Comparison of topical anesthetics and vasoconstrictors vs lubricants prior to nasogastric intubation: a randomized, controlled trial

Effectiveness of Lidocaine nasal drops versus placebo drops for reducing the discomfort of nasogastric tube insertion: a randomized controlled trial study

PURPOSE

Nasogastric tube (NGT) insertion can be painful and distressing for the patient. Lidocaine nasal drops might be effective as a local anesthetic agent before the procedure. This study aimed to compare the effects of Lidocaine nasal drops versus placebo drops for reducing the discomfort of this procedure.

METHODS

Patients indicated for NGT insertion were categorized into two groups randomly. The Lidocaine group had 2% Lidocaine instilled nasally 3 min before the procedure and the control group had normal saline drops instilled. We compared the pain scores (using a visual analog scale) and complications between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 126 patients who required NGT insertion between September, 2021 and August, 2022 were enrolled in this study. The pain score of the Lidocaine nasal drops group was 1.41 ± 0.50 (range 1-2) and that of the control group was 4.54 ± 1.03 (range 3-7) (p < 0.01). The duration of the procedure in the Lidocaine and control groups was 1.52 ± 0.76 min and 3.38 ± 1.36 min, respectively (p < 0.01). The insertion was completed successfully within the first attempt in 98% of the Lidocaine group patients, whereas two or three attempts were needed in the control group. The incidence of complications such as vomiting, coughing, difficult breathing, and aspiration was lower in the Lidocaine group than in the control group (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Instilling Lidocaine nasal drops before NGT insertion alleviated discomfort and reduced procedure-associated complications.

Management of procedural pain in the intensive care unit

Pain is a common experience for inpatients, and intensive care unit (ICU) patients undergo more pain than other departmental patients, with an incidence of 50% at rest and up to 80% during common care procedures. At present, the management of persistent pain in ICU patients has attracted considerable attention, and there are many related clinical studies and guidelines. However, the management of transient pain caused by certain ICU procedures has not received sufficient attention. We reviewed the different management strategies for procedural pain in the ICU and reached a conclusion. Pain management is a process of continuous quality improvement that requires multidisciplinary team cooperation, pain-related training of all relevant personnel, effective relief of all kinds of pain, and improvement of patients' quality of life. In clinical work, which involves complex and diverse patients, we should pay attention to the following points for procedural pain: (1) Consider not only the patient's persistent pain but also his or her procedural pain; (2) Conduct multimodal pain management; (3) Provide combined sedation on the basis of pain management; and (4) Perform individualized pain management. Until now, the pain management of procedural pain in the ICU has not attracted extensive attention. Therefore, we expect additional studies to solve the existing problems of procedural pain management in the ICU.

A Safety Evaluation of Midazolam use for Nasogastric Tube Placement

Objective:

Nasogastric tube (NGT) insertion is one of the most painful procedures in the emergency department (ED). A recent study determined that giving intravenous (IV) midazolam before NGT insertion decreased patients' pain; however, the sample size was insufficient to draw the conclusions on safety. We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients who received IV midazolam for NGT insertion to determine the frequency of adverse events.

Methods:

All patients treated at a Level 1 trauma center ED from June 2016 to June 2019 who received IV midazolam for NGT insertion were included. The medical records were screened for the following serious adverse events: hypoxia, respiratory suppression, excessive somnolence/sedation, hemodynamic instability, epistaxis, vomiting, and choking. Adverse events, patient demographics, chief complaint, diagnosis, disposition, number of midazolam administrations, dose per administration, and total dose were recorded for the analysis.

Findings:

Three out of 159 participants (2%) were identified as having an adverse event. In two cases, the adverse event was hypoxia, which was corrected with the administration of supplemental oxygen through nasal cannula. The third adverse event was somnolence noted in a patient who was also hypotensive and in atrial fibrillation around the time of midazolam administration.

Conclusion:

It is safe to premedicate patients with midazolam before NGT insertions. Patients with borderline oxygen saturation and those receiving opioid analgesics may warrant dose titration with close vital sign monitoring.

