• Respiration · Jan 2021

    Observational Study

    Safe and Efficient Practice of Bronchoscopic Sampling from Mechanically Ventilated Patients: A Structured Evaluation of the Ambu Bronchosampler-Ascope 4 Integrated System.

    • Suveer Singh and Pallav L Shah.
    • Royal Brompton Hospital, London, United Kingdom, suveer.singh@ic.ac.uk.
    • Respiration. 2021 Jan 1; 100 (1): 27-33.

    BackgroundBronchoscopic sampling of bronchoalveolar fluid (BAL) should be safe and effective. Current sampling practice risks loss of sample to the attached negative flow, aerosolisation, or spillage, due to repeated circuit breaks, when replacing sample containers. Such concerns were highlighted during the recent coronavirus pandemic.ObjectivesEvaluation of an alternative integrated sampling solution, with the Ambu Bronchosampler with aScope 4, by an experienced bronchoscopist in ICU.MethodsAn observational study of 20 sequential bronchoscopic diagnostic sampling procedures was performed on mechanically ventilated patients with suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia. Mixed methods assessment was done. The predefined outcome measures were (1) ease of set up, (2) ease of specimen collection, (3) ease of protecting specimen from loss or spillage, and (4) overall workflow. The duration of the procedure and the % volume of sample retrieved were recorded.ResultsThe mean (±standard deviation [SD]) time for collecting 1 sample was 2.5 ± 0.8 min. The mean (±SD) specimen yield for instilled miniBAL was 54.2 ± 17.9%. Compared with standard sampling, the set-up was much easier in 18 (90%), or easier in 2 (10%) of procedures, reducing the connection steps. It was much more intuitive to use in 14 (70%), more intuitive in 4 (20%), and no more intuitive to use in 2 (10%). The overall set-up and workflow was much easier in 69% of the 13 intraprocedural connections and easier or as easy in the remaining 31% procedures. All procedures where pre connection was established were much easier (7, 100%). The Ambu Bronchosampler remained upright in all procedures with no loss or spillage of sample. Obtaining a sample was much easier in 60%, easier in 10%, no different in 20%, and worse in 10%. The ability to protect a sample from start to finish compared to standard procedures was much easier in 80%, easier in 15%, and no different in 5% of procedures. Overall workflow was much easier in 14 (70%), easier in 4 (20%), and no different in 2 (10%) of procedures.ConclusionsThe Ambu Bronchosampler unit was a reliable, effective, and possibly safer technique for diagnostic sampling in ICU. It may improve safety standards during the coronavirus pandemic. A randomized control trial against the standard sampling technique is warranted.© 2021 The Author(s) Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.