Premium
Pilot randomized study comparing two techniques of airway anaesthesia during curvilinear probe endobronchial ultrasound bronchoscopy (CP‐EBUS)
Author(s) -
LEE Hans J.,
HAAS Andrew R.,
STERMAN Daniel H.,
SOLLY Randy,
VACHANI Anil,
GILLESPIE Colin T.
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
respirology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.857
H-Index - 85
eISSN - 1440-1843
pISSN - 1323-7799
DOI - 10.1111/j.1440-1843.2010.01861.x
Subject(s) - medicine , endobronchial ultrasound , bronchoscopy , airway , anesthesia , randomized controlled trial , general anaesthesia , radiology , surgery
Background and objective: This study evaluates two different techniques for topically anaesthetizing the airway with lidocaine during curvilinear probe endobronchial ultrasound bronchoscopy (CP‐EBUS): standard injection through the working channel and spray catheter application. Methods: This was a randomized, non‐blinded, single‐centre pilot study. Patients with plans for CP‐EBUS under moderate sedation were enrolled. All patients received nebulized lidocaine followed by posterior oropharyngeal lidocaine via atomizer and a cotton ball swab using McGill forceps. Patients were then randomly assigned to lidocaine administration using spray catheter instillation or direct application through the working channel. Lidocaine was administered in a uniform fashion by a single investigator throughout the study. The primary end‐point was the number of significant coughing episodes in the first 30 min of bronchoscopy. Other end‐points included lidocaine and intravenous sedation medication dosage; severe coughing session; and number of transbronchial needle aspirations. Results: Forty patients were included in the study: 20 patients in each group. The median numbers of coughing episodes in the first 30 min were 1 (spray catheter group) and 2 (standard injection group) ( P < 0.004). Six patients in the standard installation group experienced severe coughing sessions, while there was none in the spray catheter group ( P = 0.02). There were no statistical differences between the groups in the dosage of lidocaine or intravenous sedation medications used. There were a greater number of transbronchial needle aspirations performed in the spray catheter group ( P = 0.008). Conclusions: Lidocaine delivery via the spray catheter reduced the number of significant coughing episodes compared with standard working channel injection during CP‐EBUS. Larger studies are needed to confirm these exploratory findings.