Erythromycin stimulates phasic gastric contractility as assessed with an isovolumetric intragastric balloon pressure measurement

BACKGROUND

A novel technique to assess gastric motility by measuring the pressure in a low-volume intragastric balloon was developed to monitor (disordered) motility. We previously showed that this technique allows measuring pharmacologically induced inhibition of motility. In this study, we assessed whether it is possible to measure pharmacologically induced stimulation of gastric motility using 200 mg erythromycin. Erythromycin is a highly effective stimulator of gastric emptying and contractility.

METHODS

After an overnight fast, a nasogastric balloon catheter was introduced in healthy subjects. After inflation with 120 ml of air, the catheter was connected to a pressure sensor. Intraballoon pressure was continuously recorded for 4 h. After a baseline recording of 2 h, 200 mg erythromycin was infused intravenously over 20 min while the recording continued for 2 h. Epigastric symptoms were surveyed on 100-mm visual analogue scales. Motility was quantified from the pressure recording as a gastric balloon motility index. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were performed. Data are shown as median (interquartile range).

KEY RESULTS

Six subjects were enrolled and five completed the procedures (age: 28 (25-29) years, body mass index: 24.0 (23.8-24.5) kg m^-2 ). One subject could not tolerate tube placement. Bloating, nausea, and epigastric sensation scores were 0 (0-3), 0 (0-1), and 1 (0-1) mm, respectively. Erythromycin significantly increased the motility index from 0.48 (0.41-0.51) to 0.79 (0.70-0.82) (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES

Gastric motility assessed via pressure measurement in a low-volume intragastric balloon is able to detect pharmacologically stimulated motility in healthy subjects, which further validates this technique.

A randomized clinical trial of nasogastric tube insertion in intubated patient: comparison between finger method and reverse Sellick maneuver

BACKGROUND Finger method is a new simple technique of nasogastric tube (NGT) insertion for intubated patients which only requires the practitioner’s own fingers. This study was aimed to compare the feasibility of finger method and the standard reverse Sellick maneuver in NGT insertion for intubated patients. METHODS This was a single-blinded, randomized clinical trial that included 210 patients aged 18–65 years old who were intubated under general anesthesia and needed NGT insertion. Initially, subjects were randomly allocated by the third party into two groups: subjects who had NGT insertion with finger method and those with reverse Sellick maneuver. Success rate of NGT insertion at the first attempt, duration of the procedure, and complication rate of blood spots were all recorded. Chi-square test and Mann–Whitney analysis were used to analyze the data. RESULTS Success rate of NGT insertion at the first attempt in finger method group was higher in comparison with reverse Sellick maneuver group (81.6% versus 60%, respectively, p = 0.002). Likewise, the median of NGT insertion duration was longer in finger group compared to reverse Sellick maneuver group (13 sec versus 12 sec, respectively, p < 0.001) but it was not clinically significant. Moreover, the complication rate of blood spots found during the procedure was lower in subjects with finger method than with reverse Sellick maneuver (10.7% versus 28%, respectively, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS Using finger method was more feasible than reverse Sellick maneuvers in NGT insertion.

The application of lidocaine to alleviate the discomfort of nasogastric tube insertion: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Nasogastric (NG) tube insertion is a common procedure in the clinical setting that causes much discomfort and pain for the patient. Pain control is often suboptimal, as many NG tube insertions are performed without any pain-relieving supplements. The aim of this study was to summarize and critically evaluate the evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effect and adverse effects of lidocaine agents in reducing pain and discomfort associated with NG tube insertion.

METHODS

Databases from the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Airiti Library, PerioPath Index to Taiwan Periodical Literature, and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL) were searched from inception to April 2017. RCTs focusing on lidocaine before NG tube insertion were appraised. The primary outcome was the visual analog scale (VAS) score. The modified Jadad scale was used for quality assessment. Mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) and odds ratio (OR) for binary outcomes were assessed by a random effects model. Heterogeneity was determined by using the Cochran Q test and I statistics. Publication bias was analyzed by using a funnel plot analysis.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs enrolling 734 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Eight of the 10 RCTs reporting VAS scores had sufficient quantitative data to be pooled through meta-analysis. Results revealed a significant reduction in VAS score, with a MD of -26.05 and a CI of -28.21 to -23.89 with moderate heterogeneity (P < .001, I = 56%). There were no significant changes in difficulty of NG tube insertions (MD = -0.30, 95% CI, -1.30 to 0.70, P = .55), number of NG tube insertion attempts (MD = -0.22, 95% CI, -0.98 to 0.53, P = .56), nasal bleeding (OR = 0.62, 95% CI, 0.11-3.41, P = .59), and vomiting (OR = 0.30, 95% CI, 0.07-1.27, P = .10).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggests that applying lidocaine before NG tube insertion can alleviate pain and discomfort by 26% without increasing nasal bleeding or vomiting.

