Cargando…

Nebulization versus standard application for topical anaesthesia during flexible bronchoscopy under moderate sedation – a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Endobronchial administration of lidocaine is commonly used for cough suppression during diagnostic bronchoscopy. Recently, nebulization of lidocaine during bronchoscopies under deep sedation with fiberoptic intubation using a distinct spray catheter has been shown to have several advanta...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Müller, Tobias, Cornelissen, Christian, Dreher, Michael
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6249909/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30463577
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12931-018-0926-5
_version_ 1783372847470608384
author Müller, Tobias
Cornelissen, Christian
Dreher, Michael
author_facet Müller, Tobias
Cornelissen, Christian
Dreher, Michael
author_sort Müller, Tobias
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Endobronchial administration of lidocaine is commonly used for cough suppression during diagnostic bronchoscopy. Recently, nebulization of lidocaine during bronchoscopies under deep sedation with fiberoptic intubation using a distinct spray catheter has been shown to have several advantages over conventional lidocaine administration via syringe. However, there are no data about this approach in bronchoscopies performed under moderate sedation. Therefore, this study compared the tolerability and safety of nebulized lidocaine with conventional lidocaine administration via syringe in patients undergoing bronchoscopy with moderate sedation. METHODS: Patients requiring diagnostic bronchoscopy were randomly assigned to receive topical lidocaine either via syringe or via nebulizer. Endpoints were consumption of lidocaine and sedative drugs, as well as patient tolerance and safety. RESULTS: Sixty patients were included in the study (n = 30 in each group). Patients required lower doses of endobronchial lidocaine when given via nebulizer versus syringe (164.7 ± 20.8 mg vs. 250.4 ± 42.38 mg; p < 0.0001) whereas no differences in the dosage of sedative drugs were observed between the two groups (all p > 0.05). Patients in the nebulizer group had higher mean oxygen saturation (96.19 ± 2.45% vs. 94.21 ± 3.02%; p = 0.0072) and a lower complication rate (0.3 ± 0.79 vs. 1.17 ± 1.62 per procedure; p = 0.0121) compared with those in the syringe group. CONCLUSIONS: Endobronchial lidocaine administration via nebulizer was well-tolerated during bronchoscopies under moderate sedation and was associated with reduced lidocaine consumption, a lower complication rate and better oxygenation compared with lidocaine administration via syringe. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02262442; 13(th) October 2014). ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12931-018-0926-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6249909
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62499092018-11-26 Nebulization versus standard application for topical anaesthesia during flexible bronchoscopy under moderate sedation – a randomized controlled trial Müller, Tobias Cornelissen, Christian Dreher, Michael Respir Res Research BACKGROUND: Endobronchial administration of lidocaine is commonly used for cough suppression during diagnostic bronchoscopy. Recently, nebulization of lidocaine during bronchoscopies under deep sedation with fiberoptic intubation using a distinct spray catheter has been shown to have several advantages over conventional lidocaine administration via syringe. However, there are no data about this approach in bronchoscopies performed under moderate sedation. Therefore, this study compared the tolerability and safety of nebulized lidocaine with conventional lidocaine administration via syringe in patients undergoing bronchoscopy with moderate sedation. METHODS: Patients requiring diagnostic bronchoscopy were randomly assigned to receive topical lidocaine either via syringe or via nebulizer. Endpoints were consumption of lidocaine and sedative drugs, as well as patient tolerance and safety. RESULTS: Sixty patients were included in the study (n = 30 in each group). Patients required lower doses of endobronchial lidocaine when given via nebulizer versus syringe (164.7 ± 20.8 mg vs. 250.4 ± 42.38 mg; p < 0.0001) whereas no differences in the dosage of sedative drugs were observed between the two groups (all p > 0.05). Patients in the nebulizer group had higher mean oxygen saturation (96.19 ± 2.45% vs. 94.21 ± 3.02%; p = 0.0072) and a lower complication rate (0.3 ± 0.79 vs. 1.17 ± 1.62 per procedure; p = 0.0121) compared with those in the syringe group. CONCLUSIONS: Endobronchial lidocaine administration via nebulizer was well-tolerated during bronchoscopies under moderate sedation and was associated with reduced lidocaine consumption, a lower complication rate and better oxygenation compared with lidocaine administration via syringe. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02262442; 13(th) October 2014). ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12931-018-0926-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-11-21 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC6249909/ /pubmed/30463577 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12931-018-0926-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Müller, Tobias
Cornelissen, Christian
Dreher, Michael
Nebulization versus standard application for topical anaesthesia during flexible bronchoscopy under moderate sedation – a randomized controlled trial
title Nebulization versus standard application for topical anaesthesia during flexible bronchoscopy under moderate sedation – a randomized controlled trial
title_full Nebulization versus standard application for topical anaesthesia during flexible bronchoscopy under moderate sedation – a randomized controlled trial
title_fullStr Nebulization versus standard application for topical anaesthesia during flexible bronchoscopy under moderate sedation – a randomized controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Nebulization versus standard application for topical anaesthesia during flexible bronchoscopy under moderate sedation – a randomized controlled trial
title_short Nebulization versus standard application for topical anaesthesia during flexible bronchoscopy under moderate sedation – a randomized controlled trial
title_sort nebulization versus standard application for topical anaesthesia during flexible bronchoscopy under moderate sedation – a randomized controlled trial
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6249909/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30463577
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12931-018-0926-5
work_keys_str_mv AT mullertobias nebulizationversusstandardapplicationfortopicalanaesthesiaduringflexiblebronchoscopyundermoderatesedationarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT cornelissenchristian nebulizationversusstandardapplicationfortopicalanaesthesiaduringflexiblebronchoscopyundermoderatesedationarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT drehermichael nebulizationversusstandardapplicationfortopicalanaesthesiaduringflexiblebronchoscopyundermoderatesedationarandomizedcontrolledtrial