Reprocessing Flexible Endoscopes: What’s New William A. Rutala, Ph.D., M.P.H. Director, Hospital Epidemiology, Occupational Health and Safety Program,

Reprocessing Flexible Endoscopes: What’s New

William A. Rutala, Ph.D., M.P.H.Director, Hospital Epidemiology, Occupational Health and Safety Program, UNC Health

Care; Professor of Medicine, Director, Statewide Program for Infection Control and Epidemiology, University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill, NC, USA

DISCLOSURES

Consultation and Honoraria ASP (Advanced Sterilization Products), Clorox

Honoraria 3M

Grants CDC, CMS

No funds from Medivator, session sponsor

Reprocessing Flexible EndoscopesObjectives

Risks associated with reprocessing flexible endoscopes Causes of contamination and infection Gaps in current reprocessing standards Establish scientific rationale and evidence requirements

for enhancing safe practices

Reprocessing Flexible EndoscopesTopics

Risks associated with reprocessing flexible endoscopes Audits-cleaning (ATP) and microbiological sampling Outbreaks when no reprocessing deficiencies identified Patient notification after failure to follow guidelines Endoscopes reprocessed if unused at 5 days Human papilloma virus C. difficile spores Biofilms Unsafe injection practices Reprocessing steps performed in compliance with guidelines AERs Newer high-level disinfectants Fecal transplants


Risks associated with reprocessing flexible endoscopes Margin of safety and evidence of transmission, patient

notification Causes of contamination and infection Gaps in current reprocessing standards Establish scientific rationale and evidence requirements


ENDOSCOPE REPROCESSING

Disinfection and Sterilization

EH Spaulding believed that how an object will be disinfected depended on the object’s intended use.

CRITICAL - objects which enter normally sterile tissue or the vascular system or through which blood flows should be sterile.

SEMICRITICAL - objects that touch mucous membranes or skin that is not intact require a disinfection process (high-level disinfection [HLD]) that kills all microorganisms but high numbers of bacterial spores.

NONCRITICAL -objects that touch only intact skin require low-level disinfection .

ENDOSCOPES

Widely used diagnostic and therapeutic procedure (11-22 million GI procedures annually in the US)

GI endoscope contamination during use (109 in/105 out) Semicritical items require high-level disinfection minimally Inappropriate cleaning and disinfection has lead to cross-

transmission In the inanimate environment, although the incidence remains very

low, endoscopes represent a significant risk of disease transmission

Endoscope Reprocessing: Current Status of Cleaning and Disinfection

Guidelines Multi-Society Guideline, 12 professional organizations, 2011 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2008 Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates, 2010 AAMI Technical Information Report, Endoscope Reprocessing, In

preparation Food and Drug Administration, 2009 Endoscope Reprocessing, Health Canada, 2010 Association for Professional in Infection Control and Epidemiology,

2000

MULTISOCIETY GUIDELINE ON REPROCESSING GI ENDOSCOPES, 2011

Petersen et al. ICHE. 2011;32:527

ENDOSCOPE REPROCESSINGMulti-Society Guideline on Endoscope Reprocessing, 2011

PRECLEAN-point-of-use (bedside) remove debris by wiping exterior and aspiration of detergent through air/water and biopsy channels; leak test

CLEAN-mechanically cleaned with water and enzymatic cleaner HLD/STERILIZE-immerse scope and perfuse HLD/sterilant through

all channels for exposure time (>2% glut at 20m at 20oC). If AER used, review model-specific reprocessing protocols from both the endoscope and AER manufacturer

RINSE-scope and channels rinsed with sterile water, filtered water, or tap water. Flush channels with alcohol and dry

DRY-use forced air to dry insertion tube and channels STORE-hang in vertical position to facilitate drying; stored in a

manner to protect from contamination

Disinfection and Sterilization

EH Spaulding believed that how an object will be disinfected depended on the object’s intended use.

CRITICAL - objects which enter normally sterile tissue or the vascular system or through which blood flows should be sterile.

SEMICRITICAL - objects that touch mucous membranes or skin that is not intact require a disinfection process (high-level disinfection [HLD]) that kills all microorganisms but high numbers of bacterial spores.

NONCRITICAL -objects that touch only intact skin require low-level disinfection .

