Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

Background Current medical society guidelines recommend a procedural number for obtaining electromagnetic navigational bronchoscopy (ENB) competency and for institutional volume for training. Objective To assess learning curves and estimate the number of ENB procedures for interventional pulmonology (IP) fellows to reach competency. Methods We conducted a prospective multicenter study of IP fellows in the United States learning ENB. A tool previously validated in a similar population was used to assess IP fellows by their local faculty and two blinded independent reviewers using virtual recording of the procedure. Competency was determined by performing three consecutive procedures with a competency score on the assessment tool. Procedural time, faculty global rating scale, and periprocedural complications were also recorded. Results A total of 184 ENB procedures were available for review with assessment of 26 IP fellows at 16 medical centers. There was a high correlation between the two blinded independent observers (rho = 0.8776). There was substantial agreement for determination of procedural competency between the faculty assessment and blinded reviewers (kappa = 0.7074; confidence interval, 0.5667–0.8482). The number of procedures for reaching competency for ENB bronchoscopy was determined (median, 4; mean, 5; standard deviation, 3.83). There was a wide variation in the number of procedures to reach competency, ranging from 2 to 15 procedures. There were six periprocedural complications reported, four (one pneumomediastinum, three pneumothorax) of which occurred before reaching competence and two pneumothoraces after achieving competence. Conclusion There is a wide variation in acquiring competency for ENB among IP fellows. Virtual competency assessment has a potential role but needs further studies.

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Despite increased use of rigid bronchoscopy (RB) for therapeutic indications and recommendations from professional societies to use performance-based competency, an assessment tool has not been utilized to measure the competency of trainees to perform RB in clinical settings. <b><i>Objectives:</i></b> The aim of the study was to evaluate a previously developed assessment tool – <i>Rigid Bronchoscopy Tool for Assessment of Skills and Competence</i> (RIGID-TASC) – for determining the RB learning curve of interventional pulmonary (IP) trainees in the clinical setting and explore the variability of learning curve of trainees. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> IP fellows at 4 institutions were enrolled. After preclinical simulation training, all RBs performed in patients were scored by faculty using RIGID-TASC until competency threshold was achieved. Competency threshold was defined as unassisted RB intubation and navigation through the central airways on 3 consecutive patients at the first attempt with a minimum score of 89. A regression-based model was devised to construct and compare the learning curves. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Twelve IP fellows performed 178 RBs. Trainees reached the competency threshold between 5 and 24 RBs, with a median of 15 RBs (95% CI, 6–21). There were differences among trainees in learning curve parameters including starting point, slope, and inflection point, as demonstrated by the curve-fitting model. Subtasks that required the highest number of procedures (median = 10) to gain competency included ability to intubate at the first attempt and intubation time of &#x3c;60 s. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Trainees acquire RB skills at a variable pace, and RIGID-TASC can be used to assess learning curve of IP trainees in clinical settings.

ObjectiveFor the diagnosis of COVID-19, the yield of nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs is unclear, and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) is obtained to confirm the diagnosis. We assessed the utilisation of bronchoscopy for COVID-19 diagnosis in a multicenter study and compared the diagnostic yield of BAL versus NP swabs.MethodsThis retrospective study included all patients who were admitted with clinical presentation concerning for COVID-19 and underwent BAL from 1 March to 31 July 2020 at four tertiary care centres in North America. We also compared concordance of BAL with NP swabs for diagnosis of COVID-19 infection.ResultsFifty-three patients, with clinical suspicion for COVID-19 and admitted for respiratory failure, underwent bronchoscopy to collect BAL for SARS-CoV-2 testing. During the same period, 2039 bronchoscopies were performed on patients not infected with COVID-19. Of 42 patients with NP swabs and BAL collected within ≤7 days, 1 was NP swab negative but positive by BAL for SARS-CoV-2 (n=1/42 (2.4%)). Across a wide array of testing platforms, the overall agreement between NP swabs and BAL results was 97.6% (95% CI: 93.0% to 100%) with Cohen’s k of 0.90 (95% CI: 0.69 to 1.00). The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of NP swabs compared with BAL were 83.3% (95% CI: 53.5% to 100%), 100%, 100% and 97.3% (95% CI: 92.1% to 100%), respectively.ConclusionsBAL was used infrequently to assess COVID-19 in busy institutions. NP swabs have a high concordance with BAL for COVID-19 testing, but negative NP swabs should be confirmed with BAL when clinical suspicion is high.

No abstract