of gastrointestinal endoscopes involves several sequential steps that require a “meticulous” attention to detail “to ensure the adequacy of reprocessing.” Human factors/errors are a major contributor to suboptimal reprocessing quality, and these errors are often related to varying adherence to current reprocessing protocols among centers and reprocessing staff members.
Despite these challenges, infectious complications associated with gastrointestinal endoscopy are rare, particularly in relation to end-viewing endoscopes. Many high-profile infectious outbreaks associated with duodenoscopes have been reported in recent years, however, which has heightened the awareness and corresponding concern with endoscope reprocessing. Many of these infectious outbreaks, the authors said, have involved multidrug-resistant organisms.
The complex elevator mechanism, which the authors noted “is relatively inaccessible during the precleaning and manual cleaning steps in reprocessing,” represents a paramount challenge in the reprocessing of duodenoscopes. The challenge related to this mechanism potentially contributes to greater biofilm formation and contamination. Other factors implicated in the transmission of duodenoscope-associated infections from patient to patient include other design issues, human errors in reprocessing, endoscope damage and channel defects, and storage and environmental factors.
“Given the reprocessing challenges posed by duodenoscopes, in 2015 the Food and Drug Administration issued a recommendation that one or more supplemental measures be implemented by facilities as a means to decrease the infectious risk posed by duodenoscopes,” the authors noted, including ethylene oxide (EtO) sterilization, liquid chemical sterilization, and repeat high-level disinfection (HLD). They added, however, that a recent U.S. multisociety reprocessing guideline “does not recommend repeat high-level disinfection over single high-level disinfection, and recommends use of EtO sterilization only for duodenoscopes in infectious outbreak settings.”
New sterilization technologies
Liquid chemical sterilization may be a promising alternative to EtO sterilization because it features a shorter disinfection cycle time and less endoscope wear or damage. However, clinical data for the effectiveness of LCS in endoscope reprocessing remains very limited.
The high costs and toxicities associated with EtO sterilization may be overcome by the plasma-activated gas, another novel low-temperature sterilization technology. This newer sterilization technique also features a shorter reprocessing time, thereby making it an attractive option for duodenoscope reprocessing. The authors noted that, although it showed promise in a proof-of-concept study, “plasma-activated gas has not been assessed in working endoscopes or compared directly to existing HLD and EtO sterilization technologies.”
Quality indicators in reprocessing
Recently, several quality indicators have been developed to assess the quality of endoscope reprocessing. The indicators, the authors noted, may theoretically allow “for point-of-care assessment of reprocessing quality.” To date, the data to support these indicators are limited.
Adenosine triphosphate testing has been the most widely studied indicator because this can be used to examine the presence of biofilms during endoscope reprocessing via previously established ATP benchmark levels, the authors wrote. Studies that have assessed the efficacy of ATP testing, however, are limited by their use of heterogeneous assays, analytical techniques, and cutoffs for identifying contamination.
Hemoglobin, protein, and carbohydrate are other point-of-care indicators that have previously demonstrated potential capability of assessing the achievement of adequate manual endoscope cleaning before high-level disinfection or sterilization.
Novel disposable duodenoscope technologies
Given that consistent research studies have shown the existence of residual duodenoscope contamination after standard and enhanced reprocessing, there has been increased attention placed on novel disposable duodenoscope technologies. In 2019, the FDA recommended a move toward duodenoscopes with disposable components because it could make reprocessing easier, more effective, or altogether unnecessary. According to the authors, there are currently six duodenoscopes with disposable components that are cleared by the FDA for use. These include three that use a disposable endcap, one that uses a disposable elevator and endcap, and two that are fully disposable. The authors stated that, while “improved access to the elevator facilitated by a disposable endcap may allow for improved cleaning” and reduce contamination and formation of biofilm, there are no data to confirm these proposed advantages.
There are several unanswered questions regarding new disposable duodenoscope technologies, including questions related to the usability, costs, and environmental impact of these technologies. The authors summarized several studies discussing these issues; however, a clear definition or consensus regarding how to approach these challenges has yet to be established. In addition to these unanswered questions, the authors also noted that identifying the acceptable rate of infectious risk associated with disposable duodenoscopes is another “important task” that needs to be accomplished in the near future.
Environmental impact
The authors stated that the health care system in the United States is directly responsible for up to 10% of total U.S. greenhouse emissions. Additionally, the substantial use of chemicals and water in endoscope reprocessing represents a “substantial” concern for the environment. One estimate suggested that a mean of 40 total endoscopies per day generates around 15.78 tons of CO2 per year.
Given the unclear impact disposable endoscopes may have on the environment, the authors suggested that there is a clear need to discover interventions that reduce their potential negative impact. Strategies that reduce the number of endoscopies performed, increased recycling and use of recyclable materials, and use of renewable energy sources in endoscopy units have been proposed.
“The massive environmental impact of gastrointestinal endoscopy as a whole has become increasingly recognized,” the authors wrote, “and further study and interventions directed at improving the environmental footprint of endoscopy will be of foremost importance.”
The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.
The reprocessing of endoscopes following gastrointestinal endoscopy is highly effective for mitigating the risk of exogenous infections, yet challenges in duodenoscope reprocessing continue to persist. While several enhanced reprocessing measures have been developed to reduce duodenoscope-related infection risks, the effectiveness of these enhanced measures is largely unclear.
