Comparison of spray catheter with "spray-as-you-go" technique for airway anesthesia during flexible bronchoscopy - A randomized trial.

Anesthesia bronchoscopy lignocaine spray catheter

Journal

Lung India : official organ of Indian Chest Society
ISSN: 0970-2113
Titre abrégé: Lung India
Pays: India
ID NLM: 8405380

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Historique:
entrez: 5 9 2020
pubmed: 5 9 2020
medline: 5 9 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Administration of local airway anesthesia is the principal determinant of procedural comfort during flexible bronchoscopy. However, the ideal method of administration is still unknown. In this study, we compared lignocaine administration using a spray catheter (SC) with "spray-as-you-go" technique. Patients undergoing bronchoscopy were randomized to receive airway anesthesia with 2% lignocaine through the SC (SC group) or "spray-as-you-go" technique through the working channel (WC group). The primary outcome parameter was cough count, and the secondary outcome parameters compared were need for sedation, operator-rated procedural satisfaction and cough, and patient-rated comfort on a Visual Analog Scale (VAS). One hundred and thirty patients were randomized with comparable baseline parameters. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) cough count was 28 (19, 37) in the WC group and 15 (9, 23) in the SC group (P < 0.001). Requirement for sedation was lower in the SC group (5 vs. 18; P = 0.003). The mean (standard deviation [SD]) VAS score for operator-rated satisfaction was 66.5 (16.8) in the WC group and 80.6 (14.2) in the SC group; P < 0.001. The median (IQR) VAS score for operator-rated cough was 35 (23, 44) in the WC group and 18 (11, 28) in the SC group; P < 0.001. However, there was no difference in the patient-rated comfort VAS (mean [SD] of 66.4 [14.5] in the WC group and 69.9 [13.0] in the SC group; P = 0.07). Lignocaine instillation using the SC during bronchoscopy reduced cough, need for sedation, and improved operator satisfaction.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Administration of local airway anesthesia is the principal determinant of procedural comfort during flexible bronchoscopy. However, the ideal method of administration is still unknown. In this study, we compared lignocaine administration using a spray catheter (SC) with "spray-as-you-go" technique.
METHODS METHODS
Patients undergoing bronchoscopy were randomized to receive airway anesthesia with 2% lignocaine through the SC (SC group) or "spray-as-you-go" technique through the working channel (WC group). The primary outcome parameter was cough count, and the secondary outcome parameters compared were need for sedation, operator-rated procedural satisfaction and cough, and patient-rated comfort on a Visual Analog Scale (VAS).
RESULTS RESULTS
One hundred and thirty patients were randomized with comparable baseline parameters. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) cough count was 28 (19, 37) in the WC group and 15 (9, 23) in the SC group (P < 0.001). Requirement for sedation was lower in the SC group (5 vs. 18; P = 0.003). The mean (standard deviation [SD]) VAS score for operator-rated satisfaction was 66.5 (16.8) in the WC group and 80.6 (14.2) in the SC group; P < 0.001. The median (IQR) VAS score for operator-rated cough was 35 (23, 44) in the WC group and 18 (11, 28) in the SC group; P < 0.001. However, there was no difference in the patient-rated comfort VAS (mean [SD] of 66.4 [14.5] in the WC group and 69.9 [13.0] in the SC group; P = 0.07).
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
Lignocaine instillation using the SC during bronchoscopy reduced cough, need for sedation, and improved operator satisfaction.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32883896
pii: LungIndia_2020_37_5_384_293985
doi: 10.4103/lungindia.lungindia_528_19
pmc: PMC7857367
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

384-388

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

None

Références

Thorax. 2013 Aug;68 Suppl 1:i1-i44
pubmed: 23860341
Chest. 2015 Sep;148(3):739-745
pubmed: 25811287
Chest. 2011 Nov;140(5):1342-1350
pubmed: 22045879
Pneumologie. 2016 Feb;70(2):110-6
pubmed: 26894392
Respirology. 2013 Feb;18(2):284-90
pubmed: 23016914
Lung India. 2019 Jul-Aug;36(4):288-294
pubmed: 31290412
Respirology. 2011 Jan;16(1):102-6
pubmed: 20920136
J Bronchology Interv Pulmonol. 2018 Apr;25(2):103-110
pubmed: 29346249
Respiration. 2019;98(5):440-446
pubmed: 31461720
Lung India. 2018 Mar-Apr;35(2):98-107
pubmed: 29487243
Lung India. 2019 Jul;36(Supplement):S37-S89
pubmed: 32445309
Respir Med. 2004 Jul;98(7):606-10
pubmed: 15250225

Auteurs

Kavitha Venkatnarayan (K)

Department of Pulmonary Medicine, St. John's National Academy of Health Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.

Uma Devaraj (U)

Department of Pulmonary Medicine, St. John's National Academy of Health Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.

Uma Maheswari Krishnaswamy (UM)

Department of Pulmonary Medicine, St. John's National Academy of Health Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.

Priya Ramachandran (P)

Department of Pulmonary Medicine, St. John's National Academy of Health Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.

Tinku Thomas (T)

Department of Biostatistics, St. John's National Academy of Health Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.

George D'Souza (G)

Department of Pulmonary Medicine, St. John's National Academy of Health Sciences, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.

Classifications MeSH