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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |