Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Am J Infect Control. 2019 Sep;47(9):1083-1089. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2019.02.016. Epub 2019 Apr 6.

Endoscope reprocessing: Comparison of drying effectiveness and microbial levels with an automated drying and storage cabinet with forced filtered air and a standard storage cabinet.

Author information

1
Vatche and Tamar Manoukian Division of Digestive Diseases, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA.
2
Department of Gastroenterology Services, Northside Hospital, Atlanta, GA.
3
Vatche and Tamar Manoukian Division of Digestive Diseases, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA. Electronic address: raman.muthusamy@gmail.com.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Automated drying may help prevent endoscopically transmitted infections. We aimed to assess the efficacy of an automated drying and storage cabinet compared to a standard storage cabinet in achieving endoscope dryness postreprocessing and in reducing the risk of microbial growth.

METHODS:

Drying times of bronchoscopes, colonoscopes, and duodenoscopes using 2 drying platforms (an automated drying and storage cabinet vs a standard storage cabinet) were measured using cobalt chloride paper. Drying assessments occurred at: 30 minutes, 1 hour, 2 hours, 3 hours, and 24 hours. A simple linear regression analysis compared rates of microbial growth after inoculation with Pseudomonas aeruginosa following high-level disinfection at: 0, 3 hours, 12 hours, 24 hours, and 48 hours.

RESULTS:

Using the automated drying and storage cabinet, internal channels were dry at 1 hour and external surfaces at 3 hours in all endoscopes. With the standard storage cabinet, there was residual internal fluid at 24 hours, whereas external surfaces were dry at 24 hours. For bronchoscopes, colonoscopes, and duodenoscopes, the standard cabinet allowed for an average rate of colony forming unit growth of 8.1 × 106 per hour, 8.3 × 106 per hour, and 7.0 × 107 per hour, respectively; the automated cabinet resulted in colony forming unit growth at an average rate of -28.4 per hour (P = .02), -38.5 per hour (P = .01), and -200.2 per hour (P = .02), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS:

An automated cabinet is advantageous for rapid drying of endoscope surfaces and in reducing the risk of microbial growth postreprocessing.

KEYWORDS:

Drying time; Duodenoscope; High-level disinfection; Waterborne infection

PMID:
30962022
DOI:
10.1016/j.ajic.2019.02.016

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center