Free
Education  |   November 2000
Inhaled Albuterol, but Not Intravenous Lidocaine, Protects Against Intubation-induced Bronchoconstriction in Asthma
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Andrew D. Maslow, M.D.
    *
  • Meredith M. Regan, Sc.D.
  • Elliot Israel, M.D.
  • Amir Darvish, B.S.
    §
  • Mary Mehrez, M.D.
  • Robert Boughton, M.D.
    #
  • Stephen H. Loring, M.D.
    **
  • *Assistant Professor, Department of Anesthesiology, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island. †Instructor, Biometrics Center, §Physicians Assistant, ∥Instructor, **Associate Professor, Department of Anesthesia, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. ‡Associate Professor of Medicine, Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. #Assistant Professor, Department of Anesthesia, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Camperdown, Australia.
Article Information
Education
Education   |   November 2000
Inhaled Albuterol, but Not Intravenous Lidocaine, Protects Against Intubation-induced Bronchoconstriction in Asthma
Anesthesiology 11 2000, Vol.93, 1198-1204. doi:
Anesthesiology 11 2000, Vol.93, 1198-1204. doi:
ASTHMATIC patients undergoing general anesthesia with tracheal intubation are at increased risk for intubation-induced bronchospasm. 1–6 A variety of drugs given perioperatively have been shown to affect the airway response to intubation. 2–4,6–15 Although case reports and randomized studies suggest that intravenous lidocaine causes bronchodilation, the clinical significance of these observations is unclear. 7,9,12,16–25 Furthermore, most studies of the efficacy of intravenous lidocaine in preventing bronchoconstriction have been conducted in animals or in human subjects during controlled laboratory conditions, not during general anesthesia with tracheal intubation. 26 We therefore prospectively studied the effects of intravenous lidocaine in asthmatic patients undergoing general anesthesia with tracheal intubation. When preliminary results failed to show a protective effect, we extended the study to include a test of inhaled albuterol, a drug known to be an effective bronchodilator in asthmatic patients, using the same patient population and study protocol. 2,3,12,14 
Methods
The study was approved by the hospital’s ethics and research committee. One hundred tenpatients scheduled for elective surgery requiring general anesthesia and tracheal intubation were recruited over an 8-yr period. Informed consent was obtained. All patients had a diagnosis of asthma by their primary care physician for at least 1 yr, and all had been treated for reactive airways disease with inhaler therapy in the month before surgery. Patients with significant cardiac disease or those requiring awake or fiberoptic intubation were excluded. Patients were instructed not to take any of their regular asthma medicines on the day of surgery. Patients were without asthma medicine for at least 10 h. Patients were given routine spirometry (unless they had had spirometry within 3 months of surgery).
Our study tested the ability of two drugs to protect against intubation-induced bronchoconstriction: part 1 tested the efficacy of intravenous lidocaine, and part 2 tested the efficacy of inhaled albuterol. Part 2 was performed after the completion of part 1. Each part was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Study drug or placebo was dispensed by the pharmacy and administered to the patient at the predetermined time.
To assess the protective effect of drugs and placebos, we measured lower pulmonary resistance (RL). Because of the relatively high and variable resistance of the upper airway, we could not make meaningful comparisons of resistance measured before and after intubation. We therefore had to infer the occurrence of intubation-induced bronchoconstriction from measurements made entirely after intubation, i.e.  , after the event we were detecting. We reasoned that significant bronchoconstriction caused by intubation would result in a relatively high resistance immediately after intubation, and that such acutely increased resistance might diminish with time and with the inhalation of isoflurane, an anesthetic agent known to be a brochodilator. 10,14,15 Therefore, patients with high pulmonary resistance (RL≥ 5 cm H2O · l−1· s−1) before administration of isoflurane, whose resistance subsequently decreased by 50% or more while breathing isoflurane, were deemed to have “responded” to intubation with bronchoconstriction. Patients treated with a protective drug would be less likely than those treated with placebo to show a response.
Transpulmonary pressure was measured with a differential transducer (model LCVR; Celesco, Canoga Park, CA) connected between an esophageal balloon catheter and a tracheal catheter positioned at the tip of the endotracheal tube (Portex Jet Ventilator Adaptor; SIMS Portex Ltd., Hythe, UK). The esophageal balloon was 12 cm long, 3 cm in perimeter, and mounted on a polyethylene catheter (2.80-mm OD, 1.77-mm ID). Airflow was measured with a pneumotachometer (Fleisch No. 1; Rusch, Inc., Duluth, GA) and pressure transducer. The flow signal was integrated electrically to indicate volume and calibrated with a 3-l syringe. At prescribed times after intubation, pressure, flow, and volume signals were displayed as pressure–volume and flow–volume traces on a storage oscilloscope, photographed, and later analyzed by the method of Neergard and Wirtz. 3,10,20 We calculated RL(excluding the upper airway) as the pressure difference between inspiration and expiration at midtidal volume divided by the corresponding flow difference, as previously described. 3,10,20 Traces were very consistent from breath to breath, and we analyzed one representative breath at each time point.
