Lidocaine lollipop as single-agent anesthesia in upper GI endoscopy

One- or two-operator techniques for oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy in unsedated patients: A comparative prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND

The standard oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopy procedure is performed with a single endoscopist (SE). Nurse-assisted (NA) oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopies have not yet been studied. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of an NA endoscopy compared to an SE endoscopy.

METHODS

A prospective, single-center, randomized trial, in which 500 adult patients were divided into two groups. In the first group, patients underwent an endoscopy with an SE. In the second group, the endoscopy was performed with an NA. The ease of the procedure (scores 1-4; 1 difficult, 2 satisfactory, 3 easy, 4 veryeasy), evaluation of patient satisfaction (scores 1-4; 1 uncomfortable, 2 satisfactory, 3 comfortable, 4 verycomfortable), total time of the procedure and vocal cord observation were determined as quality indicators.

RESULTS

Mean patient satisfaction scores in groups 1 and 2 were 2.98±0.79 and 3.11±0.78, respectively (p=0.043), with uncomfortable ratings in 5.2% vs 4%, satisfactory in 16.8% vs 13.2%, comfortable in 53.2% vs 50.4%, and very comfortable in 24.8% vs 32.4% of patients in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Retching rates during the procedure were 54.4% and 45.2% (p=0.040) in groups 1 and 2, respectively. No differences were seen in vocal cord observation (54.4% vs 56.0%), total procedure time (2.35±1.56 vs 2.41±1.48min) and easy score (3.26±0.603 vs 3.25±0.64) in groups 1 and 2 for the procedures. Very easy, easy, satisfactory, and difficult ratings were given by 33.6% vs 34.8%, 60.4% vs 56.4%, 4.8% vs 7.6% and 1.2% vs 1.2% of groups 1 and 2, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the conventional method, the assisted endoscopic technique provides more comfort and less gag reflex without increasing the processing time or difficulty of performing the procedure.

Comparative effectiveness of lidocaine sprays between sitting and supine position for patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Topical pharyngeal anesthesia has improved esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) efficiency with smooth insertion, reducing pain and discomfort. Lidocaine spray is one of the safe and widely used methods. In practice, the patients walk, sit in a wheelchair, or lie on a trolley bed, and the lidocaine sprays are applied to those in sitting or supine positions for pre-endoscopic preparation. Although there is no current guidance technique, this study aims to compare the effects of lidocaine sprays between sitting (Group A; Gp A) and supine positions (Group B; Gp B) for patients undergoing unsedated EGD.

METHODS

This study was a single-center prospective randomized controlled trial. Unsedated EGD patients were randomly allocated the lidocaine spray in sitting or lidocaine spray in the supine position.

RESULTS

Lidocaine spray treatments were significantly different in the gag reflex (NRS; Gp A: 1.28 ± 0.67, Gp B: 1 ± 0.63, p = 0.0003), ease of esophageal instrumentation (NRS; Gp A: 7.68 ± 0.91, Gp B: 7.95 ± 0.66, p = 0.0042), and pain score (NRS; Gp A: 5.16 ± 2.08, Gp B: 4.53 ± 1.93, p = 0.0059). When considering modified Mallampati classification (MMC), MMC classes III and IV were significantly different in the same direction but MMC classes I and II were not.

CONCLUSION

The technique of spraying in the supine position was associated with less gagging, less pain, and easier esophageal instrumentation, especially in patients with MMC classes III and IV.

Distribution profiles of diphenhydramine and lidocaine in scalp, axillary, and pubic hairs measured by micro-segmental hair analysis: good indicator for discrimination between administration and external contamination of the drugs

Purpose

Drug distribution in scalp hair can provide historical information about drug use, such as the date and frequency of drug ingestion. We previously developed micro-segmental hair analysis, which visualizes drug distribution at 0.4-mm intervals in individual hairs. The present study examines whether the distribution profiles of drugs can be markers for the administration or external contamination of the drugs using scalp, axillary, and pubic hairs.

Methods

A single dose of anti-itch ointment containing diphenhydramine (DP) and lidocaine (LD) was topically applied to the axillary or pubic areas of two volunteers; DP was also orally administered; and LD was intra-gingivally injected. Scalp, axillary, and pubic hairs were assessed using our micro-segmental analysis.

Results

The localization of DP and LD differed within individual scalp hair strands, implying DP and LD were predominantly incorporated into scalp hair via the bloodstream and via sweat/sebum, respectively, showing double-peak profiles. However, DP and LD were distributed along the shafts of axillary and pubic hairs without appearance of the double-peak profiles when the ointment had been applied to the axillary and pubic areas. The distributions of DP and LD in scalp hairs did not significantly differ according to administration routes, such as oral administration, gingival injection, and topical application.

