Incidence of propofol injection pain and effect of lidocaine pretreatment during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

Pain Intensity at Injection Site during Esophagogastroduodenoscopy Using Long- and Medium-Chain versus Long-Chain Triglyceride Propofol: A Randomized Controlled Double-Blind Study

Background/Aims

The intensities of injection pain resulting from the use of long- and medium-chain triglyceride (LCT/MCT) propofol and conventional LCT propofol during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) have yet to be compared. We aimed to determine the pain intensity caused by different formulations of propofol and to evaluate the formulation that would be preferred by patients as a sedative agent during their next procedure.

Methods

This study was a single-center, randomized, controlled, and double-blind trial. Pain intensity was estimated 30 seconds after propofol injection by an examiner who was blinded to the group assignment using a numeric (0-10) pain rating scale (NPRS). After 1 week, the patients were asked whether they could recall the pain and were willing to receive the same agent for their next EGD.

Results

One hundred twenty-nine patients were randomly assigned to LCT/MCT or LCT group. Although there was no significant difference in pain incidence between the LCT/MCT and LCT groups (52.9% vs 65.6%, p=0.156), the pain intensity was significantly lower in the LCT/MCT group (NPRS median [interquartile range]; 1 (0-2) vs 2 (0-5), p=0.005). After 1 week, fewer patients in the LCT/MCT group recalled the pain (19.1% vs 63.9%, p<0.001) and more patients in the LCT/MCT group were more willing to use the same agent for their next procedure (86.8% vs 72.1%, p=0.048) than in the LCT group.

Conclusions

LCT/MCT propofol significantly reduced injection pain intensity compared to LCT propofol during EGD and preferred by patients as a sedative agent during their next EGD.

Efficacy and safety of supplemental intravenous lidocaine for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Some studies have shown that intravenous (IV) lidocaine reduces the dose requirement of propofol in GI endoscopic procedures. We conducted this study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination of IV lidocaine and propofol compared with propofol alone in GI endoscopic procedures.

METHODS

We reviewed several databases from inception to October 13, 2020, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the role of IV propofol and lidocaine with IV propofol plus placebo for sedation in endoscopic procedures. Our outcomes of interest were the differences in total dose of propofol administered, procedure time, and intraoperative adverse events. For categorical variables, we calculated pooled risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI); for continuous variables, we calculated standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI. Data were analyzed using a random effect model. We used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework to ascertain the quality of evidence.

RESULTS

We included 5 randomized controlled trials with 318 patients. We found that the total dose of propofol administered was significantly lower in the lidocaine group than the control group (SMD, -0.76; 95% CI, -1.09 to -0.42). We found no significant difference in procedure time (SMD, 0.16; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.57) or adverse events (risk ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.35-1.03) between the groups. There was moderate to substantial heterogeneity in the data. Quality of evidence based on the GRADE framework ranged from low to moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate quality of evidence suggests that IV lidocaine decreases the dose of propofol administered for GI endoscopic procedures.

The propofol-sparing effect of intravenous lidocaine in elderly patients undergoing colonoscopy: a randomized, double-blinded, controlled study

Background

Propofol provides a prominent sedation effect in colonoscopy. However, anesthesia and sedation induced with propofol in the elderly might result in cardiopulmonary complications, especially when it is combined with opoids in the regimen. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that the addition of intravenous lidocaine to propofol-based sedation could decrease the overall propofol requirement in elderly patients during colonoscopy while the procedural sedation satisfaction and the hemodynamic stability were not compromised.

Methods

Ninety-two patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomly enrolled into lidocaine+propofol (L + P) group or normal saline+propofol (NS + P) groups. Subjects received intravenous bolus of 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine followed by 4 mg kg^− 1 h^− 1 lidocaine continuous infusion in L + P group or equivalent volumes of normal saline for boluses and infusion in NS + P group. Anesthesia was induced with 2.5 μg sufentanil followed by injection of 1.2 mg kg^− 1 propofol in all patients. A single supplemental bolus of 0.6 mg kg^− 1 propofol was administered whenever MOAA/S score > 1 or had body movement during the colonoscopy. The recorded primary endpoints included: the total amount of propofol administered during entire procedure, the supplemental amount of propofol after induction, and the frequencies of boluses of supplemental propofol.

