|Title:||Assessment of user satisfaction and experience of three commercially available Single Use Bronchoscopes in a clinical setting|
|Author(s):||E. O’Reilly, A-M. Sweeney, K. Deasy, M.P. Kennedy|
|Institution:||Department of Respiratory Medicine, Cork University Hospital, Wilton, Cork|
|Poster:||Click to view poster|
|Category:||Lung Cancer and Bronchoscopy|
|Abstract:||Single use Flexible bronchoscopes (SUFBs) are an alternative to reusable flexible bronchoscopes with the reduced endoscopy capacity and increased infection control considerations during the covid-19 pandemic. SUFBs minimize infectious transmission and can be used during bedside procedures. Multiple SUFB brands are available. |
With institutional ethical approval, we prospectively gathered data on one new (Boston Scientific©) and two established (AMBU© and Vathin©) SUFBs to assess clinician satisfaction between June-August 2021. Patient gender, procedure performed, indication, location, SUFB used, complications, and overall user satisfaction were assessed.
Twenty-two procedures were examined (12 Boston Scientific©, 5 AMBU©, 5 Vathin©). Eleven patients were male. Twenty-one procedures were performed in endoscopy, and 1 on the ward. All included airway assessment, 68% BAL, and 5% endotracheal biopsy. There were no complications with the Boston Scientific© scope. There was poor image quality in all (n=5) AMBU© procedures (only scope without High-Definition Camera). There was dissatisfaction with suction in all (n=5) Vathin© procedures (persistent suction without activation by scope). Using a satisfaction scale (1-5), mean score for Boston Scientific©, AMBU©, and Vathin© were 5, 2.8, and 2.8 respectively.
Real-world data on SUFBs use in a clinical setting should be considered when selecting brands available within a hospital group.