Literature DB >> 32403194

Safe performance of diagnostic bronchoscopy/EBUS during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Daniel P Steinfort1,2, Felix J F Herth3,4, Louis B Irving1, Phan T Nguyen5.   

Abstract

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is unprecedented in our professional lives and much effort and resources will be devoted to care of patients (and HCW) affected by this illness. We must also continue to aim for the same standard of care for our non-COVID respiratory patients, while minimizing risks of infection transmission to our colleagues. This commentary addresses the key paired issues of minimizing performance of diagnostic/staging bronchoscopy in patients with suspected/known lung cancer while maximizing the safety of the procedure with respect to HCW transmission of COVID-19.
© 2020 Asian Pacific Society of Respirology.

Entities:  

Keywords:  COVID-19; bronchoscopy and interventional techniques; coronavirus; endobronchial ultrasound; infectious disease transmission; lung cancer

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32403194      PMCID: PMC7273079          DOI: 10.1111/resp.13843

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Respirology        ISSN: 1323-7799            Impact factor:   6.175


INTRODUCTION

Since late December 2019, an outbreak of infection caused by the novel coronavirus severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) has spread from Wuhan, China, to over 60 countries worldwide, with (at the time of writing) over 1 500 000 confirmed cases and more than 80 000 deaths. Transmission is predominantly respiratory, raising concerns that bronchoscopy may increase the risk of infection of healthcare workers (HCW). Evidence regarding this risk is unclear, with one study suggesting bronchoscopy does not generate aerosols, and another study reporting only a strong trend towards increased risk of transmission to HCW during the H1N1 2009 influenza epidemic. Nevertheless, bronchoscopy remains universally regarded as an aerosol‐generating procedure (AGP). This, as well as prioritization of preservation of limited personal protective equipment (PPE) stock, had resulted in uniform agreement that non‐urgent bronchoscopy be postponed until the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic has passed. Guidelines developed to date have defined the role of bronchoscopy in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID‐19 infection. Throughout the pandemic, however, patients will continue to present with symptoms and findings not related to COVID‐19 infection, but as a result of suspected lung cancer. In these patients, bronchoscopy remains a potentially important diagnostic (and therapeutic) tool. In this manuscript, we review the diagnostic work‐up of patients with suspected/known lung cancer. We address how a reduction in the overall number of bronchoscopic procedures may be achieved, and how bronchoscopy, when performed, may be done as safely as possible. Considerations apply both to suspected non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small cell lung cancer.

INDICATIONS

Non‐invasive imaging should still be completed in a routine manner, with positron emission tomography (PET) potentially even more important in guiding clinical decision‐making in the current climate. The following consideration regarding stage classification is based on PET findings, with recommendations summarized in Table 1.
Table 1

Summary of recommendations based on clinical stage of suspected/confirmed lesion

Clinical stage Recommended management strategy
Stage IPercutaneous biopsy where technically possible
Consider resectional biopsy or empiric SABR
Stage IIPercutaneous biopsy where technically possible
Consider surgical resection without tissue diagnosis
Stage IIIPercutaneous biopsy of primary lesion for bulky/multi‐station mediastinal involvement of PET/CT
EBUS‐TBNA for sampling of single‐station cN2/3 disease
EBUS‐TBNA for tissue diagnosis ± ancillary molecular testing where no option for percutaneous sampling is available
Stage IVPercutaneous biopsy/(drain) where possible from extrathoracic site
EBUS‐TBNA for patients with extrathoracic sites unsuitable for minimally invasive biopsy or bony metastases as sole M1 site 26

On the basis of PET/CT.

CT, computed tomography; EBUS‐TBNA, endobronchial ultrasound‐guided transbronchial needle aspiration; PET, positron emission tomography; SABR, stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy.

Summary of recommendations based on clinical stage of suspected/confirmed lesion On the basis of PET/CT. CT, computed tomography; EBUS‐TBNA, endobronchial ultrasound‐guided transbronchial needle aspiration; PET, positron emission tomography; SABR, stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy.