In part 1, intravenous lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg) or saline was given as a bolus dose 2.5–3 min before planned intubation. In part 2, albuterol or albuterol–placebo was administered in four puffs from a metered dose inhaler, 15–20 min before planned intubation. All patients were premedicated with midazolam (1–2 mg administered intravenously), and after standard noninvasive monitoring was applied, they were given 100% oxygen to breathe. Anesthesia was induced with propofol (2 mg/kg), fentanyl (3 μg/kg), and vecuronium (0.1 mg/kg) and was maintained with a propofol infusion (100–200 μg · kg−1· min−1) and 50% nitrous oxide in oxygen by mask. In part 1, intravenous drugs were administered in the following order: fentanyl, propofol, vecuronium, study drug. All patients underwent laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation within 3 min of the start of induction. After laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation (7.5-mm endotracheal tube for men and 7.0 mm for women), an esophageal balloon catheter was positioned with its tip 40 cm from the incisors, and the tracheal catheter was advanced to the distal endotracheal tube.
Patients underwent ventilation with equal parts oxygen and nitrous oxide (50/50), using tidal volumes of 10 ml/kg at 8 breaths/min using a square waveform inspiratory flow (Ohmeda Anesthesia Ventilator 7800 series; Datex-Ohmeda, Madison, WI). Respiratory measurements were made as soon as possible after intubation, within 1 min, and at approximately 5-min intervals thereafter for a total of five measurements. Surgical preparation and draping were allowed to begin after obtaining the first two measurements and the start of isoflurane. Heart rate and mean systemic blood pressure were also recorded. After the initial two measurements, isoflurane inhalation (2% inspired concentration) was begun, and the propofol infusion was discontinued. After three more measurements, the study protocol was finished, and respiratory measuring equipment was removed.
Statistical Analysis
Data are presented as mean, SD, median, and range, or as number and percent of patients. For each phase of the study, treated and placebo groups were compared with respect to preoperative respiratory variables, intraoperative hemodynamic and pulmonary measurements, and RLusing a two-sample t  test (age, weight, mean blood pressure), Wilcoxon rank sum test (forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1], heart rate, RL), or the Fisher exact test (sex, asthma medications). To compare changes in hemodynamic parameters, the number of patients whose postintubation heart rate and mean blood pressure measurements changed by more than 20% from preintubation were compared between groups using the Fisher exact test. The effects of isoflurane were assessed within each group by comparing the difference between maximum preisoflurane and minimum postisoflurane RLusing the Wilcoxon signed rank test.
Subjects were originally categorized as responders if the maximum RL in the first two measurements after intubation, and before administration of isoflurane, was greater than or equal to 5 cm H2O · l−1· s−1and subsequently decreased by 50% or more while breathing isoflurane. In a post hoc  analysis, we explored secondary definitions of response, as described in Results. Response rates of treated and placebo patients were compared using the Fisher exact test.
Results
Figure 1shows RLchanges after intubation in a representative patient who met the original definition of response to intubation and in a patient who did not. The initially high pulmonary resistance progressively diminished with time or the start of isoflurane administration.
Fig. 1. Lower pulmonary resistance (RL) after intubation in two patients, one who responded to intubation with bronchospasm and another who did not. Isoflurane inhalation begins after the second measurement in each patient.
Fig. 1. Lower pulmonary resistance (RL) after intubation in two patients, one who responded to intubation with bronchospasm and another who did not. Isoflurane inhalation begins after the second measurement in each patient.
Fig. 1. Lower pulmonary resistance (RL) after intubation in two patients, one who responded to intubation with bronchospasm and another who did not. Isoflurane inhalation begins after the second measurement in each patient.
×
Although several patients recorded high pulmonary resistances and evidence of expiratory obstruction, only one patient (intravenous lidocaine study group) demonstrated severe bronchoconstriction requiring albuterol treatment and early administration of isoflurane. In this patient we were able to obtain one measurement before rescue therapy. This patient had received intravenous lidocaine and was listed as a responder.