Conclusions

Micro-segmental analysis revealed differences in the distribution profiles of drugs in hairs, and distinguished hairs with and without external contamination. These findings will be useful for understanding of the mechanism of drug uptake into hair and for estimating the circumstances for a drug use.

Comparison of Lidocaine Spray and Lidocaine Ice Popsicle in Patients Undergoing Unsedated Esophagogastroduodenoscopy: A Single Center Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Purpose

Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) under topical pharyngeal anesthesia has the advantage of avoiding the unwanted cardiopulmonary adverse events experienced following intravenous sedation. Lidocaine spray is a common anesthetic option and is safe for unsedated EGD. Although several studies have compared different topical anesthetic agents, their formulations, and delivery techniques, questions still remain concerning the optimal mode of administration. We have designed a lidocaine formulation in the form of an ice popsicle and compared its effectiveness and tolerability with lidocaine spray in patients undergoing unsedated EGD.

Methods

This was a single-center prospective randomized controlled trial. Unsedated EGD patients were randomly allocated the lidocaine spray [Group (Gp) A] or lidocaine ice popsicle (Gp B) formulation.

Results

In total, 204 unsedated EGD patients were evaluated. Compared to the spray, the lidocaine ice popsicle group showed better scores for effects in terms of endoscopist satisfaction (Gp A, 7.28±1.44; Gp B, 7.8±0.89; p=0.0022), gag reflex (Gp A, 1.3±0.66; Gp B, 1.02±0.61; p=0.0016), patient satisfaction (Gp A, 7.74±0.82; Gp B, 8.08±0.82; p=0.0039), discomfort (Gp A, 6.54±1.34; Gp B, 5.95±1.21; p=0.0012), and pain (Gp A, 5.38±1.85; Gp B, 4.51±2.01; p=0.0015).

Conclusion

Both the lidocaine spray and ice popsicle formulations are safe, effective options for diagnostic EGD with the ice popsicle exhibiting better performance. We propose the lidocaine ice popsicle formulation for topical pharyngeal anesthesia in patients undergoing unsedated diagnostic EGD and suggest it may be a suitable option during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Clinical Trial Register

Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR) number TCTR20190502001.

Investigation of Efficacy of Lidocaine Spray for Sedated Esophagogastroduodenoscopy in Children

PURPOSE

Our aim in this study is to investigate efficacy of topical lidocaine spray for sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in children.

METHODS

The endoscopy of children aged between 3-18 years who underwent EGD in our endoscopy unit. Intravenous (IV) midazolam and ketamine were used for sedation. Prior to sedation, endoscopy nurse applied topical lidocaine 10% with pump spray at 1 mg/kg dose in group 1, and distilled water via identically scaled pump spray in group 2, in a double blinded fashion.

RESULTS

Sedation was not applied in 24.1% of the cases in topical lidocaine spray group (LS group) and in 5.7% of the cases in distilled water spray group (DS group). Gag reflex was observed in 6.5% of cases in LS group and 33.3% of cases in DS group (p=0.024), increased oral secretion was observed in 9.3% of cases in LS group and 51.7% of cases in DS group (p=0.038), sore throat was observed in 3.7% of cases in LS group and 35.6% of cases in DS group (p=0.019) and the difference was statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

The study showed that topical pharyngeal lidocaine reduces both requirement and amount of IV sedation before EGD in children and sore throat, gag reflex and decreased oral secretion increase.

Flavored anesthetic lozenge versus Xylocaine spray used as topical pharyngeal anesthesia for unsedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy: a randomized placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The use of Xylocaine spray has been the common practice in many endoscopy centers, but scientific evidence is not conclusive on its superiority over other forms of topical anesthesia. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of Xylocaine spray as a topical pharyngeal anesthesia for upper endoscopy and that of anesthetic lozenges with a characteristic flavor.

METHODS

A randomized placebo-controlled trial was performed in a single endoscopy center. For this study, 191 consecutive patients ages 18 to 70 undergoing outpatient esophagogastroduodenoscopy were randomized before the procedure into either a spray group (10% Xylocaine pump spray plus plain Strepsils) or a lozenge group (Strepsils Dual Action anesthetic lozenge plus distilled water spray). The primary outcome was the patient tolerance score, calculated according to the taste of the anesthetic agent, the intensity of numbness, the amount of cough or gag, and the degree of discomfort at esophageal intubation. The secondary outcomes included difficulty of esophageal intubation and the patients' and endoscopists' satisfaction score for the procedure.

