Is Additional Nebulized Lidocaine Helpful in Flexible Bronchoscopy?: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND

Conflicting evidence of nebulized lidocaine use in bronchoscopy still exist. This study will identify whether there is any difference in various patient-related, physician-related, or procedure-related outcomes with and without lidocaine nebulization before the procedure.

METHOD

The authors performed a search in 4 electronic databases, including Pubmed, Scopus, Virtual Health Library, and Google Scholar from inception to August 2019. Data on patient-reported and physician-reported outcomes, doses of sedation, and lidocaine were extracted and pooled into standardized mean difference (SMD) and mean difference (MD) using the random-effect model.

RESULTS

Seven randomized controlled trials with 1366 patients were included. Cough was not different between the nebulized lidocaine group and no nebulized lidocaine group (SMD, -0.12; 95% confidence interval, -0.82 to 0.59; I, 95%; P=0.75), so as operator's satisfaction score, ease of the procedure, patient's discomfort, and unwillingness to repeat the procedure. Additional nebulized lidocaine group required higher lidocaine dose (MD, 81.93; 95% confidence interval, 17.14-146.71). Studies using only local anesthesia favored the "no additional lidocaine" group in improving cough, operator's satisfaction score, and ease of the procedure. Subgroup analysis of studies using moderate sedation showed a decrease in midazolam dose and duration of the procedure in the "additional nebulized lidocaine group."

CONCLUSION

Additional administration of nebulized lidocaine increased the total dose of lidocaine used and did not improve cough symptoms, operator-satisfaction score, ease of the procedure, and willingness to repeat the procedure. Subgroup analysis of studies using moderate sedation showed a decrease in midazolam use and in procedure duration but the clinical significance of these findings is uncertain.