Bronchoscopist's perception of the quality of the single-use bronchoscope (Ambu aScope4™) in selected bronchoscopies: a multicenter study in 21 Spanish pulmonology services

Abstract

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.

Single-Use or Disposable Flexible Bronchoscopy in Advanced Bronchoscopy Procedures: Experience in a Quaternary Referral Centre

“…In a non-ICU setting where in general procedures other than lavage are also performed, data are very limited. The only study we could identify was a prospective Spanish multi-centre study of 300 patients using the AMBU ® aScope 4 [12]. Thirty-six bronchoscopists participated, and most procedures were lavages or washings.…”

“…Portability, ease of use, and the lack of requirement of cleaning staff are among the advantages of SUFBs over reusable scopes that are important in a pandemic situation [11]. Indeed, it could be argued that the uptake of SUFBs has out-paced research in these devices with only one publication of experience in a bronchoscopy suite [12]. Clearly, bronchoscopic procedures and indications differ between the ICU and endoscopy location.…”

Comparison of the Detection Rates of Different Diagnostic Methods for Primary Peripheral Lung Cancer

“…When a lesion is close to the lung and hilum, especially an endobronchial lesion, fibreoptic bronchoscopy biopsy and brush examination are preferred; however, when a lesion is close to the outer lung and chest wall, performing fibreoptic bronchoscopy is difficult ( 22 ).…”

Single-Use and Reusable Flexible Bronchoscopes in Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine

“…Most studies are satisfaction surveys or bench model testing. For example, a user satisfaction study in Spain showed that one of the newest SUFB models received high ratings for ease of use, imaging, and suction [ 89 ]. In a simulation study, a slim model of a SUFB required more time for nasal intubation than a RFB.…”