Does bronchoscopy help the diagnosis in COVID-19 infection?

Evaluation of STANDARD™ M10 SARS-CoV-2 from bronchoalveolar lavage samples

Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) is considered as a promising alternative method to detect COVID-19 infection. STANDARD™ M10 SARS-CoV-2 assay on 150 negative and 50 positives BAL samples for SARS-CoV-2 showed 96 % sensitivity, 100 % specificity compared to Allplex™ SARS-CoV-2 assay and a 31.25 genomic copies/mL limit of detection.

Utility of bronchoalveolar lavage for COVID-19: a perspective from the Dragon consortium

Diagnosing COVID-19 and treating its complications remains a challenge. This review reflects the perspective of some of the Dragon (IMI 2-call 21, #101005122) research consortium collaborators on the utility of bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) in COVID-19. BAL has been proposed as a potentially useful diagnostic tool to increase COVID-19 diagnosis sensitivity. In both critically ill and non-critically ill COVID-19 patients, BAL has a relevant role in detecting other infections or supporting alternative diagnoses and can change management decisions in up to two-thirds of patients. BAL is used to guide steroid and immunosuppressive treatment and to narrow or discontinue antibiotic treatment, reducing the use of unnecessary broad antibiotics. Moreover, cellular analysis and novel multi-omics techniques on BAL are of critical importance for understanding the microenvironment and interaction between epithelial cells and immunity, revealing novel potential prognostic and therapeutic targets. The BAL technique has been described as safe for both patients and healthcare workers in more than a thousand procedures reported to date in the literature. Based on these preliminary studies, we recognize that BAL is a feasible procedure in COVID-19 known or suspected cases, useful to properly guide patient management, and has great potential for research.

Diagnostic Role of Bronchoalveolar Lavage in Patients with Suspected SARS-CoV-2 Pneumonia and Negative Upper Respiratory Tract Swab: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The added role of bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) in SARS-CoV-2 detection in hospitalized patients with suspected COVID-19 pneumonia and at least one negative nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) has yet to be definitively established. We aimed to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize data from the literature on the diagnostic yield of BAL in this context. We searched Medline and Embase for all studies reporting outcomes of interest published up to October 2021. Two authors reviewed all titles/abstracts and retrieved the selected full texts according to predefined selection criteria. The summary estimate was derived using the random-effects model. Thirteen original studies, involving 868 patients, were included. The summary estimate of proportions of SARS-CoV-2 positivity in BAL fluid in patients with at least one previous negative NPS was 20% (95% confidence interval [CI]; 11–30%). Moreover, microbiological tests of BAL fluid led to the identification of other pathogens, mainly bacteria, in up to two-thirds of cases. BAL plays a crucial role in the diagnostic work-up of patients with clinical suspicion of COVID-19 and previous negative NPS, as it allowed to detect the infection in a significant proportion of subjects, who would have been otherwise misclassified, with relevant implications in the prevention of disease spread, especially in hospital settings.

Diagnosing COVID-19; towards a feasible COVID-19 rule-out protocol

Introduction: We present the results of the COVID-19 rule-out protocol at Ghent University Hospital, a step-wise testing approach which included repeat NFS SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR, respiratory multiplex RT-PCR, low-dose chest CT and bronchoscopy with BAL to confirm or rule-out SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients admitted with symptoms suggestive of COVID-19.

Results: Between 19 March 2020 and 30 April 2020, 455 non-critically ill patients with symptoms suspect for COVID-19 were admitted. The initial NFS for SARS-CoV-2 rRT-PCR yielded 66.9%, the second NFS 25.4% and bronchoscopy with BAL 5.9% of total COVID-19 diagnoses. In the BAL fluid, other respiratory pathogens were detected in 65% (13/20) of the COVID-19 negative patients and only in 1/7 COVID-19 positive patients. Retrospective antibody testing at the time around BAL sampling showed a positive IgA or IgG in 42.9 % of the COVID-19 positive and 10.5% of the COVID-19 negative group. Follow-up serology showed 100% COVID-19 positivity in the COVID-19 positive group and 100% IgG negativity in the COVID-19 negative group.

