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":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"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
Ibrutinib and Bleeding Hazards During Bronchoscopy. Rapid Pleurodesis in Patients With Chronic Noninfectious Pleural Effusion: Twenty Years of Real-world Performance Data. Safety and Efficacy of Rigid Bronchoscopy-guided Percutaneous Dilational Tracheostomy: A Single-center Experience. Diagnostic Value and Safety of Addition of Transbronchial Needle Aspiration to Transbronchial Biopsy Through Endobronchial Ultrasonography Using a Guide Sheath Under Virtual Bronchoscopic Navigation for the Diagnosis of Peripheral Pulmonary Lesions. Percutaneous Airway Silicone Stent External Fixation Outcomes and Techniques: Case Series With Literature Review.
×
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