Cargando…
Topical Nasal Anesthesia in Flexible Bronchoscopy – A Cross-Over Comparison between Two Devices
INTRODUCTION: Topical airway anesthesia is known to improve tolerance and patient satisfaction during flexible bronchoscopy (FB). Lidocaine is commonly used, delivered as an atomized spray. The current study assesses safety and patient satisfaction for nasal anesthesia of a new atomization device du...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4792394/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26978775 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150905 |
_version_ | 1782421235663110144 |
---|---|
author | Fuehner, Thomas Fuge, Jan Jungen, Meike Buck, Anna Suhling, Hendrik Welte, Tobias Gottlieb, Jens Greer, Mark |
author_facet | Fuehner, Thomas Fuge, Jan Jungen, Meike Buck, Anna Suhling, Hendrik Welte, Tobias Gottlieb, Jens Greer, Mark |
author_sort | Fuehner, Thomas |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Topical airway anesthesia is known to improve tolerance and patient satisfaction during flexible bronchoscopy (FB). Lidocaine is commonly used, delivered as an atomized spray. The current study assesses safety and patient satisfaction for nasal anesthesia of a new atomization device during outpatient bronchoscopy in lung transplant recipients. METHODS: Using a prospective, non-blinded, cross-over design, patients enrolled between 01-10-2014 and 24-11-2014 received 2% lidocaine using the standard reusable nasal atomizer (CRNA). Those enrolled between 25-11-2014 and 30-01-2015, received a disposable intranasal mucosal atomization device (DIMAD). After each procedure, the treating physician, their assistant and the patient independently rated side-effects and satisfaction, basing their responses on visual analogue scales (VAS). At their next scheduled bronchoscopy during the study period, patients then received the alternative atomizer. Written consent was obtained prior to the first bronchoscopy, and the study approved by the institutional ethics committee. RESULTS: Of the 252 patients enrolled between 01-10-2014 and 30-01-2015, 80 (32%) received both atomizers. Physicians reported better efficacy (p = 0.001) and fewer side effects (p< = 0.001) for DIMAD in patients exposed to both procedures. Among patients with one visit, physicians and their assistants reported improved efficacy (p = 0.018, p = 0.002) and fewer side effects (p< = 0.001, p = 0.029) for the disposable atomizer, whereas patients reported no difference in efficacy or side effects (p = 0.72 and p = 0.20). No severe adverse events were noted. The cost of the reusable device was 4.08€ per procedure, compared to 3.70€ for the disposable device. DISCUSSION: Topical nasal anesthesia via a disposable intranasal mucosal atomization device (DIMAD) offers comparable safety and patient comfort, compared to conventional reusable nasal atomizers (CRNA) in lung transplant recipients. Procedural costs were reduced by 0.34€ per procedure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT02237651 |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4792394 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-47923942016-03-23 Topical Nasal Anesthesia in Flexible Bronchoscopy – A Cross-Over Comparison between Two Devices Fuehner, Thomas Fuge, Jan Jungen, Meike Buck, Anna Suhling, Hendrik Welte, Tobias Gottlieb, Jens Greer, Mark PLoS One Research Article INTRODUCTION: Topical airway anesthesia is known to improve tolerance and patient satisfaction during flexible bronchoscopy (FB). Lidocaine is commonly used, delivered as an atomized spray. The current study assesses safety and patient satisfaction for nasal anesthesia of a new atomization device during outpatient bronchoscopy in lung transplant recipients. METHODS: Using a prospective, non-blinded, cross-over design, patients enrolled between 01-10-2014 and 24-11-2014 received 2% lidocaine using the standard reusable nasal atomizer (CRNA). Those enrolled between 25-11-2014 and 30-01-2015, received a disposable intranasal mucosal atomization device (DIMAD). After each procedure, the treating physician, their assistant and the patient independently rated side-effects and satisfaction, basing their responses on visual analogue scales (VAS). At their next scheduled bronchoscopy during the study period, patients then received the alternative atomizer. Written consent was obtained prior to the first bronchoscopy, and the study approved by the institutional ethics committee. RESULTS: Of the 252 patients enrolled between 01-10-2014 and 30-01-2015, 80 (32%) received both atomizers. Physicians reported better efficacy (p = 0.001) and fewer side effects (p< = 0.001) for DIMAD in patients exposed to both procedures. Among patients with one visit, physicians and their assistants reported improved efficacy (p = 0.018, p = 0.002) and fewer side effects (p< = 0.001, p = 0.029) for the disposable atomizer, whereas patients reported no difference in efficacy or side effects (p = 0.72 and p = 0.20). No severe adverse events were noted. The cost of the reusable device was 4.08€ per procedure, compared to 3.70€ for the disposable device. DISCUSSION: Topical nasal anesthesia via a disposable intranasal mucosal atomization device (DIMAD) offers comparable safety and patient comfort, compared to conventional reusable nasal atomizers (CRNA) in lung transplant recipients. Procedural costs were reduced by 0.34€ per procedure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT02237651 Public Library of Science 2016-03-15 /pmc/articles/PMC4792394/ /pubmed/26978775 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150905 Text en © 2016 Fuehner et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Fuehner, Thomas Fuge, Jan Jungen, Meike Buck, Anna Suhling, Hendrik Welte, Tobias Gottlieb, Jens Greer, Mark Topical Nasal Anesthesia in Flexible Bronchoscopy – A Cross-Over Comparison between Two Devices |
title | Topical Nasal Anesthesia in Flexible Bronchoscopy – A Cross-Over Comparison between Two Devices |
title_full | Topical Nasal Anesthesia in Flexible Bronchoscopy – A Cross-Over Comparison between Two Devices |
title_fullStr | Topical Nasal Anesthesia in Flexible Bronchoscopy – A Cross-Over Comparison between Two Devices |
title_full_unstemmed | Topical Nasal Anesthesia in Flexible Bronchoscopy – A Cross-Over Comparison between Two Devices |
title_short | Topical Nasal Anesthesia in Flexible Bronchoscopy – A Cross-Over Comparison between Two Devices |
title_sort | topical nasal anesthesia in flexible bronchoscopy – a cross-over comparison between two devices |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4792394/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26978775 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0150905 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT fuehnerthomas topicalnasalanesthesiainflexiblebronchoscopyacrossovercomparisonbetweentwodevices AT fugejan topicalnasalanesthesiainflexiblebronchoscopyacrossovercomparisonbetweentwodevices AT jungenmeike topicalnasalanesthesiainflexiblebronchoscopyacrossovercomparisonbetweentwodevices AT buckanna topicalnasalanesthesiainflexiblebronchoscopyacrossovercomparisonbetweentwodevices AT suhlinghendrik topicalnasalanesthesiainflexiblebronchoscopyacrossovercomparisonbetweentwodevices AT weltetobias topicalnasalanesthesiainflexiblebronchoscopyacrossovercomparisonbetweentwodevices AT gottliebjens topicalnasalanesthesiainflexiblebronchoscopyacrossovercomparisonbetweentwodevices AT greermark topicalnasalanesthesiainflexiblebronchoscopyacrossovercomparisonbetweentwodevices |