Premium
Efficacy of Conventional Endoscopic Disinfection and Sterilization Methods Against Helicobacter pylori Contamination
Author(s) -
Cronmiller James R.,
Nelson Daniel K.,
Jackson Dana K.,
Kim Chung H.
Publication year - 1999
Publication title -
helicobacter
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.206
H-Index - 79
eISSN - 1523-5378
pISSN - 1083-4389
DOI - 10.1046/j.1523-5378.1999.99275.x
Subject(s) - peracetic acid , contamination , sterilization (economics) , glutaraldehyde , endoscope , disinfectant , aseptic processing , medicine , pulp and paper industry , food science , surgery , chemistry , biology , chromatography , hydrogen peroxide , ecology , organic chemistry , pathology , foreign exchange , monetary economics , economics , foreign exchange market , engineering
Background. Iatrogenic transmission of Helicobacter pylori via contaminated endoscopic devices is well documented. Despite the prevalence of this infectious agent, few controlled studies have investigated the major factors that impact on reprocessing of endoscopes contaminated with H. pylori. Materials and Methods. An endoscope (Pentax) was contaminated with 10 8 cfu/ml of H. pylori in 5% bovine calf serum as standardized inoculum. The endoscope then was passed through one of eight arms (five repetitions per arm = 40 total runs), as follows: 1, recovery control (no cleaning or disinfection); 2, manual cleaning alone; 3–5, manual precleaning followed by either 10‐, 20‐, or 45‐minute exposure to 2% glutaraldehyde and ethanol (ETOH) drying; 6, manual cleaning followed by automated reprocessing by STERIS System; 7 and 8, automated reprocessing by STERIS with and without active peracetic acid sterilant (wash‐off control). Suction‐biopsy channels and air‐water channels were harvested for microbiological culture. Results. Control runs recovered more than 1 × 10 6 cfu per site, confirming the viability of the test organism and the adequacy of the biological burden for challenge. When instruments underwent manual cleaning alone (without subsequent disinfection), test organisms remained in 40% of runs at the air‐water site. Manual cleaning followed by 10‐, 20‐, or 45‐minute glutaraldehyde exposure and ETOH drying removed all test organisms from all sites in all runs (i.e., 100% disinfection). The automated STERIS system with or without active peracetic acid sterilant also removed all test organisms from all sites in all runs, as did manual cleaning followed by STERIS use. Conclusion. Manual cleaning alone does not effectively remove H. pylori from an endoscope. Current joint association recommendations for minimal disinfection (manual cleaning followed by at least 20 minutes of immersion in glutaraldehyde and ETOH drying) are effective in preventing cross‐transmission of H. pylori. Reprocessing using the automated STERIS system according to manufacturer's recommendations also is highly effective in sterilizing endoscopes contaminated with H. pylori.