Dataset Information

Relation of viscous lidocaine combined with propofol deep sedation during elective upper gastrointestinal endoscopy to discharge.

ABSTRACT: Fusing topical pharyngeal anesthetics (TPAs) to intravenous sedation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) has been controversial. This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial assessed the association of TPA with patient recovery time, post-EGD to discharge. Supplementary aims were to determine the association of TPA with patient and practitioner satisfaction (both measured on a 100-mm visual analog scale), total propofol dose, and side effects. The study included 93 patients (mean age 53.8 years, range 44-67; 37 men and 56 women) undergoing elective EGD at a single academic medical center from September 2015 to October 2016. Urgent or therapeutic EGDs were excluded. Interventions were 7.5 mL 2% lidocaine viscous solution and 7.5 mL placebo solution (3% methylcellulose). There were no statistically significant differences between the lidocaine (n?=?46) and placebo (n?=?47) groups with respect to recovery time (42?±?17.8 vs 39?±?15.9 minutes; P?=?0.23), procedure time (6.5?±?2.7 vs 7?±?3.6 minutes; P?=?0.77), endoscopist satisfaction (83.2?±?24.4 vs 77?±?27.7, P?=?0.23), patient discomfort (16.6?±?19.8 vs 24.0?±?29.7, P?=?0.37), or total propofol administered (2.3?±?1.3 vs 2.3?±?1.0 mg/kg, P?=?0.55). Compared to placebo, topical viscous lidocaine does not appear to delay recovery time or adversely affect sedation-related outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Ullman DA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6793967 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Relation of viscous lidocaine combined with propofol deep sedation during elective upper gastrointestinal endoscopy to discharge.

Ullman David A DA Saleem Sheikh A SA Shahnawaz Afeefa A Kotakanda Shashank S Scribani Melissa B MB Victory Jennifer M JM

Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) 20190730 4

Fusing topical pharyngeal anesthetics (TPAs) to intravenous sedation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) has been controversial. This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial assessed the association of TPA with patient recovery time, post-EGD to discharge. Supplementary aims were to determine the association of TPA with patient and practitioner satisfaction (both measured on a 100-mm visual analog scale), total propofol dose, and side effects. The study included 93 patients (mean ...[more]

PMID: 31656406

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe utilization of Propofol, a widely used intravenous sedative or anesthetic, is characterized by its quick onset, predictable control, and fleeting half-life during both general anesthesia and intensive care unit sedation. Recent evidence, however, has highlighted propofol's propensity to induce euphoria, particularly in patients undergoing painless procedures such as gastrointestinal or gastric endoscopy. Given its widespread use in patients undergoing such procedures, this study aims to investigate the clinical evidence and factors that may influence propofol-induced euphoria in these settings.MethodsThe Addiction Research Center Inventory-Chinese Version (ARCI-CV) scale was administered to 360 patients undergoing gastric or gastrointestinal endoscopy using propofol as a sedative. Patient characteristics including past medical history, depression, anxiety, alcohol abuse, and sleep disturbance were recorded through history taking and assessment using various questionnaires prior to the examination. The euphoric and sedative statuses were assessed at 30 min and 1 week post-examination.ResultsThe experimental results of a survey of 360 patients who underwent gastric or gastrointestinal endoscopy using propofol showed that the mean Morphine-Benzedrine Group (MBG) score before the procedure and after 30 min of the procedure was 4.23 and 8.67, respectively. The mean Pentobarbital-Chlorpromazine-Alcohol Group (PCAG) score before the procedure and after 30 min of the procedure was 3.24 and 6.22, respectively. These results showed that both MBG and PCAG scores increased significantly after the procedure. Certain factors, such as dreaming, propofol dose, duration of anesthesia, and etomidate dose, were all correlated with MBG both at 30 min and 1 week after the examination. In addition, etomidate had an effect of decreasing MBG scores and increasing PCAG scores both at 30 min and 1 week after the examination.ConclusionTaken together, propofol may elicit euphoria and potentially contribute to propofol addiction. There are several risk factors for the development of propofol addiction, including dreaming, propofol dose, duration of anesthesia, and etomidate dose. These findings suggest that propofol may have a euphoric effect and may have the potential for drug addiction and abuse.

Project description:AimTo determine whether topical lidocaine benefits esophagogastroduoduenoscopy (EGD) by decreasing propofol dose necessary for sedation or procedure-related complications.MethodsThe study was designed as a prospective, single centre, double blind, randomised clinical trial and was conducted in 2012 between January and May (NCT01489891). Consecutive patients undergoing EGD were randomly assigned to receive supplemental topical lidocaine (L; 50 mg in an excipient solution which was applied as a spray to the oropharynx) or placebo (P; taste excipients solution without active substance, similarly delivered) prior to the standard propofol sedation procedure. The propofol was administered as a bolus intravenous (iv) dose, with patients in the L and P groups receiving initial doses based on the patient's American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) classification (ASA I-II: 0.50-0.60 mg/kg; ASA III-IV: 0.25-0.35 mg/kg), followed by 10-20 mg iv dose every 30-60 s at the anaesthetist's discretion. Vital signs, anthropometric measurements, amount of propofol administered, sedation level reached, examination time, and the subjective assessments of the endoscopist's and anaesthetist's satisfaction (based upon a four point Likert scale) were recorded. All statistical tests were performed by the Stata statistical software suite (Release 11, 2009; StataCorp, LP, College Station, TX, United States).ResultsNo significant differences were found between the groups treated with lidocaine or placebo in terms of total propofol dose (310.7 ± 139.2 mg/kg per minute vs 280.1 ± 87.7 mg/kg per minute, P = 0.15) or intraprocedural propofol dose (135.3 ± 151.7 mg/kg per minute vs 122.7 ± 96.5 mg/kg per minute, P = 0.58). Only when the L and P groups were analysed with the particular subgroups of female, < 65-year-old, and lower anaesthetic risk level (ASA I-II) was a statistically significant difference found (L: 336.5 ± 141.2 mg/kg per minute vs P: 284.6 ± 91.2 mg/kg per minute, P = 0.03) for greater total propofol requirements). The total incidence of complications was also similar between the two groups, with the L group showing a complication rate of 32.2% (95%CI: 21.6-45.0) and the P group showing a complication rate of 26.7% (95%CI: 17.0-39.0). In addition, the use of lidocaine had no effect on the anaesthetist's or endoscopist's satisfaction with the procedure. Thus, the endoscopist's satisfaction Likert assessments were equally distributed among the L and P groups: unsatisfactory, [L: 6.8% (95%CI: 2.2-15.5) vs P: 0% (95%CI: 0-4.8); neutral, L: 10.1% (95%CI: 4.2-19.9) vs P: 15% (95%CI: 7.6-25.7)]; satisfactory, [L: 25.4% (95%CI: 10-29.6) vs P: 18.3% (95%CI: 15.5-37.6); and very satisfactory, L: 57.6% (95%CI: 54-77.7) vs P: 66.6% (95%CI: 44.8-69.7)]. Likewise, the anaesthetist's satisfaction Likert assessments regarding the ease of maintaining a patient at an optimum sedation level without agitation or modification of the projected sedation protocol were not affected by the application of lidocaine, as evidenced by the lack of significant differences between the scores for the placebo group: unsatisfactory, L: 5.8% (95%CI: 1.3-13.2) vs P: 0% (95%CI: 0-4.8); neutral, L: 16.9% (95%CI: 8.9-28.4) vs P: 16.7% (95%CI: 8.8-27.7); satisfactory, L: 15.2% (95%CI: 7.7-26.1) vs P: 20.3% (95%CI: 11.3-31.6); and very satisfactory, L: 62.7% (95%CI: 49.9-74.3) vs P: 63.3% (95%CI: 50.6-74.7).ConclusionTopical pharyngeal anaesthesia is safe in EGD but does not reduce the necessary dose of propofol or improve the anaesthetist's or endoscopist's satisfaction with the procedure.

Dataset Information

Relation of viscous lidocaine combined with propofol deep sedation during elective upper gastrointestinal endoscopy to discharge.

Publications

Relation of viscous lidocaine combined with propofol deep sedation during elective upper gastrointestinal endoscopy to discharge.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets