Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35733086›Full record

Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2022

Effects of lidocaine administration via the perforated outer cuff of a dual-cuff endotracheal tube and remifentanil administration on recovery from general anaesthesia for female patients undergoing thyroidectomy: a single centre, double-blind, randomised study.

Ping Li, Dewei Li, Linan Wang, Fei Ye, Bo Yang, Lina Yu, Sujuan Fang, Zhilan Tong, Qing Yin, Yongyong Shi and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
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

12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ping LiDepartment of Anesthesiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine: Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, 510120, People's Republic of China.
Dewei LiDepartment of Anesthesiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine: Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, 510120, People's Republic of China.
Linan WangDepartment of Anesthesiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine: Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, 510120, People's Republic of China.
Fei YeDepartment of Anesthesiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine: Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, 510120, People's Republic of China.
Bo YangDepartment of Anesthesiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine: Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, 510120, People's Republic of China.
Lina YuDepartment of Anesthesiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine: Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, 510120, People's Republic of China.
Sujuan FangDepartment of Anesthesiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine: Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, 510120, People's Republic of China.
Zhilan TongDepartment of Anesthesiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine: Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, 510120, People's Republic of China.
Qing YinDepartment of Anesthesiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine: Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, 510120, People's Republic of China.
Yongyong ShiDepartment of Anesthesiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine: Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, 510120, People's Republic of China.
Xiangyu LiDepartment of Anesthesiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine: Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, 510120, People's Republic of China.
Gaofeng ZhaoDepartment of Anesthesiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine: Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, 510120, People's Republic of China. zhaogaofengzyy@163.com.
Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCough caused by endotracheal tube (ETT) placement is ubiquitous and correlates with adverse outcomes. Remifentanil administration via target-controlled infusion (TCI) is one of the cough prevention measures used during recovery. In a pilot study, lidocaine administered via the perforated outer cuff of a dual-cuff endotracheal tube was also found to prevent cough due to ETT placement. We therefore compared these two cough prevention approaches during recovery after thyroidectomy in a single-centre, double-blind, randomised study conducted in China during the period from 09/10/2020 to 30/04/2021.

methodsNinety-eight female patients aged 18-65 years with American Society of Anaesthesiologists Physical Status scores of I and II were scheduled to undergo thyroidectomy. The ETT contained an internal cuff covered by a perforated outer cuff to allow for lidocaine delivery. Patients were randomised to receive either 4 ml of saline solution (Group R, n = 49) or 4 ml of 2% lidocaine in the outer cuff (Group L, n = 49) at the beginning of skin suturing. Remifentanil (2 ng/ml) was maintained in Group R until extubation, while remifentanil was maintained in Group L until the end of skin suturing. The primary outcome was cough during patient transfer, at 1 min before extubation, and at extubation. The secondary outcomes were haemodynamics and other recovery parameters.

resultsPrimary outcomes were compared between remifentanil vs. lidocaine application, namely, the incidence of cough during patient transfer (0% in Group R vs. 0% in Group L), at 1 min before extubation (22.45% in Group R vs. 4.08% in Group L; P = 0.015), and at extubation (61.22% in Group R vs. 20.41% in Group L; P < 0.001). Compared with remifentanil, lidocaine more effectively decreased heart rate elevation and hypoxemia at 5 min after extubation, the spontaneous respiration recovery time, the extubation time, the duration of post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) stay, Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale scores in the agitated range and Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool scores.

conclusionLidocaine administered via the perforated outer cuff of the ETT significantly improved recovery from general anaesthesia compared to remifentanil in female patients after thyroidectomy.

trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry (No. ChiCTR2000038653), registered on 27/09/2020.

Indexed as

LidocaineThyroidectomyAnesthesia, GeneralCoughDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHumansIntubation, IntratrachealPilot ProjectsRemifentanilLidocaineRemifentanilAnaesthesiaAnaesthesia topicalEndotracheal tubeGeneralLidocaineModified dual-cuffOpioidRemifentanil

Identifiers

PMID35733086
PMCPMC9213641
OpenAlexW4283362040

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.