Comparison on the efficacy of automated endoscope reprocessors : orthophthalaldehyde vs. PHMB/DBAC = 내시경 소독기기 및 내시경 소독제 효과 비교 : orthophthalaldehyde vs. PHMB/DBAC

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Background: With the increase in the use of endoscopes for diagnostic and also for therapeutic purposes, the importance of reprocessing has become a top priority to minimize spread of infection through endoscopes. Endoscopes are classified as semicritical item and thus high-level disinfection is required. To standardize and improve the disinfection efficacy, automated endoscopes reprocessors (AERs) have been developed and are being widely used. Recently, a novel endoscope processor, COOLENDO (APEX Korea, Seoul, Korea) has been released on market in Korea. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of two ultrasonographic cleaning incorporated AERs (COOLENDO and OER-A).

Materials and Methods: Endoscope reprocessing was first performed with 40 endoscopes as a pilot study in order to calculate the sample size. Based on the result of the pilot study, random sampling was done on 86 endoscopes. Samples were taken from the tip of insertion tube with swab wetted with normal saline and also after rinsing the working channel with 30mL of normal saline which was later filtered through a membrane filter of 0.22um in size and then incubated onto blood agar plate. The presence of any cultured organism, including H.pylori, was assessed.

Results: The culture-positive rate at the tip of insertion tube and working channel was 0% and 2.33% for COOLENDO and 4.65% and 0% for OER-A. The reprocessing efficacy of COOLENDO was non-inferior to that of OER-A (p = 0.032, C.I. -0.042 to 0.042).

Conclusions: The reprocessing efficacy of COOLENDO was non-inferior to that of OER-A.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Abstract ………………………………………………ii
• I. Introduction ……………………………………… 1
• II. Materials and Methods ………………...........4
• III. Results ……………………………………………9
• IV. Discussion ………………………………………11
• VI. References ...…………………………………. 27