INTERCEPT 泡沫喷雾后内窥镜的微生物监测结果:新加坡的一项准实验性试点研究。

IF 2.1 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Clinical Endoscopy Pub Date : 2024-11-04 DOI:10.5946/ce.2024.030
Caihong Wang, Rong Zhang, Ruhui Fan, Jiewen Low, Ruochen Du, Xueyun Ma, Congcong Cai
{"title":"INTERCEPT 泡沫喷雾后内窥镜的微生物监测结果:新加坡的一项准实验性试点研究。","authors":"Caihong Wang, Rong Zhang, Ruhui Fan, Jiewen Low, Ruochen Du, Xueyun Ma, Congcong Cai","doi":"10.5946/ce.2024.030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/aims: </strong>This study aimed to assess the impact of INTERCEPT Foam Spray (IFS) application on delayed endoscope reprocessing through microbiological surveillance culture (MSC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A quasi-experimental, matched-comparison pilot study was conducted using gastrointestinal endoscopy. IFS was applied to the endoscopes after precleaning and before reprocessing the next day. An equal number of endoscopes, matched by endoscope type, were subjected to routine reprocessing. The MSC were subjected to high-level disinfection to detect any contamination. Data were analyzed using the chi-square test or Fisher exact test (categorical data) and Student t-test (continuous data).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 150 MSCs were collected from 42 endoscopes. Positive MSCs were observed in 4.0% (4/75) of the sprayed group and 1.3% (1/75) of the control group (95% confidence interval [CI], 30.34-0.31; p>0.05), all of which were contributed by colonoscopes. Colonoscope were more prone to positive MSC (mean difference in percentage, p<0.05). Mean spraying hours were not associated with detected growth (11.7% vs. 13.6; 95% CI, 1.43 to -5.27; p>0.05), with environmental and skin flora being the primary contaminants.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>IFS may be applied when delayed endoscope processing is necessary, but with caution when applied to colonoscopes. However, further research is warranted to verify the result.</p>","PeriodicalId":10351,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Endoscopy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Microbiological surveillance result of endoscopes after INTERCEPT Foam Spray: a quasi-experimental pilot study in Singapore.\",\"authors\":\"Caihong Wang, Rong Zhang, Ruhui Fan, Jiewen Low, Ruochen Du, Xueyun Ma, Congcong Cai\",\"doi\":\"10.5946/ce.2024.030\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background/aims: </strong>This study aimed to assess the impact of INTERCEPT Foam Spray (IFS) application on delayed endoscope reprocessing through microbiological surveillance culture (MSC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A quasi-experimental, matched-comparison pilot study was conducted using gastrointestinal endoscopy. IFS was applied to the endoscopes after precleaning and before reprocessing the next day. An equal number of endoscopes, matched by endoscope type, were subjected to routine reprocessing. The MSC were subjected to high-level disinfection to detect any contamination. Data were analyzed using the chi-square test or Fisher exact test (categorical data) and Student t-test (continuous data).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 150 MSCs were collected from 42 endoscopes. Positive MSCs were observed in 4.0% (4/75) of the sprayed group and 1.3% (1/75) of the control group (95% confidence interval [CI], 30.34-0.31; p>0.05), all of which were contributed by colonoscopes. Colonoscope were more prone to positive MSC (mean difference in percentage, p<0.05). Mean spraying hours were not associated with detected growth (11.7% vs. 13.6; 95% CI, 1.43 to -5.27; p>0.05), with environmental and skin flora being the primary contaminants.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>IFS may be applied when delayed endoscope processing is necessary, but with caution when applied to colonoscopes. However, further research is warranted to verify the result.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10351,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Endoscopy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Endoscopy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2024.030\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2024.030","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景/目的:本研究旨在通过微生物监测培养(MSC)评估 INTERCEPT 泡沫喷雾剂(IFS)的应用对延迟内窥镜再处理的影响:方法: 使用消化道内窥镜进行了一项准实验、匹配比较试验研究。在预清洗后和第二天再处理前,对内窥镜进行 IFS 处理。同样数量的内窥镜按内窥镜类型进行匹配,并进行常规再处理。对 MSC 进行高水平消毒,以检测是否存在污染。数据分析采用卡方检验或费雪精确检验(分类数据)和学生 t 检验(连续数据):结果:总共从 42 个内窥镜中收集到 150 个间叶干细胞。喷洒组中有 4.0%(4/75)的间充质干细胞呈阳性,对照组中有 1.3%(1/75)的间充质干细胞呈阳性(95% 置信区间 [CI],30.34-0.31;P>0.05),所有这些间充质干细胞均来自结肠镜。结肠镜更容易出现 MSC 阳性(百分比的平均差异,P0.05),环境和皮肤菌群是主要污染物:结论:当需要延迟处理内窥镜时,可以使用 IFS,但在使用结肠镜时要谨慎。结论:当需要延迟内窥镜处理时,可以采用 IFS,但在应用于结肠镜时要慎重。不过,还需要进一步研究来验证这一结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Microbiological surveillance result of endoscopes after INTERCEPT Foam Spray: a quasi-experimental pilot study in Singapore.

Background/aims: This study aimed to assess the impact of INTERCEPT Foam Spray (IFS) application on delayed endoscope reprocessing through microbiological surveillance culture (MSC).

Methods: A quasi-experimental, matched-comparison pilot study was conducted using gastrointestinal endoscopy. IFS was applied to the endoscopes after precleaning and before reprocessing the next day. An equal number of endoscopes, matched by endoscope type, were subjected to routine reprocessing. The MSC were subjected to high-level disinfection to detect any contamination. Data were analyzed using the chi-square test or Fisher exact test (categorical data) and Student t-test (continuous data).

Results: In total, 150 MSCs were collected from 42 endoscopes. Positive MSCs were observed in 4.0% (4/75) of the sprayed group and 1.3% (1/75) of the control group (95% confidence interval [CI], 30.34-0.31; p>0.05), all of which were contributed by colonoscopes. Colonoscope were more prone to positive MSC (mean difference in percentage, p<0.05). Mean spraying hours were not associated with detected growth (11.7% vs. 13.6; 95% CI, 1.43 to -5.27; p>0.05), with environmental and skin flora being the primary contaminants.

Conclusions: IFS may be applied when delayed endoscope processing is necessary, but with caution when applied to colonoscopes. However, further research is warranted to verify the result.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Endoscopy
Clinical Endoscopy GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
8.00%
发文量
95
审稿时长
26 weeks
期刊最新文献
Effectiveness of a novel ex vivo training model for gastric endoscopic submucosal dissection training: a prospective observational study conducted at a single center in Japan. Microbiological surveillance result of endoscopes after INTERCEPT Foam Spray: a quasi-experimental pilot study in Singapore. Technical challenges and safety of prophylactic gallbladder stenting with metallic biliary stenting. The impact of linked color imaging on adenoma detection rate in colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Novel regimen for colonoscopy bowel preparation with oral lactulose: a prospective comparative study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1