Safety and discomfort during bronchoscopy performed under sedation with fentanyl and midazolam: a prospective study

Midazolam with fentanyl for endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: a randomized, double-blind, phase III study

BACKGROUND

Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is a common technique for sampling mediastinal and hilar lymph nodes. However, the optimal sedation for EBUS-TBNA remains unclear. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of adding fentanyl to midazolam.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a single-center, randomized, double-blind, phase III study. Patients who received midazolam with fentanyl (fentanyl group) were compared with those who received midazolam with placebo (placebo group) during EBUS-TBNA. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients meeting all three criteria: 1) adequate sedation (Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation scale ≤4 or bispectral index values ≤80), 2) minimal additional sedation requirement (no more than two additional sedative administrations within the first 30 min), and 3) successful procedure completion (at least three EBUS-TBNA punctures).

RESULTS

A total of 84 patients (fentanyl group, 41; placebo group, 43) were enrolled. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between the two groups. The primary outcome was significantly better in the fentanyl group than in the placebo group (46.3 % vs. 23.3 %, p = 0.038). A significantly lower rate of sedative-induced delirium, a lower number of additional sedative administrations, and a higher rate of ≥3 punctures were observed in the fentanyl group. There were no significant differences in complications. The operator visual analog scale questionnaire on cough, sputum, cooperation, and sedative effects was significantly better in the fentanyl group.

CONCLUSION

Adding fentanyl to midazolam provided better sedation. Midazolam combined with fentanyl should be considered during EBUS-TBNA.

Predictors of Severe Coughing and Its Impact on Bronchoalveolar Lavage and Transbronchial Lung Biopsy in Patients with Diffuse Lung Disease: Evaluation of Bronchoscopy Safety

Background/Objectives: Bronchoscopy is an invasive procedure, and patient coughing during the examination has been reported to cause significant distress. This study aimed to identify predictors of coughing severity and assess its impact on the procedure during bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) and transbronchial lung biopsy (TBLB). Methods: We conducted a prospective study involving 119 consecutive patients with diffuse lung disease who underwent BAL and TBLB at Kyorin University Hospital from April 2019 to December 2023. Cough severity was scored on a scale of 0 to 3, with scores of 0-1 considered mild and 2-3 considered severe. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with severe coughing during the procedure. Results: Severe coughing was significantly associated with Grade 2 or higher bleeding (OR 6.230, 95% CI 2.220-17.400, p < 0.001), fewer TBLB specimens collected (OR 0.708, 95% CI 0.530-0.945, p = 0.019), and pre-procedural dyspnea (OR 2.560, 95% CI 1.110-5.870, p = 0.027). Conclusions: Severe coughing during bronchoscopy is associated with increased bleeding and reduced specimen collection. For patients with pre-procedural dyspnea, proactive cough management may improve procedural safety and outcomes.

Exploring the Association of Bacterial Coinfections with Clinical Characteristics of Patients with Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Pulmonary Disease

BACKGROUND

Clinical data for bacterial coinfection of the lower respiratory tract in patients with nontuberculous mycobacterial pulmonary disease (NTM-PD) are scarce. This study aims to assess the prevalence of bacterial coinfection and clinical features in NTM-PD patients.

METHODS

This retrospective study screened 248 patients with NTM-PD who underwent bronchoscopy between July 2020 and July 2022, from whom newly diagnosed NTM-PD patients were analyzed. Bacterial culture using bronchial washing fluid was performed at the time of NTM-PD diagnosis.

