Background: The development of single-use flexible or disposable bronchoscopes (SUFBs) has accelerated in recent years, with the reduced risk of infectious transmission and reduced need for endoscopy staffing particularly advantageous in the COVID-19 pandemic era. Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the performance of a novel single-use bronchoscope in an academic quaternary referral centre with on-site interventional pulmonology programme. Methods: With ethical approval in a quaternary referral centre, we prospectively collected data on sequential bronchoscopy procedures using The Surgical Company Broncoflex© range of SUFBs. Data collected included demographic, procedural, scope performance, user satisfaction, and complication parameters in a tertiary bronchoscopy service. Results: 139 procedures were performed by five pulmonology faculty from January to July 2021. The majority were carried out for infection (45%) and malignancy (32%). Most were performed in the endoscopy suite and 8% were COVID positive or suspected. Most procedures reported the highest score in satisfaction (85%) with technical limitations reported in 15% (predominately related to scope suction or inadequate image quality) reverting to a reusable scope in 2.8 %. Conclusion: In our subset of patients in a bronchoscopy unit, SUFBs are safe, and both routine and advanced bronchoscopy procedures can be performed with high satisfaction reported.

Background: The development of single-use flexible or disposable bronchoscopes (SUFBs) has accelerated in recent years, with the reduced risk of infectious transmission and reduced need for endoscopy staffing particularly advantageous in the COVID-19 pandemic era. Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the performance of a novel single-use bronchoscope in an academic quaternary referral centre with on-site interventional pulmonology programme. Methods: With ethical approval in a quaternary referral centre, we prospectively collected data on sequential bronchoscopy procedures using The Surgical Company Broncoflex© range of SUFBs. Data collected included demographic, procedural, scope performance, user satisfaction, and complication parameters in a tertiary bronchoscopy service. Results: 139 procedures were performed by five pulmonology faculty from January to July 2021. The majority were carried out for infection (45%) and malignancy (32%). Most were performed in the endoscopy suite and 8% were COVID positive or suspected. Most procedures reported the highest score in satisfaction (85%) with technical limitations reported in 15% (predominately related to scope suction or inadequate image quality) reverting to a reusable scope in 2.8 %. Conclusion: In our subset of patients in a bronchoscopy unit, SUFBs are safe, and both routine and advanced bronchoscopy procedures can be performed with high satisfaction reported.

Background: In patients with haemoptysis, many healthcare systems support bronchoscopy regardless of computed tomography (CT) findings. Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to address whether a normal CT alone is sufficient to out-rule lung cancer in patients with haemoptysis. Methods: A search was performed of the following databases: EBSCO (Medline), PubMed, Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Embase. Meta-Disc 1.4 and RevMan software were used to test for heterogeneity, risk of bias, and to summarize the test performance characteristics using forest plots and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves. SPSS was used to compare the diagnostic accuracy of CT and bronchoscopy. Results: A total of 14 studies (2,960 patients) were included. The pooled sensitivities for detection of lung cancer using CT scan and bronchoscopy were 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97–1.00) and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.78–0.88), respectively. The sensitivity of CT was higher than that of bronchoscopy (p < 0.001). The pooled specificities for CT scan and bronchoscopy were 0.99 (95% CI: 0.99–1.00) and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.99–1.00), respectively. Of 2,960 patients, 257 had lung cancer (8.7%) at initial investigation. 254 of these had a CT thorax, and the CT scan was false negative in 4/255 (1.6%), with bronchoscopy only identifying one cancer with a normal CT (0.4%). Conclusion: CT scan showed a higher diagnostic accuracy than bronchoscopy. This study indicated that bronchoscopy offers an insignificant additional value in the investigation of lung cancer in patients with haemoptysis and a negative CT scan.

Background: In patients with haemoptysis, many healthcare systems support bronchoscopy regardless of computed tomography (CT) findings. Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to address whether a normal CT alone is sufficient to out-rule lung cancer in patients with haemoptysis. Methods: A search was performed of the following databases: EBSCO (Medline), PubMed, Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Embase. Meta-Disc 1.4 and RevMan software were used to test for heterogeneity, risk of bias, and to summarize the test performance characteristics using forest plots and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves. SPSS was used to compare the diagnostic accuracy of CT and bronchoscopy. Results: A total of 14 studies (2,960 patients) were included. The pooled sensitivities for detection of lung cancer using CT scan and bronchoscopy were 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97–1.00) and 0.84 (95% CI: 0.78–0.88), respectively. The sensitivity of CT was higher than that of bronchoscopy (p < 0.001). The pooled specificities for CT scan and bronchoscopy were 0.99 (95% CI: 0.99–1.00) and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.99–1.00), respectively. Of 2,960 patients, 257 had lung cancer (8.7%) at initial investigation. 254 of these had a CT thorax, and the CT scan was false negative in 4/255 (1.6%), with bronchoscopy only identifying one cancer with a normal CT (0.4%). Conclusion: CT scan showed a higher diagnostic accuracy than bronchoscopy. This study indicated that bronchoscopy offers an insignificant additional value in the investigation of lung cancer in patients with haemoptysis and a negative CT scan.