Efficacy of nonswallow nasogastric tube intubation: a randomised controlled trial

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To prospectively identify the effect of the nonswallow procedure of nasogastric tube insertion.

BACKGROUND

Nasogastric intubation is one of the most important and basic skills in treatment and nursing. Patients generally experience discomfort and encounter complications during this procedure. Thus, practitioners need a more convenient, effective, quicker and safer method to improve the performance of this procedure.

DESIGN

This prospective randomised controlled trial was conducted from March to May 2014 in the four units of Gansun Province Hospital in Lanzhou, China.

METHOD

A total of 80 participants were randomly assigned to an experimental group (n = 40) and a control group (n = 40). Participants in the experimental group underwent a nonswallow procedure for nasogastric tube insertion.

RESULTS

There were statistically significant differences in nasogastric tube insertion between the study groups. A marked increase in the success rate at first intubation as well as a markedly reduced occurrence of nausea, tearing, mucosal injury and changes in vital signs (i.e. heart rate, breath, systolic pressure) were observed compared with the control group. No differences in the success rates at second and third intubation were observed between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The nonswallow procedure of nasogastric tube intubation relieves discomfort and ensures the safety of patients.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Patients subjected to nasogastric intubation are more likely to benefit from the nonswallow procedure when nasogastric tube insertion is performed.

Does Routine Midazolam Administration Prior to Nasogastric Tube Insertion in the Emergency Department Decrease Patients' Pain? (A Pilot Study)

OBJECTIVES

Patients report pain and discomfort with nasogastric tube (NGT) intubation. We tested the hypothesis that premedication with midazolam alleviates pain during NGT placement in the emergency department (ED) by > 13 on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS).

METHODS

We performed a double-blind randomized controlled pilot study, assigning ED patients requiring NGT placement to midazolam or placebo. All patients received intranasal cophenylcaine; additionally, they received an intravenous (IV) dose of the study drug, either 2 mg of IV midazolam or saline control. Nurses placed NGTs while observed by research staff, who then interviewed subjects to determine the primary outcome of pain using a VAS. Additional data collected from patients and their nurses included discomfort during the procedure, difficulty of tube insertion, and complications.

RESULTS

We enrolled 23 eligible patients and obtained complete data in all: 10 midazolam and 13 controls. We found a significant reduction in mean pain VAS score of -31 (95% confidence interval = -53 to -9 mm) with 2 mg of midazolam (mean ± SD = 52 ± 30 mm), compared to placebo (mean ± SD = 21 ± 18 mm), more than double the effect size considered clinically relevant. Treatment did not impact ease of placement and there were no serious adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Premedication with 2 mg of IV midazolam reduces pain of NGT insertion in ED patients without the need for full procedural sedation.

Assessing the safety and efficacy of drugs used in preparing the nose for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Local anaesthetics and vasoconstrictors are essential for pain control and to aid intra-operative haemostasis in nasal procedures. They also improve access, and reduce discomfort when performing nasal endoscopy. There are no clear guidelines on preparing the nose despite evermore diagnostic and therapeutic procedures utilising the nose as a point of access.

OBJECTIVE OF REVIEW

This review aims to identify nasal preparations used in diagnostic and therapeutic nasal procedures and to examine their safety and efficacy.

TYPE OF REVIEW

Systematic review.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A search was carried out using PubMed, MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, the Cochrane library and references from the included articles.

EVALUATION METHOD

The inclusion criteria included: full-text English language articles with regard to nasal preparation for surgery. Case reports, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, double-blind placebo controlled randomised trials (RCTs) and case series were included.