Stage I

While preoperative diagnosis is preferred in many centres to minimize rates of benign resection, and to limit reliance of intraoperative frozen section for surgical decision‐making, primary diagnostic surgical resection is recommended in some guidelines for lesions whose radiological features indicate a high probability of malignancy.8, 9 We expect that a higher proportion of patients will undergo resectional biopsy ± frozen section assessment during COVID‐19. Equally, where lesions have a sufficiently high likelihood of malignancy, even in high‐risk surgical patients, empiric stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) may be delivered safely on the basis of radiological predictors of malignancy risk.10, 11 SABR is now well established as a safe and effective treatment modality for localized (N0) NSCLC and should be considered in suitable patients. Treatment of centrally positioned tumours by SABR is associated with a higher risk of major complications, and it is predominantly this subset of patients that will still require bronchoscopic diagnosis. Radial endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) or navigation bronchoscopy is frequently undertaken for diagnosis of peripheral pulmonary lesions. Radial EBUS is the preferred approach due to a high sensitivity and favourable complication profile. Percutaneous lung biopsy with either computed tomography (CT) or ultrasound guidance demonstrates high diagnostic accuracy and is suggested as a diagnostic option. The procedure is generally performed with only local anaesthesia, under aseptic conditions, and presents a lower risk of transmission of infection than bronchoscopic procedures (see Section Anaesthesia). We recommend percutaneous biopsy where technically possible after review by an interventional radiologist. We expect that a small number of patients will still require radial EBUS for diagnosis of centrally positioned lesions (or linear EBUS/EUS‐B15, 16) unsuitable for SABR (prior to conventionally fractionated radiotherapy), predominantly within patients at higher surgical risk due to either cardiorespiratory disease or radiological characteristics of the tumour.

Stage II

Many centres would undertake minimally invasive mediastinal LN staging patients with cN1 findings on PET due to the elevated risk of post‐operative upstaging to N2 in this group. However, given the current risks and potentially reduced sensitivity of EBUS/endoscopic staging in this patient subset,17, 18 we suggest that such patients undergo percutaneous biopsy of the primary tumour prior to surgical resection, or may even be appropriate for surgical resection without a tissue diagnosis, given the high likelihood of malignancy.

Stage III (cN2/3)

In this staging group, we (simplistically) identify two separate scenarios based on PET findings: (i) single‐station N2 disease in otherwise operative candidates and (ii) multilevel/bulky mediastinal LN involvement. For patients with single‐station LN involvement, we recommend performance of LN staging with linear EBUS due to the major impact on therapeutic decision‐making according to pathological status of this LN. Sampling via oesophageal endoscopic route (EUS‐B) is associated with shorter procedure times and may reduce cough, and may be considered where expertise allows. Systematic mediastinal LN staging by EBUS improves staging in patients with Stage III NSCLC and significantly improves coverage of subclinical disease through detection of PET‐occult metastases. Nevertheless, the proportion of patients in whom PET‐occult disease is detected20, 22 may not justify the risk to HCW resulting from performance of bronchoscopy. Patients with bulky/multi‐station mediastinal involvement on PET may be appropriately cared for by percutaneous biopsy, without need for (minimally invasive) mediastinal sampling. Sensitivity of PET in such instances is high and radiation fields can safely be constructed on the basis of PET‐identified disease extent.

Stage IV

Minimally invasive tissue diagnosis is perhaps most critical in this group due to the importance of NSCLC sub‐typing for treatment planning as well as the need to complete molecular characterization of the tumour, including detection of driver mutations and assessment of PD‐L1 (Programmed Death Ligand ‐ 1) status, which can be achieved with high accuracy by EBUS. Tissue confirmation of suspected metastatic site is recommended, and should provide sufficient tissue to allow molecular testing to be completed. Thus, percutaneous biopsy should be sufficient for most patients. We expect there will remain a minority of patients with clinical Stage IV NSCLC who require bronchoscopic tissue diagnosis, likely via linear EBUS. These include patients with suspected nodules in ipsilateral lobes (T4) or contralateral lung (M1a), as well as patients with extrathoracic sites identified on PET unsuitable for minimally invasive biopsy. This includes patients with only bony metastases, which are recommended to be avoided due to low yield of tumour cells and poor DNA quality consequent to decalcification acids.

PRE‐PROCEDURE SCREENING

The intent of pre‐procedure screening is to identify patients with possible/likely COVID‐19 infection in order to instigate isolation practices to minimize transmission risks, including to HCW. Patients should be screened (either prior by phone or at entry to the health facility) for clinical or epidemiological markers of risk for active COVID‐19 infection. Recent overseas travel or close contact with a known case of COVID‐19 should prompt a delay of the procedure by a fortnight (provided they do not subsequently develop symptoms of COVID‐19 infection). Presence of fever/respiratory illness, depending on local community prevalence rates/practices, may prompt testing for COVID and delay of bronchoscopy until confirmatory negative results are known. Where resources allow, consideration should be given to pre‐bronchoscopic testing for asymptomatic COVID‐19 infection via nasopharyngeal swab. Negative results would allow patients to proceed to bronchoscopy/EBUS, while positive testing would suggest a delay in undertaking the procedure—while lung cancer diagnosis cannot wait several months, it certainly can wait 2 weeks, which is longer than the time to viral clearance following mild COVID‐19 illness. If patients develop symptoms subsequent to a positive test, then a longer delay before bronchoscopy is needed.28, 29 Critically, we note that sensitivity of nasopharyngeal swab for COVID‐19 infection has been reported at 71–83% among symptomatic patients,30, 31 and may be even lower among asymptomatic patients. Given the numerous reports regarding false‐negative results for nasopharyngeal swab reverse transcriptase (RT)‐PCR testing,32, 33 we recommend universal precautions, including PPE (below), be applied even in the event of a negative nasopharyngeal swab result.

