Huang Chun-Ta, Chou Hsiao-Chen, Chang Hao-Chun, Yang Ching-Yao, Lin Shu-Yung, Chang Lih-Chyun, Tsai Tzu-Hsiu, Hsu Chia-Lin, Chien Jung-Yien, Ho Chao-Chi
Department of Internal Medicine, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Graduate Institute of Clinical Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
ERJ Open Res. 2024 Mar 11;10(2). doi: 10.1183/23120541.00913-2023. eCollection 2024 Mar.
The effectiveness of using a spray nozzle to deliver lidocaine for superior topical airway anaesthesia during non-sedation flexible bronchoscopy (FB) remains a topic of uncertainty when compared with conventional methods.
Patients referred for FB were randomly assigned to receive topical lidocaine anaesthesia the bronchoscope's working channel (classical spray (CS) group) or through a washing pipe equipped with a spray nozzle (SN group). The primary outcome was cough rate, defined as the total number of coughs per minute. Secondary outcomes included subjective perceptions of both the patient and operator regarding the FB process. These perceptions were rated on a visual analogue scale, with numerical ratings ranging from 0 to 10.
Our study enrolled a total of 126 (61 CS group; 65 SN group) patients. The SN group exhibited a significantly lower median cough rate compared with the CS group (4.5 7.1 counts·min; p=0.021). Patients in the SN group also reported less oropharyngeal discomfort (4.5±2.7 5.6±2.9; p=0.039), better tolerance of the procedure (6.8±2.2 5.7±2.7; p=0.011) and a greater willingness to undergo a repeat FB procedure (7.2±2.7 5.8±3.4; p=0.015) compared with those in the CS group. From the operator's perspective, patient discomfort (2.7±1.7 3.4±2.3; p=0.040) and cough scores (2.3±1.5 3.2±2.4; p=0.013) were lower in the SN group compared with the CS group, with less disruption due to coughing observed among those in the SN group (1.6±1.4 2.3±2.3; p=0.029).
This study illustrates that employing a spray nozzle for the delivery of lidocaine provides superior topical airway anaesthesia during non-sedation FB compared with the traditional method.
与传统方法相比,在非镇静性柔性支气管镜检查(FB)期间使用喷雾器输送利多卡因进行上呼吸道局部麻醉的有效性仍是一个不确定的话题。
被转诊进行FB的患者被随机分配接受通过支气管镜工作通道进行利多卡因局部麻醉(传统喷雾(CS)组)或通过配备喷雾器的冲洗管进行麻醉(SN组)。主要结局是咳嗽率,定义为每分钟咳嗽的总数。次要结局包括患者和操作者对FB过程的主观感受。这些感受通过视觉模拟量表进行评分,数值范围为0至10。
我们的研究共纳入了126例患者(CS组61例;SN组65例)。与CS组相比,SN组的中位咳嗽率显著更低(4.5对7.1次·分钟;p=0.021)。与CS组患者相比,SN组患者还报告口咽不适更少(4.5±2.7对5.6±2.9;p=0.039)、对该操作的耐受性更好(6.8±2.2对5.7±2.7;p=0.011)以及更愿意接受重复FB操作(7.2±2.7对5.8±3.4;p=0.015)。从操作者的角度来看,与CS组相比,SN组患者的不适(2.7±1.7对3.4±2.3;p=0.040)和咳嗽评分(2.3±1.5对3.2±2.4;p=0.013)更低,且SN组患者因咳嗽导致的干扰更少(1.6±1.4对2.3±2.3;p=0.029)。
本研究表明,与传统方法相比,在非镇静性FB期间使用喷雾器输送利多卡因可提供更好的上呼吸道局部麻醉。