Conclusion: In our experience, bronchoscopy with BAL can have an added value to rule-in or rule-out COVID-19 in patients with clinical and radiographical high-likelihood of COVID-19 and repeated negative NFS testing. Furthermore, culture and respiratory multiplex PCR on BAL fluid can aid to identify alternative microbial etiological agents in this group. Retrospective analysis of antibody development in this selected group of patients suggests that the implementation of serological assays in the routine testing protocol will decrease the need for invasive procedures like bronchoscopy.

Bronchoscopy in Patients With Known or Suspected COVID-19: Results From the Global Pandemic SARS-CoV-2 Bronchoscopy Database (GPS-BD)

BACKGROUND

Amid the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the benefits and risks of bronchoscopy remain uncertain. This study was designed to characterize bronchoscopy-related practice patterns, diagnostic yields, and adverse events involving patients with known or suspected COVID-19.

METHODS

An online survey tool retrospectively queried bronchoscopists about their experiences with patients with known or suspected COVID-19 between March 20 and August 20, 2020. Collected data comprised the Global Pandemic SARS-CoV-2 Bronchoscopy Database (GPS-BD). All bronchoscopists and patients were anonymous with no direct investigator-to-respondent contact.

RESULTS

Bronchoscopy procedures involving 289 patients from 26 countries were analyzed. One-half of patients had known COVID-19. Most (82%) had at least 1 pre-existing comorbidity, 80% had at least 1 organ failure, 51% were critically ill, and 37% were intubated at the time of the procedure. Bronchoscopy was performed with diagnostic intent in 166 (57%) patients, yielding a diagnosis in 86 (52%). and management changes in 80 (48%). Bronchoscopy was performed with therapeutic intent in 71 (25%) patients, mostly for secretion clearance (87%). Complications attributed to bronchoscopy or significant clinical decline within 12 hours of the procedure occurred in 24 (8%) cases, with 1 death.

CONCLUSION

Results from this international database provide a widely generalizable characterization of the benefits and risks of bronchoscopy in patients with known or suspected COVID-19. Bronchoscopy in this setting has reasonable clinical benefit, with diagnosis and/or management change resulting from about half of the diagnostic cases. However, it is not without risk, especially in patients with limited physiological reserve.

Infection control in the intensive care unit: expert consensus statements for SARS-CoV-2 using a Delphi method

During the current COVID-19 pandemic, health-care workers and uninfected patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are at risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 as a result of transmission from infected patients and health-care workers. In the absence of high-quality evidence on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, clinical practice of infection control and prevention in ICUs varies widely. Using a Delphi process, international experts in intensive care, infectious diseases, and infection control developed consensus statements on infection control for SARS-CoV-2 in an ICU. Consensus was achieved for 31 (94%) of 33 statements, from which 25 clinical practice statements were issued. These statements include guidance on ICU design and engineering, health-care worker safety, visiting policy, personal protective equipment, patients and procedures, disinfection, and sterilisation. Consensus was not reached on optimal return to work criteria for health-care workers who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 or the acceptable disinfection strategy for heat-sensitive instruments used for airway management of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Well designed studies are needed to assess the effects of these practice statements and address the remaining uncertainties.

Trends in characteristics and outcomes among US adults hospitalised with COVID-19 throughout 2020: an observational cohort study

OBJECTIVES

To examine the temporal patterns of patient characteristics, treatments used and outcomes associated with COVID-19 in patients who were hospitalised for the disease between January and 15 November 2020.

DESIGN

Observational cohort study.

SETTING

COVID-19 subset of the Optum deidentified electronic health records, including more than 1.8 million patients from across the USA.

PARTICIPANTS

There were 51 510 hospitalised patients who met the COVID-19 definition, with 37 617 in the laboratory positive cohort and 13 893 in the clinical cohort.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Incident acute clinical outcomes, including in-hospital all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Respectively, 48% and 49% of the laboratory positive and clinical cohorts were women. The 50- 65 age group was the median age group for both cohorts. The use of antivirals and dexamethasone increased over time, fivefold and twofold, respectively, while the use of hydroxychloroquine declined by 98%. Among adult patients in the laboratory positive cohort, absolute age/sex standardised incidence proportion for in-hospital death changed by -0.036 per month (95% CI -0.042 to -0.031) from March to June 2020, but remained fairly flat from June to November, 2020 (0.001 (95% CI -0.001 to 0.003), 17.5% (660 deaths /3986 persons) in March and 10.2% (580/5137) in October); in the clinical cohort, the corresponding changes were -0.024 (95% CI -0.032 to -0.015) and 0.011 (95% CI 0.007 0.014), respectively (14.8% (175/1252) in March, 15.3% (189/1203) in October). Declines in the cumulative incidence of most acute clinical outcomes were observed in the laboratory positive cohort, but not for the clinical cohort.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of adverse clinical outcomes remains high among COVID-19 patients with clinical diagnosis only. Patients with COVID-19 entering the hospital are at elevated risk of adverse outcomes.

False positive Herpes Simplex IgM serology in COVID-19 patients correlates with SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG seropositivity

Differentiating COVID-19 from other causes of viral pneumonia, like herpes simplex (HSV), can be complicated by shared clinical and laboratory features. Viral pneumonia is mostly diagnosed based on molecular or serological techniques. Serological immunoassay interferences, often attributed to concurrent appearance of heterologous (viral) immunoglobulins, is well-known, but has not been studied in COVID-19 patients. Following false positive HSV immunoglobulin M (IgM) results in our index patient, 25 other COVID-19 patients were tested for HSV-1/2 IgM with the chemiluminescent Liaison assay and Euroimmun enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Forty-five percent of COVID-19 patients tested positive for HSV IgM with Liaison. No HSV indices were positive with Euroimmun enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, suggesting immunoassay interference. Significant correlation between HSV IgM and SARS-CoV-2 IgM/IgG positivity was found. Adding 0.5% polyvinylpyrrolidone, inhibiting non-specific solid-phase adsorption, abolished interference in 22% of false positive cases, suggesting interference caused by solid-phase reactive IgM. Hence, serologic immunoassay results should be interpreted with caution in COVID-19 patients.

A systematic review and metanalysis of diagnostic yield of BAL for detection of SARS-CoV-2

BACKGROUND

The gold standard for diagnosing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is microbiological confirmation by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)¹ most commonly done using oropharyngeal (OP) and nasopharyngeal swabs (NP). But in suspected cases, where these samples are false-negative, bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) may prove diagnostic.

OBJECTIVES

Hence, the diagnostic yield of BAL for detection of SARS-CoV-2 in cases of non-diagnostic upper respiratory tract samples is reviewed.

METHODS

Databases such as MEDLINE, Scopus, and Google Scholar were searched using a systematic search strategy. The current study has been in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines and has been registered with the International Prospective Registry of Systematic Reviews (CRD42020224088).

RESULTS

911 records were identified at initial database extraction, of which 317 duplicates were removed and, 596 records were screened for inclusion eligibility. We included total 19 studies in the systematic review, and 17 were included in metanalysis. The pooled estimate of SARS-CoV-2 positivity in BAL was 11% (95%CI: 0.01-0.24). A sensitivity analysis also showed that the results appear to be robust and minimal risk of bias amongst the studies.

CONCLUSION

The current study demonstrates that BAL can be used to diagnose additional cases primary disease and superadded infections in patients with severe COVID-19 lower respiratory tract infection.

The Role of Bronchoscopy in the Diagnosis and Management of Patients with SARS-Cov-2 Infection

Bronchoscopy has several major diagnostic and therapeutic indications in pulmonology. However, it is an aerosol-generating procedure that places healthcare providers at an increased risk of infection. Now more than ever, during the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the infectious risk during bronchoscopy is significantly raised, and for this reason its role in diagnostic management is debated. In this review, we summarized current evidence regarding the indications for bronchoscopy and the measures that should be applied to decrease risk exposure. Indeed, seeing the long-lasting period of the pandemic, resuming standard of care for all patients is required.

