2%碱性戊二醛与邻苯二甲醛对内镜的消毒比较

近年来新型内镜相继问世，如电子内镜、放大胃镜、超声胃镜等，由于内镜均为重复使用，故应作好清洗和消毒工作，以防交叉感染。近几年消毒剂得到迅速发展，常用消毒剂有：洗必泰、84液、餐具净333、酸化电位水、戊二醛、邻苯二甲醛等，为了进一步加强内镜消毒灭菌工作，保障质量和医疗安全，严格预防内镜消毒不佳所导致的医院感染，确保人民生命安全，我们比较了2％碱性戊二醛与0．55％邻苯二甲醛消毒剂对内镜的消毒效果，现报道如下。     

氧(酸)化电位水对消化内镜幽门螺杆菌消毒效果评价

近来，因消化内镜检查造成医源性感染的报道越来越多，尤其是幽门螺杆菌（Ｈｐ）造成的消化内镜交叉感染的发生率有增长的趋势。因此，对内镜快速有效的消毒就显得尤为重要。本文观察了氧（酸）化电位水与清洗消毒剂，就其临床清除Ｈｐ的效果做了比较。另外本文加设了自来水冲洗组，以证实Ｈｐ的清除是否完全为所选用消毒剂的效果。一、材料与方法：（１）消毒剂：氧（酸）化电位水（ＯＲＰ１１５０ｍＶ，ｐＨ２．７），清洗消毒剂（有效氯５％，稀释比例：原药、水１∶２０）。（２）胃镜清洗消毒方法：每一例患者胃镜检查后均用清水及洗涤…     

医院消化内镜清洗消毒情况调查分析

目的调查湖北省部分医院消化内镜清洗消毒一般情况。方法采用问卷的形式对湖北省42家医院消化内镜清洗消毒的一般情况进行调查。结果共收到有效问卷42份，其中所有的内镜中心都预先制定了内镜清洗消毒流程图，47．6％的医院设立了专门的内镜清洗消毒人员。医护人员能做到全面防护的仅占23．8％。内镜检查前，进行乙肝表面抗原筛查的占95．2％，内镜消毒前使用多酶洗剂清洗的占90．5％，化学消毒剂以2％戊二醛为主的占97．6％。消毒时间符合规定要求的占85．4％。消毒结束后内镜孔道以无菌水冲洗的占28．6％。每日内镜应用结束后内镜孔道注入乙醇的占19．0％。购置了全自动清洗消毒机的仅占9．5％。设立了单独的清洗消毒室，且安装了室内空气净化装置的占76．2％。内镜附件40．5％的使用高压蒸汽灭菌法消毒，33．3％使用环氧乙烷消毒。95．2％的医院都有内镜清洗消毒的质量监控管理。结论湖北省消化内镜清洗消毒在操作的规范化、设备投入、高效消毒剂的选用和质量监控方面都有很大提高，但某些方面仍不能令人满意。随着技术的改进、资金的投入和监督的加强，内镜清洗消毒的水平将会达到一个更高的标准。     

氧(酸)化电位水对消化内镜消毒效果评价

氧（酸）化电位水在消化内镜消毒中的应用价值探讨。将６０例行胃镜检查的患者随机分成２组，每组３０例，拔出胃镜后立即经活检孔道注入２ｍｌ生理盐水，胃镜头端流出的液体进行细菌培养。随机分别采用氧（酸）化电位水和清洗消毒剂对胃镜消毒后，应用前地细菌培养。     

清洗、消毒后消化内镜储藏安全期的探讨

目的探讨清洗消毒和储藏后内镜再使用的安全性。方法完成检查后内镜（胃镜、肠镜、十二指肠镜），经人工清洗、消毒后悬挂在储藏柜中。储存3d后于内镜表面、活检孔道采样进行细菌培养。结果清洗、消毒后所有内镜均无菌生长．储存3d后采样未见细菌生长。结论严格执行内镜处理指南，内镜在储藏柜中储存3d，使用前的处理可能是不必要的。     

微酸性氧化电位水消毒消化内镜的可行性研究

目的探讨微酸性氧化电位水应用于消化道内镜消毒的可行性。方法利用氧化电位水生成器生产出微酸性氧化电位水,观察所制备的微酸性氧化电位水应用于消化内镜的消毒效果。结果对215条次内镜消毒后的细菌培养,微酸性氧化电位水与2％戊二醛机洗的平均杀菌率分别为99．92％和99．85％,而手洗的平均杀菌率分别为99．85％和99．84％,二者差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）,两种方法合格率均为100％。内镜经微酸性氧化电位水消毒浸泡,所有内镜均无老化、变形,消毒液对内镜清洗消毒机均无损伤。结论微酸性氧化电位水应用于消化道内镜的清洗消毒切实可行。     