RESULTS

In the 180 patients (median age 65 years; 68% female), Mycobacterium avium complex (86%) was the most frequent NTM isolated. Bacterial coinfections were detected in 80 (44%) patients. Among them, the most common bacterium was Klebsiella pneumoniae (n=25/80, 31.3%), followed by Pseudomonas aeruginosa (n=20/80, 25%) and Staphylococcus aureus (n=20/80, 25%). Compared with NTM-PD patients without bacterial coinfections, patients with bacterial coinfections showed more frequent extensive lung involvement (33% vs. 1%, p<0.001). Additionally, compared with NTM-PD patients without P. aeruginosa infection, those with P. aeruginosa infection were older (74 years vs. 64 years, p=0.001), had more frequent respiratory symptoms (cough/excessive mucus production 70% vs. 38%, p=0.008; dyspnea 30% vs. 13%, p=0.047), and had extensive lung involvement (60% vs. 9%, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Less than half of patients with newly diagnosed NTM-PD had bacterial coinfections, linked to extensive lung involvement. Specifically, P. aeruginosa coinfection was significantly associated with older age, more frequent respiratory symptoms, and extensive lung involvement.

Clinical usefulness of nebulized dexmedetomidine for conscious sedation in daycare flexible bronchoscopy in Southern India

BACKGROUND

Sedative agents used in bronchoscopy require trained personnel to administer and monitor the patient. This increases the procedure cost, duration, and inpatient stay. Inhalational administration of sedative agents can be a practical solution to the issue. Dexmedetomidine in the inhalational form could give results similar to the intravenous form without significant adverse events.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study is prospective, randomized, and double-blinded study. Patients needing bronchoscopy were randomized to receive the nebulized form of either dexmedetomidine or saline (0.9%) before bronchoscopy. The study parameters are assessed and recorded before, during, and after bronchoscopy. Data collected are analyzed using the SPSS software.

DISCUSSION

The side effects limit using commonly administered sedation agents in bronchoscopy, such as midazolam, fentanyl, and dexmedetomidine. The nebulized dexmedetomidine is safe with proven efficacy when compared to the placebo. Proceduralist-administered conscious sedation reduces the overall cost and shortens inpatient stays. Attenuation of hemodynamic parameters by dexmedetomidine could be an advantage for the physician in reducing an untoward cardiac event.

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine in the nebulized form improves the comfort of patients during the procedure. It blunts the pressure response during bronchoscopy and could be a safer and cost-effective agent in its nebulized form for conscious sedation in bronchoscopy. The study is approved by the institutional ethics committee (IEC KMC MLR 10-2021-310).

Impact of Cough Severity on the Diagnostic Yield of Endobronchial Ultrasonography Transbronchial Biopsy with Guide Sheath: A Retrospective Observational Study

Bronchoscopy is an invasive procedure, and patient coughing during examination has been reported to cause patient distress. This study aimed to clarify the relationship between cough severity and diagnostic yield of endobronchial ultrasonography with guide sheath transbronchial biopsy (EBUS-GS-TBB). Data of patients who underwent bronchoscopy at Kyorin University Hospital between April 2019 and March 2022 were retrospectively evaluated. Bronchoscopists assessed the cough severity upon completion of the procedure using a four-point cough scale. Cough severity was included as a predictive factor along with those reportedly involved in bronchoscopic diagnosis, and their impact on diagnostic yield was evaluated. Predictors of cough severity were also examined. A total of 275 patients were enrolled in this study. In the multivariate analysis, the diagnostic group (n = 213) had significantly more 'within' radial endobronchial ultrasound findings (odds ratio [OR] 5.900, p < 0.001), a lower cough score (cough score per point; OR 0.455, p < 0.001), and fewer bronchial generations to target lesion(s) (OR 0.686, p < 0.001) than the non-diagnostic group (n = 62). The predictive factors for severe cough include the absence of virtual bronchoscopic navigation (VBN) and prolonged examination time. Decreased cough severity was a positive predictive factor for successful EBUS-GS-TBB, which may be controlled using VBN and awareness of the procedural duration.

Impact of adding pethidine on disinhibition during bronchoscopy with midazolam: a propensity score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

We sometimes experience disinhibition during bronchoscopy with sedation. However, the impact of adding pethidine on disinhibition has not yet been investigated. This study aimed to examine the additive impact of pethidine on disinhibition during bronchoscopy with midazolam.

