The feasibility and safety of disposable endoscope vs. conventional endoscope for upper gastrointestinal tract examination: a multicenter, randomized, parallel, non-inferiority trial

Background A disposable upper gastrointestinal endoscope can effectively decrease infectious outbreaks associated with endoscope reuse. In the present study, we aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a disposable endoscope for upper gastrointestinal examination. Methods In a prospective, randomized trial, 144 upper endoscopic procedures were allocated to either the disposable endoscope group or the conventional endoscope group. The primary outcomes were rates of excellent and good image qualities and maneuverability satisfaction. The second outcome included procedure duration, endoscopic diagnosis, and adverse events. Results A total of 144 subjects were enrolled in the present analysis and prospectively randomized to 2 study groups. Finally, 70 and 69 subjects were enrolled in the novel disposable endoscope group and the conventional endoscope group, respectively, due to the schedule cancellation of 5 subjects. The baseline characteristics of the patients were similar in both groups. The excellent and good image quality rates and maneuverability satisfaction of the novel disposable endoscope were not inferior to the conventional endoscope (p = 0.99 and p = 0.99, respectively). Moreover, no significant between-group difference was observed in the endoscopic results and adverse events (p = 0.30 and p = 1, respectively). However, the procedure duration in the novel disposable endoscope was longer compared with the conventional endoscope (8.40 ± 4.28 min vs. 5.12 ± 2.65 min, p < 0.001). Conclusions The novel disposable endoscope was as safe, effective, and maneuverable as a conventional endoscope. However, the novel disposable endoscope was associated with a longer procedure duration.

The Effectiveness of Drying on Residual Droplets, Microorganisms, and Biofilms in Gastrointestinal Endoscope Reprocessing: A Systematic Review

Background. Despite endoscope reprocessing, residual droplets remain in gastrointestinal endoscope working channels. Inadequate drying of gastrointestinal endoscope working channels may promote microbial reproduction and biofilm formation, increasing the risk of infection in patients. This review was designed to provide the current status of gastrointestinal endoscope drying, emphasize the importance of gastrointestinal endoscope drying, and evaluate the effectiveness of different drying methods of gastrointestinal endoscope in reducing residual droplets and microbial growth risk. Methods. A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting checklist. The PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, EMBASE, EBSCO, CNKI, CQVIP, and Wanfang Data databases were searched from 2010 to 2020 to identify eligible articles focused on methods of gastrointestinal endoscope drying and the status of endoscope drying. The following key points were analyzed: type of intervention, amount of residual droplets, major microbial types, and effectiveness of biofilm intervention. JBI quality assessment tool was used to determine bias risk for inclusion in the article. Results. This review included twelve articles. Two of the articles reported lack of drying of gastrointestinal endoscopes while the other ten reported residual droplets, microbial growth, and biofilm formation after different methods of drying. Four articles reported 0 to 4.55 residual droplets; four articles reported that the main microbial types were cocci and bacilli, most commonly Staphylococcus, Escherichia coli, Bacillus maltophilia, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa; and two reported that drying could effectively reduce biofilm regeneration. The type of intervention is as follows: automatic endoscopy reprocessor (AER), manual compressed air drying, and the Dri-Scope Aid for automatic drying and drying cabinet. Conclusions. While endoscope reprocessing may not always be effective, an automatic endoscope reprocessor plus the Dri-Scope Aid with automatic drying over 10 min or storage in a drying cabinet for 72 h may be preferred.

Comparative Study of Microbiological Monitoring Results from Three Types of Sampling Methods after Gastrointestinal Endoscope Reprocessing

Objective. Compare the effects of three sampling methods on the microbiological monitoring results after reprocessing of gastrointestinal endoscopes, providing scientific basis for improving the monitoring quality of gastrointestinal endoscope cleaning and disinfection. Method. Gastrointestinal endoscopes after reprocessing were selected randomly at the gastrointestinal endoscopy center of a tertiary hospital in Shanghai from October 2018 to February 2019. The endoscopes selected were all sampled in three different methods under continuous sampling and intermittent sampling respectively. Methods used includes, the biopsy channel group (Group A), the entire channel group (Group B), and the disc brush group (Group C). Then the colony forming units (CFU/piece) were counted in the laboratory. Results. A total of 12 endoscopes were sampled by using continuous sampling approach, in which the detection rate of bacteria in disc brush group (33.3%) and entire channel group (33.3%) was higher than biopsy channel group (8.3%). Among the 12 endoscopes sampled with intermittent approach, the detection rate of bacteria from high to low was the disc brush group (50%), the entire channel group (41.7%), and the biopsy channel group (8.3%). Conclusion. Different sampling methods will lead to the difference of microbiological culture results after reprocessing of gastrointestinal endoscope, indicating that the improved sampling method is beneficial to objectively reflect the endoscope cleaning and disinfection effect, and improve the monitoring quality of endoscope disinfection.