Sedation-associated hiccups in adults undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy and colonoscopy.

AIM: To investigate whether the incidence of hiccups in patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) or same-day bidirectional endoscopy (EGD and colonoscopy; BDE) with sedation is different from those without sedation in terms of quantity, duration and typical onset time. METHODS: Consecutive patients scheduled for elective EGD or same-day BDE at the gastrointestinal endoscopy unit or the health examination center were allocated to two groups: EGD without sedation (Group A) and BDE with sedation (Group B). The use of sedation was based on the patients' request. Anesthesiologists participated in this study by administrating sedative drugs as usual. A single experienced gastroenterologist performed both the EGD and the colonoscopic examinations for all the patients. The incidence, duration and onset time of hiccups were measured in both groups. In addition, the association between clinical variables and hiccups were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 435 patients were enrolled in the study. The incidences of hiccups in the patients with and without sedation were significantly different (20.5% and 5.1%, respectively). The use of sedation for patients undergoing endoscopy was still significantly associated with an increased risk of hiccups (adjusted odds ratio: 8.79, P < 0.001) after adjustment. The incidence of hiccups in males under sedation was high (67.4%). The sedated patients who received 2 mg midazolam developed hiccups more frequently compared to those receiving 1 mg midazolam (P = 0.0028). The patients with the diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) were prone to develop hiccups (P = 0.018). CONCLUSION: Male patients undergoing EGD or BDE with sedation are significantly more likely to suffer from hiccups compared to those without sedation. Midazolam was significantly associated with an increased risk of hiccups. Furthermore, patients with GERD are prone to develop hiccups.

Topical lidocaine improves conditions for laryngeal mask airway insertion.

PURPOSE: We hypothesized that optimal laryngeal mask airway (LMA) insertion conditions might be achieved with topical lidocaine and a smaller dose of propofol. In this study, insertion conditions after topical lidocaine 40 mg followed by propofol 2 mg.kg(-1) were compared with propofol 2 mg.kg(-1) or propofol 3 mg.kg(-1) alone. METHODS: Ninety patients were recruited for this randomized prospective double-blind study. One group received four sprays of topical lidocaine (40 mg) over the posterior pharyngeal wall followed by propofol 2 mg.kg(-1) (Group 2PL; n = 30). The other two groups received four sprays of 0.9% normal saline followed by propofol 2 mg.kg(-1) (Group 2P; n = 30) or by propofol 3 mg.kg(-1) (Group 3P; n = 30). The frequency of optimal insertion conditions (successful insertion at the first attempt without adverse responses) and side effects were recorded. RESULTS: The frequency of optimal insertion conditions was greater in Group 2PL (20/30, 67%) and Group 3P (22/30, 73%) than in Group 2P (11/20, 37%) (P = 0.009). In Group 3P, the mean blood pressure was lower than in the other groups prior to LMA-Classic insertion (P = 0.003) but was similar after insertion. The incidence of apnea was greater in Group 3P patients (17/30, 57%) than in Group 2P (2/30, 7%) or Group 2PL patients (1/30, 3%) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Topical lidocaine 40 mg followed by propofol 2 mg.kg(-1) can provide optimal insertion conditions of the LMA-Classic comparable to those of propofol 3 mg.kg(-1), with fewer hemodynamic changes and a lower incidence of apnea.