RESULTS

A total of 53 articles were retrieved: 13 articles on nasal preparation for operative procedures, six on functional endoscopic sinus surgery and 22 on nasendoscopy as well as six case reports. Cocaine was the most widely used topical preparation for operative procedures but was associated with more side-effects; thus, topical tetracaine and levobupivacaine infiltration are alternatives with equivalent efficacy but reduced adverse effects. All articles reviewed for functional endoscopic sinus surgery used a mixture containing lidocaine, adrenaline or both. Flexible nasendoscopy causes minimal patient discomfort and preparation is only recommended in selected patients, in contrast to rigid nasendoscopy which requires preparation.

CONCLUSION

For operative procedures, such as septorhinoplasty, a single agent tetracaine or levobupivicaine provides an improved surgical field. In functional endoscopic sinus surgery, lidocaine-adrenaline preparations have resulted in significantly better surgical and patient outcomes. There is little evidence to support the routine use of pre-procedural nasal preparation for flexible nasendoscopy. Those undergoing rigid endoscopy conversely always require the use of a vasoconstrictor and local anaesthetic. Pre-procedure assessment of patients is recommended, with agents being reserved for those with low pain thresholds, high anxiety and small nasal apertures presenting resistance to the insertion of the endoscope.

Lignocaine/phenylephrine nasal spray vs. placebo for the pain and distress of nasogastric tube insertion in children: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Patients and clinicians consistently rate insertion of a nasogastric tube (NGT) as one of the most painful and distressing emergency department procedures. Despite this, surveys of emergency clinicians suggest that provision of adequate procedural analgesia is often inconsistent and suboptimal. While many studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of various interventions to reduce pain and distress in adults, there have been few studies in the pediatric population. There are currently no studies comparing the effectiveness of a local anesthetic nasal spray for the prevention of the pain and distress associated with NGT insertion in children. This study aims to compare the analgesic efficacy of a proprietary preparation of lignocaine/phenylephrine nasal spray and placebo for this indication.

Methods/Design

This is a prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind superiority trial of 100 children aged 6 months to 5 years weighing at least 6 kg in whom a nasogastric tube is planned to be inserted. These children will be randomized to either intranasal lignocaine/phenylephrine or placebo. Pain severity is the primary outcome measure and will be measured utilizing the Face, Legs, Arms, Cry and Consolability (FLACC) pain severity rating scale. An independent staff member not involved in inserting the NGT and the child’s parents or carer will also record pain and distress on a visual analog scale (VAS). FLACC scores and VAS scores will be presented as median and interquartile range (IQR). Non-normally distributed scores will be compared using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Categorical data will be analyzed using Fisher’s exact test. Adverse events will be described as type and incidence.

Discussion

Previous studies on NGT insertion have not focused on the pediatric population. This study aims to establish the effectiveness of a simple intranasal spray of lignocaine/phenylephrine in children undergoing NGT insertion. A positive result of this study would provide evidence of an effective intervention in a procedure considered by many to be very painful and distressing.

Trial registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR). ACTRN12614000092695, registered on 23 January 2014.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-0547-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The use of the faces, legs, activity, cry and consolability scale to assess procedural pain and distress in young children

INTRODUCTION

Young children frequently undergo diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in the emergency department (ED). Although developed and validated for postoperative pain, Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, Consolability (FLACC) behavioral pain scores have been recommended and used for the assessment of procedural pain as well. We set out to assess if FLACC scores can differentiate pain and distress and establish a hierarchy of FLACC scores experienced during common ED procedures.

METHODS

Prospective observational study at an urban tertiary children's hospital ED. We aimed to recruit 30 children each aged 6 to 42 months undergoing intravenous cannula (IV) insertion, nasogastric tube (NGT) insertion, metered dose inhaler (MDI) use and oxygen saturation (SpO(2)) measurement. Based on videotapes, 2 independent observers assessed pain and distress using FLACC scores during all procedural phases.

RESULTS

A total of 125 patients were recruited and filmed for IV (33), NGT (30), MDI (34), and SpO2 (28). Median FLACC scores were as follows: NGT, 10 (interquartile range [IQR] 8.75-10); IV, 6.5 (IQR, 4.5-9.75); MDI, 6.5 (IQR, 0-9); and SpO(2), 0 (IQR, 0-0.5). The FLACC scores increased during each of the 3 phases, before the procedure, during restraint, and during the procedure. Procedural distress decreased with age except for NGT insertions, which remained very high irrespective of age.

CONCLUSIONS

FLACC scores can be high during nonpainful procedures and the during restraint phase of painful procedures. This indicates that FLACC measures a composite of pain and distress in young children. This study identified substantial levels of pain and distress in young children by FLACC during commonly performed ED procedures, with nasogastric tube insertion having very high and intravenous cannulation/venepuncture and MDI having high FLACC scores.

Cervical lidocaine for IUD insertional pain: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Anticipated pain with intrauterine device (IUD) insertion may be a barrier to widespread use. Our objective was to evaluate the efficacy of intracervical 2% lidocaine gel for pain relief with IUD insertion.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a double-blind, randomized controlled trial of women undergoing IUD insertion. Participants were randomly assigned to 2% lidocaine or placebo gel. Study gel (3 mL) was placed 3 minutes prior to IUD insertion. Pain scores were measured at various time points using a 10-point visual analog scale.

RESULTS

Of the 200 participants randomized, 199 completed the study. Pain scores among lidocaine and placebo arms were similar at tenaculum placement (lidocaine and placebo: median, 4; range, 0-10; P = .15) and with insertion (lidocaine: median, 5; range, 1-10; placebo: median, 6; range, 0-10; P = .16). These results did not differ by parity.

CONCLUSION

Topical or intracervical 2% lidocaine gel prior to IUD insertion does not decrease pain scores.

Reducing the pain of nasogastric tube intubation with nebulized and atomized lidocaine: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Nasogastric tube (NGT) intubations occur frequently in clinical practice and can be a painful procedure for patients. A systematic review of current knowledge concerning the use of nebulized lidocaine to reduce the pain of NGT insertion was conducted in order to develop evidence-based guidelines. In addition, a meta-analysis of appropriate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed. The databases included PubMed (1996-2009), ProQuest (1982-2009), CINAHL (1982-2009), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2009), and reference lists of articles. Experts in this field also were contacted. Two investigators selected the research based on inclusion criteria and reviewed each study's quality according to the Jadad scale. Five RCTs with 212 subjects were identified. A total of 113 (58%) subjects were women. The mean age of treatment and control groups was 59.6 and 55 years, respectively. The countries of studies were the United States, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and Thailand. In the treatment groups, the use of lidocaine concentration was 4% and 10%. The pooled effect size was 0.423 (95% confidence interval: 0.204-0.880; Z=-2.301; P=0.021), indicating that the use of nebulized lidocaine before NGT insertion can decrease pain by 57.7%. There is insufficient evidence to recommend the dosage, concentration, or delivery method. Further research is needed to articulate a comprehensive clinical guideline.

Does nebulized lidocaine reduce the pain and distress of nasogastric tube insertion in young children? A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Nasogastric tube insertion is a common procedure in children that is very painful and distressing. Although nebulized lidocaine has been shown to be effective in reducing the pain and discomfort of nasogastric tube insertion in adults, there have been no similar studies in children. We set out to investigate the role of nebulized lidocaine in reducing pain and distress of nasogastric tube insertion in young children.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of nebulized 2% lidocaine at 4 mg/kg versus saline placebo during nasogastric tube insertion at a tertiary urban pediatric emergency department. Patients were eligible if they were aged from 1 to 5 years with no comorbid disease and a clinical indication for a nasogastric tube. Nebulization occurred for 5 minutes, 5 minutes before nasogastric tube insertion. Video recordings before, during, and after the procedure were rated using the Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Consolability (FLACC) pain and distress assessment tool (primary outcome measure) and pain and distress visual analog scale scores (secondary outcome measures). Difficulty of insertion and adverse events were also assessed.

