Laryngotracheal Topicalization with Lidocaine Before Intubation Decreases the Incidence of Coughing on Emergence from General Anesthesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Coughing on emergence can result in a number of undesirable side effects, including hypertension, tachycardia, tachyarrhythmias, increased intracranial pressure, and increased intraocular pressure. The efficacy of endotracheal spraying with lidocaine at the time of intubation in preventing coughing on emergence is unknown. In a double-blind placebo-controlled study, we randomized 50 ASA physical status I and II patients presenting for elective gynecological surgery <2 h duration to receive either endotracheal lidocaine 160 mg or placebo before intubation. Both groups were comparable in terms of demographics and intraoperative conditions. The incidence of coughing before tracheal extubation was less frequent in the lidocaine group (26%) than in the placebo group (66%, P < 0.01), as was the incidence after tracheal extubation (4% versus 30%, P = 0.022). This study supports the use of endotracheal lidocaine before intubation in patients undergoing general anesthesia for surgery <2 h duration where coughing on emergence is undesirable. IMPLICATIONS: We studied the effect of laryngotracheal spraying with lidocaine before intubation on the incidence of coughing on emergence from general anesthesia in cases <2 h duration and found its use to be associated with a significantly decreased incidence of coughing on emergence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".