一体化内镜洗消中心与全自动洗消机对内镜清洗消毒效果的临床观察

目的对一体化内镜清洗中心与全自动洗消机,在内镜周转、干燥合格、洗消规范性及消毒监测等方面进行分析比较,探求内镜消毒灭菌质量控制的较好途径,进一步规范消化内镜的清洗消毒行为,以保障内镜消毒效果,杜绝交叉感染。方法随机抽取2015年6月的检查胃镜302例,将胃镜清洗消毒工作,分为一体化内镜清洗中心组(A组156例)和全自动洗消机组(B组156例),两种方法在内镜周转、干燥合格、洗消规范性及消毒监测等方面进行分析比较。结果一体化内镜清洗中心组,在内镜周转、干燥合格、洗消规范性及消毒监测等方面,明显优于全自动洗消机组。结论一体化内镜清洗中心有利于规范内镜清洗消毒流程,保证内镜消毒效果,提高职业安全防护意识,提高内镜周转、干燥合格、洗消规范性,控制成本支出,保障医疗安全质量。     

Ⅲ型过氧乙酸消毒液用于消化内镜的消毒效果观察

目的评估Ⅲ型过氧乙酸消毒液的内镜消毒效果。方法按照2016版《软式内镜清洗消毒技术规范》规定的内镜清洗消毒流程,分别使用2%戊二醛和Ⅲ型过氧乙酸消毒液对内镜进行消毒,在指定步骤通过内镜活检通道采样,对采样标本进行细菌培养计数和致病菌检测。采用化学免疫发光法检测Ⅲ型过氧乙酸消毒液消毒后样本的乙型肝炎病毒表面抗原（HBsAg）、丙型肝炎病毒抗体（抗-HCV）及梅毒螺旋体特异性抗体（TP-Ab）水平。选取部分使用Ⅲ型过氧乙酸消毒液进行消毒的内镜连续采集样本5 d。结果使用2%戊二醛消毒剂的胃镜56条、肠镜16条（戊二醛组）,使用Ⅲ型过氧乙酸消毒液的胃镜46条、肠镜15条（过氧乙酸组）,戊二醛组及过氧乙酸组消毒后胃、肠镜菌落计数均明显减少（P＜005）,过氧乙酸组胃镜消毒合格率和总合格率均高于戊二醛组[胃镜消毒合格率：9783%（45/46）比9286%（52/56）,P＞005;总合格率：9836%（60/61）比9444%（68/72）,P＞005],2组肠镜消毒合格率均为10000%（15/15,16/16）。Ⅲ型过氧乙酸消毒液消毒后胃、肠镜取样样本中HBsAg、抗-HCV及TP-Ab均为阴性;连续采样5 d的内镜在各时间点测得的菌落数目差异无统计学意义（P＞005）。结论Ⅲ型过氧乙酸消毒液能够达到对消化内镜高水平消毒标准,且经Ⅲ型过氧乙酸消毒后的内镜活检管道内壁无明显不易清除的细菌残留附着,可安全应用于临床。     

陕西省召开消化内镜清洗消毒专题讨论会

陕西省召开消化内镜清洗消毒专题讨论会陕西省消化内镜学会于１９９３年６月１８日召开了消化内镜清洗消毒专题讨论会。现将这次会议的讨论内容概述如下。１．充分地人工清洗是一个重要环节。包括：从病人体内退出镜子后，立即冲洗送气、送水管。内镜外部清洗：刷洗镜端、...     

胃镜清洗消毒前后幽门螺杆菌的检测

目前国内常规胃镜清洗消毒方法多为三步法,即清洗、消毒和冲洗,现观察两种常用消毒剂对胃镜幽门螺杆菌（Hp）的清除效果。 一、材料与方法 1.胃镜清洗消毒方法:在每例胃镜检查后,均用金鱼洗涤剂刷洗胃镜表面以去除粘液及血液,并进行抽吸以冲洗胃镜各通道,时间约 30s;然后用戊二醛消毒剂浸泡镜身及活检通道3 min或用四环牌清洗消毒剂（含有效氯消毒剂）浸泡5 min,同时用毛刷刷洗活检通道;最后用流动水冲洗镜身表面及进行抽吸冲洗通道,以去除残留的消毒剂,时间约1min,然后用于下一个患者检查。     