Results

A total of 79 patients were included in the final analysis. Compared with NS + P group, the total amounts of propofol (induction plus supplemental) were no significant differences in L + P group; however, the required supplemental propofol was less (69.9 ± 39.2 mg vs. 51.5 ± 38.6 mg) (P = 0.039); the average frequencies of boluses of supplemental propofol given after induction were lower (2.1 ± 1.1 vs. 1.4 ± 0.9) (P = 0.003); the calculated “unit propofol” infusion rate was lower (0.18 ± 0.05 vs. 0.14 ± 0.04 mg kg^− 1 min^− 1) (P = 0.002).

Conclusions

The addition of intravenous lidocaine to propofol-based sedation resulted in a remarked reduction of supplemental propofol in the elderly during colonoscopy.

Trial registration

The present clinical trial was registered at http://www.chictr.org.cn on 11th March 2019 (registration No. ChiCTR1900021818).

BET 1: Lidocaine with propofol to reduce pain on injection

A short review was carried out to see if mixing lidocaine with propofol is a safe and effective method in reducing the commonly reported pain at the injection site. Four relevant papers were found using the described search strategy. The author, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes, results and study weaknesses of these papers are tabulated. Although a promising idea, a paucity of good quality evidence suggests further needed research.

Effective Dosage of Midazolam to Erase the Memory of Vascular Pain During Propofol Administration

Intravenous sedation with propofol is often administered to anxious patients in dental practice. Pain on injection of propofol is a common adverse effect. This study aimed to determine the age-adjusted doses of midazolam required to erase memory of vascular pain of propofol administration and assess whether the Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) after the pretreatment of midazolam was useful to predict amnesia of the vascular pain of propofol administration. A total of 246 patients with dental phobia requiring dental treatment under intravenous sedation were included. Patients were classified according to their age: 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s. Three minutes after administration of a predetermined dose of midazolam, propofol was infused continuously. After completion of the dental procedure, patients were interviewed about the memory of any pain or discomfort in the injection site or forearm. The dosage of midazolam was determined using the Dixon up-down method. The first patient was administered 0.03 mg/kg, and if memory of vascular pain remained, the dosage was increased by 0.01 mg/kg for the next patient, and then if the memory was erased, the dosage was decreased by 0.01 mg/kg. The effective dosage of midazolam in 95% of each age group for erasing the memory of propofol vascular pain (ED95) was determined using logistic analysis. The accuracy of RSS to predict the amnesia of injection pain was assessed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. The ED95 of midazolam to erase the memory of propofol vascular pain was 0.061 mg/kg in patients in their 30s, 0.049 mg/kg in patients in their 40s, 0.033 mg/kg in patients in their 50s, and 0.033 mg/kg in patients in their 60s. The area under the ROC curve was 0.31. The ED95 of midazolam required to erase the memory of propofol vascular pain demonstrated a downward trend with age. On the other hand, it was impossible to predict the amnesia of propofol vascular pain using the RSS.

Lidocaine for reducing propofol-induced pain on induction of anaesthesia in adults

