Bronchoscopy in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (ScreenIT)
Abstract
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.
Article activity feed
-
-
SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.01.20144683: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IACUC: Ethical considerations: The research protocol was approved by the hospital’s COVID-19 committee (Reference 2342342/20). Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources These analyses were conducted with version 15 of STATA. STATAsuggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this …SciScore for 10.1101/2020.07.01.20144683: (What is this?)
Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.
Table 1: Rigor
Institutional Review Board Statement IACUC: Ethical considerations: The research protocol was approved by the hospital’s COVID-19 committee (Reference 2342342/20). Randomization not detected. Blinding not detected. Power Analysis not detected. Sex as a biological variable not detected. Table 2: Resources
Software and Algorithms Sentences Resources These analyses were conducted with version 15 of STATA. STATAsuggested: (Stata, RRID:SCR_012763)Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).
Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.
Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.
Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.
Results from rtransparent:- Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
- No protocol registration statement was detected.
-