Critical ItemsSterilization-Huge Margin of Safety

Huge margin of safety associated with sterilization of critical items

Surgical instrument contaminated with <100 microorganisms Decontamination by washer-disinfector eliminates >5 logs (or

100,000 fold reduction) Sterilization processes inactivate 12 logs of spores (or

1,000,000,000,000 spores) Unlikely sterilized instrument will transmit infection when

compliant with recommendations

FEATURES OF ENDOSCOPES THAT PREDISPOSE TO DISINFECTION FAILURES

Require low temperature disinfection

Long narrow lumens Right angle turns Blind lumens May be heavily contaminated

with pathogens, 109

Cleaning (4-6 log10 reduction) and HLD (4-6 log10 reduction) essential for patient safe instrument

GI EndoscopesHLD-Narrow Margin of Safety

Narrow margin of safety associated with high-level disinfection of semicritical items

Instrument contaminated with 1,000,000,000 microorganisms

Cleaning eliminates ~5 logs (or 100,000 fold reduction) High-level disinfection process inactivates ~ 5 logs of

microbes (100,000 fold) Likely exposed to previous patient’s pathogens if

reprocessing protocol is not followed precisely

Transmission of Infection by EndoscopyKovaleva et al. Clin Microbiol Rev 2013. 26:231-254

Scope Outbreaks Micro (primary) Pts Contaminated

Pts Infected Cause (primary)

Upper GI 19 Pa, H. pylori, Salmonella

169 56 Cleaning/Dis-infection (C/D)

Sigmoid/Colonoscopy

5 Salmonella, HCV 14 6 Cleaning/Dis-infection

ERCP 23 Pa 152 89 C/D, water bottle, AER

Bronchoscopy 51 Pa, Mtb,Mycobacteria

778 98 C/D, AER, water

Totals 98 1113 249

Based on outbreak data, if eliminated deficiencies associated with cleaning, disinfection, AER , contaminated water and drying would eliminate about 85% of the outbreaks.

TRANSMISSION OF INFECTION

Gastrointestinal endoscopy >150 infections transmitted Salmonella sp. and P. aeruginosa Clinical spectrum ranged from colonization to death (~4%)

Bronchoscopy ~100 infections transmitted M. tuberculosis, atypical Mycobacteria, P. aeruginosa

Endemic transmission may go unrecognized (e.g., inadequate surveillance, low frequency, asymptomatic infections)

Kovaleva et al. Clin Microbiol Rev 2013. 26:231-254

Endoscope Reprocessing, Worldwide

Worldwide, endoscopy reprocessing varies greatly India, of 133 endoscopy centers, only 1/3 performed even a

minimum disinfection (1% glut for 2 min) Brazil, “a high standard …occur only exceptionally” Western Europe, >30% did not adequately disinfect Japan, found “exceedingly poor” disinfection protocols US, 25% of endoscopes revealed >100,000 bacteriaSchembre DB. Gastroint Endoscopy 2000;10:215

Nosocomial Infections via GI Endoscopes

Infections traced to deficient practices Inadequate cleaning (clean all channels) Inappropriate/ineffective disinfection (time exposure, perfuse

channels, test concentration, ineffective disinfectant, inappropriate disinfectant)

Failure to follow recommended disinfection practices (tapwater rinse)

Flaws and complexity in design of endoscopes or AERs


Risks associated with reprocessing flexible endoscopes Causes of contamination and infection

Complex device/complex reprocessing Gaps in current reprocessing standards Establish scientific rationale and evidence requirements


FEATURES OF ENDOSCOPES THAT PREDISPOSE TO DISINFECTION FAILURES

Require low temperature disinfection

Long narrow lumens Right angle turns Blind lumens May be heavily contaminated

with pathogens, 109

Cleaning (4-6 log10 reduction) and HLD (4-6 log10 reduction) essential for patient safe instrument

Multi-Society Guideline for Reprocessing Flexible Gastrointestinal Endoscopes, 2011

Transmission categorized as: Non-endoscopic and related to care of intravenous lines and

administration of anesthesia or other medicationsMultidose vialsReuse of needles and syringesIntravenous sedation tubing

Endoscopic and related to endoscope and accessoriesFailure to sterilize biopsy forceps between patientsLapses in reprocessing tubing used in channel irrigation

HCV from Unsafe Injection Practices at an Endoscopy Clinic in Las Vegas, 2007-2008

Fischer et al. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;51; 267

Background-in January 2008, 3 persons with acute HCV underwent endoscopy at a single facility in Nevada.