Part 1: Lidocaine–Placebo
Sixty patients were randomized, 30 in each group. Three patients receiving placebo were excluded from analysis, two because of change in the anesthetic plan (no tracheal intubation necessary) and one because of inadequate oscilloscope records. There were no significant differences between lidocaine and placebo groups in preoperative patient characteristics, preoperative FEV1, or percent change in FEV1after bronchodilation. There were no differences in preintubation hemodynamic values or in the proportion of patients whose heart rate or mean blood pressure changed by more than 20% with intubation, suggesting that the groups were anesthetized to similar depth (table 1).
Table 1. Preoperative Respiratory Evaluation and Intraoperative Hemodynamic and Pulmonary Data for the Lidocaine and Albuterol Study Phases
Image not available
Table 1. Preoperative Respiratory Evaluation and Intraoperative Hemodynamic and Pulmonary Data for the Lidocaine and Albuterol Study Phases
×
There was no significant difference in RL measurements after intubation and before isoflurane (mean RL, 8.2 [SD 9.1] cm H2O · l−1· s−1for lidocaine, 7.6 [SD 6.7] cm H2O · l−1· s−1for placebo;table 1and fig. 2). There was also no significant difference in RLmeasurements after the administration of isoflurane (4.3 [SD 3.6] cm H2O · l−1· s−1for lidocaine vs.  4.3 [SD 4.5] cm H2O · l−1· s−1for placebo). In addition, there was no significant difference in the rate of response to tracheal intubation (table 2and fig. 3).
Fig. 2. Mean lower pulmonary resistance (RL) before and after the administration of isoflurane from each of the four study groups. Patients receiving albuterol had a significantly lower preisoflurane RLcompared with inhaled placebo (*P  < 0.05). RLwas significantly lower after isoflurane in all study groups (**P  < 0.05). IV = intravenous.
Fig. 2. Mean lower pulmonary resistance (RL) before and after the administration of isoflurane from each of the four study groups. Patients receiving albuterol had a significantly lower preisoflurane RLcompared with inhaled placebo (*P 
	< 0.05). RLwas significantly lower after isoflurane in all study groups (**P 
	< 0.05). IV = intravenous.
Fig. 2. Mean lower pulmonary resistance (RL) before and after the administration of isoflurane from each of the four study groups. Patients receiving albuterol had a significantly lower preisoflurane RLcompared with inhaled placebo (*P  < 0.05). RLwas significantly lower after isoflurane in all study groups (**P  < 0.05). IV = intravenous.
×
Table 2. Incidence of Responses to Tracheal Intubation According to Primary and Secondary Definitions of a Response
Image not available
Table 2. Incidence of Responses to Tracheal Intubation According to Primary and Secondary Definitions of a Response
×
Fig. 3. Response frequency among drug and placebo groups using the original definition of response and secondary definitions (A  –E  ) described in table 2. Intravenous lidocaine was not different from placebo in preventing intubation-induced bronchospasm by any definition. Albuterol was significantly (*P  < 0.05) better than placebo using the original definition or secondary definitions of response.
Fig. 3. Response frequency among drug and placebo groups using the original definition of response and secondary definitions (A 
	–E 
	) described in table 2. Intravenous lidocaine was not different from placebo in preventing intubation-induced bronchospasm by any definition. Albuterol was significantly (*P 
	< 0.05) better than placebo using the original definition or secondary definitions of response.
Fig. 3. Response frequency among drug and placebo groups using the original definition of response and secondary definitions (A  –E  ) described in table 2. Intravenous lidocaine was not different from placebo in preventing intubation-induced bronchospasm by any definition. Albuterol was significantly (*P  < 0.05) better than placebo using the original definition or secondary definitions of response.
×
Part 2: Albuterol–Placebo
Fifty patients were randomized, 25 in each group. Two patients receiving placebo were excluded from analysis, one because of change in the anesthetic plan (no tracheal intubation necessary) and one because of inadequate measurements. The median FEV1during preoperative evaluation was significantly greater in the albuterol group (102%vs.  90% of predicted;P  = 0.04). However, the change in FEV1 (%) after bronchodilation was not different between the two groups. There were no differences in preintubation hemodynamic values or in the number of patients whose heart rate or mean blood pressure changed by more than 20% with intubation (table 1).
The RLafter intubation and before isoflurane was lower in the treated group (mean RL, 5.3 [SD 3.0] cm H2O · l−1· s−1for albuterol, 8.9 [SD 7.4] cm H2O · l−1· s−1for placebo;P  = 0.04;table 1and fig. 2). Although the RL after intubation was also lower for the albuterol group, it was not statistically significant (3.8 [SD 1.8] cm H2O · l−1· s−1for albuterol vs.  4.9 [SD 2.7] cm H2O · l−1· s−1for placebo). There were significantly fewer responders (original definition) in the albuterol group: 1 versus  8 (P  < 0.01;table 2and fig. 3).
