Usefulness of applying lidocaine in esophagogastroduodenoscopy performed under sedation with propofol

• Published in: World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy 2013-05, Vol.5 (5), p.231-239
• Main Authors: de la Morena, Felipe, Santander, Cecilio, Esteban, Carlos, de Cuenca, Beatriz, García, Juan Antonio, Sánchez, Javier, Moreno, Ricardo
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adverse; Brief; effects; Esophagogastroduodenoscopy; Lidocaine; Propofol; Sedation
• ISSN: 1948-5190; 1948-5190
• DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v5.i5.231

AIM:To determine whether topical lidocaine benefits esophagogastroduoduenoscopy(EGD) by decreasing propofol dose necessary for sedation or procedurerelated complications.METHODS:The 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(ASAⅠ-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).RESULTS:No 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: