Alternative topical anesthesia for bronchoscopy in a case of severe lidocaine allergy.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hensley M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5767558 | biostudies-literature | 2018
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Alternative topical anesthesia for bronchoscopy in a case of severe lidocaine allergy.
Hensley Matthew M Singer Benjamin H BH
Respiratory medicine case reports 20180103
Lidocaine allergy presents a unique difficulty for both patients and providers who undergo/perform bronchoscopy. We present a case of a 73 yo male with severe lidocaine allergy who successfully underwent bronchoscopy with chloroprocaine topical anesthesia and discuss alternative topical anesthetic agents that may be used in this special situation. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC3417978 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Topical airway anesthesia is known to improve tolerance and patient satisfaction during flexible bronchoscopy (FB). Lidocaine is commonly used, delivered as an atomized spray. The current study assesses safety and patient satisfaction for nasal anesthesia of a new atomization device during outpatient bronchoscopy in lung transplant recipients. METHODS:Using a prospective, non-blinded, cross-over design, patients enrolled between 01-10-2014 and 24-11-2014 received 2% lidocaine using the standard reusable nasal atomizer (CRNA). Those enrolled between 25-11-2014 and 30-01-2015, received a disposable intranasal mucosal atomization device (DIMAD). After each procedure, the treating physician, their assistant and the patient independently rated side-effects and satisfaction, basing their responses on visual analogue scales (VAS). At their next scheduled bronchoscopy during the study period, patients then received the alternative atomizer. Written consent was obtained prior to the first bronchoscopy, and the study approved by the institutional ethics committee. RESULTS:Of the 252 patients enrolled between 01-10-2014 and 30-01-2015, 80 (32%) received both atomizers. Physicians reported better efficacy (p = 0.001) and fewer side effects (p< = 0.001) for DIMAD in patients exposed to both procedures. Among patients with one visit, physicians and their assistants reported improved efficacy (p = 0.018, p = 0.002) and fewer side effects (p< = 0.001, p = 0.029) for the disposable atomizer, whereas patients reported no difference in efficacy or side effects (p = 0.72 and p = 0.20). No severe adverse events were noted. The cost of the reusable device was 4.08€ per procedure, compared to 3.70€ for the disposable device. DISCUSSION:Topical nasal anesthesia via a disposable intranasal mucosal atomization device (DIMAD) offers comparable safety and patient comfort, compared to conventional reusable nasal atomizers (CRNA) in lung transplant recipients. Procedural costs were reduced by 0.34€ per procedure. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinicaltrials.gov NCT02237651.
| S-EPMC4792394 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AIM:To evaluate safety, efficacy, and patient adherence of intracameral lidocaine as supplement of classic topical anesthetic drops in cataract surgery. METHODS:A prospective and controlled trial including a large cohort of 1650 individuals suffering with bilateral cataract not complicated, in program by phacoemulsification surgery, were randomly assigned to 2 different groups for the type of anesthesia received, 0.4% oxybuprocaine hydrochloride (INN) drops, and INN drops associated to intracameral 1% lidocaine hydrochloride monohydrate. At the end of surgery, tables were assigned to each patient indicating the degree of pain (0-3) felt during the operation. RESULTS:Thirty-two percent of patients in group 1 declared to have not felt any pain against the 77% of patients in group 2. Fifty-nine percent of patients in group 1 complained about only a slight discomfort against 20% of group 2 patients. Only a small percentage of patients in group 1 (5%) admitted severe pain, while no patient in group 2 admitted severe pain. Four patients of group 2 reported an episode of transient amaurosis, lasting several hours after surgery. CONCLUSION:Intracameral administration of lidocaine is a simple and secure method able to increase the analgesia during the cataract surgery, eliminating the discomfort and increasing also the cooperation of the patients during the steps of manipulation.
| S-EPMC6288531 | biostudies-other
Project description:This study reports the development of nanostructured hydrogels for the sustained release of the eutectic mixture of lidocaine and prilocaine (both at 2.5%) for intraoral topical use. The local anesthetics, free or encapsulated in poly(?-caprolactone) nanocapsules, were incorporated into CARBOPOL hydrogel. The nanoparticle suspensions were characterized in vitro in terms of particle size, polydispersity, and surface charge, using dynamic light scattering measurements. The nanoparticle concentrations were determined by nanoparticle tracking analysis. Evaluation was made of physicochemical stability, structural features, encapsulation efficiency, and in vitro release kinetics. The CARBOPOL hydrogels were submitted to rheological, accelerated stability, and in vitro release tests, as well as determination of mechanical and mucoadhesive properties, in vitro cytotoxicity towards FGH and HaCaT cells, and in vitro permeation across buccal and palatal mucosa. Anesthetic efficacy was evaluated using Wistar rats. Nanocapsules were successfully developed that presented desirable physicochemical properties and a sustained release profile. The hydrogel formulations were stable for up to 6 months under critical conditions and exhibited non-Newtonian pseudoplastic flows, satisfactory mucoadhesive strength, non-cytotoxicity, and slow permeation across oral mucosa. In vivo assays revealed higher anesthetic efficacy in tail-flick tests, compared to a commercially available product. In conclusion, the proposed hydrogel has potential for provision of effective and longer-lasting superficial anesthesia at oral mucosa during medical and dental procedures. These results open perspectives for future clinical trials.
| S-EPMC6299281 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe conducted a randomized clinical trial to determine whether adjunctive lidocaine diminishes the incidence of adverse effects in pediatric patients sedated with ketamine.MethodsThis case-control study involved 586 consecutive pediatric patients necessitating anesthesia. Then systolic blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, and blood oxygen saturation were observed. Alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), urea nitrogen (BUN), and creatinine (Cr) levels were tested. General dose of ketamine, the time of onset and duration of anesthesia and postoperative recovery, anesthesia effect, and adverse reaction were subsequently compared. High-performance liquid chromatography was employed to detect ketamine concentration at different time points after administration, and the postoperative cognition function was further evaluated.ResultsIntra- and post-operation, the rising degree of ALT, AST, BUN, and Cr in patients treated with ketamine was higher than those in patients treated with the ketamine-lidocaine complex. General dose of ketamine, the time of onset and duration of anesthesia, postoperative recovery time, and the incidence rate of adverse reaction in patients treated with ketamine-lidocaine complex were lower, but the concentration of ketamine was higher compared to the patients treated with ketamine. In patients treated with the ketamine-lidocaine complex, elimination half-life of ketamine was prolonged, the area under curve was increased, and the plasma clearance rate was decreased relative to those with ketamine alone.ConclusionsKetamine combined with lidocaine may be beneficial in shortening the onset of anesthesia, promoting postoperative awake, prolonging elimination half-life, increasing area under curve, and decreasing plasma clearance rate and incidence of adverse reactions.
| S-EPMC7171319 | biostudies-literature
Project description:While cancer treatment has improved dramatically, it has also encountered many critical challenges, such as disease recurrence, metastasis, and drug resistance, making new drugs with novel mechanisms an urgent clinical need. The term "drug repositioning," also known as old drugs for new uses, has emerged as one practical strategy to develop new anticancer drugs. Anesthetics have been widely used in surgical procedures to reduce the excruciating pain. Lidocaine, one of the most-used local anesthetics in clinical settings, has been found to show multi-activities, including potential in cancer treatment. Growing evidence shows that lidocaine may not only work as a chemosensitizer that sensitizes other conventional chemotherapeutics to certain resistant cancer cells, but also could suppress cancer cells growth by single use at different doses or concentrations. Lidocaine could suppress cancer cell growth in vitro and in vivo via multiple mechanisms, such as regulating epigenetic changes and promoting pro-apoptosis pathways, as well as regulating ABC transporters, metastasis, and angiogenesis, etc., providing valuable information for its further application in cancer treatment and for new drug discovery. In addition, lidocaine is now under clinical trials to treat certain types of cancer. In the current review, we summarize the research and analyze the underlying mechanisms, and address key issues in this area.
| S-EPMC7379838 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Partnership between anesthesia providers and proceduralists is essential to ensure patient safety and optimize outcomes. A renewed importance of this axiom has emerged in advanced bronchoscopy and interventional pulmonology. While anesthesia-induced atelectasis is common, it is not typically clinically significant. Advanced guided bronchoscopic biopsy is an exception in which anesthesia protocols substantially impact outcomes. Procedure success depends on careful ventilation to avoid excessive motion, reduce distortion causing computed tomography (CT)-to-body-divergence, stabilize dependent areas, and optimize breath-hold maneuvers to prevent atelectasis. Herein are anesthesia recommendations during guided bronchoscopy. An FiO2 of 0.6 to 0.8 is recommended for pre-oxygenation, maintained at the lowest tolerable level for the entire the procedure. Expeditious intubation (not rapid-sequence) with a larger endotracheal tube and non-depolarizing muscle relaxants are preferred. Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of up to 10-12 cm H2O and increased tidal volumes help to maintain optimal lung inflation, if tolerated by the patient as determined during recruitment. A breath-hold is required to reduce motion artifact during intraprocedural imaging (e.g., cone-beam CT, digital tomosynthesis), timed at the end of a normal tidal breath (peak inspiration) and held until pressures equilibrate and the imaging cycle is complete. Use of the adjustable pressure-limiting valve is critical to maintain the desired PEEP and reduce movement during breath-hold maneuvers. These measures will reduce atelectasis and CT-to-body divergence, minimize motion artifact, and provide clearer, more accurate images during guided bronchoscopy. Following these recommendations will facilitate a successful lung biopsy, potentially accelerating the time to treatment by avoiding additional biopsies. Application of these methods should be at the discretion of the anesthesiologist and the proceduralist; best medical judgement should be used in all cases to ensure the safety of the patient.
| S-EPMC8286573 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThis study was designed to characterize drug delivery with lidocaine topical system 1.8% vs lidocaine patch 5% through 2 PK studies.Patients and methodsTwo Phase 1, single-center, open-label, randomized PK studies were performed in healthy adults. In Study 1, 56 subjects received a single intravenous bolus of 0.7 mg/kg of lidocaine as a lead-in to allow for the accurate determination of apparent dose of both products. After a 7-day washout period, subjects were randomized to receive either lidocaine topical system 1.8% or lidocaine patch 5% for 12 hours followed by another 7-day washout period, after which subjects crossed over to receive the other treatment for 12 hours. In Study 2, 54 subjects were randomized to receive either lidocaine topical system 1.8% or lidocaine patch 5% for 12 hours. After a 7-day washout period, subjects crossed over to receive the other treatment. Adhesion and skin irritation assessments were performed after application of the products in Study 2. In both studies, serial blood samples were collected to measure the plasma concentration of lidocaine after product application. Safety assessments and adverse events were monitored in both studies.ResultsThe comparative PK analysis demonstrated that the two products, despite their difference in drug load and strength, are bioequivalent. Both products were well tolerated. In Study 2, dermal response scores (skin tolerability after removal) were similar between lidocaine topical system 1.8% and lidocaine patch 5%, with a mean irritation score per patch <1 (barely perceptible erythema), which is not considered to be clinically significant.ConclusionBioequivalence was demonstrated between lidocaine topical system 1.8% and lidocaine patch 5%. A comparison of the single-time adhesion scores at 12 hours in Study 2 favored lidocaine topical system 1.8% over lidocaine patch 5%. Both products were well tolerated as a single application in healthy adult human subjects.ClinicaltrialsgovNCT04144192, NCT04149938.
| S-EPMC7319520 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose The primary objective was to evaluate adhesion performance of the lidocaine topical system 1.8% for 12 hours in healthy human subjects in three studies: as a single product (Study 1) and versus other lidocaine topical products (lidocaine patch 5% and lidocaine medicated plaster 5% [Study 2] and generic lidocaine patch 5% [Study 3]). Safety of the lidocaine topical system 1.8%, with a skin irritation focus, was a secondary objective. Patients and Methods All three studies were open-label, randomized, Phase 1 adhesion performance studies in healthy adult volunteers (N=125). Lidocaine topical products were applied for 12 hours per test, per study arm. Adhesion of all test products was scored at 0, 3, 6, 9, and 12 hours post-application. Skin irritation was scored after product removal or when a product detached. Results Overall, the majority (?75%) of subjects treated with the lidocaine topical system 1.8% demonstrated ?90% adhesion (FDA adhesion score 0) throughout the 12-hour administration period versus 13.6% of subjects treated with lidocaine patch 5%, 15.9% of subjects treated with lidocaine medicated plaster 5%, and 0% of subjects treated with the generic lidocaine patch 5%. There were no complete detachments with the lidocaine topical system 1.8%, whereas 4.5% of lidocaine patch 5% and lidocaine medicated plaster 5% detached, and 29% of generic lidocaine patch 5% detached. Minimal skin irritation was observed with each lidocaine topical product. Conclusion Across three studies, lidocaine topical system 1.8% demonstrated superior adhesion performance versus the three other products tested. Skin irritation was minimal across products and studies. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04312750, NCT04320173, NCT04319926.
| S-EPMC7914064 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo estimate the efficacy of common treatments for vulvodynia: topical lidocaine monotherapy, oral desipramine monotherapy, and lidocaine-desipramine combined therapy.MethodsA 12-week randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted on 133 vulvodynia-afflicted women assigned to four treatment arms: placebo tablets-placebo cream, desipramine tablets-placebo cream, placebo tablets-lidocaine cream, and desipramine tablets-lidocaine cream. The tampon test was selected as primary end point using a modified intention-to-treat analysis. Twelve secondary end points were also examined. At completion of the 12-week randomized phase, women were examined "open label" through 52 weeks postrandomization.ResultsAll treatment arms reported substantial tampon-test pain reduction: 33% reduction placebo cream-placebo tablet, 20% reduction lidocaine cream-placebo tablet, 24% reduction placebo cream-desipramine tablet, and 36% reduction lidocaine cream-desipramine tablet. Compared with placebo, we found no significant difference in tampon-test pain reduction with desipramine (t=0.90; P=.37) or lidocaine (t=1.27; P=.21). Of the remaining 12 outcome measures, only the Index of Sexual Satisfaction, improved with desipramine compared with placebo (t=-2.81; P=.006). During the open-label phase, women undergoing vestibulectomy surgery reported significantly improved pain as measured by cotton swab test and the McGill Pain Scale compared with nonsurgical alternatives.ConclusionOral desipramine and topical lidocaine, as monotherapy or in combination, failed to reduce vulvodynia pain more than placebo. Placebo or placebo-independent effects are behind the substantial pain improvement seen in all treatment allocations.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00276068.Level of evidenceI.
| S-EPMC6545923 | biostudies-literature