Copyright
©2006 Baishideng Publishing Group Co.
World J Gastroenterol. Jul 14, 2006; 12(26): 4199-4202
Published online Jul 14, 2006. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v12.i26.4199
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
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v12/i26/4199.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v12.i26.4199