Rahul A. Shimpi, MD, and Joshua P. Spaete, MD, from Duke University, Durham, N.C., wrote in a paper in Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy that novel disposable duodenoscope technologies offer promise for reducing infection risk and overcoming current reprocessing challenges. The paper notes that, despite this promise, there is a need to better define the usability, costs, and environmental impact of these disposable technologies.
Current challenges in endoscope reprocessing
According to the authors, the reprocessing of gastrointestinal endoscopes involves several sequential steps that require a “meticulous” attention to detail “to ensure the adequacy of reprocessing.” Human factors/errors are a major contributor to suboptimal reprocessing quality, and these errors are often related to varying adherence to current reprocessing protocols among centers and reprocessing staff members.
Despite these challenges, infectious complications associated with gastrointestinal endoscopy are rare, particularly in relation to end-viewing endoscopes. Many high-profile infectious outbreaks associated with duodenoscopes have been reported in recent years, however, which has heightened the awareness and corresponding concern with endoscope reprocessing. Many of these infectious outbreaks, the authors said, have involved multidrug-resistant organisms.
The complex elevator mechanism, which the authors noted “is relatively inaccessible during the precleaning and manual cleaning steps in reprocessing,” represents a paramount challenge in the reprocessing of duodenoscopes. The challenge related to this mechanism potentially contributes to greater biofilm formation and contamination. Other factors implicated in the transmission of duodenoscope-associated infections from patient to patient include other design issues, human errors in reprocessing, endoscope damage and channel defects, and storage and environmental factors.
“Given the reprocessing challenges posed by duodenoscopes, in 2015 the Food and Drug Administration issued a recommendation that one or more supplemental measures be implemented by facilities as a means to decrease the infectious risk posed by duodenoscopes,” the authors noted, including ethylene oxide (EtO) sterilization, liquid chemical sterilization, and repeat high-level disinfection (HLD). They added, however, that a recent U.S. multisociety reprocessing guideline “does not recommend repeat high-level disinfection over single high-level disinfection, and recommends use of EtO sterilization only for duodenoscopes in infectious outbreak settings.”
New sterilization technologies
Liquid chemical sterilization may be a promising alternative to EtO sterilization because it features a shorter disinfection cycle time and less endoscope wear or damage. However, clinical data for the effectiveness of LCS in endoscope reprocessing remains very limited.
The high costs and toxicities associated with EtO sterilization may be overcome by the plasma-activated gas, another novel low-temperature sterilization technology. This newer sterilization technique also features a shorter reprocessing time, thereby making it an attractive option for duodenoscope reprocessing. The authors noted that, although it showed promise in a proof-of-concept study, “plasma-activated gas has not been assessed in working endoscopes or compared directly to existing HLD and EtO sterilization technologies.”
Quality indicators in reprocessing
Recently, several quality indicators have been developed to assess the quality of endoscope reprocessing. The indicators, the authors noted, may theoretically allow “for point-of-care assessment of reprocessing quality.” To date, the data to support these indicators are limited.
Adenosine triphosphate testing has been the most widely studied indicator because this can be used to examine the presence of biofilms during endoscope reprocessing via previously established ATP benchmark levels, the authors wrote. Studies that have assessed the efficacy of ATP testing, however, are limited by their use of heterogeneous assays, analytical techniques, and cutoffs for identifying contamination.
Hemoglobin, protein, and carbohydrate are other point-of-care indicators that have previously demonstrated potential capability of assessing the achievement of adequate manual endoscope cleaning before high-level disinfection or sterilization.
Novel disposable duodenoscope technologies
Given that consistent research studies have shown the existence of residual duodenoscope contamination after standard and enhanced reprocessing, there has been increased attention placed on novel disposable duodenoscope technologies. In 2019, the FDA recommended a move toward duodenoscopes with disposable components because it could make reprocessing easier, more effective, or altogether unnecessary. According to the authors, there are currently six duodenoscopes with disposable components that are cleared by the FDA for use. These include three that use a disposable endcap, one that uses a disposable elevator and endcap, and two that are fully disposable. The authors stated that, while “improved access to the elevator facilitated by a disposable endcap may allow for improved cleaning” and reduce contamination and formation of biofilm, there are no data to confirm these proposed advantages.
There are several unanswered questions regarding new disposable duodenoscope technologies, including questions related to the usability, costs, and environmental impact of these technologies. The authors summarized several studies discussing these issues; however, a clear definition or consensus regarding how to approach these challenges has yet to be established. In addition to these unanswered questions, the authors also noted that identifying the acceptable rate of infectious risk associated with disposable duodenoscopes is another “important task” that needs to be accomplished in the near future.
Environmental impact
The authors stated that the health care system in the United States is directly responsible for up to 10% of total U.S. greenhouse emissions. Additionally, the substantial use of chemicals and water in endoscope reprocessing represents a “substantial” concern for the environment. One estimate suggested that a mean of 40 total endoscopies per day generates around 15.78 tons of CO2 per year.
Given the unclear impact disposable endoscopes may have on the environment, the authors suggested that there is a clear need to discover interventions that reduce their potential negative impact. Strategies that reduce the number of endoscopies performed, increased recycling and use of recyclable materials, and use of renewable energy sources in endoscopy units have been proposed.
“The massive environmental impact of gastrointestinal endoscopy as a whole has become increasingly recognized,” the authors wrote, “and further study and interventions directed at improving the environmental footprint of endoscopy will be of foremost importance.”
The authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.
FROM TECHNIQUES AND INNOVATIONS IN GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY