Evaluation of topical pharyngeal anaesthesia by benzocaine lozenge for upper endoscopy

Necessity of pharyngeal anesthesia during transoral gastrointestinal endoscopy: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The necessity for pharyngeal anesthesia during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is controversial. This study aimed to compare the observation ability with and without pharyngeal anesthesia under midazolam sedation.

METHODS

This prospective, single-blinded, randomized study included 500 patients who underwent transoral upper gastrointestinal endoscopy under intravenous midazolam sedation. Patients were randomly allocated to pharyngeal anesthesia: PA+ or PA- groups (250 patients/group). The endoscopists obtained 10 images of the oropharynx and hypopharynx. The primary outcome was the non-inferiority of the PA- group in terms of the pharyngeal observation success rate.

RESULTS

The pharyngeal observation success rates in the pharyngeal anesthesia with and without (PA+ and PA-) groups were 84.0% and 72.0%, respectively. The PA- group was inferior (p=0.707, non-inferiority) to the PA+ group in terms of observable parts (8.33 vs. 8.86, p=0.006), time (67.2 vs. 58.2 seconds, p=0.001), and pain (1.21±2.37 vs. 0.68±1.78, p=0.004, 0-10 point visual analog scale). Suitable quality images of the posterior wall of the oropharynx, vocal fold, and pyriform sinus were inferior in the PA- group. Subgroup analysis showed a higher sedation level (Ramsay score ≥5) with almost no differences in the pharyngeal observation success rate between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Non-pharyngeal anesthesia showed no non-inferiority in pharyngeal observation ability. Pharyngeal anesthesia may improve pharyngeal observation ability in the hypopharynx and reduce pain. However, deeper anesthesia may reduce this difference.

Viscous lidocaine solution versus lidocaine spray for pharyngeal local anesthesia in upper gastroesophageal endoscopy

Background:

Advantage of using local sedation during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) is still challenging. In the current study, the effect of lidocaine spray versus lidocaine viscous solution for pharyngeal local anesthesia during UGE has been compared.

Materials and Methods:

This is a randomized clinical trial conducted on 130 patients conducting UGE in 2013. Patients were randomly divided into two groups of viscous lidocaine solution (Group V) and lidocaine spray (Group S). Patients’ tolerance, satisfaction, pain/discomfort, and anxiety (based on 11-point numerical score scale) and ease of endoscopy were compared.

Results:

Ease of procedure, patients’ tolerance, and patients’ satisfaction were not statistically different between two groups (P > 0.05). Patients’ pain/discomfort and anxiety during endoscopy were significantly different between groups (P < 0.05).

Conclusion:

As a conclusion, there was not any difference between two groups except for pain, discomfort, and anxiety that was higher in those who administered spray that might be due to the method of usage.

Lidocaine spray alone is similar to spray plus viscous solution for pharyngeal observation during transoral endoscopy: a clinical randomized trial

Background and study aims It is important to examine the pharynx during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Pharyngeal anesthesia using topical lidocaine is generally used as pretreatment. In Japan, lidocaine viscous solution is the anesthetic of choice, but lidocaine spray is applied when the former is considered insufficient. However, the relationship between the extent of pharyngeal anesthesia and accuracy of observation is unclear. We compared the performance of lidocaine spray alone versus lidocaine spray combined with lidocaine viscous solution for pharyngeal observation during transoral endoscopy. Patients and methods In this prospective, double-blinded, randomized clinical trial conducted between January and March 2015, 327 patients were randomly assigned to lidocaine spray alone (spray group, n = 157) or a combination of spray and viscous solution (combination group, n = 170). We compared the number of pharyngeal observable sites (non-inferiority test), pain by visual analogue scale, observation time, and the number of gag reflexes between the two groups. Results The mean number of images of suitable quality taken at the observable pharyngeal sites in the spray group was 8.33 (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 7.94 - 8.72) per patient, and 8.77 (95 % CI: 8.49 - 9.05) per patient in the combination group. The difference in the number of observable pharyngeal sites was - 0.44 (95 % CI: - 0.84 to - 0.03, P = 0.01). There were no differences in pain, observation time, or number of gag reflexes between the 2 groups. Subgroup analysis of the presence of sedation revealed no differences between the two groups for the number of pharyngeal observation sites and the number of gag reflexes. However, the number of gag reflexes was higher in the spray group compared to the combination group in a subgroup analysis that looked at the absence of sedation. Conclusions Lidocaine spray for pharyngeal anesthesia was not inferior to lidocaine spray and viscous solution in terms of pharyngeal observation. It was considered that lidocaine viscous solution was unnecessary for pharyngeal observation. UMIN000016073.

