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??0.05). 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 ; 13th 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:INTRODUCTION:Topical 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. METHODS:Using 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. RESULTS:Of 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. DISCUSSION:Topical 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 REGISTRATION:clinicaltrials.gov NCT02237651.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is characterized by repetitive episodes of complete or partial obstruction of the upper airways during sleep. Conscious sedation for flexible bronchoscopy (FB) places patients in a sleep-like condition. We hypothesize that oxygen desaturation during flexible bronchoscopy may help to detect undiagnosed sleep apnea. METHODS:Single-centre, investigator-initiated and driven study including consecutive patients undergoing FB for clinical indication. Patients completed the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), Lausanne NoSAS score, STOP-BANG questionnaire and the Berlin questionnaire and underwent polygraphy within 7 days of FB. FB was performed under conscious sedation with propofol. Oxygen desaturation during bronchoscopy was measured with continuous monitoring of peripheral oxygen saturation with ixTrend (ixellence GmbH, Germany). RESULTS:145 patients were included in the study, 62% were male, and the average age was 65.8?±?1.1 years. The vast majority of patients (n?=?131, 90%) proved to fulfill OSA criteria based on polygraphy results: 52/131 patients (40%) had mild sleep apnea, 49/131 patients (37%) moderate sleep apnea and 30/131 patients (23%) severe sleep apnea. Patients with no oxygen desaturation had a significantly lower apnea-hypopnea index than patients with oxygen desaturation during bronchoscopy (AHI 11.94/h vs 21.02/h, p?=?0.011). This association remained significant when adjusting for the duration of bronchoscopy and propofol dose (p?=?0.023; 95% CI 1.382; 18.243) but did not hold when also adjusting for age and BMI. CONCLUSION:The severity of sleep apnea was associated to oxygen desaturation during flexible bronchoscopy under conscious sedation. Patients with oxygen desaturation during bronchoscopy might be considered for sleep apnea screening. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The Study was approved by the Ethics Committee northwest/central Switzerland, EKNZ (EK 16/13) and was carried out according to the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice guidelines. Due to its observational character, the study did not require registration at a clinical trial registry.

Project description:Target-controlled infusion (TCI) provides precise pharmacokinetic control of propofol concentration in the effect-site (Ce), eg. brain. This pilot study aims to evaluate the feasibility and optimal TCI regimen for flexible bronchoscopy (FB) sedation.After alfentanil bolus, initial induction Ce of propofol was targeted at 2 ?g/ml. Patients were randomized into three titration groups (i.e., by 0.5, 0.2 and 0.1 ?g/ml, respectively) to maintain stable sedation levels and vital signs. Adverse events, frequency of adjustments, drug doses, and induction and recovery times were recorded.The study was closed early due to significantly severe hypoxemia events (oxyhemoglobin saturation <70%) in the group titrated at 0.5 ?g/ml. Forty-nine, 49 and 46 patients were enrolled into the 3 respective groups before study closure. The proportion of patients with hypoxemia events differed significantly between groups (67.3 vs. 46.9 vs. 41.3%, p?=?0.027). Hypotension events, induction and recovery time and propofol doses were not different. The Ce of induction differed significantly between groups (2.4±0.5 vs. 2.1±0.4 vs. 2.1±0.3 ?g/ml, p?=?0.005) and the Ce of procedures was higher at 0.5 ?g/ml titration (2.4±0.5 vs. 2.1±0.4 vs. 2.2±0.3 ?g/ml, p?=?0.006). The adjustment frequency tended to be higher for titration at 0.1 ?g/ml but was not statistically significant (2 (0?6) vs. 3 (0?6) vs. 3 (0?11)). Subgroup analysis revealed 14% of all patients required no further adjustment during the whole sedation. Comparing patients requiring at least one adjustment with those who did not, they were observed to have a shorter induction time (87.6±34.9 vs. 226.9±147.9 sec, p<0.001), a smaller induction dose and Ce (32.5±4.1 vs. 56.8±22.7 mg, p<0.001; 1.76±0.17 vs. 2.28 ±0.41, p<0.001, respectively), and less hypoxemia and hypotension (15.8 vs.56.9%, p?=?0.001; 0 vs. 24.1%, p?=?0.008, respectively).Titration at 0.5 ?g/ml is risky for FB sedation. A subgroup of patients required no more TCI adjustment with fewer complications. Further studies are warranted to determine the optimal regimen of TCI for FB sedation.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01101477.

Dataset Information

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

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