Hyoscine-N-butylbromide induced ventricular tachycardia during ERCP

The Efficacy and Safety of Low Dose versus Usual Dose of Hyoscine During Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of low dose versus usual dose of Hyoscine during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

Patients and Methods

This randomized, open-label clinical trial included 282 patients undergoing ERCP who had duodenal peristalsis interfering with cannulation. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: Group one and two received low (5 mg) and usual (10 mg) dose of Hyoscine, respectively. Cardiovascular service consultation was performed for all patients before entering the study and performing ERCP. Hyoscine was injected intravenously, and the spasmolytic effect of the drug was assessed while the papilla was in a completely enface view. The time interval between cessation of peristalsis and its further onset was recorded by the chronometer. Also, patient’s heart rate and blood pressure were monitored during ERCP by digital monitoring.

Results

The results showed no statistically significant differences in the mean duration of peristalsis, the duration of the antispasmodic activity and the time required to increase the heart rate between two groups (P=0.38, P=0.48, P=0.32, respectively). No significant differences were observed regarding the average of heart rate and mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) before drug administration between the two groups (P=0.182 and P=0.29, respectively), but after the drug administration, tachycardia and hypotension were significantly higher in the second group (P=0.007 and P=0.001, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference in the frequency of arrhythmia between two groups (P=0.08). The results also showed that tachycardia and hypotension occurred more frequently in men and elderly patients (P <0.05).

Conclusion

A low dose of Hyoscine is as effective as the usual dose and its side effects such as alteration in blood pressure and heart rate are much fewer, especially in men and elderly patients.

Peppermint Oil to Improve Visualization in Screening Colonoscopy: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Background

Screening colonoscopy has been associated with reduced mortality from colorectal cancer by means of early detection and timely treatment. However, visualization during colonoscopy is often impaired since the colon is naturally prone to peristalsis and spasm. There is evidence to suggest benefit of topical peppermint oil in causing smooth muscle relaxation, thereby decreasing peristalsis. The aim of our study was to determine if peppermint oil helps reduce colonic spasticity so as to allow for better visualization during screening colonoscopy.

Methods

We performed a randomized controlled, double-blinded, clinical trial where patients undergoing screening colonoscopy were assigned to receive either peppermint oil or placebo. Once cecum was reached, 50 mL of either solution was directly injected via the working channel of the colonoscope. Colonic peristalsis, spasticity and bowel visibility were documented. Bowel preparation quality, withdrawal time and adenoma detection rate (ADR) were also assessed. Continuous variables were analyzed using t-test or Wilcoxon rank-sum test while categorical variables were compared using the two-way Chi-square test.

Results

Forty-eight patients were included, of whom 24 patients received peppermint oil and 24 received placebo. Mean Boston bowel preparation score (BBPS) was excellent for both groups (8 points vs. 7.9 points; P = 0.98). Both mean total colonoscopy time (17.8 min vs. 21.9 min; P = 0.07) and mean cecal intubation time (7.2 min vs. 10.3 min; P = 0.04) were shorter with peppermint oil as compared to placebo. Complete absence of bowel spasticity was observed among 58.3% patients in the peppermint oil group as compared to 45.8% patients in the placebo group (P = 0.05). More than 75% of bowel was visualized in 83% of patients in both groups (P = 0.56). Mean ADR was higher in the peppermint group as compared to the placebo group (45.8% vs. 37.5%; P = 0.56).

Conclusion

Our study suggests that topical peppermint oil reduces bowel wall spasticity, which could lead to better visualization of the bowel during screening colonoscopy. Although use of peppermint oil was associated with better ADRs, these results did not achieve statistical significance. Larger sample size and use of alternative methods of peppermint oil administration allowing for more absorption time may establish stronger results.

Comparison of efficacy and safety of hyoscine butylbromide versus anisodamine for acute gastric or intestinal spasm-like pain: A randomized, double-blinded, multicenter Phase III trial

OBJECTIVE

Acute gastric or intestinal spasm-like pain is common in clinical setting. Hyoscine butylbromide (HBB), an anti-cholinergic agent, relieves pain in stomach and bowel cramps by inhibiting smooth muscle contractility. In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of parenteral HBB and anisodamine for treating acute gastric or intestinal pain.

METHODS

In this randomized, controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter non-inferiority trial, 299 Chinese patients were randomly assigned to HBB or anisodamine in a ratio of 1:1. They were administrated a single dose of either HBB 20 mg or anisodamine 10 mg, and a second dose was given when needed. The primary end-point was the difference in pain intensity (PID) from the pre-dose baseline at 20 min after the first injection.

RESULTS

Altogether 295 patients completed the protocol (153 in the HBB and 142 in the anisodamine group). For the primary end-point, the PID was -4.09 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -4.41, -3.76) for the HBB group and -3.66 (95% CI: -4.02, -3.31) for the anisodamine group (P < 0.0001 for non-inferiority). The percentage of patients with at least one adverse event was lower in the HBB group than in the anisodamine group (13.1% vs 17.6%), but there was no statistical significance (P = 0.279). The most frequent adverse events were thirst (7.8%) and dry mouth (2.6%) in the HBB group, and thirst (7.0%), dry mouth (3.5%) and nodal arrhythmia (2.1%) in the anisodamine group.

CONCLUSIONS

HBB 20 mg was not inferior to anisodamine 10 mg in pain relief of patients with acute gastric or intestinal spasm-like pain. Both drugs were safe and well tolerated.