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.

The questionable efficacy of topical pharyngeal anesthesia in combination with propofol sedation in gastroscopy

BACKGROUND

Topical pharyngeal anesthesia as an adjunct to intravenous sedation to facilitate gastroscopy has been widely acknowledged; however, its efficacy has not been established when it is used in patients under deep sedation with propofol.

AIMS

To demonstrate the limited value of topical pharyngeal anesthesia in patients under moderate to deep sedation with propofol.

METHODS

One hundred and twenty-nine patients undergoing gastroscopy were prospectively randomized to receive 10 % lidocaine or distilled water topical spray as an adjunct to intravenous propofol via target-controlled infusion. Verbal and somatic responsiveness, presence of gag reflex and hiccup to esophageal intubation, and the overall ease of the procedure were evaluated by the anaesthetists and gastroenterologists. Hemodynamic parameters including peripheral oxygen saturation, systolic/diastolic blood pressure (SBP/DBP), heart rate (HR), bispectral index, and SBP × HR were compared at 5 time points: on arrival, after 5 spontaneous breaths, when estimated brain concentration of propofol, Ce, reached 3.5 μg/ml, on esophageal intubation, and on awakening.

RESULTS

No statistical difference was observed between the lidocaine and distilled water group in verbal or somatic responses, gag reflex or hiccups on esophageal intubation. Similarly, BIS, SBP, DBP, and HR showed no significant difference between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of topical pharyngeal anesthesia in combination with target-controlled infusion with propofol in the performance of diagnostic gastroscopy might be eliminated without adversely affecting patient care or outcomes.

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.

Avaliação da lidocaína tópica como pré-medicação para a endoscopia digestiva alta em crianças

OBJETIVO: Avaliar a eficácia da lidocaína spray tópica como droga adjuvante na sedação e analgesia de crianças e adolescentes para endoscopia digestiva. MÉTODOS: Foram incluídos 80 pacientes (49 femininos e 31 masculinos, idade média 12±3 anos), 40 no grupo placebo e 40 no grupo lidocaína. Os pacientes foram alocados aleatoriamente e um paciente de cada grupo foi excluído. Lidocaína a 10% ou placebo (ácido tânico 0,5%) aerossol (dois jatos) foram aplicados na orofaringe antes da infusão de propofol. Os pacientes foram monitorizados durante o procedimento e após, sendo respondido questionário para avaliar odinofagia e a pré-medicação. O desfecho primário foi a dose de propofol empregada, enquanto os desfechos secundários foram incidência de complicações, tempo de sala e duração do procedimento. RESULTADOS: Não houve diferenças entre os grupos quanto à idade, sexo e indicação da endoscopia. A dose de propofol empregada não foi diferente nos dois grupos (grupo placebo 3,1±1,1 e grupo lidocaína 2,9±1,3mg/kg; p=0,69), mesmo quando considerada a dose bruta (p=0,33). No entanto, o tempo de sala médio foi maior no grupo placebo do que no lidocaína (23±7 versus 20±5 minutos; IC95% da diferença: 0,47-5,89 minutos, p=0,02). Não houve diferenças entre os grupos quanto à duração do procedimento, incidência de complicações e aceitação pelo paciente. CONCLUSÕES: O emprego de medicação tópica anestésica em endoscopia reduz o tempo de sala sem aumentar a incidência de efeitos adversos (NCT00521703).