Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30463577›Full record

Trial reportRespiratory research2018

Nebulization versus standard application for topical anaesthesia during flexible bronchoscopy under moderate sedation - a randomized controlled trial.

Tobias Müller, Christian Cornelissen, Michael Dreher

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Respiratory research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02262442 (Effect of the Topical Application of Anaesthetics With EnkFiberoptic Atomizer on Usage of Anaesthetics and Sedatives During the Bronchoscopy), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02262442 phase4unknown statusnot on this map

Effect of the Topical Application of Anaesthetics With EnkFiberoptic Atomizer on Usage of Anaesthetics and Sedatives During the Bronchoscopy

TypeinterventionalSponsorRWTH Aachen UniversityRan2014 to 2016Enrolled60ConditionsFlexible BronchoscopyArmsEnk Fiberoptic Atomizer, bronchoscope
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. [Expert consensus on airway lavage therapy for adult burn patients (2026 edition)].Zhonghua shao shang yu chuang mian xiu fu za zhi · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Tobias MüllerDepartment of Pneumology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany. tobmueller@ukaachen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9801-3496
Christian CornelissenDepartment of Pneumology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Michael DreherDepartment of Pneumology and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
RWTH Aachen University · DEUniversitätsklinikum Aachen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndobronchial administration of lidocaine is commonly used for cough suppression during diagnostic bronchoscopy. Recently, nebulization of lidocaine during bronchoscopies under deep sedation with fiberoptic intubation using a distinct spray catheter has been shown to have several advantages over conventional lidocaine administration via syringe. However, there are no data about this approach in bronchoscopies performed under moderate sedation. Therefore, this study compared the tolerability and safety of nebulized lidocaine with conventional lidocaine administration via syringe in patients undergoing bronchoscopy with moderate sedation.

methodsPatients requiring diagnostic bronchoscopy were randomly assigned to receive topical lidocaine either via syringe or via nebulizer. Endpoints were consumption of lidocaine and sedative drugs, as well as patient tolerance and safety.

resultsSixty patients were included in the study (n = 30 in each group). Patients required lower doses of endobronchial lidocaine when given via nebulizer versus syringe (164.7 ± 20.8 mg vs. 250.4 ± 42.38 mg; p < 0.0001) whereas no differences in the dosage of sedative drugs were observed between the two groups (all p > 0.05). Patients in the nebulizer group had higher mean oxygen saturation (96.19 ± 2.45% vs. 94.21 ± 3.02%; p = 0.0072) and a lower complication rate (0.3 ± 0.79 vs. 1.17 ± 1.62 per procedure; p = 0.0121) compared with those in the syringe group.

conclusionsEndobronchial lidocaine administration via nebulizer was well-tolerated during bronchoscopies under moderate sedation and was associated with reduced lidocaine consumption, a lower complication rate and better oxygenation compared with lidocaine administration via syringe.

trial registrationThe study was registered with clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT02262442 ; 13

Indexed as

PliabilityAdministration, TopicalAgedAnesthetics, LocalBronchoscopyFemaleHumansLidocaineMaleMiddle AgedNebulizers and VaporizersOxygen ConsumptionProcedural SedationAnesthetics, LocalLidocaineAnaesthesiaBronchoscopyLidocaineNebulizers and vaporizers

Identifiers

PMID30463577
PMCPMC6249909
OpenAlexW2900531126

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.