内镜手工清洗消毒研究及自动清洗消毒机消毒效果抽样调查

目的 了解消化内镜清洗消毒现状,选择实用可靠的内镜清洗消毒方法。方法 在北京部分三级甲等医院进行内镜清洗时加或不加酶洁液、2％戊二醛7min消毒效果的测试;并抽查国产自动清洗消毒机的消毒效果。结果 测试部分:使用酶洁液清洗组301例,2％戊二醛浸泡消毒7min,不长菌例数为283例（94、02％）;不使用酶洁液组155例,2％戊二醛浸泡消毒7min,不长菌例数为137例（88.39％）。以清洗消毒后每条胃镜≤20个非致病细菌数为合格标准,使用酶洁液组合格为298例（99.00％）,不使用酶洁液组147例（94.84％）,两组清洗消毒效果差异有统计学意义（P<0.01）。抽查部分:清洗消毒机135例,清洗消毒3 min后不长菌为4例（11.43％）,以清洗消毒后每条胃镜≤20个非致病细菌数作为合格标准,合格为5例（14.29％）;清洗消毒机 Ⅱ29例,清洗消毒 3min,不长菌为2例（6.90％）,合格例数为6例（20.69％）;清洗消毒机Ⅱ20例,更换消毒液,清洗消毒3 min 2次,不长菌为17例（85.00％）,合格例数为18例（90.00％）。结论 内镜使用后各个部分的彻底清洗是保证消毒质量的重要环节,清洗过程中使用酶洁液明显增加了清洁度,在此基础上2％戊二醛浸泡消毒7min可达到内镜消毒标准。目前使用的国产内镜清洗消毒机常规单一的3min和6min的消毒程序达不到     

Reprocessing of flexible endoscopes and endoscopic accessories - an international comparison of guidelines

Endoscopic examinations and procedures are essential for diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal diseases. As a result of poor reprocessing practice microorganisms can be transmitted via endoscope. The majority of infection transmissions is due to insufficient performance of cleaning and disinfection disregarding guidelines of societies of gastrointestinal endoscopy. A review of the literature and a comparison of European and American guidelines for reprocessing flexible endoscopes are given. Differences in the classification of endoscopic devices, on the possibility of prion transmission, recommendations on staff training and protection, quality assurance of reprocessing and evidence-based graduation of guidelines are stressed and discussed. With respect to the procedure of endoscope reprocessing, differences concerning the cleaning solution to choose, necessity of thoroughly manual cleaning and brushing of the accessible endoscope channels (even in the case of subsequent automatic reprocessing endoscopes in washers-disinfectors), disinfection solution, microbiological quality of water for final rinsing and rationale for alcohol flush of endoscope channels for better drying are mentioned. The need for experimental investigations of the cleaning and disinfection process is stressed. In contrast to recent guidelines of European and American societies of gastrointestinal endoscopy, the now updated recommendations of the Robert Koch-Institute for reprocessing flexible endoscopes and endoscopic accessories are evidence-based and graduated.     

Preventing nosocomial infections from gastrointestinal endoscopy

Gastrointestinal procedures have been associated with a wide range of infectious complications, including bacterial endocarditis. Although the rate of bacteremia from the patient's own flora is quite high after some procedures, only a few cases of endocarditis caused by gastrointestinal instrumentation have been reported. Because of the severity of the illness, however, antibiotic prophylaxis has been recommended for patients who are categorized as high risk for some procedures. Bacteremia and other infections, such as colitis, may also originate from a contaminated endoscope. To prevent such an occurrence, high-level disinfection has been recommended for gastrointestinal endoscopes. High-level disinfection includes manual cleaning of the endoscope, flushing of internal channels with a liquid chemical sterilant, and thorough rinsing and drying of internal lumens.     

Disinfection of upper gastrointestinal fibreoptic endoscopy equipment: an evaluation of a cetrimide chlorhexidine solution and glutaraldehyde.

There is little information available on the bacteriological contamination of upper gastrointestinal fibreoptic endoscopes during routine use and the effects of 'disinfecting solutions'. A bacteriological evaluation was therefore made of cleaning an endoscope and its ancillary equipment with (1) water, (2) an aqueous solution of 1% cetrimide with 0.1% chlorhexidine, and (3) activated aqueous 2% glutaraldehyde. All equipment, but particularly the endoscope itself, was found to be heavily contaminated after use with a wide variety of organisms of which 53% were Gram positive. Cleaning the endoscope and ancillary equipment with water and the cetrimide/chlorhexidine solution alone or in combination was inadequate to produce disinfection but immersion in glutaraldehyde for two minutes consistently produced sterile cultures with our sampling technique. A rapid and simple method for disinfection of endoscopic equipment is therefore recommended and we think this is especially suitable for busy endoscopy units.     

