Suppr超能文献

电解酸性水在再处理患者使用过的软性上消化道内窥镜中的效果:与2%碱性戊二醛的比较。

Efficacy of electrolyzed acid water in reprocessing patient-used flexible upper endoscopes: Comparison with 2% alkaline glutaraldehyde.

作者信息

Lee Jun Haeng, Rhee Poong-Lyul, Kim Jeong Hwan, Kim Jae J, Paik Seung Woon, Rhee Jong Chul, Song Jae-Hoon, Yeom Joon Sup, Lee Nam Yong

机构信息

Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 50 Ilwon-Dong. Kangnam-Ku, Seoul 135-710, Korea.

出版信息

J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004 Aug;19(8):897-903. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1746.2004.03375.x.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Two percent glutaraldehyde, the most widely used liquid chemical germicide (LCG), may be hazardous to patients and medical personnel. Alternatives to glutaraldehyde, such as electrolyzed acid water (EAW), are being developed, but data from well-controlled studies with patient-used endoscopes are rare. The purpose of the present paper was to evaluate the high-level disinfection capability of EAW and compare it with glutaraldehyde.

METHODS

A random sample of 125 endoscopes was collected immediately after upper endoscopic examination. After careful manual cleaning, endoscopes were divided into a glutaraldehyde and EAW group. After the disinfection procedure, samples from working channel (S-1), insertion tube (S-2), umbilical cord (S-3), and angulation knob (S-4) were taken and cultured. Another twenty endoscopes were experimentally contaminated with hepatitis B virus (HBV) and samples were collected after contamination (T-1), after manual cleaning (T-2), and after final disinfection (T-3). Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for HBV-DNA was performed.

RESULTS

In the EAW group, culture-positive rates were 3.2% in S-1, 9.5% in S-2, 3.2% in S-3, and 27.0% in the S-4 samples. There was no significant difference between the EAW and glutaraldehyde groups for all sampling sites. However, in both groups, disinfection of the angulation knobs (S-4) was less efficient than the others. For the T-1 site, HBV-DNA was detected from all of them, and in 95% (19/20) of T-2. However, HBV-DNA was not detected from T-3 samples.

CONCLUSIONS

Electrolyzed acid water is as efficient as glutaraldehyde in eliminating bacteria from patient-used endoscopes. After disinfection procedures using both methods, HBV-DNA was not detected from any endoscopes experimentally contaminated with HBV-positive mixed sera. However, some bacteria may remain on the surface of the endoscopes. Therefore, more careful precleaning of the endoscopes may help achieve high-level disinfection in the clinical setting.

摘要

背景与目的

2%的戊二醛是使用最广泛的液体化学杀菌剂(LCG),可能对患者和医护人员有害。正在研发戊二醛的替代品,如电解酸性水(EAW),但关于患者使用的内窥镜的严格对照研究数据很少。本文的目的是评估电解酸性水的高水平消毒能力,并将其与戊二醛进行比较。

方法

在上消化道内镜检查后立即随机收集125条内窥镜。经过仔细的手工清洗后,将内窥镜分为戊二醛组和电解酸性水组。消毒程序完成后,从工作通道(S-1)、插入管(S-2)、脐带(S-3)和角度旋钮(S-4)采集样本并进行培养。另外20条内窥镜用乙型肝炎病毒(HBV)进行实验性污染,并在污染后(T-1)、手工清洗后(T-2)和最终消毒后(T-3)采集样本。进行HBV-DNA的聚合酶链反应(PCR)。

结果

在电解酸性水组中,S-1样本的培养阳性率为3.2%,S-2为9.5%,S-3为3.2%,S-4样本为27.0%。所有采样部位的电解酸性水组和戊二醛组之间无显著差异。然而,在两组中,角度旋钮(S-4)的消毒效率均低于其他部位。对于T-1部位,所有样本均检测到HBV-DNA,T-2的95%(19/20)检测到。然而,T-3样本未检测到HBV-DNA。

结论

电解酸性水在消除患者使用的内窥镜上的细菌方面与戊二醛一样有效。使用这两种方法进行消毒程序后,在任何用HBV阳性混合血清进行实验性污染的内窥镜上均未检测到HBV-DNA。然而,内窥镜表面可能仍有一些细菌。因此,在内窥镜检查前更仔细的清洗可能有助于在临床环境中实现高水平消毒。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验