RESULTS

Randomization assigned 97 patients to the lozenge group and 94 patients to the spray group. The demographic data were similar in the two groups. The spray group had a significantly higher patient tolerance score, a greater intensity of numbness, less gag reflex, and less discomfort than the lozenge group. The lozenge group had a better taste than the spray group. The difficulty of esophageal intubation and the patients' and endoscopists' satisfaction were comparable between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Topical Xylocaine spray is superior to the flavored anesthetic lozenge as a topical pharyngeal anesthesia in unsedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy.

Bupivacaine Lozenge Compared with Lidocaine Spray as Topical Pharyngeal Anesthetic before Unsedated Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

Unsedated upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) can induce patient discomfort, mainly due to a strong gag reflex. The aim was to assess the effect of a bupivacaine lozenge as topical pharyngeal anesthetic compared with standard treatment with a lidocaine spray before UGE. Ninety-nine adult outpatients undergoing unsedated diagnostic UGE were randomized to receive either a bupivacaine lozenge (L-group, n = 51) or lidocaine spray (S-group, n = 42). Primary objective was assessment of patient discomfort including acceptance of the gag reflex during UGE. The L-group assessed the discomfort significantly lower on a visual analog scale compared with the S-group (P = 0.02). There was also a significant difference in the four-point scale assessment of the gag reflex (P = 0.03). It was evaluated as acceptable by 49% in the L-group compared with 31% in the S-group. A bupivacaine lozenge compared with a lidocaine spray proved to be a superior option as topical pharyngeal anesthetic before an UGE.

Glossopharyngeal Nerve Block versus Lidocaine Spray to Improve Tolerance in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Aim of the Study. To compare the effect of glossopharyngeal nerve block with topical anesthesia on the tolerance of patients to upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Methods. We performed a clinical trial in one hundred patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the following two groups: (1) treatment with bilateral glossopharyngeal nerve block (GFNB) and intravenous midazolam or (2) treatment with topical anesthetic (TASS) and intravenous midazolam. We evaluated sedation, tolerance to the procedure, hemodynamic stability, and adverse symptoms. Results. We studied 46 men and 54 women, from 17 to 78 years of age. The procedure was reported without discomfort in 48 patients (88%) in the GFNB group and 32 (64%) in the TAAS group; 6 patients (12%) in GFNB group and 18 (36%) in TAAS group reported the procedure as little discomfort (χ (2) = 3.95, P = 0.04). There was no difference in frequency of nausea (4% in both groups) and retching, 4% versus 8% for GFNB and TASS group, respectively (P = 0.55). Conclusions. The use of glossopharyngeal nerve block provides greater comfort and tolerance to the patient undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. It also reduces the need for sedation.

Lidocaine analgesia for removal of wound vacuum-assisted closure dressings: a randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Wound vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) is a technique used frequently by orthopedic surgeons to facilitate wound closure. Bedside VAC removal can be a source of great pain for patients, which we hypothesize can be decreased by topical lidocaine application.

DESIGN

This was a prospective randomized double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial (registered on clinicaltrials.gov), utilizing the crossover intervention technique.

SETTING

The study was carried out at a level 1 trauma center.

PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS

Nondiabetic, adult patients requiring at least 2 extremity wound VAC dressing changes were involved.

INTERVENTION

In a double-blinded fashion, topical lidocaine (1%) was compared with topical normal saline (0.9% NaCl) after injection into the VAC sponge. The crossover intervention technique, wherein each patient received an independent VAC change with lidocaine and saline, served to control for all possible patient characteristics. Randomization determined which sample was given first or second.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The patients were evaluated for visual analog pain scores, narcotic requirement, and wound characteristics.

RESULTS

: A total of 11 patients were enrolled for a total of 21 VAC changes (mean wound size 133 cm); 1 patient withdrew after his first VAC dressing was changed with saline. Controlling for pre-VAC change pain, the lidocaine intervention was associated with 2.4 points less on the 0-10 visual analog scale for pain (P value <0.001, -3.0 to -1.7) and 1.7 mg less morphine-equivalents administered (P value <0.001, -2.3 to -1.1) during the VAC sponge removal.

CONCLUSIONS

The patients undergoing an extremity wound VAC dressing removal at the bedside should be pretreated with topical lidocaine because it decreases pain and narcotic requirements.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

New lidocaine lozenge as topical anesthesia compared to lidocaine viscous oral solution before upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

Objective

To evaluate the effect and acceptance of a new lidocaine lozenge compared with a lidocaine viscous oral solution as a pharyngeal anesthetic before upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE), a diagnostic procedure commonly performed worldwide during which many patients experience severe discomfort mostly because of the gag reflex.

Participants

The single-blinded, randomized, controlled study involved 110 adult patients undergoing diagnostic UGE at the Department of Gastroenterology, Hvidovre University Hospital, Denmark.