Esophageal manometry: equipment cleaning and disinfection with glutaraldehyde

BACKGROUND: Many publications have emphasized the need of proper cleaning, disinfection and sterilization process for reused materials intended to prevent cross infections. As the endoscope the esophageal manometry catheters are considered as semicritical materials and must be free of microrganisms. AIM: To standardize the esophageal manometry materials cleaning and disinfection process to guarantee the safety of patients when reusing semicritical materials. It was based on international protocols and according to recommendations of the Hospital Infection Control Commission of the "Hospital de Clinicas de Porto Alegre", Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Enzymatic detergent was used for catheter cleaning, followed by immersion with 2% glutaraldehyde solution during 20 minutes for high-level disinfection. The water reservatory was kept clean and dry to prevent microorganisms proliferation. CONCLUSIONS: The high level disinfection with 2% glutaraldehyde, preceded by enzymatic detergent cleaning, is a safe and simple technique that avoids cross infection in the esophageal manometry equipment. This care must be taken after each manometric procedure. The transducers must be resterilized in ethylene oxide. The professionals of this area must work in concordance with the Hospital Infection Control Commission, being acquainted with the country laws and regulations and keeping sterilizing process and materials updated.     

Elimination of high titre HIV from fibreoptic endoscopes.

Concern about contamination of fibreoptic endoscopes with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) has generated a variety of disruptive and possibly unnecessary infection control practices in endoscopy units. Current recommendations on the cleaning and disinfection of endoscopes have been formulated without applied experimental evidence of the effective removal of HIV from endoscopes. To study the kinetics of elimination of HIV from endoscope surfaces, we artificially contaminated the suction-biopsy channels of five Olympus GIF XQ20 endoscopes with high titre HIV in serum. The air and water channels of two instruments were similarly contaminated. Contamination was measured by irrigating channels with viral culture medium and collecting 3 ml at the distal end for antigen immunoassay. Endoscopes were then cleaned manually in neutral detergent according to the manufacturer's recommendations and disinfected in 2% alkaline glutaraldehyde (Cidex, Surgikos) for two, four, and ten minutes. Contamination with HIV antigens was measured before and after cleaning and after each period of disinfection. Initial contamination comprised 4.8 x 10(4) to 3.5 x 10(6) pg HIV antigen/ml. Cleaning in detergent achieved a reduction to 165 pg/ml (99.93%) on one endoscope and to undetectable levels (100%) on four. After two minutes in alkaline glutaraldehyde all samples were negative and remained negative after the longer disinfection times. Air and water channels, where contaminated, were tested after 10 minutes' disinfection and were negative. These findings underline the importance of cleaning in removing HIV from endoscope and indicate that the use of dedicated equipment and long disinfection times are unnecessary.     

Cleaning and disinfection of equipment for gastrointestinal flexible endoscopy: interim recommendations of a Working Party of the British Society of Gastroenterology.

1. All patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy must be considered 'at risk' for HIV and appropriate cleaning/disinfection measures taken for endoscopes and accessories. 2. Thorough manual cleaning with detergent, of the instrument and its channels is the most important part of the cleaning/disinfection procedure. Without this, blood, mucus and organic material will prevent adequate penetration of disinfectant for inactivation of bacteria and viruses. 3. Aldehyde preparations (2% activated glutaraldehyde and related products) are the recommended first line antibacterial and antiviral disinfectant. A four minute soak is recommended as sufficient for inactivation of vegetative bacteria and viruses (including HIV and HBV). 4. Quaternary ammonium detergents (8% Dettox for two minutes for bacterial disinfection), followed by exposure of the endoscope shaft and channels to ethyl alcohol (70% for four minutes for viral inactivation), is an acceptable second-line disinfectant routine where staff sensitisation prevents the use of an aldehyde disinfectant. 5. Accessories, including mouthguards and cleaning brushes, require similarly careful cleaning/disinfection, before and after each use. Disposable products (especially injection needles) may be used and appropriate items can be sterilised by autoclaving and kept in sterile packs. 6. Closed circuit endoscope washing machines have advantages in maintaining standards and avoiding staff sensitisation to disinfectants. Improved ventilation including exhaust extraction facilities may be required. 7. Endoscopy staff should receive HBV vaccination, wear gloves and appropriate protective garments, cover wounds or abrasions and avoid needlestick injuries (including spiked forceps, etc). 8. Known HIV-infected or AIDS patients are managed as immunosuppressed, and require protection from atypical mycobacteria/cryptosporidia etc, by one hour aldehyde disinfection of endoscopic equipment before and after the procedure. A dedicated instrument is not required. 9. Increased funding is necessary for capital purchases of GI endoscopic equipment, including extra and immersible endoscopes with additional accessories to allow for safe practice. 10. Greater numbers of trained GI assistants are needed to ensure that cleaning/disinfection recommendations and safety precautions are followed, both during routine lists and emergency endoscopic procedures. 11. These recommendations are based on expert interpretation of current data on infectivity and disinfection; they may require future modification.     