RESULTS

Eighteen participants were nebulized with 2% lidocaine and 18 participants with normal saline. Nebulization was found to be highly distressing. FLACC scores during nasogastric tube insertion were very high in both groups. There was a trend in the post-nasogastric tube insertion period toward lower FLACC scores in the lidocaine group. Visual analog scale scores for this postinsertion period were significantly lower in the lidocaine arm for pain and distress. There were no significant differences between groups in terms of difficulty of insertion and the number of minor adverse events. The study was terminated early because of the distress and treatment delay associated with nebulization.

CONCLUSIONS

Nasogastric tube insertion results in very high FLACC scores irrespective of lidocaine use. Nebulized lidocaine cannot be recommended as pain relief for nasogastric tube insertion in children. The delay and distress of nebulization likely outweigh a possible benefit in the postinsertion period.

Effectiveness of pre-emptive metoclopramide infusion in alleviating pain, discomfort and nausea associated with nasogastric tube insertion: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Aim of this study was to demonstrate that intravenous metoclopramide can reduce pain, nausea and discomfort during nasogastric tube (NGT) insertion in ED. This prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in the university-based ED. One-hundred patients were enrolled. Before NGT insertion, each eligible patient was randomised to one of the two treatment arms: one group received 2 cc of 10 mg IV metoclopramide, whereas others received 2 cc of normal saline. Before and after the procedure, pain, nausea and discomfort were evaluated using 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS). This study was analysed using the paired sample test, the independent sample test and the chi(2) test. Forty-nine patients received metoclopramide, and 51 received normal saline. Although initial VAS levels elicited for pain, nausea and discomfort were similar, consequent VAS levels of those in the metoclopramide group were significantly lower as compared with those in the normal saline group. The mean differences of VAS levels were statistically significant for three symptoms (p < 0.001). Mean VAS levels of nausea, discomfort and pain during NGT insertion were significantly lower following administration of IV metoclopramide as compared with normal saline.

Comparison of nasal tampons for the treatment of epistaxis in the emergency department: A randomized controlled trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Nasal tampons are commonly used to stop bleeding, yet their insertion is painful. We compare the pain of insertion and removal of 2 commonly used nasal tampons.

METHODS

This was a prospective randomized controlled trial in 1 urban and 1 suburban emergency department (ED). Subjects were a convenience sample of adult ED patients with active epistaxis requiring insertion of a nasal tampon, regardless of coagulation status. Pretreatment of the nasal mucosa was performed using an aerosolized lidocaine-Neo-Synephrine combination. Patients were randomized to tamponade with a single Rapid Rhino or Rhino Rocket nasal tampon. The pain and ease of insertion and success of tamponade were recorded. Tampon removal was performed after 1 to 3 days, and the pain and ease of removal, as well as the presence of any bleeding, were noted. Patients rated pain of insertion and removal on a previously validated 100-mm visual analogue pain scale (100=worst pain). Physician ease of insertion and removal was recorded on a 5-point Likert scale. Continuous data are presented as means and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

We evaluated 40 patients evenly distributed between study groups and sites. Median patient age was 61 years (interquartile range 48 to 79 years), and 33% were female patients. Coagulopathy was present in 10 (25%) patients. Baseline characteristics were similar in both treatment groups. The mean pain of insertion of the Rapid Rhino (30 mm, 95% CI 18 to 41 mm) was significantly less than with the Rhino Rocket (48 mm, 95% CI 34 to 61 mm; mean difference 18 mm, 95% CI 1 to 35 mm). The mean pain of removal of the Rapid Rhino (11 mm, 95% CI 1 to 21 mm) was also lower than with the Rhino Rocket (23 mm, 95% CI 13 to 33 mm; mean difference 12 mm, 95% CI -1 to 25 mm). The Rapid Rhino was also easier to insert and remove and had a lower incidence of recurrent bleeding after removal than the Rhino Rocket. Rates of successful tamponade were similar in the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

The Rapid Rhino nasal tampon is less painful to insert and easier to remove than the Rhino Rocket, whereas both are similarly effective at stopping nosebleeds.

Nebulized lidocaine decreases the discomfort of nasogastric tube insertion: a randomized, double-blind trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Nasogastric tube insertion is a common emergency department (ED) procedure that is associated with considerable patient discomfort. The safety and efficacy of nebulized lidocaine for upper airway anesthesia have previously been demonstrated. We determine whether nebulized lidocaine administered before nasogastric tube insertion significantly reduces patient discomfort.

