Pre-procedural COVID-19 nasopharyngeal swab has good concordance with bronchoalveolar lavage in patients at low risk for viral infection

4Citations
Citations of this article
31Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has drastically affected hospital and operating room (OR) workflow around the world as well as trainee education. Many institutions have instituted mandatory preoperative SARS-CoV-2 PCR nasopharyngeal swab (NS) testing in patients who are low risk for COVID-19 prior to elective cases. This method, however, is challenging as the sensitivity, specificity, and overall reliability of testing remains unclear. Objectives: The objective of this study was to assess the concordance of a negative NS in low risk preoperative patients with lower airway bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) specimens obtained from the same patients. Methods: We prospectively sent intraoperative lower airway BAL samples collected within 48 h of a negative mandatory preoperative NS for SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing. All adult patients undergoing a scheduled bronchoscopic procedure for any reason were enrolled, including elective and nonelective cases. Results: One-hundred eighty-nine patients were included. All BAL specimens were negative for SARS-CoV-2 indicative of 100% concordance between testing modalities. Conclusions: These results are promising and suggest that preoperative nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 testing provides adequate screening to rule out active COVID-19 infection prior to OR cases in a population characterized as low risk by negative symptom screening. This information can be used for both pre-procedural screening and when reintroducing trainees into the workforce.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Oberg, C. L., Ronaghi, R., Folch, E. E., Channick, C. L., He, T., Susanto, I., & Oh, S. S. (2021). Pre-procedural COVID-19 nasopharyngeal swab has good concordance with bronchoalveolar lavage in patients at low risk for viral infection. Respiration, 100(6), 510–514. https://doi.org/10.1159/000514928

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free