Methods

The patients were randomized to receive either 100 mg lidocaine as a lozenge or 5 mL lidocaine viscous oral solution 2%. Intravenous midazolam was administered if needed. The effect of a lidocaine lozenge in reducing patient discomfort, including the gag reflex, during UGE compared with a lidocaine oral solution was assessed.

Results

Questionnaires from the patients showed that the gag reflex was acceptable for 64% in the lozenge group compared with 33% in the oral solution group (P = 0.0072). UGE was evaluated as acceptable by 69% in the lozenge group compared with 39% in the oral solution group (P = 0.0092). The taste was evaluated as good by 78% in the lozenge group (P < 0.0001), and 82% found the lozenge to have good texture (P < 0.0001).

Conclusion

The lozenge reduced the gag reflex, diminished patients’ discomfort during UGE, and was evaluated as having a good taste and texture. The lozenge improved patients’ acceptance of UGE.

Posterior lingual lidocaine: A novel method to improve tolerance in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

AIM: To evaluate the effect of posterior lingual lidocaine swab on patient tolerance to esophagogastroduodenoscopy, the ease of performance of the procedure, and to determine if such use will reduce the need for intravenous sedation.

METHODS: Eighty patients undergoing diagnostic esophagogastroduodenoscopy in a tertiary care medical center were randomized to either lidocaine swab or spray. Intravenous meperidine and midazolam were given as needed during the procedure.

RESULTS: Patients in the lidocaine swab group (SWG) tolerated the procedure better than those in the spray group (SPG) with a median tolerability score of 2 (1, 4) compared to 4 (2, 5) (P < 0.01). The endoscopists encountered less difficulty performing the procedures in the SWG with lower median difficulty scores of 1 (1, 5) compared to 4 (1, 5) in the SPG (P < 0.01). In addition, the need for intravenous sedation was also lower in the SWG compared to the SPG with fewer patients requiring intravenous sedation (13/40 patients vs 38/40 patients, respectively, P < 0.01). The patients in the SWG were more satisfied with the mode of local anesthesia they received as compared to the SPG. In addition, the endoscopists were happier with the use of lidocaine swab.

CONCLUSION: The use of a posterior lingual lidocaine swab in esophagogastroduodenoscopy improves patient comfort and tolerance and endoscopist satisfaction and decreases the need for intravenous sedation.

Anaesthesia for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography is used for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. It is relatively more complex than routine endoscopies and requires adequate patient sedation. Furthermore the patients often have co-morbidities. This article provides an overview of various anaesthetic drugs and the type of anaesthesiological support.

Office based--is my anesthetic care any different? Assessment and management

Office-based anesthesia (OBA) is a unique and challenging venue, and, although the clinical outcomes have not been evaluated extensively, existing data indicate a need for increased regulation and additional education. Outcomes in OBA can be improved by education not only of anesthesiologists but also of surgeons, proceduralists, and nursing staff. Legislators must be educated so that appropriate regulations are instituted governing the practice of office-based surgery and the lay public must be educated to make wise, informed decisions about choice of surgery location. The leadership of societies, along with support from the membership, must play a key role in this educational process; only then can OBA become as safe as the anesthesia care in traditional venues.

Anesthesia for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures

Traditionally, sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures was provided by the gastroenterologist. Increasingly, however, complex procedures are being performed on seriously ill patients. As a result, anesthesiologists now are providing anesthesia and sedation in the gastrointestinal endoscopy suite for many of these patients. This article reviews the challenges encountered in this environment and anesthetic techniques that can be used successfully for these procedures.

Anesthesia outside the operating room in the office-based setting

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The majority of anesthesia services provided outside the operating room or ambulatory surgery center is in the office-based setting. This review will focus on three areas that are critical to office-based anesthesia: safety, quality of care and patient satisfaction.

RECENT FINDINGS

Data obtained from the State of Florida office-based surgery adverse event data repository indicate that, even with The American Society of Anesthesiology I patients, there remains opportunity to improve outcomes. Careful patient selection remains critical, especially the patient with a history of sleep apnea. While general anesthesia remains the gold standard, expanded use of local anesthesia, regional blocks and variation on sedation techniques offer alternatives that may reduce risks but still maintain a high quality of care. While there is limited office-based anesthesia satisfaction data, limiting postoperative nausea and vomiting remains a major patient satisfier of which an occurrence rate of zero may be possible.

SUMMARY

There is rapid growth for the need of safe and high quality office-based anesthesia. To meet these needs, a special set of skills is required, which may require expanded exposure and experience during training. An office-based anesthesia central data repository is needed for benchmarking and identifying areas for improvement. Finally, with advances in surgical technology, there is a need for focused research in office-based anesthetic techniques and modalities and patient satisfaction.