Explore the vast range of titles available.

The use of reusable flexible endoscopes has increased dramatically over the past decade, however despite improvements in endoscope reprocessing, the continued emergence of endoscopy-associated outbreaks as a result of multi-drug resistant bacteria has highlighted the need for a new approach to disinfection. Here, the use of plasma activated liquids (PALs) for the elimination of mixed species biofilm contamination within the working channels of endoscopes was evaluated. Cold atmospheric pressure plasma was used to chemically activate water and a commercially available pH buffered peracetic acid to create PALs. Polytetrafluoroethylene endoscope surrogate test pieces were contaminated with clinically relevant mixed species biofilms. The efficacy of PALs for the decontamination of narrow lumens was compared against the commercial disinfectant. Plasma activation was found to increase the antibiofilm capabilities of pH buffered peracetic acid by introducing reactive chemical species into the solution. Disinfection of endoscopic test pieces with plasma activated disinfectant (PAD) resulted in a 7.30 log 10 reduction of biofilm contamination in 5 min, surpassing the 4.39 log 10 reduction observed with the currently used endoscope disinfection method. PAD also resulted in reduced regrowth and recolonization of the surface of the endoscopic test pieces. Minimal changes to the surface morphology and composition were observed following exposure to PAD in comparison to the commercial disinfectant, suggesting the developed approach is no more aggressive than current disinfection approaches.

Gastrointestinal (GI) interventional endoscopy has evolved into a cornerstone of modern gastroenterology, offering minimally invasive solutions for complex conditions. However, these procedures are not without risk, particularly with respect to post-procedural infections. While rare, such infections can have significant clinical consequences and are increasingly recognized as a public health concern. This narrative review provides a comprehensive overview of infections associated with GI endoscopy, focusing on transmission mechanisms, microbial agents involved, host susceptibility, preventive strategies, and diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. Infections following GI endoscopy remain infrequent but clinically significant, particularly in high-risk procedures such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasound. Duodenoscopes represent a major vector for exogenous infection, often involving multidrug-resistant bacteria such as Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Enterococcus spp. Host-related factors increase the risk of infection. Risk factors associated with post-endoscopic infections include advanced age, male sex, non-white ethnicity, immunosuppression, presence of cholangiocarcinoma, autoimmune diseases, liver cirrhosis of viral and/or alcoholic etiology, chronic kidney disease, high-risk cardiac conditions, or chemotherapy. New reprocessing methods, such as ethylene oxide gas sterilization, automated endoscope reprocessors, and selective use of single-use endoscopes and duodenoscopes, may contribute to lowering infection rates. Greater awareness of infection risks, improved infection control practices, and adherence to updated guidelines are crucial for enhancing patient safety in digestive endoscopy. Multidisciplinary strategies, including surveillance, device innovation, and personalized risk assessment, are needed to address this evolving challenge.

Background: Failure in the reprocessing of thermolabile flexible endoscopes has been reported as one of the most important threats to patient health. Method: A case report and observational study was conducted, from August 2014 to December 2019, in the Digestive Endoscopy Unit of a University Hospital in Italy, where two cases of Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae infections in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography were observed. Following the risk/safety management practices, an epidemiological investigation was started, duodenoscopes were removed from use and the reprocessing practices reviewed. Moreover, microbiological surveillance of endoscopes was carried out according to the CDC guidelines. Results: In the first phase of sampling, 10/10 (100%) endoscopes were found to be non-compliant, of which 7 showed results for high-concern organisms (HCOs), such as KPC-K. pneumoniae, P. aeruginosa and E. coli. After implementing corrective actions, 12 out of 17 endoscopes were found to be non-compliant (70.5%), of which 8 showed results for HCOs, such as KPC-K. oxytoca and P. aeruginosa. During the last year of regular microbiological surveillance, only 23% of endoscopes (35/152) were found to be non-compliant, of which 7 showed results for HCOs, such as NDM-K. pneumoniae, P. aeruginosa and A. baumannii. The crucial issues were related to samples collected from the internal channels of duodenoscopes. Conclusion: Managing the risk associated with the reprocessing of digestive endoscopes, through risk assessment at every stage of the process, is important for the prevention of infections associated with the use of these device.

