Lia Moshkanbaryans1, Vaibhav Shah2, Lit Yeen Tan3, Michael P. Jones4, Karen Vickery5, Michelle Alfa6, Mr. Jonathan Burdach1
1Medical Affairs, Nanosonics Ltd., Sydney, Australia, 2Bioscience, Nanosonics Ltd., Sydney, Australia, 3Clinical Affairs, Nanosonics Ltd., Sydney, Australia, 4School of Psychological Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Health & Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia , 5Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia, 6AlfaMed Consulting, Winnipeg, Canada
Biography:
Jon Burdach, PhD, is Chief Medical Affairs and Scientific Officer at Nanosonics Ltd. Dr. Burdach is responsible for the company's medical strategy, including clinical research, healthcare professional engagement, scientific communications and medical education initiatives.
Dr. Burdach received his Bachelor's degree in Biomedical Science from the University of Tasmania and his PhD in Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics from the University of New South Wales. He has worked within the medical research space for over 15 years and has served as a committee member on various standards development committees and has authored numerous scientific publications and regularly presents at international conferences.
Abstract:
Introduction
Biofilm contributes significantly to bacterial persistence in endoscope channels. Enhanced cleaning methods capable of removing biofilm from all endoscope channels are required to decrease infection risk to patients. This head-to-head study compared cyclic build-up biofilm (CBB) removal of an automated endoscope channel cleaner (AECC) to standard manual cleaning (MC) according to instructions for use (IFU) in polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE) channels.
Methods
CBB was grown in 3.7mm inner diameter PTFE tubing (representing suction/biopsy channels) and 1.4mm PTFE tubing (representing air/water and auxiliary channels). Four cumulative cycles of biofilm growth were followed by fixation with glutaraldehyde. An additional round of soiling was conducted before cleaning protocols commenced. AECC was conducted according to the manufacturer’s IFU. All channels were tested for residual total organic carbon (TOC), protein, and viable bacteria (CFU) of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterococcus faecalis. Internationally recognised ISO 15883-5:2021 alert levels were used as cleaning benchmarks for protein (3μg/cm²) and TOC (6μg/cm²).
Results
The automated cleaner significantly outperformed manual cleaning for all markers assessed (protein, TOC, viable bacteria) in 1.4mm and 3.7mm channels representing air/water/auxiliary and suction/biopsy channels respectively. Manual cleaning failed to remove biofilm from the air/water and auxiliary channels, with levels of all tested markers persisting beyond alert levels. According to the IFU, these channels are not brushed, suggesting a potential root cause for a portion of the numerous endoscopy-associated infections reported in the literature.
Conclusion
AECC shows potential to deliver enhanced cleaning over current practice to all endoscope channels and may thereby address infection risk.