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

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.

Topical lignocaine anaesthesia for oropharyngeal sampling for COVID-19

OBJECTIVES

To ascertain if topical lignocaine application in oropharynx prior to swab sampling to test for COVID-19 improves a patient's comfort and to assess its effect on the swab sample taken to conduct the RT-PCR.

METHODS

Adult patients testing positive on the RT-PCR COVID-19 test were sampled again within 48 h after administering topical oropharyngeal anaesthesia. Patients were asked to rate their discomfort on a visual analog scale (VAS) for both sample A and B. A qualitative real-time RT-PCR for detection of SARS-CoV-2 RNA, was performed, and the cycle threshold value (Ct), used as a surrogate marker for the viral load, was measured for the sample taken without lignocaine (sample A) and the sample taken post-lignocaine application (sample B). The difference in Ct values of both the groups was checked for any statistical significance using paired t-test. Wilcoxon signed rank test was used on VAS scores to determine any significant decrease in discomfort.

RESULTS

Forty patients were included in the study. Twenty-nine patients (72.5%) reported the procedure to be more comfortable post-lignocaine application. Median (IQR) discomfort on VAS decreased from 7 (1) to 5 (2) after lignocaine use, which was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Mean Ct value for sample A was 17.21 ± 5.25 and for sample B was 18.44 ± 4.8 (p > 0.05), indicating a non-significant effect of lignocaine on SARS-CoV-2 concentration in the sample.

CONCLUSION

Topical lignocaine, while improving the comfort of the procedure of oropharyngeal sampling for patient did not alter the SARS-CoV-2 viral load that was detected in nasal and oropharyngeal samples taken together.

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 pharyngeal anesthesia provides no additional benefit to propofol sedation for esophagogastroduodenoscopy: a randomized controlled double-blinded clinical trial

Propofol sedation has been applied during esophagogastroduodenoscopy procedures, but whether topical pharyngeal anesthesia should be administered at the same time has rarely been reported. Our study examined the role of topical pharyngeal anesthesia in sedated endoscopies in a randomized controlled double-blinded clinical trial. A total of 626 patients who underwent sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy were randomized into the experimental group (n = 313) or the control group (n = 313). The discomfort score, immediately and one day after the procedure, was not statistically significant [7.2 (5-9) vs. 7.5 (6-9), P = 0.210; 2.3 (0-3) vs. 2.6 (0-4), P = 0.095, respectively]. Two patients in the experimental group and three patients in the control group needed oral medication for pharyngeal discomfort (P = 0.354). The satisfaction score was 9.2 (8-10) in the experimental group and 8.9 (7-10) in the control group (P = 0.778). Lidocaine topical pharyngeal anesthesia in propofol-sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy did not further reduce the pharyngeal discomfort or improve the satisfaction. This clinical trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03070379).

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.

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.