Comparison of lidocaine and bronchodilator inhalation treatments for cough suppression in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

C. F. Chong, C. C. Chen, H. P. Ma, Y. C. Wu, Y. C. Chen, T. L. Wang

研究成果: 雜誌貢獻文章

28 引文 (Scopus)

摘要

Background: This study aimed to assess and compare the effectiveness of lidocaine and bronchodilator inhalation treatments for rapid cough suppression in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Methods: Prospective comparison study carried out in a tertiary emergency department. Consecutive COPD patients presenting with intractable cough were randomly assigned to receive lidocaine or terbutaline inhalation treatments for cough suppression. Patients with dyspnoea, unstable vital signs, and pneumonia or neoplasm on chest x ray were excluded. A subjective, 10 point questionnaire based cough severity score was used for assessing the outcome. Results: The final study sample included 127 patients (mean (SD) age, 69.2 (12.1) years; 33.1% women) of whom 62 received nebulised lidocaine and 65 nebulised bronchodilator. The cough severity score was significantly reduced one hour after inhalation treatment with both lidocaine and bronchodilator, with no significant difference in efficacy. Common but mild side effects in the lidocaine group included oropharyngeal numbness and bitter taste, and, in the bronchodilator group, tremor and palpitation. Dyspnoea, dizziness, and nausea and vomiting were equally uncommon in both groups. None of these problems caused any of the patients to discontinue their treatments and no allergic reactions were reported. Conclusions: Both lidocaine and bronchodilator inhalation treatments are equally effective for short term cough suppression in patients with COPD.
原文英語
頁(從 - 到)429-432
頁數4
期刊Emergency medicine journal : EMJ
22
發行號6
DOIs
出版狀態已發佈 - 六月 2005
對外發佈Yes

指紋

Bronchodilator Agents
Lidocaine
Cough
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Inhalation
Dyspnea
Therapeutics
Terbutaline
Hypesthesia
Vital Signs
Dizziness
Tremor
Nausea
Vomiting
Hospital Emergency Service
Pneumonia
Hypersensitivity
Thorax
X-Rays
Prospective Studies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
  • Surgery
  • Nursing(all)
  • Emergency Medicine

引用此文

Comparison of lidocaine and bronchodilator inhalation treatments for cough suppression in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. / Chong, C. F.; Chen, C. C.; Ma, H. P.; Wu, Y. C.; Chen, Y. C.; Wang, T. L.

於: Emergency medicine journal : EMJ, 卷 22, 編號 6, 06.2005, p. 429-432.

研究成果: 雜誌貢獻文章

@article{13e61fc898304325b08408172e4698dd,
title = "Comparison of lidocaine and bronchodilator inhalation treatments for cough suppression in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease",
abstract = "Background: This study aimed to assess and compare the effectiveness of lidocaine and bronchodilator inhalation treatments for rapid cough suppression in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Methods: Prospective comparison study carried out in a tertiary emergency department. Consecutive COPD patients presenting with intractable cough were randomly assigned to receive lidocaine or terbutaline inhalation treatments for cough suppression. Patients with dyspnoea, unstable vital signs, and pneumonia or neoplasm on chest x ray were excluded. A subjective, 10 point questionnaire based cough severity score was used for assessing the outcome. Results: The final study sample included 127 patients (mean (SD) age, 69.2 (12.1) years; 33.1{\%} women) of whom 62 received nebulised lidocaine and 65 nebulised bronchodilator. The cough severity score was significantly reduced one hour after inhalation treatment with both lidocaine and bronchodilator, with no significant difference in efficacy. Common but mild side effects in the lidocaine group included oropharyngeal numbness and bitter taste, and, in the bronchodilator group, tremor and palpitation. Dyspnoea, dizziness, and nausea and vomiting were equally uncommon in both groups. None of these problems caused any of the patients to discontinue their treatments and no allergic reactions were reported. Conclusions: Both lidocaine and bronchodilator inhalation treatments are equally effective for short term cough suppression in patients with COPD.",
author = "Chong, {C. F.} and Chen, {C. C.} and Ma, {H. P.} and Wu, {Y. C.} and Chen, {Y. C.} and Wang, {T. L.}",
year = "2005",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1136/emj.2004.015719",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "429--432",
journal = "Emergency Medicine Journal",
issn = "1472-0205",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of lidocaine and bronchodilator inhalation treatments for cough suppression in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

AU - Chong, C. F.

AU - Chen, C. C.

AU - Ma, H. P.

AU - Wu, Y. C.

AU - Chen, Y. C.

AU - Wang, T. L.

PY - 2005/6

Y1 - 2005/6

N2 - Background: This study aimed to assess and compare the effectiveness of lidocaine and bronchodilator inhalation treatments for rapid cough suppression in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Methods: Prospective comparison study carried out in a tertiary emergency department. Consecutive COPD patients presenting with intractable cough were randomly assigned to receive lidocaine or terbutaline inhalation treatments for cough suppression. Patients with dyspnoea, unstable vital signs, and pneumonia or neoplasm on chest x ray were excluded. A subjective, 10 point questionnaire based cough severity score was used for assessing the outcome. Results: The final study sample included 127 patients (mean (SD) age, 69.2 (12.1) years; 33.1% women) of whom 62 received nebulised lidocaine and 65 nebulised bronchodilator. The cough severity score was significantly reduced one hour after inhalation treatment with both lidocaine and bronchodilator, with no significant difference in efficacy. Common but mild side effects in the lidocaine group included oropharyngeal numbness and bitter taste, and, in the bronchodilator group, tremor and palpitation. Dyspnoea, dizziness, and nausea and vomiting were equally uncommon in both groups. None of these problems caused any of the patients to discontinue their treatments and no allergic reactions were reported. Conclusions: Both lidocaine and bronchodilator inhalation treatments are equally effective for short term cough suppression in patients with COPD.

AB - Background: This study aimed to assess and compare the effectiveness of lidocaine and bronchodilator inhalation treatments for rapid cough suppression in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Methods: Prospective comparison study carried out in a tertiary emergency department. Consecutive COPD patients presenting with intractable cough were randomly assigned to receive lidocaine or terbutaline inhalation treatments for cough suppression. Patients with dyspnoea, unstable vital signs, and pneumonia or neoplasm on chest x ray were excluded. A subjective, 10 point questionnaire based cough severity score was used for assessing the outcome. Results: The final study sample included 127 patients (mean (SD) age, 69.2 (12.1) years; 33.1% women) of whom 62 received nebulised lidocaine and 65 nebulised bronchodilator. The cough severity score was significantly reduced one hour after inhalation treatment with both lidocaine and bronchodilator, with no significant difference in efficacy. Common but mild side effects in the lidocaine group included oropharyngeal numbness and bitter taste, and, in the bronchodilator group, tremor and palpitation. Dyspnoea, dizziness, and nausea and vomiting were equally uncommon in both groups. None of these problems caused any of the patients to discontinue their treatments and no allergic reactions were reported. Conclusions: Both lidocaine and bronchodilator inhalation treatments are equally effective for short term cough suppression in patients with COPD.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=20344371951&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=20344371951&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/emj.2004.015719

DO - 10.1136/emj.2004.015719

M3 - Article

C2 - 15911951

AN - SCOPUS:20344371951

VL - 22

SP - 429

EP - 432

JO - Emergency Medicine Journal

JF - Emergency Medicine Journal

SN - 1472-0205

IS - 6

ER -