Bronchoalveolar lavage in suspected COVID-19 cases with a negative nasopharyngeal swab: a retrospective cross-sectional study in a high-impact Northern Italy area

COVID-19 diagnosis relies on molecular testing for SARS-CoV-2 via nasopharyngeal swab in the presence of suggestive clinical, radiological and laboratory findings. Since bronchoalveolar lavage liquid (BAL) collected during fibrobronchoscopy may increase test sensitivity compared to nasopharyngeal swabs, it was performed during the 2020 pandemic in clinically or radiologically suspected cases. Our aim was to determine whether clinical features, chest computed tomography (CT) findings or laboratory tests may predict patients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 at BAL after a negative nasopharyngeal swab. We performed a retrospective cross-sectional study with multivariable analysis of suspected patients who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 at BAL after at least one negative nasopharyngeal swab. Univariable logistic regression for odds ratio and multivariate models was calculated to determine clinical, radiological and laboratory predictors. 32/198 (16%) patients had BAL positive for SARS-CoV-2, while 65/198 tested positive for other pathogens at BAL. Of the 32 patients positive for COVID, 4 had a coinfection at BAL, being thus positive both for COVID as well as for another pathogen while the remaining 105 patients were negative for COVID and other pathogens at BAL. COVID-19 patients had more often highly suggestive CT findings, higher number of involved lobes, more often ground glass opacity of more than 50% of lung parenchyma, and less frequently other radiologically suspected infections. At multivariate model, temperature also predicted BAL positivity. The procedure was well tolerated-with only one desaturation episode-while no healthcare worker was infected. In conclusion, when nasopharyngeal swabs are negative but there is clinical or imaging suspicion of COVID-19, BAL represents a complementary diagnostic tool, particularly in conjunction with suggestive/more extensive lung involvement at CT scan. The procedure did not carry increased risks for patients nor for operators, while allowing to free hospital resources, avoiding unnecessary isolations.

Mycotic infection prevalence among patients undergoing bronchoalveolar lavage with search of SARS-CoV-2 after two negative nasopharyngeal swabs

The evidence that severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a risk factor for development of mycotic respiratory infection with an increased mortality is rising. Immunosuppressed are among the most susceptible patients andAspergillusspecies is the most feared superinfection. In this study we evaluated mycotic isolation prevalence on bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) of patients who underwent bronchoscopy in search of severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) RNA. Moreover, we described the clinical characteristics and main outcomes of these patients. We included 118 patients, 35.9% of them were immunosuppressed for different reasons: in 23.7% we isolated SARS-CoV-2 RNA, in 33.1% we identified at least one mycotic agent and both in 15.4%. On BAL we observed in three casesAspergillusspp, in six casesPneumocystisand in 32Candidaspp. The prevalence of significant mold infection was 29.3% and 70.7% of cases were false positive or clinically irrelevant infections. In-hospital mortality of patients with fungal infection was 15.3%. The most frequent computed tomography (CT) pattern, evaluated with the Radiological Society of North America consensus statement, among patients with a mycotic pulmonary infection was the atypical one (p< 0.0001). Mycotic isolation on BAL may be interpreted as an innocent bystander, but its identification could influence the prognosis of patients, especially in those who need invasive investigations during the COVID-19 pandemic; BAL plays a fundamental role in resolving clinical complex cases, especially in immunosuppressed patients independently from radiological features, without limiting its role in ruling out SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Low utilisation of bronchoscopy to assess COVID-19 respiratory infection: a multicenter experience

Objective

For the diagnosis of COVID-19, the yield of nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs is unclear, and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) is obtained to confirm the diagnosis. We assessed the utilisation of bronchoscopy for COVID-19 diagnosis in a multicenter study and compared the diagnostic yield of BAL versus NP swabs.

Methods

This retrospective study included all patients who were admitted with clinical presentation concerning for COVID-19 and underwent BAL from 1 March to 31 July 2020 at four tertiary care centres in North America. We also compared concordance of BAL with NP swabs for diagnosis of COVID-19 infection.

