Cargando…

1% versus 2% lignocaine for airway anesthesia in endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: A pilot, double-blind, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: No previous study has compared different concentrations of lignocaine for topical anesthesia during endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA). In this pilot study, we compared 1% versus 2% lignocaine for topical airway anesthesia during E...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Biswal, Shiba Kalyan, Mittal, Saurabh, Hadda, Vijay, Mohan, Anant, Khilnani, Gopi C, Pandey, Ravindra M, Guleria, Randeep, Madan, Karan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6219128/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30381554
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/lungindia.lungindia_148_18
_version_ 1783368593068523520
author Biswal, Shiba Kalyan
Mittal, Saurabh
Hadda, Vijay
Mohan, Anant
Khilnani, Gopi C
Pandey, Ravindra M
Guleria, Randeep
Madan, Karan
author_facet Biswal, Shiba Kalyan
Mittal, Saurabh
Hadda, Vijay
Mohan, Anant
Khilnani, Gopi C
Pandey, Ravindra M
Guleria, Randeep
Madan, Karan
author_sort Biswal, Shiba Kalyan
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: No previous study has compared different concentrations of lignocaine for topical anesthesia during endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA). In this pilot study, we compared 1% versus 2% lignocaine for topical airway anesthesia during EBUS-TBNA. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized trial, subjects were randomized to receive either 1% or 2% lignocaine for “spray-as-you-go” administration. All received combined moderate intravenous sedation (midazolam and fentanyl). Ten percent pharyngeal lignocaine spray (two sprays) and nebulized lignocaine (2.5 ml of 4% solution) were administered to all subjects. Administration of additional lignocaine was allowed at operator's discretion. The primary endpoints were operator-rated overall procedural satisfaction and cough, each assessed on visual analog scale (VAS), while the secondary outcomes included patient-rated faces pain scale scores, cumulative lignocaine dose, number of subjects receiving lignocaine >8.2 mg/kg, doses of midazolam/fentanyl between groups, and adverse events during procedure. RESULTS: The mean (standard deviation [SD]) VAS scores for operator-rated procedure satisfaction were 64.2 (25.6) and 68.7 (23.7) in 1% and 2% group, respectively (P = 0.35). The median (interquartile range) VAS scores for operator-rated cough were 48.4 (23.9–69.9) in 1% group and 38.7 (18.6–69.5) in 2% group (P = 0.24). The mean [SD] cumulative lignocaine received in the 2% lignocaine group (248.6 [29.1] mg) was significantly greater than in 1% lignocaine group (178.5 [14.6] mg) (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: One percent lignocaine is equally efficacious as 2% lignocaine for topical anesthesia during EBUS-TBNA, at a significantly lower cumulative lignocaine dose.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6219128
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62191282018-11-30 1% versus 2% lignocaine for airway anesthesia in endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: A pilot, double-blind, randomized controlled trial Biswal, Shiba Kalyan Mittal, Saurabh Hadda, Vijay Mohan, Anant Khilnani, Gopi C Pandey, Ravindra M Guleria, Randeep Madan, Karan Lung India Original Article BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: No previous study has compared different concentrations of lignocaine for topical anesthesia during endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA). In this pilot study, we compared 1% versus 2% lignocaine for topical airway anesthesia during EBUS-TBNA. METHODS: In this double-blind, randomized trial, subjects were randomized to receive either 1% or 2% lignocaine for “spray-as-you-go” administration. All received combined moderate intravenous sedation (midazolam and fentanyl). Ten percent pharyngeal lignocaine spray (two sprays) and nebulized lignocaine (2.5 ml of 4% solution) were administered to all subjects. Administration of additional lignocaine was allowed at operator's discretion. The primary endpoints were operator-rated overall procedural satisfaction and cough, each assessed on visual analog scale (VAS), while the secondary outcomes included patient-rated faces pain scale scores, cumulative lignocaine dose, number of subjects receiving lignocaine >8.2 mg/kg, doses of midazolam/fentanyl between groups, and adverse events during procedure. RESULTS: The mean (standard deviation [SD]) VAS scores for operator-rated procedure satisfaction were 64.2 (25.6) and 68.7 (23.7) in 1% and 2% group, respectively (P = 0.35). The median (interquartile range) VAS scores for operator-rated cough were 48.4 (23.9–69.9) in 1% group and 38.7 (18.6–69.5) in 2% group (P = 0.24). The mean [SD] cumulative lignocaine received in the 2% lignocaine group (248.6 [29.1] mg) was significantly greater than in 1% lignocaine group (178.5 [14.6] mg) (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: One percent lignocaine is equally efficacious as 2% lignocaine for topical anesthesia during EBUS-TBNA, at a significantly lower cumulative lignocaine dose. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC6219128/ /pubmed/30381554 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/lungindia.lungindia_148_18 Text en Copyright: © 2018 Indian Chest Society http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Biswal, Shiba Kalyan
Mittal, Saurabh
Hadda, Vijay
Mohan, Anant
Khilnani, Gopi C
Pandey, Ravindra M
Guleria, Randeep
Madan, Karan
1% versus 2% lignocaine for airway anesthesia in endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: A pilot, double-blind, randomized controlled trial
title 1% versus 2% lignocaine for airway anesthesia in endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: A pilot, double-blind, randomized controlled trial
title_full 1% versus 2% lignocaine for airway anesthesia in endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: A pilot, double-blind, randomized controlled trial
title_fullStr 1% versus 2% lignocaine for airway anesthesia in endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: A pilot, double-blind, randomized controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed 1% versus 2% lignocaine for airway anesthesia in endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: A pilot, double-blind, randomized controlled trial
title_short 1% versus 2% lignocaine for airway anesthesia in endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: A pilot, double-blind, randomized controlled trial
title_sort 1% versus 2% lignocaine for airway anesthesia in endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: a pilot, double-blind, randomized controlled trial
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6219128/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30381554
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/lungindia.lungindia_148_18
work_keys_str_mv AT biswalshibakalyan 1versus2lignocaineforairwayanesthesiainendobronchialultrasoundguidedtransbronchialneedleaspirationapilotdoubleblindrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT mittalsaurabh 1versus2lignocaineforairwayanesthesiainendobronchialultrasoundguidedtransbronchialneedleaspirationapilotdoubleblindrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT haddavijay 1versus2lignocaineforairwayanesthesiainendobronchialultrasoundguidedtransbronchialneedleaspirationapilotdoubleblindrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT mohananant 1versus2lignocaineforairwayanesthesiainendobronchialultrasoundguidedtransbronchialneedleaspirationapilotdoubleblindrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT khilnanigopic 1versus2lignocaineforairwayanesthesiainendobronchialultrasoundguidedtransbronchialneedleaspirationapilotdoubleblindrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT pandeyravindram 1versus2lignocaineforairwayanesthesiainendobronchialultrasoundguidedtransbronchialneedleaspirationapilotdoubleblindrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT guleriarandeep 1versus2lignocaineforairwayanesthesiainendobronchialultrasoundguidedtransbronchialneedleaspirationapilotdoubleblindrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT madankaran 1versus2lignocaineforairwayanesthesiainendobronchialultrasoundguidedtransbronchialneedleaspirationapilotdoubleblindrandomizedcontrolledtrial