Method-reviewed clinical and laboratory data Results- 5 additional cases of HCV were identified and quasispecies analysis

identified two clusters. 7/38 (17%) who followed source patient were HCV infected. Reuse of syringes on single patients with use of single-use propofol vials for multiple patients was observed.

Conclusion- patient-to-patient transmission of HCV resulted from contamination of single-use medication vials that were used for multiple patients during anesthesia administration. The resulting notification of >50,000 persons was the largest of its kind in US health care.

Unsafe Injection PracticesHCV patient-new needle, same syringe, contaminated vial propofol

SAFE INJECTION PRACTICES

Endoscope Reprocessing MethodsOfstead , Wetzler, Snyder, Horton, Gastro Nursing 2010; 33:204

Endoscope Reprocessing MethodsOfstead , Wetzler, Snyder, Horton, Gastro Nursing 2010; 33:204

Performed all 12 steps with only 1.4% of endoscopes using manual versus 75.4% of those processed using AER

Automated Endoscope Reprocessors

Automated Endoscope Reprocessors (AER) Manual cleaning of endoscopes is prone to error. AERs can enhance

efficiency and reliability of HLD by replacing some manual reprocessing steps AER Advantages: automate and standardize reprocessing steps, reduce

personnel exposure to chemicals, filtered tap water, reduce likelihood that essential steps will be skipped

AER Disadvantages: failure of AERs linked to outbreaks, may not eliminate precleaning BMC Infect Dis 2010;10:200

Problems: incompatible AER (side-viewing duodenoscope); biofilm buildup; contaminated AER; inadequate channel connectors; used wrong set-up or connector MMWR 1999;48:557

Must ensure exposure of internal surfaces with HLD/sterilant

Automated Endoscope ReprocessorsGastro Endoscopy 2010;72:675

All AERs have disinfection and rinsing cycles; some detergent cleaning; alcohol flush and/or forced-air drying

Additional features may include: variable cycle times; printed documentation; HLD vapor recovery systems; heating; automated leak testing; automated detection of channel obstruction, MEC

Not all AERs compatible with all HLDs or endoscopes; some models designed with specific HLDs

Some AERs consume and dispose of HLD and other reuse HLD Some AERs have an FDA-cleared cleaning claim (eliminates soil and

microbes equivalent to optimal manual cleaning-<6.4µg/cm2 protein)

Automated Endoscope Reprocessors with Cleaning Claim (requires procedure room pre-cleaning)

Medivator Advantage Plus Endoscope Reprocessing System

Evo-Tech (eliminates soil and microbes equivalent to optimal manual cleaning. BMC ID 2010;10:200)

ENDOSCOPE REPROCESSING: CHALLENGESNDM-Producing E. coli Associated ERCP

MMWR 2014;62:1051

NDM-producing E.coli recovered from elevator channel


MMWR 2014;62:1051

March-July 2013, 9 patients with cultures for New Delhi Metallo-ß-Lactamase producing E. coli associated with ERCP

History of undergoing ERCP strongly associated with cases NDM-producing E.coli recovered from elevator channel No lapses in endoscope reprocessing identified Hospital changed from automated HLD to ETO sterilization Due to either failure of personnel to complete required process every

time or intrinsic problems with these scopes (not altered reprocessing)


MMWR 2014;62:1051

Recommendations Education/adherence monitoring

Certification/competency testing of reprocessing staff Enforcement of best practices-preventive maintenance schedule Improved definition of the scope of the issue and contributing factors Development of innovative approaches to improve and assess the process

Systematic assessment of the ability of AERs/technicians to clean/disinfect scopes

Disinfection evaluation testing that relates to risk of pathogen transmission

DECREASING ORDER OF RESISTANCE OF MICROORGANISMS TO DISINFECTANTS/STERILANTS

PrionsSpores (C. difficile)

Mycobacteria Non-Enveloped Viruses (norovirus, polio, HPV, parvo)

