Medicine · 2025
Research on sampling of COVID-19 with lidocaine-soaked swab.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gong Chen, Lan Xiaoyan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This study explores the comfort level of lidocaine-soaked swab for nucleic acid detection of COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019) patients. Oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal secretions from COVID-19 patients were collected using lidocaine-soaked swabs.
METHODS: COVID-19 patients were randomly divided into experimental group and control group, with 25 patients in each group. The first oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal swabs (experimental group) was be soaked in lidocaine hydrochloride injection. The control group was tested for novel coronavirus nucleic acid by routine nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs. Then, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) ribonucleic acid (RNA) was detected in 2 groups by real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Participants' discomfort was assessed by a visual analog scale. Then, the discomfort and cycle threshold (Ct) values after sampling were compared between the 2 groups.
RESULTS: A total of 50 patients were enrolled in the study. There were no lidocaine-related complications during sampling. COVID-19 inpatients feel more comfortable with the use of lidocaine-soaked swabs (nasopharyngeal 3.44 ± 1.42 vs 5.68 ± 0.95, P < .01; oropharyngeal 4.4 ± 1.53 vs 8.92 ± 0.91, P < .01). Ct values of nasopharyngeal swab specimens were generally lower than those of oropharyngeal swab specimens. There was no statistically significant difference between Ct value results of the 2 groups. The use of lidocaine-soaked swabs for sampling of COVID-19 reduces patients' discomfort. This method is worth popularizing in novel coronavirus sampling.
CONCLUSION: The use of lidocaine-soaked swabs for sampling of COVID-19 reduces patients' discomfort, which it has no obvious effect on Ct value. This method is worth popularizing in novel coronavirus sampling.
METHODS: COVID-19 patients were randomly divided into experimental group and control group, with 25 patients in each group. The first oropharyngeal and nasopharyngeal swabs (experimental group) was be soaked in lidocaine hydrochloride injection. The control group was tested for novel coronavirus nucleic acid by routine nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs. Then, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) ribonucleic acid (RNA) was detected in 2 groups by real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Participants' discomfort was assessed by a visual analog scale. Then, the discomfort and cycle threshold (Ct) values after sampling were compared between the 2 groups.
RESULTS: A total of 50 patients were enrolled in the study. There were no lidocaine-related complications during sampling. COVID-19 inpatients feel more comfortable with the use of lidocaine-soaked swabs (nasopharyngeal 3.44 ± 1.42 vs 5.68 ± 0.95, P < .01; oropharyngeal 4.4 ± 1.53 vs 8.92 ± 0.91, P < .01). Ct values of nasopharyngeal swab specimens were generally lower than those of oropharyngeal swab specimens. There was no statistically significant difference between Ct value results of the 2 groups. The use of lidocaine-soaked swabs for sampling of COVID-19 reduces patients' discomfort. This method is worth popularizing in novel coronavirus sampling.
CONCLUSION: The use of lidocaine-soaked swabs for sampling of COVID-19 reduces patients' discomfort, which it has no obvious effect on Ct value. This method is worth popularizing in novel coronavirus sampling.