ANAESTHESIA

Bronchoscopy is considered an AGP; however, the highest risk of infection transmission has been reported with tracheal intubation and extubation. Use of muscle relaxant may reduce cough and aerosol generation; however, it is not clear that this reduces aerosol generation associated with endotracheal intubation, and will not lessen the risk at the time of extubation. Therefore, given the large risk associated with intubation/extubation, we feel the preferred approach is for the procedure to be performed with moderate/deep intravenous sedation. Aerosol generation is highest at the time of bronchoscopic intubation. Use of a laryngeal mask airway (LMA) may allow deeper sedation and reduced cough, although the impact on potential for transmission of infection remains unknown. Transmission of SARS‐CoV‐2 is predominantly via droplet spread. Use of PPE (below) is essential to minimize the risk of HCW infection. Dispersal of droplets following respiratory expulsion may significantly exceed 1–2 m, and viruses may survive in the air for hours and on surfaces for days. Prevention of droplet dispersal may significantly mitigate HCW exposure, resulting in greater levels of protection than achieved through wearing of masks by HCW. Masks worn at the droplet ‘source’ (by the patient) significantly reduce aerosol dispersal and viral content in dispersed respiratory droplets. This can potentially be achieved during bronchoscopy through use of a ‘slotted mask’ during the procedure to minimize droplet dispersal following cough (Fig. 1).
Figure 1

Oral intubation by the linear videobronchoscope through a small incision in a standard surgical mask. This ‘slotted mask’ allows airway access during a moderate sedation anaesthetic while minimizing droplet spread especially during episodes of cough.

Oral intubation by the linear videobronchoscope through a small incision in a standard surgical mask. This ‘slotted mask’ allows airway access during a moderate sedation anaesthetic while minimizing droplet spread especially during episodes of cough. Use of a surgical mask, or even FFP2/N95 masks, to the patient following LMA extubation may also be an important risk mitigation intervention. No nebulizers including lignocaine should be used. Nebulization itself is an AGP, and nebulization may convert bronchoscopy to a higher risk procedure also.

PROCEDURE

Where possible, procedures should be performed in a negative pressure room. Consider re‐application of lignocaine to minimize cough on/following extubation of the bronchoscope. Both for the purposes of preservation of PPE, as well as minimization of HCW exposure, the procedure should be performed with the minimum number of staff in the procedure room. Guidelines will be available in individual institutions/jurisdictions, but should include use of P2/N95 high‐particulate respiratory masks and level 3–4 barrier protection (disposable gloves, impervious gown and eye protection). It is self‐evident that the procedure should be performed in the shortest time possible and with the fewest number of sampling procedures required to achieve the clinical goal. Accordingly, procedures should be performed only by consultant interventional pulmonologists. While use of rapid on‐site cytological evaluation (ROSE) may increase the number of HCW exposed, we believe use of ROSE is overall highly beneficial due to the impact on reduced number of needle passes as well as reduced requirement for additional bronchoscopy procedures to make a final diagnosis, and the consequent reduced procedure times achieved by their utilization. Consequently, our preference is to use ROSE during the COVID‐19 event. This should only be done in discussion with local experts/authorities.

FURTHER COMMENTS

It may be prudent to routinely submit bronchial washing specimens collect at bronchoscopy for COVID testing. Exact rates of asymptomatic infection in COVID are unknown but may be significant.44, 45 Asymptomatic cases likely contribute significantly to community transmission of COVID.46, 47, 48 Pandemic influenza is more readily detected in lower respiratory tract specimens,49, 50 with limited reports suggesting the same is true for SARS‐CoV‐2.33, 51 The most sensitive detection of coronavirus requires testing of both upper and lower respiratory samples.52, 53 Beyond the public health advantage of accurately determining infection numbers, significant benefits may follow detection of asymptomatic or mild/early cases. These patients are individually at risk of adverse outcomes of COVID‐19 infection, but equally in their subsequent care are likely to be in close contact with HCW, as well as a vulnerable group of fellow patients. It is possible they will be receiving immunosuppressive therapies as part of their treatment. Routine testing is suggested by at least one international practice statement, although it should be based on local resources and addressed in discussion with local health authorities. Practice may differ depending on the phase of the pandemic community infection prevalence.