Results

Fifty-three patients, with clinical suspicion for COVID-19 and admitted for respiratory failure, underwent bronchoscopy to collect BAL for SARS-CoV-2 testing. During the same period, 2039 bronchoscopies were performed on patients not infected with COVID-19. Of 42 patients with NP swabs and BAL collected within ≤7 days, 1 was NP swab negative but positive by BAL for SARS-CoV-2 (n=1/42 (2.4%)). Across a wide array of testing platforms, the overall agreement between NP swabs and BAL results was 97.6% (95% CI: 93.0% to 100%) with Cohen’s k of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.69 to 1.00). The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of NP swabs compared with BAL were 83.3% (95% CI: 53.5% to 100%), 100%, 100% and 97.3% (95% CI: 92.1% to 100%), respectively.

Conclusions

BAL was used infrequently to assess COVID-19 in busy institutions. NP swabs have a high concordance with BAL for COVID-19 testing, but negative NP swabs should be confirmed with BAL when clinical suspicion is high.

The role of bronchoscopy in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia

Background

The role of bronchoscopy in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a matter of debate.

Patients and methods

This observational multicentre study aimed to analyse the prognostic impact of bronchoscopic findings in a consecutive cohort of patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. Patients were enrolled at 17 hospitals from February to June 2020. Predictors of in-hospital mortality were assessed by multivariate logistic regression.

Results

A total of 1027 bronchoscopies were performed in 515 patients (age 61.5±11.2 years; 73% men), stratified into a clinical suspicion cohort (n=30) and a COVID-19 confirmed cohort (n=485). In the clinical suspicion cohort, the diagnostic yield was 36.7%. In the COVID-19 confirmed cohort, bronchoscopies were predominantly performed in the intensive care unit (n=961; 96.4%) and major indications were: difficult mechanical ventilation (43.7%), mucus plugs (39%) and persistence of radiological infiltrates (23.4%). 147 bronchoscopies were performed to rule out superinfection, and diagnostic yield was 42.9%. There were abnormalities in 91.6% of bronchoscopies, the most frequent being mucus secretions (82.4%), haematic secretions (17.7%), mucus plugs (17.6%), and diffuse mucosal hyperaemia (11.4%). The independent predictors of in-hospital mortality were: older age (OR 1.06; p<0.001), mucus plugs as indication for bronchoscopy (OR 1.60; p=0.041), absence of mucosal hyperaemia (OR 0.49; p=0.041) and the presence of haematic secretions (OR 1.79; p=0.032).

Conclusion

Bronchoscopy may be indicated in carefully selected patients with COVID-19 to rule out superinfection and solve complications related to mechanical ventilation. The presence of haematic secretions in the distal bronchial tract may be considered a poor prognostic feature in COVID-19.

Bronchoscopy is part of the armamentarium against #COVID19. It allows diagnosis, facilitates mechanical ventilation and provides prognostic information. This information could be used to refine healthcare pathways in order to improve outcomes.https://bit.ly/2QuAQOt

Techno Trend Awareness and Its Attitude Towards Social Connectedness and Mitigating Factors of COVID-19

While COVID-19 has taken a toll on many professions and livelihood of all walks of lives, technology has amplified its intrusion to ease the necessities. Innovative technology, therefore, has improved the glitches and provided the software to adhere to these new normal. However, individuals' awareness and attitude toward the advancements of these technological trends need to be addressed. Although the government has taken measures to prevent and curb the growing cases for COVID-19 with the help of technology, the support from the individuals would depend mostly on their level of awareness and the attitude toward those measures. The present qualitative study explored the techno trend awareness, perception and attitudes of techno experts and technical professionals toward social connectedness and mitigating factors of COVID-19. Besides, it also explained individuals' shift toward virtual interaction to maintain social connections during the pandemic. The thematic analysis generated four prominent themes. Social Connectedness, emphasized on the emotional connections that created a positive feeling of belongingness. Technological Advancement provided three sub-themes highlighting perception, techno trend awareness and desirable attitudes toward the mitigation of COVID-19. The categories under Treatment and Preventive Measures indicated the enhanced self-care of individuals and also the tendencies to minimize the spread of diseases. The emergence of the theme Inclination toward Indigenous Knowledge, which is an important finding, indicated the techno-experts inclination toward the indigenous knowledge amid vague scientific shreds of evidence.

