...
首页> 外文期刊>Gastroenterology >Randomized Comparison of 3 High-Level Disinfection and Sterilization Procedures for Duodenoscopes
【24h】

Randomized Comparison of 3 High-Level Disinfection and Sterilization Procedures for Duodenoscopes

机译:三种高液体消毒和二氧化二型灭菌程序的随机比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Duodenoscopes have been implicated in the transmission of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO). We compared the frequency of duodenoscope contamination with MDRO or any other bacteria after disinfection or sterilization by 3 different methods. METHODS: We performed a single-center prospective randomized study in which duodenoscopes were randomly reprocessed by standard high-level disinfection (sHLD), double high-level disinfection (dHLD), or standard high-level disinfection followed by ethylene oxide gas sterilization (HLD/ETO). Samples were collected from the elevator mechanism and working channel of each duodenoscope and cultured before use. The primary outcome was the proportion of duodenoscopes with an elevator mechanism or working channel culture showing 1 or more MDRO; secondary outcomes included the frequency of duodenoscope contamination with more than 0 and 10 or more colony-forming units (CFU) of aerobic bacterial growth on either sampling location. RESULTS: After 3 months of enrollment, the study was closed because of the futility; we did not observe sufficient events to evaluate the primary outcome. Among 541 duodenoscope culture events, 516 were included in the final analysis. No duodenoscope culture in any group was positive for MDRO. Bacterial growth of more than 0 CFU was noted in 16.1% duodenoscopes in the sHLD group, 16.0% in the dHLD group, and 22.5% in the HLD/ETO group (P = .21). Bacterial growth or 10 or more CFU was noted in 2.3% of duodenoscopes in the sHLD group, 4.1% in the dHLD group, and 4.2% in the HLD/ETO group (P = .36). MRDOs were cultured from 3.2% of pre-procedure rectal swabs and 2.5% of duodenal aspirates. CONCLUSIONS: In a comparison of duodenoscopes reprocessed by sHLD, dHLD, or HLD/ETO, we found no significant differences between groups for MDRO or bacteria contamination. Enhanced disinfection methods (dHLD or HLD/ETO) did not provide additional protection against contamination. However, insufficient events occurred to assess our primary study end-point.
机译:背景和目的:十二指肠镜片已涉及多药物抗性生物的传播(MDRO)。我们将Duodenope污染的频率与MDRO或任何其他细菌进行了比较了3种不同的方法。方法:我们进行单中心前瞻性随机研究,其中二氧化二指镜被标准高水平消毒(SHLD),双高水平消毒(DHLD)或标准的高水平消毒,然后是环氧气体灭菌(HLD / eto)。从电梯机构和每种剂型镜的工作通道收集样品并在使用前培养。主要结果是具有升降机机制或工作通道培养的二发透镜的比例显示1或更多MDRO;二次结果包括具有超过0和10个或更多种菌落形成单位(CFU)的多剂量镜污染的频率在取样位置上的有氧细菌生长。结果:入学后3个月后,由于徒劳无益,研究结束;我们没有遵守足够的事件来评估主要结果。在541例中,516例中,516例归入最终分析。任何组中没有任何一组腔腔培养对于MDRO是阳性的。在SHLD组中16.1%的十二指肠,16.0%,在DHLD组16.0%,HLD / ETO组中的22.5%(P = .21),注意到了大于0的细菌生长。在SHLD组中的2.3%的2.3%中,在DHLD组中为4.1%,4.1%,HLD / ETO组中的4.2%(P = .36),4.2%,4.1%(P = .36)。将MRDOS从术前直肠拭子的3.2%培养,2.5%的十二指肠吸气。结论:在由SHLD,DHLD或HLD / ETO再加工的二氧化张仪的比较中,我们发现MDRO或细菌污染的群体之间没有显着差异。增强的消毒方法(DHLD或HLD / ETO)没有提供额外的防止污染保护。但是,出现的事件不足以评估我们的主要研究终点。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号