CONCLUSIONS

The SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic is unprecedented in our professional lives and much effort and resources will be devoted to care of patients (and HCW) affected by this illness. Nevertheless, we must also continue to aim for the same standard of care for our non‐COVID respiratory patients, while minimizing risks of infection transmission to our colleagues. This commentary has addressed the key paired issues of minimizing performance of bronchoscopy to only patients with no alternate option while maximizing the safety of the procedure with respect to HCW transmission. aerosol‐generating procedure coronavirus disease 2019 computed tomography endobronchial ultrasound EBUS‐transbronchial needle aspiration endoscopic ultrasound using (video) bronchoscope healthcare worker laryngeal mask airway lymph node non‐small cell lung cancer polymerase chain reaction positron emission tomography personal protective equipment rapid on‐site cytological evaluation stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2
  49 in total

1.  Sequential multimodality bronchoscopic investigation of peripheral pulmonary lesions.

Authors:  Daniel P Steinfort; Asha Bonney; Katharine See; Louis B Irving
Journal:  Eur Respir J       Date:  2015-11-05       Impact factor: 16.671

2.  Turbulent Gas Clouds and Respiratory Pathogen Emissions: Potential Implications for Reducing Transmission of COVID-19.

Authors:  Lydia Bourouiba
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2020-05-12       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Transbronchial vs transesophageal needle aspiration using an ultrasound bronchoscope for the diagnosis of mediastinal lesions: a randomized study.

Authors:  Masahide Oki; Hideo Saka; Masahiko Ando; Rie Tsuboi; Masashi Nakahata; Saori Oka; Yoshihito Kogure; Chiyoe Kitagawa
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 9.410

4.  Preoperative Staging by EBUS in cN0/N1 Lung Cancer: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Tracy L Leong; Paula M Loveland; Alexandra Gorelik; Louis Irving; Daniel P Steinfort
Journal:  J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol       Date:  2019-07

5.  Endosonography for mediastinal nodal staging of clinical N1 non-small cell lung cancer: a prospective multicenter study.

Authors:  Christophe Dooms; Kurt G Tournoy; Olga Schuurbiers; Herbert Decaluwe; Frédéric De Ryck; Ad Verhagen; Roel Beelen; Erik van der Heijden; Paul De Leyn
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 9.410

6.  Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration for the diagnosis of intrapulmonary lesions.

Authors:  Takahiro Nakajima; Kazuhiro Yasufuku; Taiki Fujiwara; Masako Chiyo; Yasuo Sekine; Kiyoshi Shibuya; Kenzo Hiroshima; Ichiro Yoshino
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 15.609

7.  Performing Bronchoscopy in Times of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Practice Statement from an International Expert Panel.

Authors:  Fengming Luo; Kaid Darwiche; Suveer Singh; Alfonso Torrego; Daniel P Steinfort; Stefano Gasparini; Dan Liu; Wei Zhang; Sebastian Fernandez-Bussy; Felix J F Herth; Pallav L Shah
Journal:  Respiration       Date:  2020-04-28       Impact factor: 3.580

8.  Systematic endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration improves radiotherapy planning in non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Aidan Joseph Cole; Nicholas Hardcastle; Guy-Anne Turgeon; Roshini Thomas; Louis B Irving; Barton R Jennings; David Ball; Tomas Kron; Daniel P Steinfort; Shankar Siva
Journal:  ERJ Open Res       Date:  2019-07-15

9.  Diagnosis of influenza from lower respiratory tract sampling after negative upper respiratory tract sampling.

Authors:  Isaac I Bogoch; Jason R Andrews; Kimon C Zachary; Elizabeth L Hohmann
Journal:  Virulence       Date:  2012-11-07       Impact factor: 5.882

10.  Characterization of Aerosols Generated During Patient Care Activities.

Authors:  Caroline A O'Neil; Jiayu Li; Anna Leavey; Yang Wang; Matthew Hink; Meghan Wallace; Pratim Biswas; Carey-Ann D Burnham; Hilary M Babcock
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2017-10-15       Impact factor: 9.079