Effects of Isoflurane
There were statistically significant reductions in RLafter the administration of isoflurane in all study groups (table 1and fig. 2). The reduction in RLwas not significantly greater in the intravenous lidocaine group and both placebo groups compared with the albuterol group (albuterol vs.  inhaled placebo, P  = 0.05; albuterol vs.  lidocaine or intravenous placebo, P  > 0.05).
Secondary Definitions of Response
In determining the protective effect of a drug, our choice of definition of response to intubation was critical because inappropriate criteria for response could obscure differences between groups. Therefore, we performed post hoc  examination of the ability of other definitions of response to reveal hidden effects. We varied the definition of “high” resistance in the initial measurements from 5 to 3 cm H2O · l−1· s−1and analyzed the data using 3 cm H2O · l−1· s−1. It also seemed possible that intubation-induced bronchoconstriction might not resolve with time and isoflurane inhalation; therefore, we combined criteria for response to include patients whose initial RLand minimal RLafter isoflurane were both greater than 5 or 7 cm H2O · l−1· s−1. The results were not different with any of the secondary definitions of response (table 2and fig. 3).
In our study, 19 of 105 patients (18%) smoked tobacco. Smokers were not significantly different from nonsmokers in RLbefore isoflurane (mean RLof nonsmokers, 7.3 [SD 7.3] cm H2O · l−1· s−1vs.  8.2 [SD 5.8] cm H2O · l−1· s−1for smokers), RLafter isoflurane (mean RLof nonsmokers, 4.2 [SD 3.4] cm H2O · l−1· s−1vs.  4.8 [SD 2.8] cm H2O · l−1· s−1for smokers), or rate of response to intubation. The study groups were not different regarding tobacco use or RLmeasured in smokers and nonsmokers before or after administration of isoflurane.
Depth of anesthesia, as inferred from the stability of heart rate and mean blood pressure, was similar in drug and placebo groups in which similar numbers of patients demonstrated 20% change in heart rate or mean blood pressure. For each part of the study, no association was found between changes in heart rate or mean blood pressure and response to intubation. Similarly, there was no association between preoperative FEV1or change in FEV1after bronchodilator and airway response to intubation.
Discussion
Our results show that intravenous lidocaine, 1.5 mg/kg, given within 3 min before intubation, was not effective in preventing postintubation bronchospasm in asthmatic patients undergoing general anesthesia with tracheal intubation after a propofol induction. However, inhaled albuterol was effective. The efficacy of albuterol was expected, as it is an effective bronchodilator in patients with asthma and in the setting of general anesthesia with tracheal intubation. 2,3,13,14,24 By contrast, although intravenous lidocaine has been described as useful in preventing intubation-induced bronchospasm, 2,20,24 its efficacy is less well established. 26 Previous studies demonstrating bronchodilation after intravenous lidocaine did so either in nonintubated patients or during provocative tests after intubation and stabilization. 15,20,23–25,27,28 Other studies demonstrating beneficial effects of lidocaine on tracheal muscle tone were performed in vitro  . 17,19,21 Intravenous lidocaine alone has been shown to have minimal effects on bronchial tone. 23,24,29,30 In the setting of a histamine challenge, doses up to 10 mg/kg may even result in airway narrowing consistent with bronchoconstriction, 25 although bronchodilation may result with similar doses after methacholine challenge. 31 
Recommendations for the use of intravenous lidocaine have been based principally on laboratory investigations in humans or animals or in vitro  experiments. 17–24,27,31 Several of these studies have tested the efficacy of intravenous lidocaine in the setting of direct or indirect airway irritants such as histamine, 7,24,25,27,28 acetylcholine or methylcholine, 29,31 or mechanical irritants such as distilled water or inhaled lidocaine. 12,22 Few, if any, studies have tested the benefits of prophylactic lidocaine in the setting of intubation-induced bronchoconstriction. Of the studies assessing the affects of lidocaine on airway tone in asthmatic patients, none involved general anesthesia with intubation, and only three examined intravenous lidocaine. 9,11,23,24,28 Inhaled lidocaine administered to asthmatic patients is reported to cause increased bronchomotor tone or constriction, whereas intravenous lidocaine was reported to cause bronchodilation. 9,11,23,24,28 
