ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Bronchoscopy is a widely use technique in critically ill patients. Nosocomial coinfections are a cause of morbidity and mortality in intensive care units. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to describe bronchoscopy findings and analyze microbiological profile and probably coinfection through bronchial aspirate (BA) samples in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia requiring intensive care unit admission. METHODS: Retrospective observational study analyzing the BA samples collected from intubated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 in a referral Hospital (Spain). RESULTS: One hundred fifty-five consecutive BA samples were collected from 75 patients. Ninety (58%) were positive cultures for different microorganisms, 11 (7.1%) were polymicrobial, and 37 (23.7%) contained resistant microorganisms. There was a statistically significant association between increased days of orotracheal intubation and positive BA (18.9 vs. 10.9 d, P<0.01), polymicrobial infection (22.11 vs. 13.54, P<0.01) and isolation of resistant microorganisms (18.88 vs. 10.94, P<0.01). In 88% of the cases a new antibiotic or change in antibiotic treatment was made. CONCLUSION: Bronchoscopy in critically ill patient was safe and could be useful to manage these patients and conduct the microbiological study, that seems to be higher and different than in nonepidemic periods. The longer the intubation period, the greater the probability of coinfection, isolation of resistant microorganisms and polymicrobial infection.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Coinfection , Bronchoscopy/methods , Critical Illness , Humans , Intensive Care UnitsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The disposable bronchoscope is an excellent alternative to face the problem of SARS-CoV-2 and other cross infections, but the bronchoscopist's perception of its quality has not been evaluated. METHODS: To evaluate the quality of the Ambu-aScope4 disposable bronchoscope, we carried out a cross-sectional study in 21 Spanish pulmonology services. We use a standardized questionnaire completed by the bronchoscopists at the end of each bronchoscopy. The variables were described with absolute and relative frequencies, measures of central tendency and dispersion depending on their nature. The existence of learning curves was evaluated by CUSUM analysis. RESULTS: The most frequent indications in 300 included bronchoscopies was bronchial aspiration in 69.3% and the median duration of these was 9.1 min. The route of entry was nasal in 47.2% and oral in 34.1%. The average score for ease of use, image, and aspiration quality was 80/100. All the planned techniques were performed in 94.9% and the bronchoscopist was satisfied in 96.6% of the bronchoscopies. They highlighted the portability and immediacy of the aScope4TM to start the procedure in 99.3%, the possibility of taking and storing images in 99.3%. The CUSUM analysis showed average scores > 70/100 from the first procedure and from the 9th procedure more than 80% of the scores exceeded the 80/100 score. CONCLUSIONS: The aScope4™ scored well for ease of use, imaging, and aspiration. We found a learning curve with excellent scores from the 9th procedure. Bronchoscopists highlighted its portability, immediacy of use and the possibility of taking and storing images.