Current and innovative methods for the diagnosis of COVID‑19 infection (Review)

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID‑19) pandemic has forced the scientific community to rapidly develop highly reliable diagnostic methods in order to effectively and accurately diagnose this pathology, thus limiting the spread of infection. Although the structural and molecular characteristics of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‑CoV‑2) were initially unknown, various diagnostic strategies useful for making a correct diagnosis of COVID‑19 have been rapidly developed by private research laboratories and biomedical companies. At present, rapid antigen or antibody tests, immunoenzymatic serological tests and molecular tests based on RT‑PCR are the most widely used and validated techniques worldwide. Apart from these conventional methods, other techniques, including isothermal nucleic acid amplification techniques, clusters of regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats/Cas (CRISPR/Cas)‑based approaches or digital PCR methods are currently used in research contexts or are awaiting approval for diagnostic use by competent authorities. In order to provide guidance for the correct use of COVID‑19 diagnostic tests, the present review describes the diagnostic strategies available which may be used for the diagnosis of COVID‑19 infection in both clinical and research settings. In particular, the technical and instrumental characteristics of the diagnostic methods used are described herein. In addition, updated and detailed information about the type of sample, the modality and the timing of use of specific tests are also discussed.

Current and innovative methods for the diagnosis of COVID‑19 infection (Review)

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID‑19) pandemic has forced the scientific community to rapidly develop highly reliable diagnostic methods in order to effectively and accurately diagnose this pathology, thus limiting the spread of infection. Although the structural and molecular characteristics of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‑CoV‑2) were initially unknown, various diagnostic strategies useful for making a correct diagnosis of COVID‑19 have been rapidly developed by private research laboratories and biomedical companies. At present, rapid antigen or antibody tests, immunoenzymatic serological tests and molecular tests based on RT‑PCR are the most widely used and validated techniques worldwide. Apart from these conventional methods, other techniques, including isothermal nucleic acid amplification techniques, clusters of regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats/Cas (CRISPR/Cas)‑based approaches or digital PCR methods are currently used in research contexts or are awaiting approval for diagnostic use by competent authorities. In order to provide guidance for the correct use of COVID‑19 diagnostic tests, the present review describes the diagnostic strategies available which may be used for the diagnosis of COVID‑19 infection in both clinical and research settings. In particular, the technical and instrumental characteristics of the diagnostic methods used are described herein. In addition, updated and detailed information about the type of sample, the modality and the timing of use of specific tests are also discussed.

Can single-use bronchoscopes help prevent nosocomial COVID-19 infections?

Introduction: The reduction of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) transmission has been achieved through numerous public health initiatives worldwide. In the hospital environment, certain high-risk procedures have the potential to cause transmission of the virus to health-care workers and nosocomial transmission to patients through different mechanisms including the generation of aerosols and fomite formation via contamination of medical devices.Areas covered: Aerosol-generating procedures such as bronchoscopy are considered high risk for SARS-CoV-2 transmission. As a result, single-use devices should be used where possible and changing to single-use flexible bronchoscopes has been advised by respiratory societies internationally. In this paper, we outline the rationale for this advice and have analyzed the evidence relating to the reduction in SARS-CoV-2 transmission arising from a switch to these single-use devices and the potential impact that this switch may have on the quality of pulmonology services.Expert opinion: In this paper, we outline the rationale for this advice and have analyzed the evidence relating to the reduction in SARS-CoV-2 transmission arising from a switch to these single-use devices and the potential impact that this switch may have on the quality of pulmonology services.

Pre-Procedural COVID-19 Nasopharyngeal Swab Has Good Concordance with Bronchoalveolar Lavage in Patients at Low Risk for Viral Infection

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has drastically affected hospital and operating room (OR) workflow around the world as well as trainee education. Many institutions have instituted mandatory preoperative SARS-CoV-2 PCR nasopharyngeal swab (NS) testing in patients who are low risk for COVID-19 prior to elective cases. This method, however, is challenging as the sensitivity, specificity, and overall reliability of testing remains unclear.

