We would like to describe the numerous advantages of single-use bronchoscopes over conventional bronchoscopes especially during the COVID pandemic. Recently, Zaidi et al. did a comparative study between single-use and conventional bronchoscopes for bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) [1]. They concluded that with single-use bronchoscopes, they achieved a larger BAL volume yield than conventional bronchoscopes, with comparable cell yield and viability [1]. Better volume yields may potentially reduce post-procedure side effects such as pleuritic chest pain and cough. With single-use devices, the risk of cross infection is eliminated, providing reassurance to researchers and participants [2]. This single-use flexible bronchoscope can be reusable for the same patient and should be stored in his isolate room [2]. Reduced maintenance requirements can be cost effective [3]. In addition, single-use flexible bronchoscopes have been evaluated in the critical care setting with favorable results for BAL, percutaneous tracheostomy, intubation, and suction [4]. Regarding the important question of cost, a recent study suggests benefits from the use of single-use flexible bronchoscopes in terms of cost effectiveness, cross-contamination, and resource utilization [3]. Single-use flexible bronchoscopes could be very useful in the setting of the current coronavirus pandemic. We have already started using them.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Dr. Melissa Jackson for the critical review of the manuscript.
Abbreviations
- BAL
Bronchoalveolar lavage
- ICU
Intensive care unit
Authors’ contributions
PMH, SR, and DDB designed the paper. All authors participated in drafting and reviewing. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Funding
None.
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare to have no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Contributor Information
Patrick M. Honore, Email: Patrick.Honore@CHU-Brugmann.be
Aude Mugisha, Email: Aude.Mugisha@CHU-Brugmann.be.
Luc Kugener, Email: Luc.Kugener@CHU-Brugmann.be.
Sebastien Redant, Email: Sebastien.Redant@CHU-Brugmann.be.
Rachid Attou, Email: Rachid.Attou@CHU-Brugmann.be.
Andrea Gallerani, Email: Andrea.Gallerani@CHU-Brugmann.be.
David De Bels, Email: David.DeBels@CHU-Brugmann.be.
References
- 1.Zaidi SR, Collins AM, Mitsi E, Reiné J, Davies K, Wright AD, et al. Single use and conventional bronchoscopes for Broncho alveolar lavage (BAL) in research: a comparative study ( NCT 02515591) BMC Pulm Med. 2017;17(1):83. doi: 10.1186/s12890-017-0421-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Kovaleva J, Peters FTM, van der Mei HC, Degener JE. Transmission of infection by flexible gastrointestinal endoscopy and bronchoscopy. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2013;26:231–254. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00085-12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Mouritsen JM, Ehlers L, Kovaleva J, Ahmad I, El-Boghdadly K. A systematic review and cost effectiveness analysis of reusable vs. single-use flexible bronchoscopes. Anaesthesia. 2020;75(4):529–540. doi: 10.1111/anae.14891. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Mankikian J, Ehrmann S, Guilleminault L, Le Fol T, Barc C, Ferrandiere M, et al. An evaluation of a new single-use flexible bronchoscope with a large suction channel: reliability of bronchoalveolar lavage in ventilated piglets and initial clinical experience. Anaesthesia. 2014;69(7):701–706. doi: 10.1111/anae.12641. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.