Comparison of intravenous nalbuphine and dexmedetomidine in combination with lidocaine aerosol inhalation in awake direct laryngoscopy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Xingxing Li, Cuiyu Xie, Yangyang Wu, Weiwei Zhong, Yao Lu, Yuanhai Li
{"title":"Comparison of intravenous nalbuphine and dexmedetomidine in combination with lidocaine aerosol inhalation in awake direct laryngoscopy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.","authors":"Xingxing Li, Cuiyu Xie, Yangyang Wu, Weiwei Zhong, Yao Lu, Yuanhai Li","doi":"10.1186/s13741-024-00461-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The airway should be thoroughly and accurately evaluated before anesthesia induction and endotracheal intubation. Awake direct laryngoscopy (ADL) can provide rapid, accurate, and intuitive airway assessment, especially for suspected difficult airways, and sometimes eliminates the need for fiberoptic intubation in some suspicious difficult airway cases. However, an optimal regimen has not been determined.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this double-blind, controlled study, prior to ADL, 60 patients scheduled for general anesthesia were randomly allocated to receive 0.75 μg/kg of dexmedetomidine (Dex group, n = 20), 0.15 mg/kg of nalbuphine (Nal group, n = 20), or a placebo (control group, n = 20) intravenously over 10 min. At the same time, all study subjects received nebulized lidocaine for 15 min. The primary outcome was patient tolerance as assessed by a 5-point ADL comfort score, while secondary outcomes included satisfaction, coughing, pain, nausea and vital signs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients undergoing ADL in the Nal group had higher tolerance scores than those in the control and Dex groups [4 (3,4) vs. 3 (2,2.75), P < 0.017, and 4 (3,4) vs. 2 (2,2,75), P < 0.001, respectively] and higher satisfaction [7 (6,8) vs. 4 (3,5.75), P < 0.017, and 7 (6,8) vs. 5.5 (5,6), P < 0.001, respectively]. Additionally, the Nal group had significantly fewer adverse events, such as pain and nausea than the control and Dex groups. The sedation score and peripheral oxygen and saturation were significantly higher in the Nal group than in the Dex group, with no difference between the Nal and control groups (P < 0.001, P = 0.159, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Intravenous nalbuphine in combination with lidocaine aerosol inhalation significantly improved patient tolerance and satisfaction while reducing nausea, coughing, pain, sedation, and SpO<sub>2</sub> levels during ADL.</p>","PeriodicalId":19764,"journal":{"name":"Perioperative Medicine","volume":"13 1","pages":"105"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11490102/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perioperative Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13741-024-00461-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The airway should be thoroughly and accurately evaluated before anesthesia induction and endotracheal intubation. Awake direct laryngoscopy (ADL) can provide rapid, accurate, and intuitive airway assessment, especially for suspected difficult airways, and sometimes eliminates the need for fiberoptic intubation in some suspicious difficult airway cases. However, an optimal regimen has not been determined.

Methods: In this double-blind, controlled study, prior to ADL, 60 patients scheduled for general anesthesia were randomly allocated to receive 0.75 μg/kg of dexmedetomidine (Dex group, n = 20), 0.15 mg/kg of nalbuphine (Nal group, n = 20), or a placebo (control group, n = 20) intravenously over 10 min. At the same time, all study subjects received nebulized lidocaine for 15 min. The primary outcome was patient tolerance as assessed by a 5-point ADL comfort score, while secondary outcomes included satisfaction, coughing, pain, nausea and vital signs.

Results: Patients undergoing ADL in the Nal group had higher tolerance scores than those in the control and Dex groups [4 (3,4) vs. 3 (2,2.75), P < 0.017, and 4 (3,4) vs. 2 (2,2,75), P < 0.001, respectively] and higher satisfaction [7 (6,8) vs. 4 (3,5.75), P < 0.017, and 7 (6,8) vs. 5.5 (5,6), P < 0.001, respectively]. Additionally, the Nal group had significantly fewer adverse events, such as pain and nausea than the control and Dex groups. The sedation score and peripheral oxygen and saturation were significantly higher in the Nal group than in the Dex group, with no difference between the Nal and control groups (P < 0.001, P = 0.159, respectively).

Conclusions: Intravenous nalbuphine in combination with lidocaine aerosol inhalation significantly improved patient tolerance and satisfaction while reducing nausea, coughing, pain, sedation, and SpO2 levels during ADL.

在清醒直接喉镜检查中静脉注射纳布啡和右美托咪定联合吸入利多卡因气雾剂的比较:随机、双盲、安慰剂对照试验。
背景:在麻醉诱导和气管插管之前,应对气道进行全面而准确的评估。清醒状态下的直接喉镜检查(ADL)可提供快速、准确和直观的气道评估,尤其是对可疑的困难气道,有时在某些可疑的困难气道病例中无需进行纤支镜插管。然而,最佳方案尚未确定:在这项双盲对照研究中,60 名计划接受全身麻醉的患者在 ADL 前被随机分配到 10 分钟内静脉注射 0.75 μg/kg 右美托咪定(Dex 组,n = 20)、0.15 mg/kg 纳布啡(Nal 组,n = 20)或安慰剂(对照组,n = 20)。同时,所有研究对象都接受了 15 分钟的雾化利多卡因治疗。主要结果是患者的耐受性,以 ADL 舒适度的 5 分来评估,次要结果包括满意度、咳嗽、疼痛、恶心和生命体征:结果:接受 ADL 治疗的纳尔组患者的耐受性评分高于对照组和地塞米松组患者[4 (3,4) vs. 3 (2,2.75), P 结论:纳尔组患者的耐受性评分高于对照组和地塞米松组患者:静脉注射纳布啡联合利多卡因气溶胶吸入可显著提高患者的耐受性和满意度,同时减少 ADL 过程中的恶心、咳嗽、疼痛、镇静和 SpO2 水平。
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
自引率
3.80%
发文量
55
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
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