Five Versus 10 Pharyngeal Sprays of 10% Lignocaine for Topical Anesthesia During Flexible Bronchoscopy: A Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial.

Hariharan Iyer, Mayank Mishra, Girish Sindhwani, Saurabh Mittal, Pawan Tiwari, Vijay Hadda, Anant Mohan, Randeep Guleria, Karan Madan
{"title":"Five Versus 10 Pharyngeal Sprays of 10% Lignocaine for Topical Anesthesia During Flexible Bronchoscopy: A Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Hariharan Iyer,&nbsp;Mayank Mishra,&nbsp;Girish Sindhwani,&nbsp;Saurabh Mittal,&nbsp;Pawan Tiwari,&nbsp;Vijay Hadda,&nbsp;Anant Mohan,&nbsp;Randeep Guleria,&nbsp;Karan Madan","doi":"10.1097/LBR.0000000000000869","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Ensuring adequate patient comfort is crucial during bronchoscopy. Although lidocaine spray is recommended for topical pharyngeal anesthesia, the optimum dose of sprays is unclear. We compared 5 versus 10 sprays of 10% lidocaine for topical anesthesia during bronchoscopy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this investigator-initiated, prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial, subjects were randomized to receive 5 (group A) or 10 sprays (group B) of 10% lidocaine. The primary objective was to compare the operator-rated overall procedure satisfaction between the groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two hundred eighty-four subjects were randomized (143 group A and 141 group B). The operator-rated overall procedure satisfaction, VAS [mean (SD)] was similar between the groups [group A, 74.1 (19.9) and group B, 74.3 (18.5), P =0.93]. The VAS scores of patient-rated cough [group A, 32.5 (22.9) and group B, 32.3 (22.2), P =0.93], and operator-rated cough [group A, 29.8 (22.3) and group B, 26.9 (21.5), P =0.26] were also similar. The time to reach vocal cords, overall procedure duration, mean doses of sedatives, the proportion of subjects willing to return for a repeat procedure (if required), and complications were not significantly different. Subjects in group A received significantly less cumulative lidocaine (mg) [group A, 293.9 (11.6) and group B, 343.5 (10.6), P <0.001].</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>During bronchoscopy, topical anesthesia with 5 sprays of 10% lidocaine is preferred as it is associated with a similar operator-rated overall procedure satisfaction at a lower cumulative lidocaine dose compared with 10 sprays.</p>","PeriodicalId":15268,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bronchology & Interventional Pulmonology","volume":"30 3","pages":"232-237"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bronchology & Interventional Pulmonology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/LBR.0000000000000869","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Ensuring adequate patient comfort is crucial during bronchoscopy. Although lidocaine spray is recommended for topical pharyngeal anesthesia, the optimum dose of sprays is unclear. We compared 5 versus 10 sprays of 10% lidocaine for topical anesthesia during bronchoscopy.

Methods: In this investigator-initiated, prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial, subjects were randomized to receive 5 (group A) or 10 sprays (group B) of 10% lidocaine. The primary objective was to compare the operator-rated overall procedure satisfaction between the groups.

Results: Two hundred eighty-four subjects were randomized (143 group A and 141 group B). The operator-rated overall procedure satisfaction, VAS [mean (SD)] was similar between the groups [group A, 74.1 (19.9) and group B, 74.3 (18.5), P =0.93]. The VAS scores of patient-rated cough [group A, 32.5 (22.9) and group B, 32.3 (22.2), P =0.93], and operator-rated cough [group A, 29.8 (22.3) and group B, 26.9 (21.5), P =0.26] were also similar. The time to reach vocal cords, overall procedure duration, mean doses of sedatives, the proportion of subjects willing to return for a repeat procedure (if required), and complications were not significantly different. Subjects in group A received significantly less cumulative lidocaine (mg) [group A, 293.9 (11.6) and group B, 343.5 (10.6), P <0.001].

Conclusion: During bronchoscopy, topical anesthesia with 5 sprays of 10% lidocaine is preferred as it is associated with a similar operator-rated overall procedure satisfaction at a lower cumulative lidocaine dose compared with 10 sprays.

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
柔性支气管镜下局部麻醉用10%利多卡因的5次与10次咽部喷雾:一项多中心随机对照试验。
背景:在支气管镜检查过程中,确保患者的舒适度至关重要。尽管利多卡因喷雾剂被推荐用于咽部局部麻醉,但喷雾剂的最佳剂量尚不清楚。我们比较了支气管镜检查期间5次和10次10%利多卡因局部麻醉喷雾的效果。方法:在这项由研究者发起的前瞻性、多中心、随机临床试验中,受试者被随机分配接受5次(A组)或10次10%利多卡因喷雾剂(B组)。主要目的是比较两组之间操作员评定的总体手术满意度。结果:284名受试者被随机分为A组143名和B组141名。操作员评定的总体手术满意度VAS[平均值(SD)]在两组之间相似[A组74.1(19.9)和B组74.3(18.5),P=0.93]。患者评定的咳嗽VAS评分[A组32.5(22.9)和B组32.3(22.2。到达声带的时间、整个手术持续时间、镇静剂的平均剂量、愿意返回进行重复手术的受试者比例(如果需要)以及并发症没有显著差异。A组受试者接受的利多卡因累积量(mg)显著减少[A组,293.9(11.6)和B组,343.5(10.6),P结论:在支气管镜检查期间,优选使用5次10%利多卡因喷雾的局部麻醉,因为与10次喷雾相比,累积利多卡因剂量较低时,这与类似操作员评定的总体手术满意度有关。
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
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
6.10%
发文量
121
期刊最新文献
Efficacy of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy During Bronchoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Reduction in Time-to-Diagnosis for Lung Cancer Resulting From Implementation of a Formal Incidental Pulmonary Nodule (IPN) Program Compared With Traditional Referral Pathways. Amniotic Membrane (AM) Covered Airway Stent Mitigates Airway Injury and Complications: A Comparative In Vivo Study in a Porcine Model. Routine Pathology Testing Prior to Bronchoscopy has Limited Clinical Impact With Significant Economic and Environmental Costs. American Association of Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology Essential Knowledge in Interventional Pulmonology Series: Selected Topics in Airway Stenting.
×
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:604180095
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