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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fuehner, Thomas, Fuge, Jan, Jungen, Meike, Buck, Anna, Suhling, Hendrik, Welte, Tobias, Gottlieb, Jens, Greer, Mark
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