BACKGROUND

Pain on propofol injection is an untoward effect and this condition can reduce patient satisfaction. Intravenous lidocaine injection has been commonly used to attenuate pain on propofol injection. Although many studies have reported that lidocaine was effective in reducing the incidence and severity of pain, nevertheless, no systematic review focusing on lidocaine for preventing high-intensity pain has been published.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to determine the efficacy and adverse effects of lidocaine in preventing high-intensity pain on propofol injection.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 10), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 To October 2014), Ovid EMBASE (1988 to October 2014), LILACS (1992 to October 2014) and searched reference lists of articles.We reran the search in November 2015. We found 11potential studies of interest, those studies were added to the list of 'Studies awaiting classification' and will be fully incorporated into the formal review findings when we update the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using intravenous lidocaine injection as an intervention to decrease pain on propofol injection in adults. We excluded studies without a placebo or control group.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected selected studies with relevant criteria. We identified risk of bias in five domains according to the following criteria: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, adequacy of blinding, completeness of outcome data and selective reporting. We performed meta-analysis by direct comparisons of intervention versus control. We estimated the summary odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals using the random-effects Mantel-Haenszel method in RevMan 5.3. We used the I(2) statistic to assess statistical heterogeneity. We assessed overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 87 studies, 84 of which (10,460 participants) were eligible for quantitative analysis in the review. All participants, aged 13 years to 89 years, were American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-III patients undergoing elective surgery. Each study was conducted in a single centre in high- , middle- and low-income countries worldwide. According to the risk of bias assessment, all except five studies were identified as being of satisfactory methodological quality, allowing 84 studies to be combined in the meta-analysis. Five of the 84 studies were assessed as high risk of bias: one for participant and personnel blinding, one for incomplete outcome data, and three for other potential sources of bias.The overall incidence of pain and high-intensity pain following propofol injection in the control group were 64% (95% CI 60% to 67.9%) and 38.1% (95% CI 33.4% to 43.1%), respectively while those in the lidocaine group were 30.2% (95% CI 26.7% to 33.7%) and 11.8% (95% CI 9.7% to 13.8%). Both lidocaine admixture and pretreatment were effective in reducing pain on propofol injection (lidocaine admixture OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.25, 31 studies, 4927 participants, high-quality evidence; lidocaine pretreatment OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.18, 43 RCTs, 4028 participants, high-quality evidence). Similarly, lidocaine administration could considerably decrease the incidence of pain when premixed with the propofol (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.24, 36 studies, 5628 participants, high-quality evidence) or pretreated prior to propofol injection (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.18, 52 studies, 4832 participants, high-quality evidence). Adverse effects of lidocaine administration were rare. Thrombophlebitis was reported in only two studies (OR not estimated, low-quality evidence). No studies reported patient satisfaction.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the quality of the evidence was high. Currently available data from RCTs are sufficient to confirm that both lidocaine admixture and pretreatment were effective in reducing pain on propofol injection. Furthermore, there were no significant differences of effect between the two techniques.

Efficacy of cap-assisted endoscopy for routine examining the ampulla of Vater

AIM: To determine the efficacy of a cap-assisted endoscopy (CAE) to completely visualize the ampulla of Vater (AV) in patients failed by conventional endoscopy.

METHODS: A prospective study was conducted on 120 patients > 20 years of ages who visited the Health Promotion Center of Chungbuk National University Hospital for conscious sedation esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) as a screening test from July to October, 2011. First, forward-viewing endoscopy was performed with reasonable effort using a push and pull method. We considered complete visualization of the AV when we could observe the entire AV including the orifice clearly, and reported the observation as complete or incomplete (partial or not found at all). Second, in cases of complete failure of the observation, an additional AV examination was conducted by attaching a short cap (D-201-10704, Olympus Medical Systems, Tokyo, Japan) to the tip of a forward-viewing endoscope. Third, if the second method failed, we replaced the short cap with a long cap (MH-593, Olympus Medical Systems) and performed a re-examination of the AV.

RESULTS: Conventional endoscopy achieved complete visualization of the AV in 97 of the 120 patients (80.8%) but was not achieved in 23 patients (19.2%). Age (mean ± SD) and gender [male (%)] were not significantly different between the complete observation and the incomplete observation groups. Additional short CAE was performed in patients in whom we could not completely visualize the AV. This group included 13 patients (10.9%) with partial observation of the AV and 10 (8.3%) in which the AV was not found. Short CAE permitted a complete observation of the AV in 21 of the 23 patients (91.3%). Patients in whom visualization of the AV failed with short CAE had satisfactory outcomes by replacing the short cap with a long cap. The additional time for CAE took an average of 141 ± 88 s. There were no complications and no significant mucosal trauma.

CONCLUSION: CAE is safe to use as a salvage method to achieve complete visualization of the AV when a regular EGD examination fails.