Spray nozzle for topical anaesthesia during flexible bronchoscopy: a randomised controlled trial.

IF 4.3 3区 医学 Q1 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
ERJ Open Research Pub Date : 2024-03-11 eCollection Date: 2024-03-01 DOI:10.1183/23120541.00913-2023
Chun-Ta Huang, Hsiao-Chen Chou, Hao-Chun Chang, Ching-Yao Yang, Shu-Yung Lin, Lih-Chyun Chang, Tzu-Hsiu Tsai, Chia-Lin Hsu, Jung-Yien Chien, Chao-Chi Ho
{"title":"Spray nozzle for topical anaesthesia during flexible bronchoscopy: a randomised controlled trial.","authors":"Chun-Ta Huang, Hsiao-Chen Chou, Hao-Chun Chang, Ching-Yao Yang, Shu-Yung Lin, Lih-Chyun Chang, Tzu-Hsiu Tsai, Chia-Lin Hsu, Jung-Yien Chien, Chao-Chi Ho","doi":"10.1183/23120541.00913-2023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients referred for FB were randomly assigned to receive topical lidocaine anaesthesia <i>via</i> 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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 <i>versus</i> 7.1 counts·min<sup>-1</sup>; p=0.021). Patients in the SN group also reported less oropharyngeal discomfort (4.5±2.7 <i>versus</i> 5.6±2.9; p=0.039), better tolerance of the procedure (6.8±2.2 <i>versus</i> 5.7±2.7; p=0.011) and a greater willingness to undergo a repeat FB procedure (7.2±2.7 <i>versus</i> 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 <i>versus</i> 3.4±2.3; p=0.040) and cough scores (2.3±1.5 <i>versus</i> 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 <i>versus</i> 2.3±2.3; p=0.029).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":11739,"journal":{"name":"ERJ Open Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10926006/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERJ Open Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1183/23120541.00913-2023","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

用于柔性支气管镜检查期间局部麻醉的喷嘴:随机对照试验。
背景:与传统方法相比,在非镇静柔性支气管镜检查(FB)过程中使用喷嘴递送利多卡因进行优质气道局部麻醉的有效性仍是一个不确定的话题:方法: 对转诊接受柔性支气管镜检查的患者进行随机分配,通过支气管镜的工作通道(传统喷雾(CS)组)或装有喷嘴的清洗管(SN 组)接受局部利多卡因麻醉。主要结果是咳嗽率,即每分钟咳嗽的总次数。次要结果包括患者和操作者对 FB 过程的主观感受。这些感知采用视觉模拟量表进行评分,数值范围从 0 到 10:我们的研究共招募了 126 名患者(61 名 CS 组;65 名 SN 组)。与 CS 组相比,SN 组的中位咳嗽率明显较低(4.5 对 7.1 次/分钟-1;P=0.021)。与 CS 组患者相比,SN 组患者的口咽部不适感较轻(4.5±2.7 对 5.6±2.9;P=0.039),对手术的耐受性较好(6.8±2.2 对 5.7±2.7;P=0.011),更愿意再次接受 FB 手术(7.2±2.7 对 5.8±3.4;P=0.015)。从操作者的角度来看,与 CS 组相比,SN 组患者的不适感(2.7±1.7 对 3.4±2.3;p=0.040)和咳嗽评分(2.3±1.5 对 3.2±2.4;p=0.013)更低,SN 组患者因咳嗽而造成的干扰更少(1.6±1.4 对 2.3±2.3;p=0.029):本研究表明,与传统方法相比,采用喷嘴给药利多卡因可在非镇静 FB 过程中提供更佳的局部气道麻醉效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ERJ Open Research
ERJ Open Research Medicine-Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
273
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: ERJ Open Research is a fully open access original research journal, published online by the European Respiratory Society. The journal aims to publish high-quality work in all fields of respiratory science and medicine, covering basic science, clinical translational science and clinical medicine. The journal was created to help fulfil the ERS objective to disseminate scientific and educational material to its members and to the medical community, but also to provide researchers with an affordable open access specialty journal in which to publish their work.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信