METHODS

A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial of adult patients was conducted in the EDs of 2 university hospitals. Twenty-nine participants were administered nebulized lidocaine (4 mL 10%), and 21 participants received nebulized normal saline solution. Patient discomfort was measured using a 100-mm visual analog scale. The difficulty of nasogastric tube insertion was evaluated using a 5-point Likert scale.

RESULTS

There was a clinical and statistical significant difference in patient discomfort associated with the passage of the nasogastric tube between nebulized lidocaine and placebo groups (mean visual analog scale score 37.7 versus 59.3 mm, respectively; difference between group means 21.6 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.3 to 38.0 mm). There was not a detectable difference in difficulty with the passage of the nasogastric tube between the 2 groups (median 2 versus 2; median difference 0; 95% CI -1 to 1). Epistaxis occurred more frequently in the lidocaine group (17% versus 0%; difference 17%; 95% CI 3.5% to 31%).

CONCLUSION

Nebulized lidocaine decreases the discomfort of nasogastric tube insertion and should be considered before passing a nasogastric tube. An increased frequency of epistaxis, however, may be associated with its use.

Prospective randomized study of viscous Lidocaine versus Benzocaine in a GI cocktail for dyspepsia

We hypothesized that Benzocaine (Hurricaine) would work as quickly and effectively as viscous Lidocaine in this preparation. This was a prospective randomized, single-blinded comparison between Benzocaine and Lidocaine as the topical anesthetic in a gastrointestinal (GI) cocktail. Patients 18 years or older were approached for participation when a GI cocktail was ordered by the Emergency Physician. Patients were randomized to equivalent doses of either Benzocaine or viscous Lidocaine in addition to 30 cc of Maalox and 10 cc of Donnatal. Assessment using a visual analog pain scale occurred at time intervals of 0, 5, 15, and 30 min. Eighty-two patients were enrolled (44 to Benzocaine, 38 to viscous Lidocaine), with each group having a statistically significant improvement in pain (p < 0.001). There were no statistical differences between the Benzocaine and viscous Lidocaine groups in terms of the relief of symptoms at each of the assessment times. There were no adverse outcomes in either group.

What is the best topical anesthetic for nasogastric insertion? A comparison of lidocaine gel, lidocaine spray, and atomized cocaine

INTRODUCTION

Nasogastric intubation has been shown to be a painful procedure for patients. Previous studies have demonstrated the benefit of topical nasal anesthesia in decreasing the pain of this procedure. This study attempts to identify which of 3 topical anesthetic modalities would be preferred by patients.

METHODS

This study had a double-blind, double-dummy randomized triple crossover design with 30 healthy volunteers as participants. Each participant had 3 nasogastric tubes inserted and acted as his or her own control for the 3 study medications: 1.5 mL 4% atomized lidocaine, 1.5 mL 4% atomized cocaine, and 5 mL 2% lidocaine gel. Participants scored pain of tube passage through the nostril as well as global discomfort. They were also asked to identify which agent they preferred.

RESULTS

In our 30 subjects, although no statistically significant difference in nasal pain scores was found, "global discomfort" was less with the lidocaine gel (P =.017). Participants preferred the lidocaine gel over atomized cocaine (P <.00), but not to a statistically significant degree.

DISCUSSION

Two percent lidocaine gel appeared to provide the best option for a topical anesthetic during nasogastric tube insertion.

Acute pain and pain control: state of the art

Recognition and treatment of pain in the emergency department has undergone an evolution in the past decade. Emergency clinicians, educators, and researchers have begun to address the undertreatment of pain as well as challenge the long-standing dogmas concerning pain treatment. Well-described barriers, both psychological and educational, contribute to our providing inadequate pain relief. This state-of-the-art update describes the current perception of our practice with regard to pain relief and how it can be modified. Pain and pain control is such a broad and complex topic that only new advances and important principles relevant to the practice of emergency medicine are presented. Headache, pediatric pain, and procedural sedation and analgesia are not covered in this article as they will be addressed in future state-of-the-art articles.