Bronchoscopy on Intubated Patients with COVID-19 Is Associated with Low Infectious Risk to Operators

  1. Catherine A. Gao
  2. Joseph I. Bailey
  3. James M. Walter
  4. John M. Coleman
  5. Elizabeth S. Malsin
  6. A. Christine Argento
  7. Michelle H. Prickett
  8. Richard G. Wunderink
  9. Sean B. Smith

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1513/annalsats.202009-1225rl
  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.08.30.20177543v2 on medRxiv
  3. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.08.30.20177543: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: This study was reviewed and deemed exempt by our institution’s Institutional Review Board.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Serology (Abbott Architect SARS- CoV IgG, Abbott Park, IL) testing was offered to all medical staff by NMH starting in June 2020.
    Abbott Architect
    suggested: (Abbott ARCHITECT i1000sr System, RRID:SCR_019328)
    Statistical Analyses: Survey results were exported from Qualtrics (Qualtrics XM, Provo, UT) and compiled in Microsoft Excel (Version 15.39 for Mac, Microsoft, Redmond, WA).
    Microsoft Excel
    suggested: (Microsoft Excel, RRID:SCR_016137)
    Graphs were generated in GraphPad Prism 8 (version 8.4.3, GraphPad Software LLC)
    GraphPad
    suggested: (GraphPad Prism, RRID:SCR_002798)
    , Adobe Illustrator (Version CC for Mac, Adobe Inc, San Jose, CA), and Python using Seaborn v0.10.1.
    Adobe Illustrator
    suggested: (Adobe Illustrator, RRID:SCR_010279)
    Python
    suggested: (IPython, RRID:SCR_001658)

    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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Our study has several limitations. First, this is a retrospective survey of providers and their recollection of practices. We did not directly pull exact bronchoscopy numbers and test results from the electronic medical records so as to respect our colleagues’ privacy, and instead looked for voluntary responses. However, collateral data suggests overestimation of bronchoscopy numbers is very unlikely. Adherence to the modified bronchoscopy protocol was not monitored. We were not able to capture a 100% response rate for the survey but obtained results higher than most physician survey response rates (22). While serology testing was offered to all providers per hospital protocol, only a subset of providers actually got tested. NP testing was performed ad hoc based upon symptoms or exposure. Since neither form of testing was mandated across the survey cohort, both may in fact under-represent the true infectious risk. It is also possible that asymptomatic infections were missed if providers did not seek testing in a short time period after performing said procedures. In summary, this is the first detailed report of infectious risks from BAL from a large-volume center that routinely incorporates bronchoscopy as part of critical care for patients with COVID-19 respiratory failure. While additional research is needed to inform the optimal use of invasive sampling of the lower respiratory tract to improve outcomes for patients with COVID-19, our data suggest that BAL can be routinely...

    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.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  4. Version published to 10.1101/2020.08.30.20177543v1 on medRxiv