View more
  11 in total

1.  Bronchoscopy during the COVID-19 pandemic: A survey study.

Authors:  Benan Çağlayan; Ferhan Karataş; Sinem İliaz; Işıl Uzel; Ayşe Bilge Öztürk; Tuane Demir
Journal:  Turk Gogus Kalp Damar Cerrahisi Derg       Date:  2021-04-26       Impact factor: 0.332

2.  A novel protective barrier enclosure for performing bronchoscopy.

Authors:  Shinichi Yamamoto; Masayuki Nakayama; Hiroyoshi Tsubochi; Shunsuke Endo
Journal:  Respir Investig       Date:  2020-09-16

3.  Fiberoptic bronchoscopy via intubation box during COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors:  Serap Argun Baris; Gozde Oksuzler; Hasim Boyaci; Ilknur Basyigit
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-03-02       Impact factor: 2.885

4.  Lung Cancer Screening Considerations During Respiratory Infection Outbreaks, Epidemics or Pandemics: An International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Early Detection and Screening Committee Report.

Authors:  Rudolf M Huber; Milena Cavic; Anna Kerpel-Fronius; Lucia Viola; John Field; Long Jiang; Ella A Kazerooni; Coenraad F N Koegelenberg; Anant Mohan; Ricardo Sales Dos Santos; Luigi Ventura; Murry Wynes; Dawei Yang; Javier Zulueta; Choon-Taek Lee; Martin C Tammemägi; Claudia I Henschke; Stephen Lam
Journal:  J Thorac Oncol       Date:  2021-12-03       Impact factor: 15.609

5.  The role of bronchoscopy in patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia.

Authors:  Marisol Arenas-De Larriva; Roberto Martín-DeLeon; Blanca Urrutia Royo; Iker Fernández-Navamuel; Andrés Gimenez Velando; Laura Nuñez García; Carmen Centeno Clemente; Felipe Andreo García; Albert Rafecas Codern; Carmen Fernández-Arias; Virginia Pajares Ruiz; Alfons Torrego Fernández; Olga Rajas; Gorane Iturricastillo; Ricardo Garcia Lujan; Lorena Comeche Casanova; Albert Sánchez-Font; Ricardo Aguilar-Colindres; Roberto Larrosa-Barrero; Ruth García García; Rosa Cordovilla; Ana Núñez-Ares; Andrés Briones-Gómez; Enrique Cases Viedma; José Franco; Javier Cosano Povedano; Manuel Luis Rodríguez-Perálvarez; Jose Joaquin Cebrian Gallardo; Manuel Nuñez Delgado; María Pavón-Masa; Maria Del Mar Valdivia Salas; Javier Flandes
Journal:  ERJ Open Res       Date:  2021-07-12

Review 6.  Imaging diagnosis of bronchogenic carcinoma (the forgotten disease) during times of COVID-19 pandemic: Current and future perspectives.

Authors:  Ravikanth Reddy
Journal:  World J Clin Oncol       Date:  2021-06-24

Review 7.  Safe performance of diagnostic bronchoscopy/EBUS during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Authors:  Daniel P Steinfort; Felix J F Herth; Louis B Irving; Phan T Nguyen
Journal:  Respirology       Date:  2020-05-13       Impact factor: 6.175

8.  Predictive molecular pathology in the time of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in Europe.

Authors:  Umberto Malapelle; Pasquale Pisapia; Antonino Iaccarino; Massimo Barberis; Claudio Bellevicine; Hans Brunnström; Dario de Biase; Giovanna De Maglio; Kajsa Ericson Lindquist; Matteo Fassan; Gabriella Fontanini; Elisa Gruppioni; Paul Hofman; Sabine Merkelbach-Bruse; Miguel A Molina Vila; Anaïs Pujals; Ida Rapa; Luisella Righi; Rafael Rosell; Oliver Schildgen; Verena Schildgen; Fernando C Schmitt; Giovanni Tallini; Sara Vander Borght; Elena Vigliar; Marco Volante; Svenja Wagener-Ryczek; Birgit Weynand; Giancarlo Troncone
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2020-07-31       Impact factor: 3.411

9.  Novel device to prevent droplets in bronchoscopy during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic.

Authors:  Keigo Uchimura; Kei Yamasaki; Toshinori Kawanami; Hideki Kanda; Hideki Sakakibara; Kazuhiro Yatera
Journal:  Thorac Cancer       Date:  2020-11-04       Impact factor: 3.500

10.  Bronchoscopic procedures during COVID-19 pandemic: Experiences in Turkey.

Authors:  Ayperi Ozturk; Melahat U Sener; Aydın Yılmaz
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-08-11       Impact factor: 2.885

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.