Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet · 2016
Comparison of Spraying and Nebulized Lidocaine in Patients Undergoing Esophago-Gastro-Duodenoscopy: A Randomized Trial.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Noitasaeng Papiroon, Vichitvejpaisal Phongthara, Kaosombatwattana Uaypom, Tassanee Jaiyen, Suwannee Siriwongsa
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Esophago-gastro-duodenoscopy (EGD) was performed under the topical anesthesia of the pharynx. However spraying lidocaine was found to be an annoying maneuver to patients, while nebulized lidocaine appeared to efficiently suppress gags and cough reflexes in airway anesthesia. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of spraying and nebulized lidocaine for patients undergoing EGD.
MATERIAL AND METHOD: A total of 110 patients undergoing elective EGD, with a history of neither lidocaine intolerance nor irritable airways due to smoking, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), upper respiratory infection, asthma, cardiac and pulmonary diseases and allergy to lidocaine were included. All patients were randomized into two groups: A- where 5 puffs (10 mg/puff) of spraying lidocaine were administered four times at 5-minute intervals, up to a total dose of 200 mg, and B-where 250 mg of nebulized lidocaine was administered via a nebulization kit with an oxygen face mask of 7 LPM for 15 minutes prior to the commencement of EGD. The procedure was performed by the same board-certified endoscopist The co-researcher who was blinded to the lidocaine administration technique assessed the ease of esophageal instrumentation as either difficult, poor; fair or excellent. Both the endoscopist and the patients expressed their satisfaction by using the numerical rating scale.
RESULTS: The endoscopist expressed her satisfaction with instrumentation, which showed significant difference between group A and group B as 84.8 ± 8.3 and 79.2 ± 11.2, respectively. The co-researcher also found that group A patients responded to the ease of esophageal instrumentation better than those in group B. However nebulized lidocaine had significant advantages over spraying lidocaine, with better acceptance in patients undergoing EGD.
CONCLUSION: The endoscopist expressed her approval of spraying lidocaine for taking less time to start the procedure, ease for instrumentation, less gag reflex during the procedure, less presence of hypersecretion, and smooth operation. However participants favored nebulized lidocaine administration.
MATERIAL AND METHOD: A total of 110 patients undergoing elective EGD, with a history of neither lidocaine intolerance nor irritable airways due to smoking, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), upper respiratory infection, asthma, cardiac and pulmonary diseases and allergy to lidocaine were included. All patients were randomized into two groups: A- where 5 puffs (10 mg/puff) of spraying lidocaine were administered four times at 5-minute intervals, up to a total dose of 200 mg, and B-where 250 mg of nebulized lidocaine was administered via a nebulization kit with an oxygen face mask of 7 LPM for 15 minutes prior to the commencement of EGD. The procedure was performed by the same board-certified endoscopist The co-researcher who was blinded to the lidocaine administration technique assessed the ease of esophageal instrumentation as either difficult, poor; fair or excellent. Both the endoscopist and the patients expressed their satisfaction by using the numerical rating scale.
RESULTS: The endoscopist expressed her satisfaction with instrumentation, which showed significant difference between group A and group B as 84.8 ± 8.3 and 79.2 ± 11.2, respectively. The co-researcher also found that group A patients responded to the ease of esophageal instrumentation better than those in group B. However nebulized lidocaine had significant advantages over spraying lidocaine, with better acceptance in patients undergoing EGD.
CONCLUSION: The endoscopist expressed her approval of spraying lidocaine for taking less time to start the procedure, ease for instrumentation, less gag reflex during the procedure, less presence of hypersecretion, and smooth operation. However participants favored nebulized lidocaine administration.