Background: In the past few decades, the inadequate reprocessing of bronchoscopes has been associated with several serious outbreaks caused by multidrug-resistant microorganisms. In this study we evaluated the improvement in the quality of reprocessing in a Bronchoscopy Unit (BU), after the introduction of a new procedure. Methods: In 2019, observational and clinical audits were conducted in the BU. After the introduction of an improved procedure in 2020, a microbiological surveillance plan was implemented in 2021. Results: In 2019, 13 of 22 bronchoscopes (59%) resulted as non-compliant, 18% as high concern organisms (HCO) and 36.4% as high microbial count (≥100 CFU/all channels) and HCO. The most frequent microorganisms were Staphylococcus aureus (38.5%) and NDM-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae (15.4%). The bronchoscopes were stored inside their transport cases, which in some cases were found to be contaminated by the same strains isolated on the bronchoscopes (Enterobacter gergoviae and Vibrio alginolyticus). In 2021, all 31 bronchoscopes were sampled at least three times and 13/99 (13.1%) resulted as non-compliant, mostly K. pneumoniae (4.04%). Contamination level increases weakly in bronchoscopes in use for more than 14 years (R = 0.32). Conclusions: The adoption of an improved reprocessing procedure decreased the non-compliance of bronchoscopes, increasing the quality of the process and patient safety.

Abstract Introduction: International societies recommend microbiological surveillance of endoscopes to reduce the incidence of endoscope-associated infections, particularly for duodenoscopes. However, surveillance protocols are not internationally standardized, both regarding sample collection, processing, and culture. This study aims to provide a framework protocol encompassing the experience of a tertiary large volume endoscopy center and the microbiology laboratory for collecting and culturing of endoscope samples for microbiological surveillance. Methods: A sample collection and processing protocol was designed as a result of a cooperation between the Endoscopy Center of the Gastroenterology Department and the Microbiology Laboratory of the Department of Clinical Pathology. This protocol reflects international recommendations in this topic and the human and technological resources of the involved departments. Results: The established protocol for collecting samples varies according to the type and model of endoscope. The specimens are collected as sterile saline liquid samples, as well as swabs (with and without transport media). Together with the collection of samples from the endoscope, samples from the final rinse water as well as the water bottle are also collected. For duodenoscopes and curvilinear echoendoscopes, we perform microbiological surveillance every 3 months; for gastroscopes and colonoscopes, at least, once a year; and for specific endoscopes, such as the pediatric or dual-channel therapeutic endoscopes, enteroscopes, or radial echoendoscopes, every 6 months. Conclusion: Endoscopy units should have detailed protocols for microbiological surveillance of endoscopes. These protocols should be drawn up by a multidisciplinary team that includes endoscopy nurses, gastroenterologists, microbiologists, and the antimicrobial stewardship team, following international recommendations, adapted to each institution resources. Introduction: International societies recommend microbiological surveillance of endoscopes to reduce the incidence of endoscope-associated infections, particularly for duodenoscopes. However, surveillance protocols are not internationally standardized, both regarding sample collection, processing, and culture. This study aims to provide a framework protocol encompassing the experience of a tertiary large volume endoscopy center and the microbiology laboratory for collecting and culturing of endoscope samples for microbiological surveillance. Methods: A sample collection and processing protocol was designed as a result of a cooperation between the Endoscopy Center of the Gastroenterology Department and the Microbiology Laboratory of the Department of Clinical Pathology. This protocol reflects international recommendations in this topic and the human and technological resources of the involved departments. Results: The established protocol for collecting samples varies according to the type and model of endoscope. The specimens are collected as sterile saline liquid samples, as well as swabs (with and without transport media). Together with the collection of samples from the endoscope, samples from the final rinse water as well as the water bottle are also collected. For duodenoscopes and curvilinear echoendoscopes, we perform microbiological surveillance every 3 months; for gastroscopes and colonoscopes, at least, once a year; and for specific endoscopes, such as the pediatric or dual-channel therapeutic endoscopes, enteroscopes, or radial echoendoscopes, every 6 months. Conclusion: Endoscopy units should have detailed protocols for microbiological surveillance of endoscopes. These protocols should be drawn up by a multidisciplinary team that includes endoscopy nurses, gastroenterologists, microbiologists, and the antimicrobial stewardship team, following international recommendations, adapted to each institution resources.

Background: Correct reprocessing and microbiological surveillance on endoscopes are fundamental for preventing the transmission of multi-drug resistant strains and device-related infections. Methods: A questionnaire with three domains was created: (1) centre characteristics; (2) endoscope reprocessing procedures; and (3) application of microbiological surveillance. Nurses working in endoscopic units across Italy were invited to anonymously fill out the questionnaire on the SurveyMonkey platform between November 2021 and February 2022. Results: A total of 82 out of 132 endoscopic centres participated in the survey, with at least one centre from each Italian region. Data found different concerns regarding the current practice of both reprocessing and microbiological surveillance. According to respondents, the training on reprocessing was performed through theoretical training and only in 10% of centres; the microbiological surveillance was regularly performed in 59% of centres; and sampled endoscopes were not excluded for use in 31% of centres performing the surveillance until the outcome was pending, and when positive, 72% maintained them in quarantine until a successive negative result. Conclusions: Reprocessing and microbiological surveillance currently present several criticisms along the endoscopic centres in Italy. Our survey highlights the need for the correct application of the national recommendations in each endoscopic centre to prevent the potential transmission of endoscope-related infections.

Background: Endoscopy-related infections have caused multiple outbreaks. The importance of surveillance culture is gradually recognized, but sampling techniques are not consistent in many guidelines. It is unclear whether the Flush-Brush-Flush sampling method (FBFSM) is more sensitive than the conventional flush sampling method (CFSM) and whether different sampling brushes have different effects. Methods: The propensity score matching method was done with two matching ways, 1:1 nearest neighbor propensity score matching and full matching was used to analyze the surveillance culture data collected by FBFSM and CFSM. We fit a confounder-adjusted multiple generalized linear logistic regression model to estimate the marginal odds ratio (OR). A paired study was applied to compare the sampling effect of polyurethane foam (PU) head brush and polyamide (PA) head brush. Result: From 2016 to 2020, 316 reprocessed endoscope samples were collected from all 59 endoscopy centers in Tianjin. About 279 (88.3%) reprocessed endoscopes met the threshold of Chinese national standards (<20 CFU/Channel). The qualified rate of reprocessed endoscopes sampling by CFSM (91.8%) and FBFSM (81.6%) was statistically different (p < 0.05). The adjusted OR by full matching for FBFSM was 7.98 (95% confidence interval: 3.35-21.78). Forty one pairs of colonoscopes, after reprocessing from 27 centers, were tested by PA and PU brushes, and no difference was found in microbial recovery. Conclusion: FBFSM was confirmed to be a more sensitive sampling technique. PU and PA brushes had no significant difference in sampling effect.

Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the disparity in culture results between sterilization and high‐level disinfection (HLD) for duodenoscopes and linear endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), and to assess the effectiveness of different bacterial contamination detection methods. Methods This is a prospective randomized study, including duodenoscopes and linear EUS with adenosine triphosphate bioluminescence assay values below 200 relative light units after manual cleaning which were randomly assigned to undergo either sterilization or HLD in a 1:1 ratio. Following disinfection, all endoscopes were subjected to adenosine triphosphate bioluminescence assay testing and cultures using both swab and liquid samples from endoscope channels. Results Totally 752 endoscopes (444 duodenoscopes and 308 linear EUS) were studied. After disinfection, the positive culture rates for the sterilization and HLD groups were 5.9% and 7.2%, respectively (p = 0.460). No significant difference in contamination rates was observed between duodenoscopes and linear EUS (5.9% and 7.5%, respectively; p = 0.379), and no significant association between contamination rates and the presence of biliary stones was seen (7.3% vs. 6.9%; p = 0.613). The detection rate of bacteria from liquid samples taken from endoscope channels was 0.5%, which was significantly lower than the swabbing method (6.0%, p < 0.001). Conclusions This study found no statistically significant difference in contamination rates between sterilization and HLD methods for gastrointestinal endoscope reprocessing. The type of endoscope and the presence of biliary stones did not influence the positive culture rate. The swabbing method showed significantly higher bacterial detection when compared with liquid samples.

Hepatitis B virus (HBV) cross-infection during endoscopy is rare. Most of the reported cases have occurred when the endoscope reprocessing was inadequate. Standard reprocessing of endoscopes and accessories is sufficient to prevent HBV transmission.

The modern flexible endoscope is a complex, highly‐engineered medical instrument. Systems for air, water, suction, tip angulation and the endoscope's basic controls are common across manufacturers and models. Differentiation is often in handling characteristics, breadth of product line, image quality, and the manufacturer's special features (insertion tube flexibility adjustment, image enhancement features, image documentation options, etc.). RGB sequential endoscopes offer potential superior color accuracy but suffer from motion artifacts. Color‐chip endoscopes are more popular due to good color and natural reproduction of motion. Recent advancements in imaging include high‐definition imaging, narrow‐band imaging and wide‐angle, close‐focusing optics. An understanding of the basic components of the endoscope will help the endoscopist troubleshoot many equipment problems. Specific background information on the safe use of chemicals, personal protective equipment and all applicable regulations, plus thorough training on the specific steps of instrument reprocessing are necessary to clean and disinfect an endoscope safely and effectively.