Topical viscous lidocaine solution versus lidocaine spray for pharyngeal anesthesia in unsedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy

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.

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.

Lidocaine spray versus viscous lidocaine solution for pharyngeal local anesthesia in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

There are two major methods for local anesthesia by lidocaine before upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: simple spray and viscous solution. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety by meta-analysis between these two methods.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases through October 2019 to perform meta-analyses using random-effects models. The primary outcomes were participants' pain/discomfort, satisfaction, and anaphylactic shock. Three reviewers independently searched for articles, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We evaluated the certainty of evidence based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020155611).

RESULTS

We included seven randomized controlled trials (2667 participants). The participants' pain/discomfort may be similar between the lidocaine spray and viscous solution [standardized mean difference 0.03, 95% confidence intervals (CI) -0.37 to 0.42; I²  = 93%; low certainty of evidence]. The lidocaine spray probably increased participants' satisfaction compared with the viscous solution (relative risk 1.22; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.47; I²  = 47%; moderate certainty of evidence). No anaphylactic shock occurred in four studies (low certainty of evidence). Four studies had high risks of selection bias.

CONCLUSION

The use of lidocaine spray for local anesthesia provided better satisfaction scores than the viscous solution, and both methods have the same effect with regards to the control of discomfort and pain. Further studies in large multicenter randomized controlled trials with a pre-registration protocol are needed.

Translating mouthwash use for gonorrhoea prevention into a public health campaign: identifying current knowledge and research gaps

The gonorrhoea rate among gay and bisexual men who have sex with men (MSM) has been increasing rapidly in many Western countries. Furthermore, gonorrhoea is becoming increasingly resistant to antibiotics and only limited options remain for treatment. Recent evidence suggests that the oropharynx may play an important role in gonorrhoea transmission. It is hypothesised that reducing the prevalence of oropharyngeal gonorrhoea will also reduce the population incidence of gonorrhoea. Mouthwash has been proposed as a novel non-antibiotic intervention to prevent oropharyngeal gonorrhoea; hence, reducing the probability of antibiotic resistance developing. However, its efficacy is yet to be confirmed by a randomised controlled trial - the findings of which will be available in 2019. If the trial shows mouthwash is effective in preventing gonorrhoea, this finding could potentially be translated into a public health campaign to increase the mouthwash use in the MSM population. This article summarises the current evidence of the effectiveness of mouthwash against gonorrhoea and discusses the potential literature gaps before implementing the mouthwash intervention at a population level.

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.

Topical Anesthesia for Endoscopic Office-based Procedures of the Upper Aerodigestive Tract

OBJECTIVE

Over the last two decades, an increase in office-based procedures under topical anesthesia in laryngology and head and neck oncology has occurred. Adequate anesthesia in the nasal cavity, pharynx, and larynx is essential for successful performance of these procedures. Our goal is to provide an objective summary on the available local anesthetics, methods of application, local secondary effects, efficacy, and complications.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A descriptive review of literature on topical anesthesia for office-based procedures in laryngology and head and neck oncology was performed.

RESULTS

Lidocaine is the most applied and investigated topical anesthetic. Topical anesthesia results in decreased sensory function without impairing motor function of the pharynx and larynx. For the nasal cavity, cotton pledgets soaked in anesthetic spray and decongestant, or anesthetic gel, are effective. For the pharynx, anesthetic spray is the most frequently used and effective method. For the larynx, applying local anesthesia through a catheter through the working channel of the endoscope or anesthetic injection through the cricothyroid membrane is effective. Studies comparing the most effective application methods for each anatomical site are lacking. Complications of topical lidocaine administration are rare.

CONCLUSIONS

By properly applying topical anesthesia to the upper aerodigestive tract, several surgical procedures in laryngology and head and neck oncology can be performed in the outpatient clinic under topical anesthesia instead of the operating room under general anesthesia. Lidocaine is the most investigated anesthetic, with adequate efficacy and few complications. Studies that determine the most effective application methods are still wanting.

Nontraumatic subperiosteal orbital hemorrhage following upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

Subperiosteal hemorrhages are typically the result of blunt orbital or facial trauma. Nontraumatic subperiosteal hemorrhages are uncommon and are usually attributed to increase in central venous pressure and bleeding disorders. Here, we report the case of a 38-year-old female who underwent an upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy and developed bilateral nontraumatic subperiosteal hemorrhages that resolved with conservative treatment. Here, we discuss the source of bleeding and the mechanisms for the occurrence of orbital subperiosteal bleeds. GI surgeons and ophthalmologists should be sensitive to the possibility that orbital hemorrhage that can occur following endoscopy, especially when retching or gagging occurs during the procedure.

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.

Dexmedetomidine in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures

Gastrointestinal endoscopy is the gold standard in the examination and the treatment of the diseases of gastrointestinal system, but the disadvantage of being painful process. At this point the sedative and analgesic agents may be important. Dexmedetomidine is a new sedoanalgesic agent which is alternative to benzodiazepines and opioids. It has analgesia, amnesia, sedative and anxiolytic properties. The use of dexmedetomidine as the sole anesthetic agent and as the adjuvant analgesic agent has been published but has not been approved because of the inconsistency of efficacy and safety. The author has been collected the published papers in the literature. This article is aimed to describe the use of dexmedetomidine in various gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures.

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.

Meperidine as the single sedative agent during esophagogastroduodenoscopy, a double-blind, randomized, controlled study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

In Taiwan, unsedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is widely used, but it is uncomfortable for some patients. While meperidine has been adopted in colonoscopy, its use in EGD has not received extensive attention. This was a prospective study to investigate the use of meperidine as a single sedative agent during EGD.

METHODS

One hundred and forty patients were randomized to receive either 25-mg meperidine (n = 70) or placebo (n = 70) by intramuscular injection before EGD. The primary outcome was patient discomfort scores. The secondary outcomes included patient, endoscopist, and EGD-related variables.

RESULTS

Patients in the meperidine group reported less discomfort during esophageal intubation (median score of 2.0 and interquartile range [IQR] of 0-4.0 vs median score of 4.8 and IQR of 1.7-7.0, respectively; P < 0.001) and during the procedure (median score of 1.0 [IQR 0-3.1] vs 3.5 [IQR 0-5.6], P = 0.001) than patients in the placebo group. The endoscopist found patients in the meperidine group had better tolerance during esophageal intubation (median score of 1.0 [IQR 0-2.0] vs 2.0 [IQR 1.0-3.0], P = 0.021) and during the procedure (median score of 0 [IQR 0-1.0] vs 1.0 [IQR 0-3.0], P < 0.001). After the procedure more patients in the meperidine group (71.4% vs 35.7%, P < 0.001) experienced self-limited dizziness that prolonged recovery by ∼3.7 min.

CONCLUSIONS

After receiving meperidine injection, patients had better tolerance and less discomfort during diagnostic EGD (NCT01547520).

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.

[Use of topical pharyngeal anaesthesia in esophagogastroduodenoscopy in unsedated patients]

AIM

Evaluation of effect on tolerance of topical pharyngeal anaesthesia with a lidocaine spray in esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), and possible secondary factors that could influence it.

METHODS

A prospective, experimental, randomized, open-label study was performed in our Endoscopy Unit during January 2010. Outpatients (109) were recruited prospectively and randomized between two groups: L group (52), who received lidocaine (50 mg Xilonibsa 10% before examination), and C group (57) who did not. Sedated patients were not included in this study. Age, sex, Mallampati index (lower I and II; higher III and IV), endoscopist, complications and score (0-100; visual analogue scale) was recorded after each EGD.

RESULTS

There were no statistical differences between the two groups as regards patient tolerance. However in stratified analysis the application of lidocaine modified the results in two out of the six endoscopists and improved the scores in patients with a higher Mallampati Index (L group 61.8 ± 24 and C group 47.7 ± 32). Significant differences were also observed in the scores on patient tolerance between the endoscopist (operator dependent factor), regardless of the use of topical pharyngeal anaesthesia or not.

CONCLUSIONS

The systematic use of lidocaine in EGD is safe but does not improve the tolerance in all outpatients. Only the Mallampati index has been identified as a prognosis factor of good response to lidocaine administration. Additionally the nursing-endoscopist could be a very important factor in the scores obtained independently of lidocaine.