4.5 Article

10% Lidocaine spray as a local anesthetic in blood gas sampling: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 49, 期 -, 页码 89-93

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2021.05.060

关键词

Lidocaine spray; Anesthesia; Radial artery; Blood gas; Pain

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study aimed to examine the analgesic efficacy of lidocaine spray during radial artery blood gas sampling. Results showed that 10% lidocaine spray significantly reduced pain compared to a placebo, recommending its use in emergency departments for arterial blood gas sampling.
Aim: Radial artery blood gas sampling is a very common procedure undertaken in the emergency department to evaluate respiratory and metabolic parameters. This intervention causes both anxiety and pain for the patient. Therefore, the current study aimed to examine the analgesic efficacy of lidocaine spray compared to a placebo during radial artery blood gas sampling. Methods: This study was conducted in the emergency department of a tertiary hospital with a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled design. A total of 144 patients were randomly divided into two groups: One group (n=72) received 10% lidocaine spray and the other (n=72) was the placebo group. The analgesic efficacy of the 10% lidocaine spray was compared with the placebo group using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Results: In the evaluation of the analgesic efficacy of the 10% lidocaine spray, the VAS score was 1.5 [interquartile range (IQR): 2.0] for the lidocaine group and 5 (IQR: 2.0) for the placebo group. The role of lidocaine spray in reducing pain was statistically significant compared to the placebo (p=0.000). Conclusion: In blood gas sampling, 10% lidocaine spray has analgesic efficacy. Therefore, we recommend the use of lidocaine spray while performing arterial blood gas sampling in emergency departments. (C) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据