METHODS

This retrospective study involved consecutive patients who underwent bronchoscopy between November 2019 and December 2020 (sedated with midazolam: Midazolam group) and between December 2020 and December 2021 (sedated with midazolam plus pethidine: Combination group). The severity of disinhibition was defined as follows: moderate, disinhibition that always needed restraints by assistants; and severe, disinhibition that needed antagonization of sedation by flumazenil to continue bronchoscopy. One-to-one propensity score matching was used to match baseline characteristics between both groups.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching with depression, the type of bronchoscopic procedure, and the dose of midazolam, 142 patients matched in each group. The prevalence of moderate-to-severe disinhibition significantly decreased from 16.2% to 7.8% (P = 0.028) in the Combination group. The Combination group had significantly better scores for sensation after bronchoscopy and feelings toward bronchoscopy duration than did the Midazolam group. Although the minimum SpO₂ during bronchoscopy was significantly lower (88.0 ± 6.2 mmHg vs. 86.7 ± 5.0 mmHg, P = 0.047) and the percentage of oxygen supplementation significantly increased (71.1% vs. 86.6%, P = 0.001) in the Combination group, no fatal complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding pethidine could reduce disinhibition occurrence in patients undergoing bronchoscopy with midazolam, with better subjective patient outcomes during and after bronchoscopy. However, whether more patients may need oxygen supplementation and whether hypoxia occurs during bronchoscopy should be considered.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN000042635.

Safe sedation during diagnostic and therapeutic flexible bronchoscopy in Japan: A review of the literature

We explored whether a combination of an opioid (fentanyl or pethidine) and midazolam could safely sedate Japanese patients undergoing bronchoscopic procedures. We searched the PubMed Medline and Igaku Chuo Zasshi (ICHUSHI) databases from 1980 to 2022 for papers on sedatives used during bronchoscopy, especially opioids (fentanyl and pethidine) and midazolam. The keywords were "bronchoscopy" and "sedation" ("kikanshikyo" and "chinsei", respectively, in Japanese). The results showed that midazolam was the preferred sedation agent during flexible bronchoscopy; with midazolam sedation is rapid, and the drug is associated with anterograde amnesia and decreased discomfort. A combination of an opioid (fentanyl or pethidine) and midazolam improved the patient tolerance and willingness to undergo a repeat procedure and also improved the working conditions for the physician. The British Thoracic Society guideline of 2013 suggested that a combination of an opioid (fentanyl or alfentanil) and midazolam should be considered to improve bronchoscopic tolerance. The American College of Chest Physicians Consensus Statement of 2011 suggested that fentanyl should be preferred; the onset of action and peak effect are rapid, and the effects are of relatively short duration. Emphasis has been placed on safety aspects, such as patient monitoring, the precautions that should be taken in patients with certain conditions, prevention and management of complications, adequate staffing, and optimal sedation and disinfection. In conclusion a combined opioid (fentanyl or pethidine) and midazolam sedation is optimal for diagnostic and therapeutic flexible bronchoscopy in Japanese patients.

Pulmonologist-Administered Balanced Propofol Analgosedation during Interventional Procedures: An Italian Real-Life Study on Comfort and Safety

Propofol-based sedation provides faster recovery than midazolam-based regimens with similar safety and comfort during video flexible bronchoscope (VFB) procedures. Pulmonologist-administered propofol "balanced" analgosedation (PAP-BAS) is still debated in Italy. In this real-life study, PAP-BAS safety and comfort during VFB procedures were investigated. We analysed prospectively the subjects undergoing elective VFB procedures in the Pulmonology and RICU of Arezzo Hospital between February and July 2019. PAP-BAS combined low propofol and meperidine doses titrated to achieve an RASS score between 0 and -3. The primary end-point was the complications' rate. Secondary end-points were as follows: the relation between propofol's dose and a subject's comfort assessed with a VAS, recovery time according to a modified Aldrete score ≥9, RASS, and subjects' will of undergoing the procedure again. We collected postprocedure symptoms' intensity too. Our 158 study patients (67 years; SD ± 14; 64% males) incurred in 25% of complication, fully resolved with medical therapy. Neither recourse to ventilator support nor death was reported. Intraprocedural comfort was good (94% of VAS score ≤2). Among postprocedural symptoms, cough was the most frequently reported, in 36% of the cases. Although half of subjects remembered the procedure, 90% of them would have repeated it, if necessary. 85% of them recovered from procedures within 10 minutes. Complications, VAS, and recovery time were not correlated with propofol dose. To our knowledge, this is the first Italian study showing that PAP-BAS to perform a VFB procedure is safe, well tolerated with a quick recovery. Randomised controlled trials are warranted to confirm these preliminary results.

Prevalence and characteristics of disinhibition during bronchoscopy with midazolam

BACKGROUND

Disinhibition is sometimes experienced during bronchoscopy with sedation. However, data on disinhibition during bronchoscopy are scarce. We examined the prevalence and characteristics of disinhibition during bronchoscopy with midazolam.

METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed consecutive patients who underwent bronchoscopy between November 2019 and December 2020. The severity of disinhibition was defined as follows: mild, disinhibition sometimes requiring restraints by assistants; moderate, disinhibition always requiring restraints by assistants; and severe, disinhibition requiring antagonization of sedation by flumazenil to continue bronchoscopy.

RESULTS

Among 251 eligible patients who were sedated using midazolam, 36 (14.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.5%-19.2%), 42 (16.7%; 95% CI, 12.6%-21.8%), and 7 (2.8%; 95% CI, 1.4%-5.6%) experienced mild, moderate, and severe disinhibition, respectively. Depression (odds ratio [OR] 2.77; 95% CI, 1.20-6.41), endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) (OR 10.23; 95% CI, 1.02-103.01, referred to brushing/bronchial washing/observation), and increased administration of midazolam (OR 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.42, per 1-mg increase) were independently associated with moderate-to-severe disinhibition. Patients experiencing moderate disinhibition reported significantly better scores for discomfort during bronchoscopy. Besides the maximum systolic and diastolic blood pressures during bronchoscopy, the changes in hemodynamic and respiratory statuses during bronchoscopy or complications did not significantly differ between patients experiencing moderate-to-severe disinhibition and those experiencing none-to-mild disinhibition.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-to-severe disinhibition occurred in 19.5% of patients during bronchoscopy with midazolam. We should focus on disinhibition when patients have depression or are planning to undergo EBUS-TBNA, and sparing the administration of midazolam might reduce the occurrence of disinhibition.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN000038571.

Dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam infusion guided by bispectral index during bronchoscopy

BACKGROUND

Conscious sedation guided by bispectral index (BIS) during bronchoscopy has been proved to be a feasible approach. This study aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam for undergoing conscious sedation during bronchoscopy.

METHODS

The trial was registered prior to patient enrollment at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. Patients were randomized into DEX group (dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam) and FEN group (fentanyl combined with midazolam). Bronchoscopy was performed under awake sedation titrated to a BIS level of 60-80. The primary endpoint was the incidence of hypoxia, the secondary endpoint was the incidence of bradycardia and hypotension, effect of sedation including satisfaction degree (VAS) of the operators and patients and patients' willingness to undergo bronchoscopy again.

RESULTS

A total of 222 cases in DEX group and 211 cases in FEN group completed the study. The incidence of hypoxia and tachycardia in DEX group was lower than that in FEN group (8.1% vs 14.7%, 10.4% vs 19.0%, p < 0.05), and the incidence of hypotension and bradycardia in DEX group was higher than that in FEN group (6.8% vs 0, 15.3% vs 8.1%, p < 0.05). Midazolam dosage was significantly lower in the DEX group than in the FEN group, and the duration of surgery was significantly longer in the DEX group. The differences in intraoperative discomfort of VAS score, satisfaction VAS score, and willingness rate to undergo bronchoscopy again were not statistically significant between the two groups. In addition, the proportion of "procedural interference by patient movement" in DEX group was higher than that in FEN group.

CONCLUSIONS

The conscious sedation regimen of dexmedetomidine combined with midazolam monitored by BIS is considered to be safe and effective during bronchoscopy. The occurrence of hypoxia and tachycardia was less, and the fluctuation of blood pressure and heart rate was mild, but the proportion of bradycardia in dexmedetomidine group was higher than that in fentanyl combined with midazolam group.

[Painless fiberoptic bronchoscopy in patients with COVID-19: analysis of 33 cases]

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the necessity, safety and feasibility of painless fiberoptic bronchoscopy in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

OBJECTIVE

We retrospectively analyzed the clinical characteristics of 33 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 who received painless fiberoptic bronchoscopy in Wuhan First Hospital. The general demographic and clinical data of the patients including age, gender, and ASA classification were collected. The patients received intravenous anesthesia with topical airway anesthesia with lidocaine. The changes in the vital signs of the patients were recorded before, during and after the procedure. The cough intensity of the patients during bronchoscopy were evaluated, and the adverse reactions within 24 h after the procedure were observed. The health status of the medical staff carrying out the procedure was also monitored.

OBJECTIVE

The 33 patients with ASA class Ⅱ to Ⅳ included 19 male and 14 female patients with an average age of 63.58±11.85 years. The lowest SpO₂ of the patients during bronchoscopy was (94.8±4.3)%, which was significantly lower than that before the procedure [(99.1±1.3)%, P < 0.05] but was restored to more than 95% after such treatment as holding the jaw to open the airway or face mask positive-pressure ventilation. Bronchoscopy was completed successfully in all the patients, and 28 patients (84.85%) had mild cough during the procedure. None of the patients had obvious complications related to anesthesia. While performing the procedure, all the medical staff used third-level protection and facial protection with powered air-purifying respirators (PAPR), and the patients' face were covered with single-use sterile medical plastic curtains that were originally intended for collecting flushing fluid during arthroscopic procedures. No medical personnel was diagnosed with COVID-19 at the end of the study.

OBJECTIVE

For patients with COVID-19, painless techniques can be valuable during bronchoscopy, and this procedure can be safe and feasible under third-level protection.

Comparison of bronchoscopy and computed tomography-guided needle biopsy for re-biopsy in non-small cell lung cancer patients

BACKGROUND

New therapeutic drugs have been developed for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and the prognosis of advanced NSCLC patients has improved. However, resistance to these drugs is a concern, and re-biopsy is necessary to determine the mechanism of drug resistance. There are many reports about the protocols for re-biopsy, including techniques such as bronchoscopy and computed tomography-guided needle biopsy (CTNB); however, there is no consensus on which method is optimal. Therefore, we retrospectively reviewed the bronchoscopy and CTNB re-biopsies conducted at our hospital.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 79 cases of re-biopsies with bronchoscopy or CTNB in patients with NSCLC from January 2014 to December 2016 at our institute.

RESULTS

Forty-nine cases of bronchoscopy and 30 cases of CTNB were taken for re-biopsy. The diagnostic rates of bronchoscopy and CTNB were 83.7% and 100%, respectively (p = 0.023). The complication rates of bronchoscopy and CTNB were 18.4% and 36.7%, respectively (p = 0.11), with a statistically significant difference in the incidence of pneumothorax (0% vs. 23.3%, respectively; p < 0.01). Pneumothorax required drainage in 6.7% of all CTNB cases. There were no fatalities in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

CTNB showed a higher diagnostic rate; however, it was associated with a higher rate of complications such as pneumothorax. Hence, the optimal modality must be determined individually for each patient.

Sedation with fentanyl and midazolam without oropharyngeal anesthesia compared with sedation with pethidine and midazolam with oropharyngeal anesthesia in ultrathin bronchoscopy for peripheral lung lesions

BACKGROUND

In advanced lung cancer, precision medicine requires repeated biopsies via bronchoscopy at therapy change. Since bronchoscopies are often stressful for patients, sedation using both fentanyl and midazolam is recommended in Europe and America. In Japan, bronchoscopies are generally orally performed under midazolam and oropharyngeal anesthesia. Nasal intubation creates a physiological route to the trachea, causing less irritation to the pharynx than intubation via the oral cavity; however, the necessity of oropharyngeal anesthesia remains unclear. We aimed to compare the safety, patient discomfort, and diagnostic rates for oropharyngeal anesthesia and sedation with pethidine and midazolam (Group A) and sedation with midazolam and fentanyl without oropharyngeal anesthesia (Group B) for ultrathin bronchoscopy of peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPLs) via nasal intubation.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 74 consecutive potential lung cancer patients who underwent ultrathin bronchoscopies at the Hakodate Goryoukaku Hospital between July 2019 and June 2020. We reviewed the following: diagnostic rates; cumulative doses of lidocaine, midazolam, and fentanyl; hemodynamic changes; procedural complications in both groups. Pharyngeal anesthesia in group A was administered by spraying 2% (w/v) lidocaine into the pharynx. The chi-squared test was used for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

There were no significant changes in hemodynamic parameters and complications. The mean level of discomfort for bronchoscopic examinations was significantly lower in Group B (2.39 vs. 1.64; P = 0.014), with no significant inter-group difference in the diagnostic yields for PPLs (63.0% vs. 71.4%; P = 0.46).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate the advantages of sedation with fentanyl and midazolam without oropharyngeal anesthesia for ultrathin bronchoscopy through nasal intubation.

The comparison of propofol and midazolam for bronchoscopy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

BACKGROUND

Propofol and midazolam are widely used for the sedation of bronchoscopy. This systematic review and meta-analysis is conducted to compare the efficacy of propofol and midazolam for bronchoscopy.

METHODS

The databases including PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases are systematically searched for collecting the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the efficacy of propofol and midazolam for bronchoscopy.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis has included 4 RCTs. Compared with midazolam intervention in patients undergoing bronchoscopy, propofol intervention is associated with remarkably reduced recovery time [standard mean difference (SMD) = -0.74; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = -1.04 to -0.45; P < .00001], but demonstrates no significant impact on operation time (SMD = -0.01; 95% CI = -0.16 to 0.13; P = .87), induction time (SMD = -0.58; 95% CI = -1.19 to 0.03; P = .06), lowest oxyhemoglobin saturation (SpO2, SMD = 0.24; 95% CI = -0.09 to 0.58; P = .15), SpO2 <90% [risk ratio (RR) = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.82-1.25; P = .88), and major arrhythmias (RR = 0.56; 95% CI = 0.26-1.19; P = .13).

CONCLUSION

Propofol sedation is able to reduce recovery time and shows similar safety compared with midazolam sedation during bronchoscopy.

Bronchoscopic diagnosis of peripheral pulmonary lung cancer employing sedation with fentanyl and midazolam

BACKGROUND

Sedation with fentanyl and midazolam during bronchoscopic examination is commonly employed by pulmonary physicians in the USA and Europe. We assessed the efficacy of such sedation in the bronchoscopic diagnosis of peripheral lung cancer.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated data from 102 patients who underwent transbronchial biopsies (TBB) for diagnosis of peripheral lung cancer. Bronchoscopies with and without fentanyl were performed in 61 (group A) and 41 (group B) patients, respectively. Midazolam was administered to all patients. Medical records were retrieved, and between-group comparisons were made using unpaired Student's t-tests.

RESULTS

The mean fentanyl dose was 49.5 μg (range: 10-100 μg), and midazolam doses in groups A and B were 4.29mg (range: 1-14mg) and 5.54mg (range: 1-12mg), respectively. Diagnostic histological specimens were obtained from 75.4% and 65.8% of group A and B patients, respectively (P = 0.30). The diagnostic sensitivities for lung cancer, via at least one of TBB, cytological brushing, or bronchial washing, in groups A and B were 88.5% and 70.4%, respectively (P = 0.035). Moreover, lesion diagnostic sensitivities, via at least one of TBB, cytological brushing, and bronchial washing, in groups A and B were 98.1% and 68.0%, respectively (P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Fentanyl and midazolam sedation during bronchoscopy facilitated the diagnosis of peripheral pulmonary lung cancers.