Skinner Thomas R, Churton Joseph, Edwards Timothy P, Bashirzadeh Farzad, Zappala Christopher, Hundloe Justin T, Tan Hau, Pattison Andrew J, Todman Maryann, Hartel Gunter F, Fielding David I
Dept of Thoracic Medicine, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, QLD, Australia.
Dept of Anaesthetic Services, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Herston, QLD, Australia.
ERJ Open Res. 2021 May 31;7(2). doi: 10.1183/23120541.00895-2020. eCollection 2021 Apr.
The difference in patient comfort with conscious sedation general anaesthesia for bronchoscopy has not been adequately assessed in a randomised trial. This study aimed to assess if patient comfort during bronchoscopy with conscious sedation is noninferior to general anaesthesia.
96 subjects were randomised to receive conscious sedation or general anaesthesia for bronchoscopy. The primary outcome was subject comfort. Secondary outcomes included willingness to undergo a repeat procedure if necessary and level of sedation assessed clinically and by bispectral index (BIS) monitoring.
There was no significant difference between subject comfort scores (difference -0.01, 95% CI -0.63-0.61 on a 10-point scale; p=0.97) or willingness to undergo a repeat procedure (97.7% 91.8%, 95% CI -4.8-15.5%; p=0.37). Deeper levels of sedation in the general anaesthesia cohort was confirmed with both clinical and BIS monitoring. There was no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy (conscious sedation 93.9%, 95% CI 80.4-98.3% general anaesthesia 86.5%, 95% CI 72.0-94.1%; p=0.43). There were more complications (29.6%, 95% CI 18.2-44.2% 6.1%, 95% CI 2.1-16.5%; p<0.01) in the general anaesthesia group. There was no relationship between high BIS scores and subject discomfort. BIS levels <40 during a procedure were associated with increased complications.
Conscious sedation is not inferior to general anaesthesia in providing patient comfort during bronchoscopy, despite lighter sedation, and is associated with fewer complications and comparable diagnostic accuracy. BIS monitoring may have a role in preventing complications associated with deeper sedation.
在一项随机试验中,尚未充分评估清醒镇静与全身麻醉用于支气管镜检查时患者舒适度的差异。本研究旨在评估清醒镇静下支气管镜检查期间患者的舒适度是否不劣于全身麻醉。
96名受试者被随机分为接受清醒镇静或全身麻醉进行支气管镜检查。主要结局是受试者舒适度。次要结局包括必要时接受重复检查的意愿以及通过临床评估和脑电双频指数(BIS)监测评估的镇静水平。
受试者舒适度评分之间无显著差异(在10分制量表上差异为-0.01,95%置信区间为-0.63至0.61;p=0.97),或接受重复检查的意愿也无显著差异(97.7%对91.8%,95%置信区间为-4.8至15.5%;p=0.37)。通过临床和BIS监测均证实全身麻醉组的镇静水平更深。诊断准确性无显著差异(清醒镇静组为93.9%,95%置信区间为80.4至98.3%;全身麻醉组为86.5%,95%置信区间为72.0至94.1%;p=0.43)。全身麻醉组的并发症更多(29.6%,95%置信区间为18.2至44.2%对6.1%,95%置信区间为2.1至16.5%;p<0.01)。高BIS评分与受试者不适之间无关联。检查过程中BIS水平<40与并发症增加相关。
在支气管镜检查期间,清醒镇静在提供患者舒适度方面不劣于全身麻醉,尽管镇静程度较轻,且并发症较少,诊断准确性相当。BIS监测可能在预防与深度镇静相关的并发症方面发挥作用。