ArticleEndoscopic ultrasound
Double-blind randomized noninferiority study of the effect of pharyngeal lidocaine anesthesia on EUS.
Article in Endoscopic ultrasound. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objectives: EUS is typically performed under sedation, often with concomitant analgesics to reduce pain. Traditionally used pharyngeal anesthesia, commonly with lidocaine, may cause pharyngeal discomfort and allergic reactions. This study investigated whether lidocaine-based pharyngeal anesthesia is necessary for EUS under sedation with analgesics. Methods: A double-blind, randomized, noninferiority study was conducted on EUS cases that met the selection criteria. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 5 sprays of 8% lidocaine (lidocaine group: LG) or saline spray (placebo group: PG) as endoscopy pretreatment. The primary outcome was EUS tolerability, analyzed separately for endoscopists and patients, with a noninferiority margin set at 15%. Secondary outcomes included endoscopist and patient satisfaction, midazolam/pethidine doses, number of gag events, number of esophageal insertion attempts, use of sedative/analgesic antagonists, interruptions due to body movements, throat symptoms after endoscopy, and sedation-related adverse events. Results: Favorable tolerance was 85% in LG and 88% for PG among endoscopists (percent difference: 3.0 [95% confidence interval, -6.6 to 12.6]) and 90% in LG and 91% in PG among patients (percent difference, 0.94 [95% confidence interval, -7.5 to 9.4]). Both groups exceeded the noninferiority margin ( Conclusions: PG was noninferior to LG for pharyngeal anesthesia during EUS with sedation and analgesics. These results suggest that pharyngeal anesthesia with lidocaine can be omitted when performing EUS under sedation with concomitant analgesics. Omitting pharyngeal anesthesia with lidocaine may prevent discomfort and complications caused by pharyngeal anesthesia, shorten examination times, and reduce medical costs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.