Posture influences patient cough rate, sedative requirement and comfort during bronchoscopy: An observational cohort study.

Ivan T Ling, Francesco Piccolo, Siobhain A Mulrennan, Martin J Phillips
{"title":"Posture influences patient cough rate, sedative requirement and comfort during bronchoscopy: An observational cohort study.","authors":"Ivan T Ling,&nbsp;Francesco Piccolo,&nbsp;Siobhain A Mulrennan,&nbsp;Martin J Phillips","doi":"10.1186/1745-9974-7-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To investigate differences between semi-recumbent and supine postures in terms of cough rate, oxygen desaturation, sedative use, and patient comfort during the initial phase of bronchoscopy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Consecutive bronchoscopy patients (n = 69) participated in this observational cohort study. Posture was determined by the bronchoscopist's usual practice. Patient demographics, spirometry, pulse, and SpO2 were recorded. The initial phase was defined as the time from bronchoscopy insertion to visualisation of both distal main bronchi. Cough rate, peak pulse, nadir SpO2, oxygen supplementation, and sedative use during the initial phase were recorded. A post-procedure questionnaire was administered to the patient and the attending nurse.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>36 patients had bronchoscopy in the semi-recumbent posture, 33 in the supine posture. 3 of 5 bronchoscopists performed in both postures. There were no differences in baseline parameters between the groups. The semi-recumbent posture resulted in significantly less cough (mean (SD) 3.6 (2.3) vs. 6.1 (4.5) coughs/min, p = 0.007) and less fentanyl use (70 (29) vs. 88 (28) mcg, p = 0.011) in the initial phase. There were no significant differences in the nadir SpO2, fall in SpO2, oxygen supplementation, or increase in pulse rate between the groups. On 100 mm visual analogue scale, nurse perception of patient discomfort was lower in the semi-recumbent position (23 (21) vs. 39 (28) mm, p = 0.01), and there was a trend towards less patient perceived cough in the semi-recumbent group (28 (25) vs. 40 (28) mm, p = 0.06).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Bronchoscopy performed in the semi-recumbent posture results in less cough and sedative requirement, and may improve patient comfort.</p>","PeriodicalId":10747,"journal":{"name":"Cough (London, England)","volume":"7 ","pages":"9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/1745-9974-7-9","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cough (London, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-9974-7-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate differences between semi-recumbent and supine postures in terms of cough rate, oxygen desaturation, sedative use, and patient comfort during the initial phase of bronchoscopy.

Methods: Consecutive bronchoscopy patients (n = 69) participated in this observational cohort study. Posture was determined by the bronchoscopist's usual practice. Patient demographics, spirometry, pulse, and SpO2 were recorded. The initial phase was defined as the time from bronchoscopy insertion to visualisation of both distal main bronchi. Cough rate, peak pulse, nadir SpO2, oxygen supplementation, and sedative use during the initial phase were recorded. A post-procedure questionnaire was administered to the patient and the attending nurse.

Results: 36 patients had bronchoscopy in the semi-recumbent posture, 33 in the supine posture. 3 of 5 bronchoscopists performed in both postures. There were no differences in baseline parameters between the groups. The semi-recumbent posture resulted in significantly less cough (mean (SD) 3.6 (2.3) vs. 6.1 (4.5) coughs/min, p = 0.007) and less fentanyl use (70 (29) vs. 88 (28) mcg, p = 0.011) in the initial phase. There were no significant differences in the nadir SpO2, fall in SpO2, oxygen supplementation, or increase in pulse rate between the groups. On 100 mm visual analogue scale, nurse perception of patient discomfort was lower in the semi-recumbent position (23 (21) vs. 39 (28) mm, p = 0.01), and there was a trend towards less patient perceived cough in the semi-recumbent group (28 (25) vs. 40 (28) mm, p = 0.06).

Conclusions: Bronchoscopy performed in the semi-recumbent posture results in less cough and sedative requirement, and may improve patient comfort.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
支气管镜检查时姿势影响患者咳嗽率、镇静需求和舒适度:一项观察性队列研究。
目的:探讨半卧位和仰卧位在支气管镜检查初期咳嗽率、氧饱和度、镇静剂使用和患者舒适度方面的差异。方法:连续支气管镜检查患者(n = 69)参加了这项观察性队列研究。姿势由支气管镜医师的常规做法决定。记录患者人口统计学、肺活量、脉搏和SpO2。初始阶段被定义为从支气管镜插入到两个远端主支气管可见的时间。记录患儿初期咳嗽率、脉搏峰值、SpO2最低点、补氧情况及镇静剂使用情况。对患者和主治护士进行术后问卷调查。结果:半卧位支气管镜检查36例,仰卧位支气管镜检查33例。5名支气管镜医师中有3名采用两种体位。两组间基线参数无差异。半卧位导致咳嗽明显减少(平均(SD) 3.6(2.3)对6.1(4.5)次咳嗽/分钟,p = 0.007),芬太尼使用减少(70(29)对88 (28)mcg, p = 0.011)。两组之间的SpO2最低点、SpO2下降、氧补充或脉搏率增加均无显著差异。在100 mm视觉模拟量表上,半卧位护士对患者不适的感知较低(23 (21)mm比39 (28)mm, p = 0.01),半卧位患者对咳嗽的感知较低(28 (25)mm比40 (28)mm, p = 0.06)。结论:半卧位支气管镜检查可减少咳嗽和镇静需求,并可改善患者的舒适度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A crossover randomized comparative study of zofenopril and ramipril on cough reflex and airway inflammation in healthy volunteers. Standardized method for solubility and storage of capsaicin-based solutions for cough induction. On the definition of chronic cough and current treatment pathways: an international qualitative study. Effect of acid suppression therapy on gastroesophageal reflux and cough in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: an intervention study. Severity of cough in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis is associated with MUC5 B genotype.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1