Efficacy of Nebulized Dexmedetomidine and Lignocaine Inhalation versus Lignocaine Alone as Premedication for Flexible Fiber-optic Bronchoscopy under Sedation: A Randomized Comparative Study.

IF 0.6 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Anjali Priyadarshini, Boniface Hembrom, Ladhu Lakra, Tushar Kumar
{"title":"Efficacy of Nebulized Dexmedetomidine and Lignocaine Inhalation versus Lignocaine Alone as Premedication for Flexible Fiber-optic Bronchoscopy under Sedation: A Randomized Comparative Study.","authors":"Anjali Priyadarshini, Boniface Hembrom, Ladhu Lakra, Tushar Kumar","doi":"10.4103/aam.aam_61_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Airway management is an integral part of general anesthesia, allowing ventilation and oxygenation and working as a mode for delivering anesthetic gases. Awake fiber-optic-guided intubation is an essential component of airway management in difficult cases. We aim to study the benefits of nebulized dexmedetomidine with lignocaine over lignocaine alone for anesthetizing the airway for flexible fiber-optic bronchoscopy.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In the study, after written informed consent, 50 patients were randomly allocated into two equal groups of 25 each. The intervention group received dexmedetomidine with lignocaine nebulization, while the control group received lignocaine nebulization alone. Baseline pulse rate, blood pressure, and, at regular intervals, cough, sedation, and pain scores were recorded along with the patient satisfaction score. Parametric data were analyzed by the Student's t-test, while nonparametric data were analyzed by the Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney U test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of a total of 54 patients, 4 patients did not give consent to participate in the study. The demographic profile was comparable in both groups. The pulse rate was comparable in both groups throughout the procedure; however, 10 min after the procedure, the pulse rate in the lignocaine group was (mean ± standard deviation) 114.2 ± 11.52, while in the intervention group, it was 87.32 ± 7.24 with a P = 0.027. The mean blood pressure was comparable throughout the procedure. The cough score yielded a Z-score of -5.12 and a P < 0.00001 favoring the dexmedetomidine group. Similarly, Richmond agitation-sedation score and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) also favored the intervention group, with P < 0.00054 and P < 0.00001 in RASS and VAS, respectively. Patient satisfaction score analysis found a Z-score of -5.29 and a P < 0.00001.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The overall results favored dexmedetomidine with lignocaine nebulization over lignocaine alone for anesthetizing airways for flexible fiber-optic bronchoscopy.</p>","PeriodicalId":7938,"journal":{"name":"Annals of African Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of African Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/aam.aam_61_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Airway management is an integral part of general anesthesia, allowing ventilation and oxygenation and working as a mode for delivering anesthetic gases. Awake fiber-optic-guided intubation is an essential component of airway management in difficult cases. We aim to study the benefits of nebulized dexmedetomidine with lignocaine over lignocaine alone for anesthetizing the airway for flexible fiber-optic bronchoscopy.

Materials and methods: In the study, after written informed consent, 50 patients were randomly allocated into two equal groups of 25 each. The intervention group received dexmedetomidine with lignocaine nebulization, while the control group received lignocaine nebulization alone. Baseline pulse rate, blood pressure, and, at regular intervals, cough, sedation, and pain scores were recorded along with the patient satisfaction score. Parametric data were analyzed by the Student's t-test, while nonparametric data were analyzed by the Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney U test.

Results: Out of a total of 54 patients, 4 patients did not give consent to participate in the study. The demographic profile was comparable in both groups. The pulse rate was comparable in both groups throughout the procedure; however, 10 min after the procedure, the pulse rate in the lignocaine group was (mean ± standard deviation) 114.2 ± 11.52, while in the intervention group, it was 87.32 ± 7.24 with a P = 0.027. The mean blood pressure was comparable throughout the procedure. The cough score yielded a Z-score of -5.12 and a P < 0.00001 favoring the dexmedetomidine group. Similarly, Richmond agitation-sedation score and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) also favored the intervention group, with P < 0.00054 and P < 0.00001 in RASS and VAS, respectively. Patient satisfaction score analysis found a Z-score of -5.29 and a P < 0.00001.

Conclusion: The overall results favored dexmedetomidine with lignocaine nebulization over lignocaine alone for anesthetizing airways for flexible fiber-optic bronchoscopy.

雾化右美托咪定和木质素卡因吸入与单用木质素卡因作为镇静状态下柔性光纤支气管镜检查前用药的疗效:随机比较研究》。
导言:气道管理是全身麻醉不可分割的一部分,它允许通气和供氧,并作为输送麻醉气体的一种模式。清醒状态下光纤引导插管是疑难病例气道管理的重要组成部分。我们旨在研究雾化右美托咪定联合木质素卡因与单独使用木质素卡因对柔性纤维光导支气管镜检查气道进行麻醉的优势:研究中,在获得书面知情同意后,50 名患者被随机分配到两个相同的小组,每组 25 人。干预组在使用右美托咪定的同时雾化吸入木质素,对照组仅雾化吸入木质素。记录基线脉搏、血压,并定期记录咳嗽、镇静和疼痛评分以及患者满意度评分。参数数据采用学生 t 检验,非参数数据采用 Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney U 检验:在 54 名患者中,有 4 名患者未同意参与研究。两组患者的人口统计学特征相当。在整个手术过程中,两组患者的脉搏率相当;但在手术 10 分钟后,木质素组患者的脉搏率(平均值±标准差)为 114.2 ± 11.52,而干预组患者的脉搏率为 87.32 ± 7.24,P = 0.027。整个过程中的平均血压相当。咳嗽评分的 Z 值为 -5.12,P < 0.00001,右美托咪定组更胜一筹。同样,里士满躁动-镇静评分和视觉模拟量表(VAS)也有利于干预组,RASS 和 VAS 的 P < 0.00054 和 P < 0.00001。患者满意度评分分析发现 Z 值为-5.29,P < 0.00001:总体结果显示,右美托咪定联合木质素卡因雾化治疗比单独使用木质素卡因治疗更适合用于柔性纤维支气管镜检查的气道麻醉。
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
Annals of African Medicine
Annals of African Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: The Annals of African Medicine is published by the Usmanu Danfodiyo University Teaching Hospital, Sokoto, Nigeria and the Annals of African Medicine Society. The Journal is intended to serve as a medium for the publication of research findings in the broad field of Medicine in Africa and other developing countries, and elsewhere which have relevance to Africa. It will serve as a source of information on the state of the art of Medicine in Africa, for continuing education for doctors in Africa and other developing countries, and also for the publication of meetings and conferences. The journal will publish articles I any field of Medicine and other fields which have relevance or implications for Medicine.
×
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