Davis D E, Jones M P, Kubik C M
Division of Gastroenterology, Wright-Patterson Medical Center, Dayton, Ohio, USA.
Am J Gastroenterol. 1999 Jul;94(7):1853-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.1999.01217.x.
We undertook this study to determine whether topical pharyngeal anesthesia with conscious sedation is superior to conscious sedation alone, with respect to procedure performance or tolerance in patients undergoing diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.
Ninety-five patients undergoing diagnostic upper endoscopy with conscious sedation were randomized to receive either topical pharyngeal anesthesia with 2% tetracaine/14% benzocaine spray or no pharyngeal anesthesia. Conscious sedation was achieved in all patients using intravenous midazolam and meperidine. Patients were asked to rate their pretest anxiety, comfort during endoscopy, recollection of the procedure, and willingness to undergo subsequent examinations using a 100-mm visual analog scale. Additionally, they were asked to estimate procedure duration and rate their tolerance for topical pharyngeal anesthesia. All examinations were performed by two endoscopists who were blinded to whether or not patients had received pharyngeal anesthesia. Endoscopists were asked to determine whether they believed that patients had received topical pharyngeal anesthesia and to estimate ease of esophageal intubation and procedure performance using a 100-mm visual analog scale. Procedure duration and doses of midazolam and meperidine were measured.
The two groups did not differ with respect to age, gender, and previous endoscopic history. There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to pretest anxiety, procedural comfort, and willingness to undergo subsequent examinations. Patients receiving topical pharyngeal anesthesia rated it as moderately unpleasant. Endoscopists were able to discriminate patients who received pharyngeal anesthesia from those who did not with a sensitivity of 0.73 and a specificity of 0.59. There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to ease of intubation, procedure performance, procedure duration, and dosing of midazolam or meperidine.
In patients undergoing diagnostic upper endoscopy using intravenous midazolam and meperidine, the use of topical pharyngeal anesthesia does not improve patient tolerance or procedure performance. Elimination of this agent in the performance of diagnostic upper endoscopy will save time and money without adversely affecting patient care or outcomes.
我们开展这项研究,以确定在接受诊断性上消化道内镜检查的患者中,局部咽部麻醉联合清醒镇静在操作过程或耐受性方面是否优于单纯清醒镇静。
95例接受清醒镇静下诊断性上消化道内镜检查的患者被随机分为两组,一组接受2%丁卡因/14%苯佐卡因喷雾进行局部咽部麻醉,另一组不进行咽部麻醉。所有患者均通过静脉注射咪达唑仑和哌替啶实现清醒镇静。要求患者使用100毫米视觉模拟量表对检查前焦虑、内镜检查期间的舒适度、对操作过程的回忆以及接受后续检查的意愿进行评分。此外,要求他们估计操作持续时间并对局部咽部麻醉的耐受性进行评分。所有检查均由两名内镜医师进行,他们对患者是否接受咽部麻醉不知情。内镜医师被要求确定他们是否认为患者接受了局部咽部麻醉,并使用100毫米视觉模拟量表评估食管插管的难易程度和操作过程。测量操作持续时间以及咪达唑仑和哌替啶的剂量。
两组在年龄、性别和既往内镜检查史方面无差异。两组在检查前焦虑、操作舒适度和接受后续检查的意愿方面无显著差异。接受局部咽部麻醉的患者将其评为中度不适。内镜医师能够区分接受咽部麻醉的患者和未接受咽部麻醉的患者,敏感度为0.73,特异度为0.59。两组在插管难易程度、操作过程、操作持续时间以及咪达唑仑或哌替啶的给药剂量方面无显著差异。
在使用静脉注射咪达唑仑和哌替啶进行诊断性上消化道内镜检查的患者中,使用局部咽部麻醉并不能提高患者的耐受性或操作过程。在诊断性上消化道内镜检查中省去这种药物将节省时间和金钱,且不会对患者护理或结果产生不利影响。