Inhibitory effect of lidocaine on colonic spasm during colonoscopy: A multicenter double-blind, randomized controlled trial

Effect of alverine citrate plus simethicone in colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

Colonoscopy is the standard procedure for screening, and surveillance of colorectal cancer, including the treatment for colonic lesions. Colonic spasm is an important problem from colonoscopy that affects both surgeons and patients. The spasm also might be the cause of longer cecal intubation time, difficulty of the procedure, and increased pain. Previous reports indicated that antispasmodic agents can decrease such symptoms. Therefore, we conducted this study to investigate the cecal intubation time of antispasmodic agents. A single blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted from 01/11/2020 to 31/08/2021. One hundred four patients were allocated to antispasmodic agent group and control group, in 1:1 ratio. The efficacy of median (range) cecal intubation time showed similar results of 5 (2, 14) and 5 (2, 15) minutes with no statistically significant difference. The mean scores of all domains i.e., pain, spasm, cleanliness, and difficulty were better in the antispasmodic agent group about 2.6 (1.4), 1.8 (0.8), 2.4 (0.9), and 2.0 (0.9), respectively, than control group but there were spasm and cleanliness showed statistically significant difference. Moreover, the satisfaction scores showed better efficacy in decreased spasm, decreased difficulty, and increased cleanliness than control group. Prescribing of antispasmodic drugs before colonoscopy might be the choice of treatment for the patients. The antispasmodic drugs will be beneficial to both of the patient and the doctor.

Intestinal topical lidocaine spray improves the efficacy and safety of endoscopic sigmoid polypectomy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic polypectomy can prevent colorectal cancer. Adequate surgical field visualization is crucial to complete resection. To prevent visual field loss caused by intestinal peristalsis, we investigated the efficacy and safety of topical lidocaine spraying during the endoscopic sigmoid polypectomy (ESP).

METHODS

Retrospective analysis was performed on 100 ESP patients admitted from July 2021 to October 2021, among which 50 patients received lidocaine (case group) and other 50 patients received normal saline (control group). Lidocaine or saline was sprayed on the colonic mucosa within 5 cm above and below the polyps before polypectomy. The en-bloc resection rate (EBRR) and complete resection rate (CRR) were primarily evaluated. Secondary outcomes included EBRR for polyps located in the 5-11 o'clock position, sigmoid colon peristalsis frequency, degree of exposure to the surgical field, operative times, and adverse events.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the basic demographic characteristics between the two groups. EBRR and CRR in the case group were 72.9% and 95.8%, and in the control group were 53.3% and 91.1%, respectively. The EBRR of sigmoid polyps located at the 5-11 o'clock positions was significantly higher in the case group (82.8%) than in the control group (56.7%) (P = 0.03). Sigmoid colonic peristalsis was significantly inhibited after lidocaine spraying (P < 0.01). There was no statistical difference in the operative times and adverse event rates between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Topical spraying lidocaine around polyps can safely and effectively reduce intestinal peristalsis, thus improving the EBRR of sigmoid polypectomy.

Efficacy of lidocaine injection method for esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection: single-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative body movements are one of the causes of difficulty in performing esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) under conscious sedation. The use of local anesthetics as local injection materials during ESD may overcome this difficulty. We clinically evaluated the lidocaine injection method (LIM) in the submucosa during esophageal ESD.

METHODS

This was a single-center, prospective, double-blind, randomized trial. Patients who underwent esophageal ESD under conscious sedation from June 2018 to May 2021 were included in this study. In the LIM group, lidocaine was used for submucosal injection during ESD; in the control group, ESD was performed without lidocaine. The primary outcome was the presence of body movements.

RESULTS

Fifty patients were enrolled and randomized in a 1:1 ratio in two groups. The incidence of body movements was significantly lower in the LIM group (12% [3/25]) than in the control group (48% [12/25]; P = 0.01). The median additional dose of midazolam was 2 mg (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.5-4 mg) in the LIM group and 4 mg (IQR: 3-6 mg) in the control group, which was significantly lower in the LIM group (P < 0.01). The median visual analog scale score for endoscopist satisfaction was 7 (IQR: 5-8) in the LIM group and 5 (IQR: 4-6.5) in the control group, which was significantly higher in the LIM group.

CONCLUSIONS

LIM during esophageal ESD reduced body movements while decreasing the level of sedation. Therefore, LIM during esophageal ESD is an option for maintaining good sedation (UMIN000032804).

Factors Associated with Difficulty Maintaining Insufflation of the Colon During Endoscopy

BACKGROUND

Insufflation of the colon allows for adequate visualization of the mucosal tissue and advancement of the endoscope during colonoscopy. Most colonoscopies are performed with sedation to mitigate discomfort and enhance the colonoscopy experience for both the patient and the endoscopist.

AIM

We aimed to evaluate factors associated with difficulty maintaining insufflation.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study of individuals undergoing colonoscopy at the Oklahoma City Veterans Affairs Medical Center was performed. Experiencing difficulty maintaining air insufflation during colonoscopy was assessed with a questionnaire completed by the performing endoscopist at the end of procedure. Information regarding procedure times, sedation used, demographics, comorbidities, surgical history, and medications used was extracted from the medical record. A multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with difficulty maintaining air insufflation. A P value < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

996 Patients were included for the analysis. Difficulty with insufflation was reported in 240 (24%) colonoscopies; mean age of 63.8 ± 10.4 years old and 13% were female. Fellow trainees were involved in 669 (67%) colonoscopies. Older age (OR 1.02, P 0.03, CI [1.00-1.04]), diabetes (OR 1.5, 95% CI [1.03, 2.05]), fellow's involvement (OR 2.6. (95% CI [1.68, 4.09]), total procedure time (OR 1.02, 95% CI [1.00, 1.03]), mean number of adenomas (OR 1.05, 95% CI [1.00, 1.09]), and MAC use (OR 2.6, 95% CI [1.80, 3.85]) were independent predictors for difficulty in maintaining air insufflation.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that endoscopists should be cognizant of colon insufflation issues in older, diabetic patients undergoing colonoscopies under deep sedation, particularly if prolonged procedure is anticipated or encountered.

Association Between the Cool Temperature-dependent Suppression of Colonic Peristalsis and Transient Receptor Potential Melastatin 8 Activation in Both a Randomized Clinical Trial and an Animal Model

Background/Aims

Several studies have assessed the effect of cool temperature on colonic peristalsis. Transient receptor potential melastatin 8 (TRPM8) is a temperature-sensitive ion channel activated by mild cooling expressed in the colon. We examined the antispasmodic effect of cool temperature on colonic peristalsis in a prospective, randomized, single-blind trial and based on the video imaging and intraluminal pressure of the proximal colon in rats and TRPM8-deficient mice.

Methods

In the clinical trial, we randomly assigned a total of 94 patients scheduled to undergo colonoscopy to 2 groups: the mildly cool water (n = 47) and control (n = 47) groups. We used 20 mL of 15°C water for the mildly cool water. The primary outcome was the proportion of subjects with improved peristalsis after treatment. In the rodent proximal colon, we evaluated the intraluminal pressure and performed video imaging of the rodent proximal colon with cool water administration into the colonic lumen. Clinical trial registry website (Trial No. UMIN-CTR; UMIN000030725).

Results

In the randomized controlled trial, after treatment, the proportion of subjects with no peristalsis with cool water was significantly higher than that in the placebo group (44.7% vs 23.4%; P < 0.05). In the rodent colon model, cool temperature water was associated with a significant decrease in colonic peristalsis through its suppression of the ratio of peak frequency (P < 0.05). Cool temperature-treated TRPM8-deficient mice did not show a reduction in colonic peristalsis compared with wild-type mice.

Conclusion

For the first time, this study demonstrates that cool temperature-dependent suppression of colonic peristalsis may be associated with TRPM8 activation.

Oral IBGard™ Before Colonoscopy: A Single-Center Double-Blinded, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Peppermint oil is well known to inhibit smooth muscle contractions, and its topical administration during colonoscopy is reported to reduce colonic spasms.

AIMS

We aimed to assess whether oral administration of IBGard™, a sustained-release peppermint oil formulation, before colonoscopy reduces spasms and improves adenoma detection rate (ADR).  METHODS: We performed a single-center randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial. Patients undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopies were randomized to receive IBGard™ or placebo. The endoscopist graded spasms during insertion, inspection, and polypectomy. Bowel preparation, procedure time, and time of drug administration were documented. Statistical analysis was performed using the Student's t test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics or dose-timing distribution between IBGard™ and placebo groups. Similarly, there was no difference in ADR (IBGard™ = 47.8%, placebo = 43.1%, p = 0.51), intubation spasm score (1.23 vs 1.2, p = 0.9), withdrawal spasm score (1.3 vs 1.23, p = 0.72), or polypectomy spasm score (0.52 vs 0.46, p = 0.69). Limiting the analysis to patients who received the drug more than 60 min prior to the start of the procedure did not produce any significant differences in these endpoints.

CONCLUSIONS

This randomized controlled trial failed to show benefit of orally administered IBGard™ prior to colonoscopy on the presence of colonic spasms or ADR. Because of its low barrier to widespread adoption, the use of appropriately formulated and timed oral peppermint oil warrants further study to determine its efficacy in reducing colonic spasms and improving colonoscopy quality.

The efficacy of the submucosal injection of lidocaine during endoscopic submucosal dissection for colorectal neoplasms: a multicenter randomized controlled study

Background

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is currently a common procedure although it requires a long procedural time. We conducted a prospective study to determine the efficacy and safety of lidocaine injection for shortening the procedural time and relieving bowel peristalsis during ESD.

Methods

A multicenter randomized controlled study was conducted in three hospitals. Ninety-one patients who underwent colorectal ESD were enrolled. Patients were randomly divided into two groups using the envelope method: the lidocaine group and saline group. The primary endpoint was the procedural time, and the secondary endpoints were the procedural time in each part of the colon and the grade of bowel peristalsis and the incidence and amounts of antispasmodic drugs use and adverse events.

Results

The patients’ demographics were not markedly different between the two groups. The mean procedural time in the lidocaine group was not markedly different from that in the saline group. In contrast, at the proximal site, the procedural time in the lidocaine group (57 min) was significantly shorter in the saline group (80 min). The grade of bowel peristalsis in the lidocaine group (0.67) was significantly lower than in the saline group (1.17). Antispasmodic drug use was significantly rarer in the lidocaine group than in the saline group. The incidence of adverse events was not markedly different between the two groups.

Conclusions

Local lidocaine injection is a feasible option for preventing bowel peristalsis, particularly in the proximal colon, leading to a reduced procedural time for ESD and decreased antispasmodic drug use.

University Hospital Medical Information Network Center (UMIN number: 000022843).

Feasibility of the lidocaine injection method during esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection

Background and Aim

Esophageal endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is often technically difficult due to intraoperative body movements. The level of sedation can be increased to suppress body movements, but this may not be successful in all cases. Using local analgesics for submucosal injection during ESD may aid in conscious sedation. This study evaluated the feasibility of the lidocaine injection method (LIM) during esophageal ESD.

Methods

Twenty‐nine patients with superficial esophageal cancer were enrolled in this study at Osaka Saiseikai Nakatsu Hospital, and 1% lidocaine + 0.4% hyaluronate sodium was injected into the submucosa underneath the lesion during esophageal ESD. The main outcome was body movements that disturbed the procedure.

Results

Most patients were male (90%), with a median age of 70 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 66–75 years old), and the median lesion size was 17 mm (IQR: 12–21 mm). The median injection volume of lidocaine was 70 mg (IQR: 55–79 mg). All lesions were successfully removed en bloc. In all cases, there were no body movements that disturbed the procedure. Regarding adverse events of sedation, five patients (17%) had hypotension, four patients (14%) had bradycardia, and seven patients (24%) had hypoxemia during ESD. Convulsions or arrhythmia as adverse events associated with lidocaine were not observed.

Conclusions

Esophageal ESD with LIM did not cause body movements that disturbed the procedure. LIM may help create a stable conscious sedation method for esophageal ESD.