Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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).

SUBMITTER: Muller T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6249909 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Müller Tobias T Cornelissen Christian C Dreher Michael M

Respiratory research 20181121 1

<h4>Background</h4>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 th ...[more]

PMID: 30463577

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionTopical 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.MethodsUsing 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.ResultsOf 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.DiscussionTopical 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 registrationclinicaltrials.gov NCT02237651.

Project description:BackgroundElectromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy (ENB) is an emerging technique for diagnosing pulmonary lesions. However, limited data is available on its sole utility under a least invasive setting without general anesthesia. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance and safety of sole ENB under moderate sedation for diagnosing pulmonary lesions suspicious for lung cancer and to determine clinical factors associated with a better diagnostic yield.MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who underwent sole ENB under moderate sedation for lung lesion biopsy between August 2016 and June 2021 at Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, a tertiary center in South Korea. Diagnostic yield of the ENB-guided biopsy, safety endpoints defined by the incidence and severity of associated complications, and factors associated with higher diagnostic yield were evaluated.ResultsA total of 94 patients were evaluated. The final diagnostic yield of ENB was 81.5% (75/92), excluding two indeterminate cases. The diagnostic yield ranged from 79.8% to 81.9% assuming all indeterminate cases were false-negatives (79.8%) and true-negatives (81.9%). The sensitivity and specificity for malignancy were 77.6% (ranging from 75.6% to 77.6%) and 100%, respectively. Any-grade pneumothorax occurred in 4.3% of the patients, and 2.1% developed pneumothorax requiring additional intervention. Multivariable analyses identified the presence of a class 2 bronchus sign as the only significant predictor for a higher diagnostic yield (odds ratio =4.83, 95% CI: 1.16-20.12). The diagnostic yield of ENB among those with class 2 bronchus sign was 89.8% (53/59).ConclusionsSole ENB under moderate sedation for diagnosing pulmonary lesions displayed a good diagnostic yield and safety profile, thus confirming its utility in a least-invasive setting. Moreover, sole ENB could be possibly be superior to transthoracic needle aspiration for diagnosing lesions with class 2 bronchus sign accounting for similar yields and lower complication rates.

Dataset Information

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

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets