Cleaning efficacy of nine different cleaners in a washer–disinfector designed for flexible endoscopes

• Published in: The Journal of hospital infection 2002-11, Vol.52 (3), p.206-211
• Main Authors: Zühlsdorf, B., Emmrich, M., Floss, H., Martiny, H.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Biological and medical sciences; Colony Count, Microbial; Disinfectants - standards; Disinfection - instrumentation; Disinfection - methods; Disinfection - standards; Endoscopes - microbiology; Endoscopes, washer–disinfector, cleaning; Endoscopy; Enterococcus faecium - drug effects; Enterococcus faecium - growth & development; Equipment Contamination - prevention & control; Equipment Design; Guidelines as Topic; Humans; Infection Control - instrumentation; Infection Control - methods; Infection Control - standards; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects); Medical sciences; Miscellaneous. Technology; Water Microbiology
• ISSN: 0195-6701; 1532-2939
• DOI: 10.1053/jhin.2002.1284

Studies on processing endoscopes usually involve the combined cleaning and disinfecting activity. We compared nine cleaning agents designed for automatic processing for cleaning efficacy alone using soft and hard water as controls in 12 different processes in a washer–disinfector. Experiments were performed according to the German Endoscopy Working Group recommendations using transparent Teflon tubes (internal diameter 2 mm, length 2 m) as test pieces. For each test three pieces contaminated with a blood/test soil containing Enterococcus faecium were used; two for the test and one as a control; each test was repeated three times. Tests were run according to the manufacturer's instructions. Test pieces were assessed visually and microbiologically [log 10 reduction factors (RF) vs. untreated controls]. Soft water alone gave poor visible cleanliness and an RF of 0.3 ( SD 0.2), while hard water produced adequate visible cleanliness and an RF of 1.2 ( SD 1.0). Five processes gave better visible cleanliness than soft water, but only three were better than hard water. Six processes were worse than soft water and five worse than hard water. Nine processes gave a better microbiological reduction factor than soft water, but the difference was only statistically significant in three. Only one process yielded a significantly higher RF than hard water; three were significantly worse. None of the cleaning processes reached the RF of 4 specified in the US regulations. This study confirms the variability of cleaning processes to dissolve blood residues and reduce the bioburden. We do not recommend abandoning cleaning agents, but suggest that further research is needed to clarify the relationships between washer–disinfectors, cleaning agents, and cleaning performance.