Although our results show no benefit of lidocaine in these conditions, it must be recognized that our data may have been affected by the anesthetic regimen used. Opioids have been shown to inhibit airway responses to a variety of stimuli. 32–34 Likewise, propofol has been shown to attenuate airway response to a variety of stimuli compared with thiobarbiturates, the latter of which is commonly used in both clinical practice and studies of bronchial response. 4,6,12,15,22,35 Eames et al.  6 reported a postintubation RLof 8.1 cm H2O · l−1· s−1after propofol compared with 11.3 cm H2O · l−1· s−1for thiopental. In the present study, in which propofol was used in all patients, immediate postintubation RLs were similar to that reported by Eames et al.  for all groups except the albuterol group, in which it was lower, suggesting that albuterol adds significantly to the previously demonstrated protective effect of propofol. 6 This was also demonstrated in a recent investigation by Wu et al.  36 In this study, fenoterol, and not ipratropium, was effective in decreasing respiratory resistance after intubation in patients anesthetized with propofol. The investigators noted that use of propofol did not prevent increased resistance immediately after intubation, and that the “protection was not absolute in asthmatic patients.”36 Finally, the addition of isoflurane resulted in a small but significant reduction of RLin the albuterol group, a result that has been demonstrated elsewhere. 13,14 
Another variable among investigations is the dose and timing of intravenous lidocaine. Doses ranging from 1 to 10 mg/kg, with and without infusions, have been administered from 1 to 10 min before laryngoscopy and intubation with a wide range of effects on hemodynamic changes, the cough reflex, and pulmonary resistance. In the current study, a dose of 1.5 mg/kg intravenous lidocaine was administered within 3 min of intubation. Other studies have shown similar dosing to be effective in reducing the minimal alveolar–anesthetic concentration of inhalation agents, 37 blunting hemodynamic changes with laryngoscopy and intubation, 8,38,39 attenuating the cough reflex, 12,40,41 and decreasing bronchomotor tone, i.e.  , bronchodilation. 24 On the other hand, two studies have not demonstrated a significant benefit from this dose of intravenous lidocaine. 29,42 Furthermore, Hirota et al.  25 demonstrated a reduction in bronchial area, i.e.  , bronchoconstriction, with doses of 1 or 10 mg/kg intravenous lidocaine. Yokioka et al.  40 studied doses ranging from 0.5 to 2.0 mg/kg given 1–15 min before intubation and concluded that 1.5 mg/kg or greater given 1–3 min before airway stimulation suppressed the cough reflex.
We did not demonstrate any significant effect of tobacco use on the airway response to tracheal intubation. Although other studies have shown that tobacco use may increase airway response to intubation, the relative airway effects between tobacco and preexisting asthma are unknown. 3,6 We also did not demonstrate any association between preoperative FEV1, or change in FEV1after bronchodilation, and bronchial response to intubation. Our data suggest that preoperative FEV1may not be useful in predicting which patients may exhibit bronchoconstriction with intubation. This is not surprising because asthma is an episodic disease. During preoperative testing, patients are in a stable condition. At this point a known bronchodilator may not have any significant change on airflow and may therefore not be predictive of response to a noxious stimuli such as an endotracheal tube. Provocative testing before intubation may have been a better indicator of airway response to a noxious stimuli.
Sample size may be a limitation for the first part of the study. It is not known what fraction of asthmatic patients show clinically significant bronchoconstriction in response to tracheal intubation. In part 1, the response rate (original definition) was approximately 20% in both groups, whereas the response rate in the placebo group in part 2 was 35%. From our data, we cannot exclude the possibility that lidocaine had a small but clinically significant effect. For example, if lidocaine reduced the incidence of response from 35% to 20%, we would have needed approximately 140 patients per group to have an 80% chance of demonstrating an effect. With 30 patients in each group, a study has an 80% chance of detecting a reduction in response from, for example, 35% to 6.5% or from 30% to 3.5%, which is similar to the response rates in the second phase of our study.
In conclusion, our study demonstrates that intravenous lidocaine was not effective in reducing the airway responsiveness to tracheal intubation. Despite a number of studies showing bronchodilation after administration of both intravenous and topical local anesthetic agents, no study has demonstrated a protective effect of these agents in preventing bronchospasm after intubation in patients undergoing general anesthesia. Our study also showed that inhaled albuterol is effective in reducing airway responsiveness to intubation, in agreement with previous studies. Given the lack of effect of intravenous lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg) as well as an absence of convincing data in the literature, we do not recommend the routine use of intravenous lidocaine to reduce bronchospasm after tracheal intubation, at least in patients given propofol. However, inhaled albuterol is effective for this purpose.