FungiBacteria (MRSA, VRE, Acinetobacter)

Enveloped VirusesMost Susceptible

Most Resistant

ENDOSCOPE REPROCESSING: CHALLENGESSusceptibility of Human Papillomavirus

J Meyers et al. J Antimicrob Chemother, Epub Feb 2014

High-level disinfectants no effect on HPV

Finding inconsistent with other small, non-enveloped viruses such as polio and parvovirus

Further investigation warranted: test methods unclear; organic matter; comparison virus

Use HLD consistent with FDA-cleared instructions (not altered reprocessing)

Monitoring Endoscope Cleaning

Endoscope Cleaning

Endoscope must be cleaned using water with detergents or enzymatic cleaners before processing.

Cleaning reduces the bioburden and removes foreign material (organic residue and inorganic salts) that interferes with the HLD or sterilization process.

Cleaning and decontamination should be done as soon as possible after the items have been used as soiled materials become dried onto the endoscopes.

Bacterial Bioburden Associated with Endoscopes

Gastroscope, log10

CFUColonoscope, log10

CFUAfter procedure 6.7 8.5 Gastro Nursing 1998;22:63

6.8 8.5 Am J Inf Cont 1999;27:392

9.8 Gastro Endosc 1997;48:137

After cleaning 2.0 2.34.8 4.3

5.1

Viral Bioburden from Endoscopes Used with AIDS Patients Hanson et al. Lancet 1989;2:86; Hanson et al. Thorax 1991;46:410

Dirty Cleaned Disinfected

Gastroscopes HIV (PCR) 7/20 0/20 0/20 HBsAg 1/20 0/20 0/7

Bronchoscopes HIV (cDNA) 7/7 0/7 0/7 HBsAg 1/10 0/10 0/10

IS THERE A STANDARD TO DEFINE WHEN A DEVICE IS CLEAN?

There is currently no standard to define when a device is “clean”, cleanliness controlled by visual

Potential methods: level of detectable bacteria; protein (6µg/cm2); endotoxin; ATP; lipid

This is due in part to the fact that no universally accepted test soils to evaluate cleaning efficiency and no standard procedure for measuring cleaning efficiency

Audit Manual Cleaning of EndoscopesEstablishing Benchmarks

Alfa et al. Am J Infect Control 2012;40:860. Rapid Use Scope Test detects organic residuals: protein (<6.4µg/cm2); hemoglobin (<2.2.µg/cm2); and carbohydrate (<1.2µg/cm2)

Alfa et al. Am J Infect Control 2013;41:245-248. If <200 RLUs of ATP, the protein, hemoglobin and bioburden (<4-log10 CFU/cm2 [>106 per scope]) were achieved.

Alfa et al. Am J Infect Control 2014;42:e1-e5. 200 RLU adequate for ATP.

Audit Manual Cleaning of Endoscopes

Issues for consideration What is the clinical importance of <6.4µg/cm2 for protein and <4 log10

CFU/cm2 bioburden: that is, has it been related epidemiologically or clinically to decrease or increase risk of infection?

ATP may be related to markers (e.g., protein) but markers may have no relationship to microbes/disease and providing patient safe instrument.

Ideally, validation of benchmarks should include correlation with patients’ clinical outcome. The CDC has suggested that sampling be done when there are epidemiological data that demonstrate risk (e.g., endotoxin testing and microbial testing of water used in dialysis correlated to increased risk of pyrogenic reactions in patient).

ATP and Microbial ContaminationRutala, Gergen, Weber. Unpublished 2014

Pathogen Microbial Load ATP

C. difficile 106 <100

Acinetobacter baumannii ~104 <100

MRSA ~104 <100

ATP no correlation to microbes

C. difficile: A GROWING THREAT

C. difficile spores

DECREASING ORDER OF RESISTANCE OF MICROORGANISMS TO DISINFECTANTS/STERILANTS

PrionsSpores (C. difficile)

MycobacteriaNon-Enveloped Viruses (norovirus)

FungiBacteria (MRSA, VRE, Acinetobacter)