Objectives

The objective of this study was to assess the concordance of a negative NS in low risk preoperative patients with lower airway bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) specimens obtained from the same patients.

Methods

We prospectively sent intraoperative lower airway BAL samples collected within 48 h of a negative mandatory preoperative NS for SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing. All adult patients undergoing a scheduled bronchoscopic procedure for any reason were enrolled, including elective and nonelective cases.

Results

One-hundred eighty-nine patients were included. All BAL specimens were negative for SARS-CoV-2 indicative of 100% concordance between testing modalities.

Conclusions

These results are promising and suggest that preoperative nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 testing provides adequate screening to rule out active COVID-19 infection prior to OR cases in a population characterized as low risk by negative symptom screening. This information can be used for both pre-procedural screening and when reintroducing trainees into the workforce.

Argon Plasma Coagulation: Elucidation of the Mechanism of Gas Embolism

BACKGROUND

Argon plasma coagulation (APC) is a tool used in the management of tracheobronchial obstruction or bleeding. Complications include gas embolism which can cause devastating effects including hemodynamic instability, cardiac arrest, and stroke. Multiple theories as to how gas embolism occurs with APC have been postulated; however, none have identified the exact mechanism.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the mechanism by which APC causes gas embolism in the tracheobronchial tree.

METHODS

Using an explanted porcine tracheobronchial tree with lung parenchyma, the APC catheter was applied through noncontact and direct contact to the endobronchial airway mucosa via flexible bronchoscopy. This was done at multiple gas flow settings and pulse durations. Visual changes in the mucosa were photographed, videoed, and described.

RESULTS

Gross evidence of submucosal gas transfer occurred when the APC catheter was in direct contact with the mucosa at all gas flow settings in all applications, despite using shorter pulse durations. Whenever the catheter was not in contact with the mucosa, there was no transfer of gas at any gas flow setting or pulse duration.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct mucosal contact with the APC probe leads to submucosal gas deposition and is a likely mechanism for gas entry into the intravascular space. In reported cases of APC-associated gas embolism, presence of a vascularized endobronchial tumor may have increased the risk of gas tracking into the intravascular space. Care should be taken when applying APC during brisk bleeding or limited vision, as inadvertent mucosal contact may occur and could increase the risk of gas embolism.

SARS-CoV-2 Detection on Bronchoalveolar Lavage: An Italian Multicenter experience

Background

Bronchoscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) during the SARS-CoV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2) pandemic should be reserved to a limited number of clinical indications. The yield of BAL for the diagnosis of suspected or confirmed pulmonary SARS-CoV-2 infection is still unknown.

Objectives

We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic ratio of BAL in detecting SARS-CoV-2 pulmonary infection in patients undergoing bronchoscopy for different indications as well as describe the clinical, radiological, and endoscopic characteristics of patients with SARS-CoV-2 on BAL.

Method

We conducted a multicenter retrospective study including all patients who underwent bronchoscopy for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 on BAL. Clinical, computed tomography (CT), endoscopic, and microbiologic data were gathered from March 16th to May 27th, 2020.

Results

131 patients were included. Bronchoscopy was performed for suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection (65.5%), alternative diagnosis (12.9%), suspected superinfections (19.8%), and lung atelectasis (1.5%). SARS-CoV-2 was isolated on BAL 43 times (32.8%) and the highest isolation rate was in patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection (74.4%); 76% of positive patients had a double-negative nasopharyngeal swab. Peripheral, posterior and multilobar CT opacities were more frequent in SARS-CoV-2 patients, and the number of CT findings was higher in positive patients, particularly those with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection. We recorded a progressive reduction of SARS-CoV-2 isolation during the observation period.

Conclusions

In our centers, the rate of detection of SARS-CoV-2 on BAL in patients with suspected infection was 37.2%. The agreement of BAL with nasopharyngeal swabs was high; CT alterations could predict the pretest probability of SARS-CoV-2 infection, but suspicion of viral infection should be always considered.