Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Spray nozzle for topical anaesthesia during flexible bronchoscopy: a randomised controlled trial.
Huang, Chun-Ta; Chou, Hsiao-Chen; Chang, Hao-Chun; Yang, Ching-Yao; Lin, Shu-Yung; Chang, Lih-Chyun; Tsai, Tzu-Hsiu; Hsu, Chia-Lin; Chien, Jung-Yien; Ho, Chao-Chi.
Afiliación
  • Huang CT; Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
  • Chou HC; Graduate Institute of Clinical Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
  • Chang HC; Department of Nursing, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
  • Yang CY; Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hsin-Chu Branch, Biomedical Park Hospital, Zhubei, Taiwan.
  • Lin SY; Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
  • Chang LC; Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
  • Tsai TH; Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
  • Hsu CL; Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
  • Chien JY; Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
  • Ho CC; Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
ERJ Open Res ; 10(2)2024 Mar.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38469375
ABSTRACT

Background:

The effectiveness of using a spray nozzle to deliver lidocaine for superior topical airway anaesthesia during non-sedation flexible bronchoscopy (FB) remains a topic of uncertainty when compared with conventional methods.

Methods:

Patients referred for FB were randomly assigned to receive topical lidocaine anaesthesia via the bronchoscope's working channel (classical spray (CS) group) or through a washing pipe equipped with a spray nozzle (SN group). The primary outcome was cough rate, defined as the total number of coughs per minute. Secondary outcomes included subjective perceptions of both the patient and operator regarding the FB process. These perceptions were rated on a visual analogue scale, with numerical ratings ranging from 0 to 10.

Results:

Our study enrolled a total of 126 (61 CS group; 65 SN group) patients. The SN group exhibited a significantly lower median cough rate compared with the CS group (4.5 versus 7.1 counts·min-1; p=0.021). Patients in the SN group also reported less oropharyngeal discomfort (4.5±2.7 versus 5.6±2.9; p=0.039), better tolerance of the procedure (6.8±2.2 versus 5.7±2.7; p=0.011) and a greater willingness to undergo a repeat FB procedure (7.2±2.7 versus 5.8±3.4; p=0.015) compared with those in the CS group. From the operator's perspective, patient discomfort (2.7±1.7 versus 3.4±2.3; p=0.040) and cough scores (2.3±1.5 versus 3.2±2.4; p=0.013) were lower in the SN group compared with the CS group, with less disruption due to coughing observed among those in the SN group (1.6±1.4 versus 2.3±2.3; p=0.029).

Conclusions:

This study illustrates that employing a spray nozzle for the delivery of lidocaine provides superior topical airway anaesthesia during non-sedation FB compared with the traditional method.

Texto completo: 1 Base de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: ERJ Open Res Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: ERJ Open Res Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article