Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Swedish study participants undergoing research bronchoscopy - a tolerable or unpleasant experience?

Sönnerfors, Pernilla ; Jacobson, Petra Kristina ; Andersson, Anders ; Bjermer, Leif Hilding LU ; Blomberg, Anders ; Blomqvist, Heléne ; Janson, Christer ; Erjefält, Jonas S LU ; Persson, Hans Lennart and Tufvesson, Ellen LU , et al. (2025) In Frontiers in Medicine 12.
Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Flexible bronchoscopy is regarded as a safe examination and is commonly used in the diagnostic work-up for lung diseases, but is also important in pulmonary research. We aimed to investigate participants' experiences when undergoing bronchoscopy in a research setting.

METHODS: Participants were recruited from the Swedish CArdioPulmonary bioImage Study (SCAPIS). A subset from this cohort (n = 45, mean age 60.5 years, 20 with normal lung function and 25 with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, COPD) was selected for bronchoscopy. The procedure was explained both orally and in writing during a pre-procedure visit. The information included premedication, monitoring, local anesthesia, airway sampling [bronchoalveolar... (More)

INTRODUCTION: Flexible bronchoscopy is regarded as a safe examination and is commonly used in the diagnostic work-up for lung diseases, but is also important in pulmonary research. We aimed to investigate participants' experiences when undergoing bronchoscopy in a research setting.

METHODS: Participants were recruited from the Swedish CArdioPulmonary bioImage Study (SCAPIS). A subset from this cohort (n = 45, mean age 60.5 years, 20 with normal lung function and 25 with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, COPD) was selected for bronchoscopy. The procedure was explained both orally and in writing during a pre-procedure visit. The information included premedication, monitoring, local anesthesia, airway sampling [bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), bronchial wash, and mucosal biopsies], and urine and blood samples. Questionnaires pre- and/or post-procedure were used to assess experiences and health impacts.

RESULTS: In general, participants found the bronchoscopy procedure acceptable and only a few (18%) found it unpleasant. A majority (80%) reported their experience to be much better or as expected. Almost all participants (93%) were very satisfied with the information provided. Topical anesthesia was seen as more unpleasant (20%) than airway sampling (11%). Notably, more women and participants with normal lung function reported BAL as unpleasant. After the procedure, chills, fever, and hemoptysis were reported, but no serious adverse events occurred. Increased cough and phlegm were noted.

CONCLUSION: The present study, conducted by experienced bronchoscopists and healthcare teams, demonstrates that a bronchoscopy in a research setting in well-informed participants with normal lung function or COPD was well-tolerated.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; and , et al. (More)
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; and (Less)
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
Frontiers in Medicine
volume
12
article number
1648729
publisher
Frontiers Media S. A.
external identifiers
  • pmid:41020207
ISSN
2296-858X
DOI
10.3389/fmed.2025.1648729
language
English
LU publication?
yes
additional info
Copyright © 2025 Sönnerfors, Jacobson, Andersson, Bjermer, Blomberg, Blomqvist, Janson, Erjefält, Persson, Tufvesson, Wheelock, Sköld and Behndig.
id
a3140835-1f82-4e1b-a8b3-b2a149f1de73
date added to LUP
2025-09-30 08:47:20
date last changed
2025-09-30 08:50:05
@article{a3140835-1f82-4e1b-a8b3-b2a149f1de73,
  abstract     = {{<p>INTRODUCTION: Flexible bronchoscopy is regarded as a safe examination and is commonly used in the diagnostic work-up for lung diseases, but is also important in pulmonary research. We aimed to investigate participants' experiences when undergoing bronchoscopy in a research setting.</p><p>METHODS: Participants were recruited from the Swedish CArdioPulmonary bioImage Study (SCAPIS). A subset from this cohort (n = 45, mean age 60.5 years, 20 with normal lung function and 25 with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, COPD) was selected for bronchoscopy. The procedure was explained both orally and in writing during a pre-procedure visit. The information included premedication, monitoring, local anesthesia, airway sampling [bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), bronchial wash, and mucosal biopsies], and urine and blood samples. Questionnaires pre- and/or post-procedure were used to assess experiences and health impacts.</p><p>RESULTS: In general, participants found the bronchoscopy procedure acceptable and only a few (18%) found it unpleasant. A majority (80%) reported their experience to be much better or as expected. Almost all participants (93%) were very satisfied with the information provided. Topical anesthesia was seen as more unpleasant (20%) than airway sampling (11%). Notably, more women and participants with normal lung function reported BAL as unpleasant. After the procedure, chills, fever, and hemoptysis were reported, but no serious adverse events occurred. Increased cough and phlegm were noted.</p><p>CONCLUSION: The present study, conducted by experienced bronchoscopists and healthcare teams, demonstrates that a bronchoscopy in a research setting in well-informed participants with normal lung function or COPD was well-tolerated.</p>}},
  author       = {{Sönnerfors, Pernilla and Jacobson, Petra Kristina and Andersson, Anders and Bjermer, Leif Hilding and Blomberg, Anders and Blomqvist, Heléne and Janson, Christer and Erjefält, Jonas S and Persson, Hans Lennart and Tufvesson, Ellen and Wheelock, Åsa M and Sköld, Carl Magnus and Behndig, Annelie}},
  issn         = {{2296-858X}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  publisher    = {{Frontiers Media S. A.}},
  series       = {{Frontiers in Medicine}},
  title        = {{Swedish study participants undergoing research bronchoscopy - a tolerable or unpleasant experience?}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2025.1648729}},
  doi          = {{10.3389/fmed.2025.1648729}},
  volume       = {{12}},
  year         = {{2025}},
}