Display options
Cite
Bălan GG, Roşca I, Ursu EL, et al. Plasma-activated water: a new and effective alternative for duodenoscope reprocessing. Infect Drug Resist. 2018;11:727-733doi: 10.2147/IDR.S159243.
Bălan, G. G., Roşca, I., Ursu, E. L., Doroftei, F., Bostănaru, A. C., Hnatiuc, E., Năstasă, V., Şandru, V., Ştefănescu, G., Trifan, A., & Mareş, M. (2018). Plasma-activated water: a new and effective alternative for duodenoscope reprocessing. Infection and drug resistance, 11727-733. https://doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S159243
Bălan, Gheorghe G, et al. "Plasma-activated water: a new and effective alternative for duodenoscope reprocessing." Infection and drug resistance vol. 11 (2018): 727-733. doi: https://doi.org/10.2147/IDR.S159243
Bălan GG, Roşca I, Ursu EL, Doroftei F, Bostănaru AC, Hnatiuc E, Năstasă V, Şandru V, Ştefănescu G, Trifan A, Mareş M. Plasma-activated water: a new and effective alternative for duodenoscope reprocessing. Infect Drug Resist. 2018 May 17;11:727-733. doi: 10.2147/IDR.S159243. eCollection 2018. PMID: 29844690; PMCID: PMC5961644.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Infect Drug Resist. 2018 May 17;11:727-733. doi: 10.2147/IDR.S159243. eCollection 2018.

Plasma-activated water: a new and effective alternative for duodenoscope reprocessing.

Infection and drug resistance

Gheorghe G Bălan, Irina Roşca, Elena-Laura Ursu, Florica Doroftei, Andra-Cristina Bostănaru, Eugen Hnatiuc, Valentin Năstasă, Vasile Şandru, Gabriela Ştefănescu, Anca Trifan, Mihai Mareş

Affiliations

  1. Grigore T. Popa University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Ia?i, Romania.
  2. "Petru Poni" Institute of Macromolecular Chemistry, Ia?i, Romania.
  3. Ion Ionescu de la Brad University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine of Iasi, Ia?i, Romania.
  4. "Gheorghe Asachi" Technical University, Ia?i, Romania.
  5. Department of Gastroenterology Research, Clinical Emergency Hospital of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania.

PMID: 29844690 PMCID: PMC5961644 DOI: 10.2147/IDR.S159243

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Duodenoscopes have been widely used for both diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures. Numerous outbreaks of duodenoscope-associated infections involving multidrug-resistant bacteria have recently been reported. Plasma activated water (PAW) has been widely considered an effective agent for surface decontamination and is increasingly used for disinfection of medical equipment. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the duodenoscopes currently on market are suited for the repeated use of PAW and to test the efficacy of PAW for their disinfection.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: In order to evaluate the disinfection efficacy and the required time of contact, the duodenoscope samples were contaminated by immersing them in fasted-state simulated intestinal fluid containing

RESULTS: Significant reductions in bacterial populations were achieved after 30 minutes of PAW treatment, indicating a high-level disinfection. Atomic force microscopy and scanning electron microscopy were used to demonstrate that repeated PAW treatment of duodenoscope coating polymer samples did not result in significant differences in morphological surface between the treated and untreated samples. Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy analysis also showed no significant differences between the elemental composition of the duodenoscope coating polymer samples before and after repeated PAW treatment.

CONCLUSION: Considering these preliminary results, PAW could be considered as a new alternative for duodenoscope reprocessing.

Keywords: PAW; antibacterial activity; disinfection; duodenoscope

Conflict of interest statement

Disclosure The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

  1. J Food Prot. 2008 Oct;71(10):2119-23 - PubMed
  2. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Aug;84(2):259-62 - PubMed
  3. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2013 Apr;26(2):231-54 - PubMed
  4. Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2016 Oct;18(10 ):54 - PubMed
  5. Am J Gastroenterol. 1987 Feb;82(2):171-2 - PubMed
  6. J Clin Microbiol. 1996 Dec;34(12):2881-7 - PubMed
  7. BMJ. 2015 Feb 20;350:h997 - PubMed
  8. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007 Aug;102(8):1781-8 - PubMed
  9. Gastroenterology. 2016 Jul;151(1):46-50 - PubMed
  10. J Appl Microbiol. 2005;98(5):1075-83 - PubMed
  11. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2014 Oct 16;6(10):457-74 - PubMed
  12. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Sep;82(3):477-83 - PubMed
  13. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Apr;81(4):1041-5 - PubMed
  14. Endosc Surg Allied Technol. 1994 Feb;2(1):71-7 - PubMed
  15. Endoscopy. 2010 Nov;42(11):895-9 - PubMed
  16. JAMA. 2014 Oct 8;312(14):1447-55 - PubMed
  17. Gastroenterol Nurs. 2001 Nov-Dec;24(6):294-7 - PubMed
  18. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012 Sep;18(9):E369-72 - PubMed
  19. Endoscopy. 1978 May;10 (2):75-9 - PubMed
  20. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003 Jan;98(1):77-81 - PubMed
  21. Int J Pharm. 2001 Sep 11;226(1-2):1-21 - PubMed
  22. JAMA. 2010 Jun 9;303(22):2273-9 - PubMed
  23. BMC Infect Dis. 2006 Aug 16;6:130 - PubMed
  24. J Clin Microbiol. 2015 Oct;53(10):3118-25 - PubMed
  25. J Burn Care Rehabil. 2000 Nov-Dec;21(6):523-7 - PubMed
  26. J Hosp Infect. 1989 Jul;14(1):49-53 - PubMed
  27. J Hosp Infect. 2004 Apr;56 Suppl 2:S16-22 - PubMed

Publication Types