Reprocessing of flexible endoscopes

Abstract Proper reprocessing of endoscopes prevents the risk of transmission of infection between patients. Meticulous mechanical cleaning is the most important step as it removes the majority of the contaminating bacteria. It should be performed before manual or automatic disinfection. High-level disinfection involves total immersion of the endoscope in a liquid chemical germicide (LCG) at a preset temperature and concentration for a pre-determined period of time. Subsequent rinsing and drying are essential steps to remove the chemical solution and prevent bacterial colonization during storage. Endoscopy units that are used for more than 50 procedures per week may benefit from cleaning in an automatic endoscope reprocessor (AER). This allows automated exposure of the endoscope to the LCG with subsequent flushing and drying of the channels, and minimizes staff exposure to the LCG. Reprocessing should be performed by trained and accredited personnel according to written guidelines or standards of practice as defined by professional societies. Regular monitoring of the reprocessing process is important for quality control and in ensuring patients' safety.     

Cleaning and disinfection of fiberoptic endoscopes: evaluation of glutaraldehyde exposure time and forced-air drying

Several alternative schedules of cleaning and disinfection of flexible fiberoptic endoscopes were evaluated during actual use in paired endoscopy suites. Thorough mechanical cleaning with detergent and alcohol was compared with the same cleaning with the addition of 5-, 10-, or 20-min immersion of the endoscope insertion tube in 2% alkaline glutaraldehyde solution. Endoscopes were cultured quantitatively and qualitatively for aerobic bacteria at three different times relative to procedures: after use, immediately after cleaning alone or cleaning plus disinfection, and after storage unused in a cabinet for 20-72 h. Cleaning plus glutaraldehyde immersion for 5 min significantly reduced bacterial contamination both immediately and after storage when compared with cleaning alone. Results of cleaning plus 10- and 20-min glutaraldehyde immersion were not statistically different from cleaning plus 5-min glutaraldehyde immersion. The addition of forced-air drying following disinfection significantly reduced bacterial contamination following storage when compared with storage without previous drying. Cleaning plus brief (5-20 min) glutaraldehyde immersion significantly reduced bacterial contamination of endoscopes when compared with cleaning alone (p less than 0.001) and, when combined with forced-air drying before storage, resulted in 59/63 (94%) negative endoscope cultures by the methods used in this study. These measures do not ensure sterility, but are superior to mechanical cleaning alone and sufficiently practical to be used routinely without undue interruption of busy endoscopy schedules.     

Conventional Cleaning and Disinfection Techniques Eliminate the Risk of Endoscopic Transmission of Helicobacter pylori

Objective : To determine whether endoscopes serve as a reservoir for Helicobacter pylori and whether two commonly used cleaning and disinfection methods eliminate the risk of H. pylori transmission. Methods : A prospective study was carried out in 107 patients who were undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for routine clinical indications. H. pylori DNA was assayed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) of endoscope washes before and after procedure, in gastric aspirates and in endoscope washes after cleaning and disinfection of endoscopes. Gastric biopsies were assayed by rapid urease test (CLOtest, Tri-Med Specialties Inc., Lenexa, KS) of two antral biopsies. Results : Forty-one of 107 (38%) patients were H. pylori-positive by PCR. Endoscopes were contaminated after 25 of 41 (61%) H. pylori-positive procedures. However, 107 of 107 pre-endoscopy and postcleaning aspirates were negative, indicating that decontamination was 100% effective. The urease test was positive in 25 of 41 H. pylori-positive patients, a sensitivity of 61%. PCR was positive in 41 of 41 H. pylori-positive patients, a sensitivity of 100%. In 5 of 16 PCR-positive/urease-negative patients, the identification of H. pylori was clinically relevant. Conclusion : Endoscopes are frequently contaminated with H. pylori after endoscopy in H. pylori-infected patients, but conventional cleaning and disinfection techniques are highly effective in eliminating H. pylori . When appropriate negative control samples are obtained from the endoscope, PCR of endoscopic gastric aspirates appears to be a sensitive test that can detect clinically relevant H. pylori infection that is missed when only a rapid urease test is used.