Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2022
Prospective Study Assessing Impact of Ethylene Oxide Sterilization on Endoscopic Ultrasound Image Quality.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Majumder Shounak, Long Zaiyang, Hooke Alexander W, Petersen Bret T, Gleeson Ferga C, Bruno Marco, DeWitt John, Elta Grace, Fuji Larissa, Gomez Victoria, Palazzo Laurent, Shami Vanessa M, Stevens Tyler, Topazian Mark D, Wiersema Maurits J, Berglund Lawrence J, Abu Dayyeh Barham K, Chandrasekhara Vinay, Iyer Prasad G, Rajan Elizabeth, Storm Andrew C, Wang Kenneth K, Lennon Ryan, Larson Joseph J, Enders Felicity T, Frein Jed R, Yates Raymond A, Hangiandreou Nicholas J, Levy Michael J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Duodenoscope-associated transmission of infections has raised questions about efficacy of endoscope reprocessing using high-level disinfection (HLD). Although ethylene oxide (ETO) gas sterilization is effective in eradicating microbes, the impact of ETO on endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) imaging equipment remains unknown. In this study, we aimed to compare the changes in EUS image quality associated with HLD vs HLD followed by ETO sterilization.
METHODS: Four new EUS instruments were assigned to 2 groups: Group 1 (HLD) and Group 2 (HLD + ETO). The echoendoscopes were assessed at baseline, monthly for 6 months, and once every 3 to 4 months thereafter, for a total of 12 time points. At each time point, review of EUS video and still image quality was performed by an expert panel of reviewers along with phantom-based objective testing. Linear mixed effects models were used to assess whether the modality of reprocessing impacted image and video quality.
RESULTS: For clinical testing, mixed linear models showed minimal quantitative differences in linear analog score (P = .04; estimated change, 3.12; scale, 0-100) and overall image quality value (P = .007; estimated change, -0.12; scale, 1-5) favoring ETO but not for rank value (P = .06). On phantom testing, maximum depth of penetration was lower for ETO endoscopes (P < .001; change in depth, 0.49 cm).
CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective study, expert review and phantom-based testing demonstrated minimal differences in image quality between echoendoscopes reprocessed using HLD vs ETO + HLD over 2 years of clinical use. Further studies are warranted to assess the long-term clinical impact of these findings. In the interim, these results support use of ETO sterilization of EUS instruments if deemed clinically necessary.
METHODS: Four new EUS instruments were assigned to 2 groups: Group 1 (HLD) and Group 2 (HLD + ETO). The echoendoscopes were assessed at baseline, monthly for 6 months, and once every 3 to 4 months thereafter, for a total of 12 time points. At each time point, review of EUS video and still image quality was performed by an expert panel of reviewers along with phantom-based objective testing. Linear mixed effects models were used to assess whether the modality of reprocessing impacted image and video quality.
RESULTS: For clinical testing, mixed linear models showed minimal quantitative differences in linear analog score (P = .04; estimated change, 3.12; scale, 0-100) and overall image quality value (P = .007; estimated change, -0.12; scale, 1-5) favoring ETO but not for rank value (P = .06). On phantom testing, maximum depth of penetration was lower for ETO endoscopes (P < .001; change in depth, 0.49 cm).
CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective study, expert review and phantom-based testing demonstrated minimal differences in image quality between echoendoscopes reprocessed using HLD vs ETO + HLD over 2 years of clinical use. Further studies are warranted to assess the long-term clinical impact of these findings. In the interim, these results support use of ETO sterilization of EUS instruments if deemed clinically necessary.