References
Gold MI: Anesthesia, bronchospasm, and death. Semin Anesth 1989; 8: 291–306Gold, MI
Gal TJ: Bronchial hyperresponsiveness and anesthesia: Physiologic and therapeutic perspectives. Anesth Analg 1994; 78: 559–73Gal, TJ
Kil H-K, Rooke GA, Ryan-Dykes MA, Bishop MJ: Effect of prophylactic bronchodilator treatment on lung resistance after tracheal intubation. A nesthesiology 1994; 81: 43–8Kil, H-K Rooke, GA Ryan-Dykes, MA Bishop, MJ
Pizov R, Brown RH, Weiss YS, Baranov D, Hennes H, Baker S, Hirshman CA: Wheezing during induction of general anesthesia in patients with and without asthma. A nesthesiology 1995; 82: 1111–6Pizov, R Brown, RH Weiss, YS Baranov, D Hennes, H Baker, S Hirshman, CA
Warner DO, Warner MA, Barnes RD, Offord KP, Schroeder DR, Gray DT, Yunginger JW: Perioperative respiratory complications in patients with asthma. A nesthesiology 1996; 85: 460–7Warner, DO Warner, MA Barnes, RD Offord, KP Schroeder, DR Gray, DT Yunginger, JW
Eames WO, Rooke A, Wu RSC, Bishop MJ: Comparison of the effects of etomidate, propofol, and thiopental on respiratory resistance after tracheal intubation. A nesthesiology 1996; 84: 1307–11Eames, WO Rooke, A Wu, RSC Bishop, MJ
Loehning RW, Waltemath CL, Bergman NA: Lidocaine and increased respiratory resistance produced by ultrasonic aerosols. A nesthesiology 1976; 44: 306–10Loehning, RW Waltemath, CL Bergman, NA
Stoelting RK: Circulatory changes during direct laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation. A nesthesiology 1977; 47: 381–4Stoelting, RK
Fish JE, Peterman VI: Effects of inhaled lidocaine on airway function in asthmatic subjects. Respiration 1979; 37: 201–7Fish, JE Peterman, VI
Heneghan CPH, Bergman NA, Jordan C, LeHane JR, Catley CM: Effect of isoflurane on bronchomotor tone in man. Br J Anaesth 1986; 58: 24–8Heneghan, CPH Bergman, NA Jordan, C LeHane, JR Catley, CM
McAlpine LG, Thomson NC: Lidocaine-induced bronchoconstriction in asthmatic patients: Relation to histamine airway responsiveness and effect of preservative. Chest 1989; 96: 1012–5McAlpine, LG Thomson, NC
Nishino T, Hiraga K, Sugimori K: Effects of I.V. lignocaine on airway reflexes elicited by irritation of the tracheal mucosa in humans anaesthetized with enflurane. Br J Anaesth 1990; 64: 682–7Nishino, T Hiraga, K Sugimori, K
Wu RSC, Wu KC, Wond TKM, Tsai YH, Cheng RKS, Tan PPC, Bishop MJ: Isoflurane anesthesia does not add to the bronchodilating effect of a β2adrenergic agonist after tracheal intubation. Anesth Analg 1996; 83: 238–41Wu, RSC Wu, KC Wond, TKM Tsai, YH Cheng, RKS Tan, PPC Bishop, MJ
Choi JH, Rooke GA, Wu SC, Bishop MJ: Reduction in postintubation respiratory resistance by isoflurane and albuterol. Can J Anaesth 1997; 44: 717–22Choi, JH Rooke, GA Wu, SC Bishop, MJ
Rooke GA, Choi JH, Bishop MJ: The effect of isoflurane, halothane, sevoflurane, and thiopental/nitrous oxide on respiratory system resistance after tracheal intubation. A nesthesiology 1997; 86: 1294–9Rooke, GA Choi, JH Bishop, MJ
Brandus V, Joffe S, Benoit CV, Woff WI: Bronchial spasm during general anaesthesia. Can Anaesth Soc J 1970; 17: 269–73Brandus, V Joffe, S Benoit, CV Woff, WI
Weiss EB, Anderson WH, O’Brien KP: The effect of a local anesthetic, lidocaine, on guinea pig trachealis muscle in vitro. Am Rev Respir Dis 1975; 112: 393–400Weiss, EB Anderson, WH O’Brien, KP
Weiss EB, Patwardhan AV: The response to lidocaine in bronchial asthma. Chest 1977; 72: 429–38Weiss, EB Patwardhan, AV
Downes H, Loehning RW: Local anesthetic contracture and relaxation of airway smooth muscle. A nesthesiology 1977; 47: 430–6Downes, H Loehning, RW
Downes H, Gerber N, Hirshman CA: I.V. lignocaine in reflex and allergic bronchoconstriction. Br J Anaesth 1980; 52: 873–8Downes, H Gerber, N Hirshman, CA
Kai T, Nishimura J, Kobayashi S, Takahashi S, Yoshitake J, Kanaide H: Effects of lidocaine on intracellular Ca2+and tension in airway smooth muscle. A nesthesiology 1993; 78: 954–65Kai, T Nishimura, J Kobayashi, S Takahashi, S Yoshitake, J Kanaide, H
