Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42674806›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open respiratory research2026

Randomised controlled trial to assess the safety and efficiency of a self-contained sampling device/disposable bronchoscope system versus usual sampling procedure (RASECAL).

Suveer Singh, Sanjeet Chana, James Mcentee, Kaladerhan Agbontaen, Andre Athayde, Ben Creagh-Brown, Dilshad Valliani, Jaime Carungcong, Laura Martins, Patricia Costa and 17 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open respiratory research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05964075 (A Randomized Controlled Trial to Assess the Safety and Efficiency of a Self-Contained Sampling Device /disposable Bronchoscope System Versus Usual SampLing Procedure.), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05964075 completednot on this map

A Randomized Controlled Trial to Assess the Safety and Efficiency of a Self-Contained Sampling Device /disposable Bronchoscope System Versus Usual SampLing Procedure.

TypeobservationalSponsorChelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation TrustRan2022 to 2024Enrolled207ConditionsRespiratory Failure
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

27 authors.

Suveer SinghRespiratory and Intensive Care Medicine, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK suveer.singh@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3219-8966
Sanjeet ChanaAdult Intensive Care, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
James McenteeAdult Intensive Care, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Kaladerhan AgbontaenAdult Intensive Care, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Andre AthaydeAdult Intensive Care, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK.
Ben Creagh-BrownAdult Intensive Care, Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK.
Dilshad VallianiAdult Intensive Care, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Jaime CarungcongAdult Intensive Care, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Laura MartinsAdult Intensive Care, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Patricia CostaAdult Intensive Care, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Ahmed Al HindawiAdult Intensive Care, University College Hospital, London, UK.
Vimal GroverAdult Intensive Care, Royal Marsden Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
David Robert WoodsAdult Intensive Care, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-4930-666X
David Benjamin AntcliffeAPMIC, Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1846-9160
Christopher SmartAdult Intensive Care, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Hisham SaidAdult Intensive Care, West Middlesex University Hospital, Isleworth, UK.
Monica PopescuAdult Intensive Care, West Middlesex University Hospital, Isleworth, UK.
Benjamin GarfieldAdult Intensive Care, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK.
Dennis OngAdult Intensive Care, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK.
Matteo CangialosiAdult Intensive Care, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK.
Ricardo LealAdult Intensive Care, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK.
Clare RussellAdult Intensive Care, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK.
Victoria TemplemanAdult Intensive Care, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK.
Alice SissonsAdult Intensive Care, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Jagdish SokhiAdult Intensive Care, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Linsey ChristieAdult Intensive Care, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Roger DaviesAPMIC, Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBronchial washing can be inefficient or unsafe due to aerosolisation, poor yield and loss of sample. The setup and connectivity of sampling containers is often challenging. Furthermore, the process of bronchoscopy in the intensive care unit is inadequately reported.We tested whether a novel closed bronchoscopy sampling system is safer and more efficient than the standard sampling technique. We recorded variation in bronchoscopy practice in mechanically ventilated patients.

methodsA multicentre randomised controlled trial saw 188 bronchoscopies performed in mechanically ventilated patients requiring diagnostic sampling. The closed-system Ambu bronchosampler (ABS) was compared to standard sampling containers (SSC) with single-use bronchoscopes (Ambu A4) for primary outcomes of safety (spill, unplanned disconnection) and efficiency (ease of connectivity, setup, loss of sample and % volume retrieved), secondary efficiency outcomes and the tertiary outcomes of the bronchoscopy process.

resultsABS was safer than SSC; spills 0% versus 23.7% (0/94 vs 22/93), p<0.001; unplanned tube disconnections 5.3% vs 21.3% (5/95 vs 20/93), p<0.001; unplanned container disconnections 2.1% vs 7.5% (2/95 vs 7/93), p=0.08. Efficiency was significantly higher in ABS than SSC (acceptable/(very) easy) setup 98.9% vs 82.8% (94/95 vs 77/93), connectivity 100% vs 54.7% (88/88 vs 47/86), upright 98.9% vs 10.8% (94/95 vs 10/93) and sample loss 11.6% vs 48.4% (11/95 vs 45/93), all p<0.001. Volume retrieved percentage unchanged (33.0% vs 35.4%, p>0.2).Bronchoscopy for infection in 80.9%, therapeutic lavage in 51% and infrequently otherwise. Prior imaging in 93.2%, preprocedural checklists/timeouts in 83.5% and post-procedure chest X-rays in 78.2%.Mandatory ventilation was most common peribronchoscopy. Neuromuscular blockade in 73.8% and recruitment manoeuvres in 34.7%. The bronchoscope was not removed intraprocedurally in 80.2% of cases. Positive microbiology was found in 45.7% of samples. Adverse events were rare (<5%).

conclusionsClosed-system bronchoscopic sampling was safer (less spill and unplanned disconnections) and more efficient (setup, connectivity and loss prevention) than standard containers. Closed-system diagnostic sampling devices should be the standard during bronchoscopy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05964075.

Indexed as

Bronchoalveolar LavageBronchoscopesBronchoscopyDisposable EquipmentEquipment DesignFemaleHumansMaleRespiration, ArtificialARDSBacterial InfectionBronchoscopyCOVID-19Critical CarePneumoniaRespiratory Infection

Identifiers

PMID42674806
PMCPMC13536103

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.