Enveloped VirusesMost Susceptible

Most Resistant

C. difficile: MICROBIOLOGY AND EPIDEMIOLOGY

Gram-positive bacillus: Strict anaerobe, spore-former Colonizes human GI tract Increasing prevalence and incidence New epidemic strain that hyper-produces toxins A and B Causes virtually all cases of antibiotic-associated pseudomembranous colitis. Introduction of CDI from the community into hospitals High morbidity and mortality in elderly Inability to effectively treat fulminant CDI Absence of a treatment that will prevent recurrence of CDI

Disinfectants and AntisepticsC. difficile spores at 10 and 20 min, Rutala et al, 2006

~4 log10 reduction (3 C. difficile strains including BI-9) Chlorine, 1:10, ~6,000 ppm chlorine (but not 1:50, ~1,200 ppm) Chlorine, ~1,910 ppm chlorine Chlorine, ~25,000 ppm chlorine 0.20% peracetic acid 2.4% glutaraldehyde 2.65% glutaraldehyde 3.4% glutaraldehyde and 26% alcohol

Control MeasuresC. difficile

No reports document the transmission of C. difficile by a GI endoscope.

Current guidelines should be effective in preventing transmission via GI endoscope (i.e., HLD such as glutaraldehyde and peracetic acid reliably kills C. difficile spores using normal exposure times)

BIOFILMSPajkos, Vickery, Cossart. J Hosp Infect 2004;58:224

BIOFILMS(Multi-Layered Bacteria Plus Exopolysaccharides That Cement Cell to Surface;

Develop in Wet Environments)

BIOFILMS(Multi-Layered Bacteria Plus Exopolysaccharides That Cement Cell to Surface;

Develop in Wet Environments)

BIOFILMS

Bacteria residing within biofilms are many times more resistant to chemical inactivation than bacteria is suspension

Does formation of biofilms within endoscopic channels contribute to failure of decontamination process? Not known

Could be a reason for failure of adequate HLD processes but if reprocessing performed promptly after use and endoscope dry the opportunity for biofilm formation is minimal



for enhancing safe practices New HLDs, TJC, AERs, reprocessing if unused for 5-7 days,

microbiologic sampling, fecal transplants

High-Level Disinfection of “Semicritical Objects”

Exposure Time > 8m-45m (US), 20oCGermicide Concentration_____Glutaraldehyde > 2.0%Ortho-phthalaldehyde 0.55%Hydrogen peroxide* 7.5%Hydrogen peroxide and peracetic acid* 1.0%/0.08%Hydrogen peroxide and peracetic acid* 7.5%/0.23%Hypochlorite (free chlorine)* 650-675 ppmAccelerated hydrogen peroxide 2.0%Peracetic acid 0.2%Glut and isopropanol 3.4%/26%Glut and phenol/phenate** 1.21%/1.93%___*May cause cosmetic and functional damage; **efficacy not verified

ResertTM HLD

High Level Disinfectant - Chemosterilant 2% hydrogen peroxide, in formulation

pH stabilizers Chelating agents Corrosion inhibitors

Efficacy (claims need verification) Sporicidal, virucidal, bactericidal, tuberculocidal, fungicidal

HLD: 8 mins at 20oC Odorless, non-staining, ready-to-use No special shipping or venting requirements Manual or automated applications 12-month shelf life, 21 days reuse Material compatibility/organic material resistance (Fe, Cu)?

*The Accelerated Hydrogen Peroxide technology and logo are the property of Virox Technologies, Inc. Modified from G MacDonald. AJIC 2006;34:571

ACCREDITING AGENCIESThe Joint Commission/CMS

Recommendations for Improvement must be based on evidence-based guidelines 7-day endoscope reprocessing (challenged, removed from report) Storage Handling disinfected endoscopes with clean hands versus gloves

(challenged, removed from report)

MULTISOCIETY GUIDELINE ON REPROCESSING GI ENDOSCOPES, 2011Petersen et al. ICHE. 2011;32:527


Unresolved Issues Interval of storage after which endoscopes should be reprocessed

before useData suggest that contamination during storage for intervals of 7-

14 days is negligible, unassociated with duration, occurs on exterior of instruments and involves only common skin organisms

Data are insufficient to proffer a maximal outer duration for use of appropriately cleaned, reprocessed, dried and stored endoscopes

Without full data reprocessing within this interval may be advisable for certain situations (endoscope entry to otherwise sterile regions such as biliary tree, pancreas)

