2009•Anesthesia & AnalgesiaRequires access

Spray-As-You-Go Airway Topical Anesthesia in Patients with a Difficult Airway: A Randomized, Double-Blind Comparison of 2% and 4% Lidocaine

Fu‐Shan Xue, He P. Liu, Nong He, Ya-chao Xu, Quan Yang, Xu Liao, Xiu Zheng Xu, Xin Guo, Yan M. Zhang

Open publisher page 138 citations

Abstract

In Brief BACKGROUND: We designed this randomized, double-blind clinical study to compare the safety and efficacy of 2% and 4% lidocaine during airway topical anesthesia with a spray-as-you-go technique via the fiberoptic bronchoscope. METHODS: Fifty-two adult patients with a difficult airway were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 study groups to receive 2% (Group 1) or 4% lidocaine (Group 2) by a spray-as-you-go technique with the fiberoptic bronchoscope, in a double-blind manner. After airway topical anesthesia, awake fiberoptic orotracheal intubation (FOI) was performed. Level of sedation, time for each lidocaine spray in different targeted areas, total times for airway sprays, total dosages of lidocaine used for airway sprays, intubation times, and number of intubation attempts were noted. An independent investigator scored patients’ comfort during airway topical anesthesia, patients’ reaction, coughing severity, and intubating condition during awake FOI, and observed changes of arterial blood pressure and heart rate during each stage in the airway manipulation process. Serial blood samples were obtained for analysis of plasma lidocaine concentrations. RESULTS: Except for the total dosages and plasma concentrations of lidocaine, there were no significant differences in any of the observed variables between groups. All patients exhibited excellent or acceptable intubating conditions. The total dosages of lidocaine were significantly smaller in Group 1 (3.4 ± 0.6 mg/kg) than in Group 2 (7.1 ± 2.1 mg/kg). The plasma lidocaine concentrations in all observed points after the supraglottic sprays were larger in Group 2 than in Group 1. CONCLUSIONS: Both 2% and 4% lidocaine administered topically by a spray-as-you-go technique can provide clinically acceptable intubating conditions for awake FOI in sedated patients with a difficult airway. As compared with 4% lidocaine, however, 2% lidocaine requires a smaller dosage and results in lower plasma concentrations. IMPLICATIONS: This randomized double-blind clinical study demonstrates that both 2% and 4% lidocaine, administered topically to the airway by a spray-as-you-go technique with the fiberoptic bronchoscope, can provide clinically acceptable intubating conditions for awake fiberoptic orotracheal intubation. As compared with 4% lidocaine, however, 2% lidocaine requires a smaller dosage and results in lower plasma concentrations.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

In Brief BACKGROUND: We designed this randomized, double-blind clinical study to compare the safety and efficacy of 2% and 4% lidocaine during airway topical anesthesia with a spray-as-you-go technique via the fiberoptic bronchoscope. METHODS: Fifty-two adult patients with a difficult airway were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 study groups to receive 2% (Group 1) or 4% lidocaine (Group 2) by a spray-as-you-go technique with the fiberoptic bronchoscope, in a double-blind manner. After airway topical anesthesia, awake fiberoptic orotracheal intubation (FOI) was performed. Level of sedation, time for each lidocaine spray in different targeted areas, total times for airway sprays, total dosages of lidocaine used for airway sprays, intubation times, and number of intubation attempts were noted. An independent investigator scored patients’ comfort during airway topical anesthesia, patients’ reaction, coughing severity, and intubating condition during awake FOI, and observed changes of arterial blood pressure and heart rate during each stage in the airway manipulation process. Serial blood samples were obtained for analysis of plasma lidocaine concentrations. RESULTS: Except for the total dosages and plasma concentrations of lidocaine, there were no significant differences in any of the observed variables between groups. All patients exhibited excellent or acceptable intubating conditions. The total dosages of lidocaine were significantly smaller in Group 1 (3.4 ± 0.6 mg/kg) than in Group 2 (7.1 ± 2.1 mg/kg). The plasma lidocaine concentrations in all observed points after the supraglottic sprays were larger in Group 2 than in Group 1. CONCLUSIONS: Both 2% and 4% lidocaine administered topically by a spray-as-you-go technique can provide clinically acceptable intubating conditions for awake FOI in sedated patients with a difficult airway. As compared with 4% lidocaine, however, 2% lidocaine requires a smaller dosage and results in lower plasma concentrations. IMPLICATIONS: This randomized double-blind clinical study demonstrates that both 2% and 4% lidocaine, administered topically to the airway by a spray-as-you-go technique with the fiberoptic bronchoscope, can provide clinically acceptable intubating conditions for awake fiberoptic orotracheal intubation. As compared with 4% lidocaine, however, 2% lidocaine requires a smaller dosage and results in lower plasma concentrations.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 138 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

In Brief BACKGROUND: We designed this randomized, double-blind clinical study to compare the safety and efficacy of 2% and 4% lidocaine during airway topical anesthesia with a spray-as-you-go technique via the fiberoptic bronchoscope. METHODS: Fifty-two adult patients with a difficult airway were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 study groups to receive 2% (Group 1) or 4% lidocaine (Group 2) by a spray-as-you-go technique with the fiberoptic bronchoscope, in a double-blind manner. After airway topical anesthesia, awake fiberoptic orotracheal intubation (FOI) was performed. Level of sedation, time for each lidocaine spray in different targeted areas, total times for airway sprays, total dosages of lidocaine used for airway sprays, intubation times, and number of intubation attempts were noted. An independent investigator scored patients’ comfort during airway topical anesthesia, patients’ reaction, coughing severity, and intubating condition during awake FOI, and observed changes of arterial blood pressure and heart rate during each stage in the airway manipulation process. Serial blood samples were obtained for analysis of plasma lidocaine concentrations. RESULTS: Except for the total dosages and plasma concentrations of lidocaine, there were no significant differences in any of the observed variables between groups. All patients exhibited excellent or acceptable intubating conditions. The total dosages of lidocaine were significantly smaller in Group 1 (3.4 ± 0.6 mg/kg) than in Group 2 (7.1 ± 2.1 mg/kg). The plasma lidocaine concentrations in all observed points after the supraglottic sprays were larger in Group 2 than in Group 1. CONCLUSIONS: Both 2% and 4% lidocaine administered topically by a spray-as-you-go technique can provide clinically acceptable intubating conditions for awake FOI in sedated patients with a difficult airway. As compared with 4% lidocaine, however, 2% lidocaine requires a smaller dosage and results in lower plasma concentrations. IMPLICATIONS: This randomized double-blind clinical study demonstrates that both 2% and 4% lidocaine, administered topically to the airway by a spray-as-you-go technique with the fiberoptic bronchoscope, can provide clinically acceptable intubating conditions for awake fiberoptic orotracheal intubation. As compared with 4% lidocaine, however, 2% lidocaine requires a smaller dosage and results in lower plasma concentrations.

Key concepts: Medicine, Lidocaine, Anesthesia, Airway, Double blind, Topical anesthesia, Placebo, Alternative medicine

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Spray-As-You-Go Airway Topical Anesthesia in Patients with a Difficult Airway: A Randomized, Double-Blind Comparison of 2% and 4% Lidocaine — Research Paper | ScholarLens