Bulut Y, Hirshman CA, Brown RH: Prevention of lidocaine aerosol-induced bronchoconstriction with intravenous lidocaine. A nesthesiology 1996; 85: 853–9Bulut, Y Hirshman, CA Brown, RH
Groeben H, Schwalen A, Irsfeld S, Stieglitz S, Lipfert P, Hopf HB: Intravenous lidocaine and bupivacaine dose dependently attenuate bronchial hyperreactivity in awake volunteers. A nesthesiology 1996; 84: 533–9Groeben, H Schwalen, A Irsfeld, S Stieglitz, S Lipfert, P Hopf, HB
Groeben H, Silvanus M-T, Beste M, Peters J: Combined intravenous lidocaine and inhaled salbutamol protect against bronchial hyperreactivity more effectively than lidocaine or salbutamol alone. A nesthesiology 1998; 89: 862–8Groeben, H Silvanus, M-T Beste, M Peters, J
Hirota K, Hashimoto Y, Sato T, Yoshioka H, Kudo T, Ishihara H, Matsuki A: I.V. lidocaine worsens histamine-induced bronchoconstriction in dogs. Br J Anaesth 1999; 82: 87–9Hirota, K Hashimoto, Y Sato, T Yoshioka, H Kudo, T Ishihara, H Matsuki, A
Zemenick RB: Pretreatment intravenous lidocaine for intubation of the asthmatic patient: More data are needed [letter]. A nesthesiology 1999; 91: 319Zemenick, RB
Brown RH, Robbins WR, Staats PN, Hirshman CA: Prevention of bronchoconstriction by an orally active local anesthetic. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1995; 151: 1239–43Brown, RH Robbins, WR Staats, PN Hirshman, CA
Groeben H, Foster WM, Brown RH: Intravenous lidocaine and oral mexiletine block reflex bronchoconstriction in asthmatic subjects. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1996; 154: 885–8Groeben, H Foster, WM Brown, RH
Chraemmer-Jorgensen B, Hoilund-Carlson PF, Marving J, Christensen V: Lack of effect of intravenous lidocaine on hemodynamic responses to rapid sequence induction of general anesthesia: A double-blind controlled clinical trial. Anesth Analg 1986; 65: 1037–41Chraemmer-Jorgensen, B Hoilund-Carlson, PF Marving, J Christensen, V
Helfman SM, Gold MI, DeLisser EA, Herrington CA: Which drug prevents tachycardia and hypertension associated with tracheal intubation: Lidocaine, fentanyl, or esmolol. Anesth Analg 1991; 72: 482–6Helfman, SM Gold, MI DeLisser, EA Herrington, CA
Hirota K, Sato T, Hashimoto Y: Relaxant effect of lidocaine on the airway in dogs [abstract]. A nesthesiology 1999; 91: A432Hirota, K Sato, T Hashimoto, Y
Zappi L, Song P, Nicosia S, Nicosia F, Pehder K: Inhibition of airway constriction by opioids is different down the isolated bovine airway. A nesthesiology 1997; 86: 1334–41Zappi, L Song, P Nicosia, S Nicosia, F Pehder, K
Kong CF, Ip-Yan PC: The anti-tussive effect of narcotics reduces the incidence of airway irritability during desflurane induction in adults [abstract]. A nesthesiology 1999; 91: A431Kong, CF Ip-Yan, PC
Eschenbacher WL, Bethel RA, Boushey HA, Sheppard D: Morphine sulfate inhibits bronchoconstriction in subjects with mild asthma whose responses are inhibited by atropine. Am Rev Respir Dis 1984; 130: 363–7Eschenbacher, WL Bethel, RA Boushey, HA Sheppard, D
Ouedraogo N, Roux E, Forestier F, Rossetti M, Savineau JP, Marthan R: Effects of intravenous anesthetics on normal and passively sensitized human isolated airway smooth muscle. A nesthesiology 1998; 88: 317–26Ouedraogo, N Roux, E Forestier, F Rossetti, M Savineau, JP Marthan, R
Wu RSC, Wu KC, Wong TKM, Tsi YH, Cheng RKS, Bishop MJ, Tan PPC: Effects of fenoterol and ipratropium on respiratory resistance of asthmatics after tracheal intubation. Br J Anaesth 2000; 84: 358–62Wu, RSC Wu, KC Wong, TKM Tsi, YH Cheng, RKS Bishop, MJ Tan, PPC
Himes RS Jr, DiFazio CA, Burney RG: Effects of lidocaine on the anesthetic requirements for nitrous oxide and halothane. A nesthesiology 1977; 47: 437–40Himes, RS DiFazio, CA Burney, RG
Hamill JF, Bedford RF, Weaver DC, Colohan AR: Lidocaine before endotracheal intubation: Intravenous or laryngotracheal? A nesthesiology 1981; 55: 578–81Hamill, JF Bedford, RF Weaver, DC Colohan, AR
Splinter WM, Cervenko F: Haemodynamic responses to laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation in geriatric patients: Effects of fentanyl, lidocaine, and thiopentone. Can J Anaesth 1989; 36: 370–6Splinter, WM Cervenko, F