Endoscopes Reprocessed If Unused 5 DaysAORN, 2010

Investigator Shelf Life Contamination Rate Recommendation

Osborne, Endoscopy 2007

18.8h median

15.5% CONS, Micrococcus, Bacillus

Environmental /process contamination

Rejchrt, Gastro Endosc 2004

5 days 3.0% (4/135), skin bacteria (CONS, diphteroids)

Reprocessing before use not necessary

Vergis, Endoscopy 2007

7 days 8.6% (6/70), all CONS Reprocessing not necessary for at least 7d

Riley, GI Nursing, 2002

24,168h 50% (5/10), <3 CFU CONS, S. aureus, P. aeurginosa, Micrococcus

Left for up to 1 week

Provided all channels thoroughly reprocessed and dried, reuse within 10-14 appears safe. Data are insufficient to offer maximum duration for use.


Unresolved Issues Optimal frequencies for replacement of: clean water bottles

and tubing for insufflation of air and lens wash water, and waste vacuum canisters and suction tubing

Concern related to potential for backflow from a soiled endoscope against the direction of forced fluid and air passage into clean air/water source or from tubing/canister against a vacuum into clean instruments

Microbiologic surveillance testing after reprocessingDetection of non-environmental pathogens indicator of faulty

reprocessing equipment, inadequate solution, or failed human process

Audit Manual Cleaning of EndoscopesEstablishing Benchmarks

Lack of consensus regarding the clinical value of routine microbiological monitoring of endoscopes. We perform to assess the efficacy of reprocessing. Alfa et al. Am J Infect Control 2012;40:233. Recommends a

bioburden residual of <100 CFU/ml. Beilenhoff et al. Endoscopy; 2007;39: 175. ESGE-ESGENA allows

bioburden count of <20 CFU/ channel. Heeg et al. J Hosp Infect; 2004;56:23. Contamination should not

exceed 1 CFU/ml. Certain organisms should not be detected in any amount (e.g., P. aeruginosa, E. coli, S. aureus)

Fecal Transplants for Refractory C. difficile Infection

Criteria for eligibility -failed standard therapy, no contraindication to colonoscopy, confirmed C. difficile toxin positive, etc

Self-identified donor-donor will respond to eligibility questions: no GI cancer, no metabolic disease, no prior use of illicit drugs, etc

Donor Testing-Stool-C. difficile toxin, O&P, bacterial pathogen panel (Salmonella, Shigella, Giardia, norovirus, etc). Serum-RPR, HIV-1, HIV-2, HCV Ab, CMV viral load, HAV IgM and IgG, HBsAg, liver tests, etc

Stool preparation-fresh sample into 1 liter sterile bottle, 500ml saline added, vigorously shaking to liquefy, solid pieces removed with sterile gauze so sample is liquid, liquid stool drawn up into 7 sterile 50ml syringes, injected into terminal ileum, cecum, ascending colon, traverse colon, descending colon, sigmoid colon. Colonoscope reprocessed by HLD.




Conclusions

Endoscopes represent a nosocomial hazard. Narrow margin of safety associated with high-level disinfection of semicritical items. Guidelines must be strictly followed.

AERs can enhance efficiency and reliability of HLD of endoscopes by replacing some manual reprocessing steps and reducing the likelihood that essential steps are not skipped

Urgent need to better understand the gaps in endoscope reprocessing-CRE, C. difficile spores, HPV, biofilms, etc. Industry must support research to answer questions.

Data are insufficient to recommend ATP monitoring Data suggest that contamination during storage for 7-14 days is negligible.

THANK YOU!www.disinfectionandsterilization.org

Endoscopes: Delayed Reprocessing and Drying

Delayed Reprocessing (GI Endoscopy 2011;73;853) Reprocess immediately after use; do not allow to sit idle and

soiled for hours before being processed. If precleaning not initiated within an hour, soak in detergent before cleaning.

Endoscope Drying (J Hosp Infect 2008;68:59) Microbial contamination lower when stored in drying and

storage cabinet.

Documents

Reprocessing Flexible Endoscopes: What’s New William A. Rutala, Ph.D., M.P.H. Director, Hospital Epidemiology, Occupational Health and Safety Program,