OBJECTIVE:Topical anesthesia for flexible bronchoscopy can be administered via transcricoid injection, nebulizer, or directly through the bronchoscope in a "spray as you go" fashion. We performed a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate whether nebulized lidocaine provides additional benefit and reduces the total anesthetic dose required during bronchoscopy. SETTING: Tertiary care university hospital. METHODS:One hundred fifty patients (93 men; age, 20 to 89 years) undergoing diagnostic flexible bronchoscopy were randomized to receive either 4 mL of 4% lidocaine (160 mg) or 4 mL of saline solution as placebo via nebulization. Combined sedation was achieved using 5 mg of IV hydrocodone and midazolam boluses. Supplemental lidocaine doses and total midazolam required as judged by the bronchoscopist were recorded for each patient. After the procedure, both bronchoscopists and patients charted their perception of cough on a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS). Similarly, patients recorded their discomfort related to the procedure on a 10-cm VAS. RESULTS: The most common procedures were BAL in 77 cases (51%), transbronchial biopsy in 40 cases (27%), and transbronchial needle aspiration in 34 cases (23%). Outcome parameters, including hemodynamic findings, duration of the procedure, cough scores for physicians and patients, discomfort score for patients, midazolam doses, and supplemental lidocaine doses, were similar in both groups. Mean total lidocaine dose required in the lidocaine group was 318 +/- 41 mg and was significantly higher than the total dose required in the placebo group (157 +/- 44 mg [+/- SD]) [p < 0.001]. CONCLUSION: Additional nebulized lidocaine cannot be recommended for flexible bronchoscopy performed under combined sedation.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Topical anesthesia for flexible bronchoscopy can be administered via transcricoid injection, nebulizer, or directly through the bronchoscope in a "spray as you go" fashion. We performed a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate whether nebulized lidocaine provides additional benefit and reduces the total anesthetic dose required during bronchoscopy. SETTING: Tertiary care university hospital. METHODS: One hundred fifty patients (93 men; age, 20 to 89 years) undergoing diagnostic flexible bronchoscopy were randomized to receive either 4 mL of 4% lidocaine (160 mg) or 4 mL of saline solution as placebo via nebulization. Combined sedation was achieved using 5 mg of IV hydrocodone and midazolam boluses. Supplemental lidocaine doses and total midazolam required as judged by the bronchoscopist were recorded for each patient. After the procedure, both bronchoscopists and patients charted their perception of cough on a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS). Similarly, patients recorded their discomfort related to the procedure on a 10-cm VAS. RESULTS: The most common procedures were BAL in 77 cases (51%), transbronchial biopsy in 40 cases (27%), and transbronchial needle aspiration in 34 cases (23%). Outcome parameters, including hemodynamic findings, duration of the procedure, cough scores for physicians and patients, discomfort score for patients, midazolam doses, and supplemental lidocaine doses, were similar in both groups. Mean total lidocaine dose required in the lidocaine group was 318 +/- 41 mg and was significantly higher than the total dose required in the placebo group (157 +/- 44 mg [+/- SD]) [p < 0.001]. CONCLUSION: Additional nebulized lidocaine cannot be recommended for flexible bronchoscopy performed under combined sedation.
Authors: Assaad M Soweid; Shadi R Yaghi; Faek R Jamali; Abdallah A Kobeissy; Michella E Mallat; Rola Hussein; Chakib M Ayoub Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2011-12-21 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Moisés Ortega Ramírez; Benigno Linares Segovia; Marco Antonio García Cuevas; Jorge Luis Sánchez Romero; Illich Botello Buenrostro; Norma Amador Licona; Juan Manuel Guízar Mendoza; Jesús Francisco Guerrero Romero; Víctor Manuel Vázquez Zárate Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract Date: 2013-03-05 Impact factor: 2.260
Authors: Thomas Fuehner; Jan Fuge; Meike Jungen; Anna Buck; Hendrik Suhling; Tobias Welte; Jens Gottlieb; Mark Greer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-03-15 Impact factor: 3.240