Yukioka H, Hayashi M, Terai T, Fujimori M: Intravenous lidocaine as a suppressant of coughing during tracheal intubation in elderly patients. Anesth Analg 1993; 77: 309–12Yukioka, H Hayashi, M Terai, T Fujimori, M
Nakayama M, Fujita S, Kanaya N, Namiki A: Effect of intravenous lidocaine on intrabdominal pressure response to airway stimulation. Anesth Analg 1994; 78: 1149–51Nakayama, M Fujita, S Kanaya, N Namiki, A
Miller CD, Warren SJ: I.V. lignocaine fails to attenutate the cardiovascular response to laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation. Br J Anaesth 1990; 65: 216–9Miller, CD Warren, SJ
Fig. 1. Lower pulmonary resistance (RL) after intubation in two patients, one who responded to intubation with bronchospasm and another who did not. Isoflurane inhalation begins after the second measurement in each patient.
Fig. 1. Lower pulmonary resistance (RL) after intubation in two patients, one who responded to intubation with bronchospasm and another who did not. Isoflurane inhalation begins after the second measurement in each patient.
Fig. 1. Lower pulmonary resistance (RL) after intubation in two patients, one who responded to intubation with bronchospasm and another who did not. Isoflurane inhalation begins after the second measurement in each patient.
×
Fig. 2. Mean lower pulmonary resistance (RL) before and after the administration of isoflurane from each of the four study groups. Patients receiving albuterol had a significantly lower preisoflurane RLcompared with inhaled placebo (*P  < 0.05). RLwas significantly lower after isoflurane in all study groups (**P  < 0.05). IV = intravenous.
Fig. 2. Mean lower pulmonary resistance (RL) before and after the administration of isoflurane from each of the four study groups. Patients receiving albuterol had a significantly lower preisoflurane RLcompared with inhaled placebo (*P 
	< 0.05). RLwas significantly lower after isoflurane in all study groups (**P 
	< 0.05). IV = intravenous.
Fig. 2. Mean lower pulmonary resistance (RL) before and after the administration of isoflurane from each of the four study groups. Patients receiving albuterol had a significantly lower preisoflurane RLcompared with inhaled placebo (*P  < 0.05). RLwas significantly lower after isoflurane in all study groups (**P  < 0.05). IV = intravenous.
×
Fig. 3. Response frequency among drug and placebo groups using the original definition of response and secondary definitions (A  –E  ) described in table 2. Intravenous lidocaine was not different from placebo in preventing intubation-induced bronchospasm by any definition. Albuterol was significantly (*P  < 0.05) better than placebo using the original definition or secondary definitions of response.
Fig. 3. Response frequency among drug and placebo groups using the original definition of response and secondary definitions (A 
	–E 
	) described in table 2. Intravenous lidocaine was not different from placebo in preventing intubation-induced bronchospasm by any definition. Albuterol was significantly (*P 
	< 0.05) better than placebo using the original definition or secondary definitions of response.
Fig. 3. Response frequency among drug and placebo groups using the original definition of response and secondary definitions (A  –E  ) described in table 2. Intravenous lidocaine was not different from placebo in preventing intubation-induced bronchospasm by any definition. Albuterol was significantly (*P  < 0.05) better than placebo using the original definition or secondary definitions of response.
×
Table 1. Preoperative Respiratory Evaluation and Intraoperative Hemodynamic and Pulmonary Data for the Lidocaine and Albuterol Study Phases
Image not available
Table 1. Preoperative Respiratory Evaluation and Intraoperative Hemodynamic and Pulmonary Data for the Lidocaine and Albuterol Study Phases
×
Table 2. Incidence of Responses to Tracheal Intubation According to Primary and Secondary Definitions of a Response
Image not available
Table 2. Incidence of Responses to Tracheal Intubation According to Primary and Secondary Definitions of a Response
×