Rerknimitr R, Eakthunyasakul S, Nunthapisud P, Kongkam P. Results of gastroscope bacterial decontamination by enzymatic detergent compared to chlorhexidine. World J Gastroenterol 2006; 12(26): 4199-4202 [PMID: 16830374 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v12.i26.4199]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Rungsun Rerknimitr, MD, Gastroenterology Unit, Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330, Thailand. rungsun@pol.net
Article-Type of This Article
Rapid Communication
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
World J Gastroenterol. Jul 14, 2006; 12(26): 4199-4202 Published online Jul 14, 2006. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v12.i26.4199
Table 1 Steps for gastroscope reprocessing in the present study
Gastroscope reprocessing
Cleaning After completion of the cleaning procedure, the inserted tube was wiped with a wet cloth and soaked in detergent solution (chlorhexidine or 3E-ZYME). Detergent solution was suctioned through the biopsy channel until the solution was visibly clean.
While the scope was submerged, mechanical cleaning was performed by washing all debris from the exterior. All removable parts were separately cleaned. A soft cleaning brush was used to clean all accessible channels. Manual cleansing was done for 10 min.
The scope was removed from the detergent solution and then submerged in 5 L of filtered water. An all-channel irrigator was used to flush water through it.
Leak testing of the scope was performed.
Disinfection After manual cleaning, the gastroscope underwent high-level disinfection in a container using 2% glutaraldehyde with a 20-min soak time.
The scope was removed from 2% glutaraldehyde and then submerged in 5 L of filtered water. An all-channel irrigator was used to flush water through it.
Rinsing and Drying The suction/biopsy channel was rinsed with 70% alcohol 20 mL and dried for 5 min.
The suction/biopsy channel was sampled using the flush method.
Table 2 Characteristics of endoscopes in both groups
Enzymatic detergent
Chlorhexidine
Specimen (n)
130
130
Endoscopes
Olympus GIF-V
30
30
Olympus GIF-IT 140
30
30
Pentax 2970 K
35
35
Pentax 2930 K
22
22
Pentax 3830 TK
13
13
Table 3 Results of bacterial contamination after gastroscope reprocessing in both groups
Enzymaticdetergent(n = 130)
Chlorhexidine(n = 130)
P
Type of endoscope (Olympus:Pentax)
60:70
60:70
Positive culture (> 200 cfu/mL)
6 (4.6%)
4 (3.1%)
0.747a
Single organism
5 (3.8%)
1 (0.8%)
0.213b
Mixed organism
1 (0.8%)
3 (2.3%)
0.622b
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
4 (3.1%)
5 (3.8%)
1.000b
Non Pseudomonas spp.
3 (2.3%)
3 (2.3%)
1.000b
Table 4 Incidence and types of organisms during study period
Type of organism
Enzymaticdetergent(samples, n)
Chlorhexidine(samples, n)
Total,n (%)
Pseudomonas aeruginosa
4
5
9 (60)
Klebsiella species
1
1
2 (13.3)
Enterobacter species
1
0
1 (6.7)
Acinetobacter baumanii
0
1
1 (6.7)
Staphylococcus coagulase negative
1
0
1 (6.7)
Staphylococcus aureus
0
1
1 (6.7)
Total
7
8
15 (100)
Citation: Rerknimitr R, Eakthunyasakul S, Nunthapisud P, Kongkam P. Results of gastroscope bacterial decontamination by enzymatic detergent compared to chlorhexidine. World J Gastroenterol 2006; 12(26): 4199-4202