Topical Versus Intravenous Lidocaine in Children With Upper Respiratory Infection Undergoing Anesthesia: A Randomized, Double Blind, Clinical Trial.

Autor:	Gharaei B; Anesthesiology Research Center, Labbafinejad Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran., Jafari A; Anesthesiology Research Center, Labbafinejad Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran., Poor Zamany M; Anesthesiology Research Center, Labbafinejad Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran., Kamranmanesh M; Anesthesiology Research Center, Labbafinejad Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran., Aghamohammadi H; Anesthesiology Research Center, Labbafinejad Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran., Roodneshin F; Anesthesiology Research Center, Labbafinejad Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran., Teymourian H; Anesthesiology Research Center, Labbafinejad Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran., Khazaie Y; Anesthesiology Research Center, Labbafinejad Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran., Dadkhah P; Anesthesiology Research Center, Labbafinejad Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Anesthesiology and pain medicine [Anesth Pain Med] 2015 Aug 22; Vol. 5 (4), pp. e23501. Date of Electronic Publication: 2015 Aug 22 (Print Publication: 2015).
DOI:	10.5812/aapm.23501v2
Abstrakt:	Background: The current randomized double-blind clinical trial aimed to compare the incidence of post-operative cough with intravenous vs. topical lidocaine in children with mild upper respiratory infection (URI) anesthetized with laryngeal mask airway (LMA) in the university-affiliated medical center. Objectives: To assess the incidence of adverse respiratory event including cough, apnea, laryngospasm, bronchospasm following two different methods of lidocaine administration in anesthetized children with mild URI. Patients and Methods: One hundred and thirty pediatric patients with mild URI (within the previous two weeks) aged between one and six years were enrolled. They were candidates to undergo immediate full ophthalmic examination, and randomly divided into two groups of 65to receive intravenous (1.5 mg/kg) or topical lidocaine on LMA. Anesthesia was induced with sevoflurane, subsequently LMA was inserted when the patient was in deep anesthesia status and maintained on (50% N2O, 50% O2) and 3% sevoflurane. Spontaneous ventilation was maintained throughout the procedure and LMA was removed in deep anesthesia. Outcomes (cough, laryngospasm, bronchospasm and vomiting) were evaluated peri-operatively and one day post-operation. Results: One hundred and twenty four patients fulfilled the trial. Cough (primary outcome) was significantly more frequent among those with topical compared with intravenous lidocaine (46% vs. 26%; P = 0.004). The incidence of laryngospasm (32% vs. 27%), bronchospasm (18% vs. 12%), desaturation (18% vs. 12%) and vomiting (5% vs. 2%) was not statistically different between the groups. Conclusions: The pediatric patients undergoing general anesthesia with LMA with intravenous lidocaine experienced fewer incidence of postoperative cough compared to the ones in the topical lidocaine group.
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu