Anesthesia: Essays and Researches  Login  | Users Online: 412 Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Home | About us | Editorial board | Ahead of print | Search | Current Issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions | Copyright form | Subscribe | Advertise | Contacts


 
Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 14  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 331-334  

Comparison of hemodynamic changes to nasal application of lignocaine jelly versus lubricant gel and responses to Ryle's tube insertion following their use in patients under general anesthesia


Department of Anaesthesiology, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala, India

Date of Submission31-Jul-2020
Date of Decision07-Aug-2020
Date of Acceptance08-Aug-2020
Date of Web Publication12-Oct-2020

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Pulak Tosh
Department of Anaesthesiology, Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences, Kochi, Kerala
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/aer.AER_74_20

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 

Background: Awake patients complain of burning sensation following nasal application of lignocaine jelly. Aim of the Study: The aim of the study was to assess hemodynamic changes, ease of insertion, number of attempts taken, and time required for insertion of Ryle's tube following nasal application of 2% lignocaine jelly versus lubricant gel in patients undergoing surgeries under general anesthesia. Settings and Design: This was a prospective, randomized, open-label study conducted in a tertiary care institute. Subjects and Methods: Eighty patients undergoing surgeries under general anesthesia who required insertion of a Ryle's tube were included. In Group A, 2% lignocaine jelly was used, whereas in Group B, lubricant gel was used prior to Ryle's tube insertion, after induction of anesthesia. Hypertension and/or tachycardia were managed by increasing sevoflurane by 0.5%–1%, followed by propofol bolus of 0.5 mg.kg−1. Statistical Tests Used: Chi-square test and Independent samples t test. Results: Both heart rate and mean arterial pressure were significantly higher at 1 min after nasal application of lignocaine jelly and 1 and 5 min after Ryle's tube insertion in Group A compared to Group B. Ease of insertion of Ryle's tube, number of attempts, and time taken for insertion were comparable in both groups. Significantly higher number of patients in Group A required sevoflurane to be increased and needed propofol boluses. Conclusion: Use of lubricant gel for aiding insertion of Ryle's tube in patients under general anesthesia was associated with attenuated heart rate and blood pressure responses without affecting the ease, number of attempts, or time taken for successful insertion of the Ryle's tube.

Keywords: General anesthesia, hemodynamic changes, Ryle's tube


How to cite this article:
Kesavan R, Purushothaman SS, Tosh P, Balakrishnan S, Varghese R, Rajan S. Comparison of hemodynamic changes to nasal application of lignocaine jelly versus lubricant gel and responses to Ryle's tube insertion following their use in patients under general anesthesia. Anesth Essays Res 2020;14:331-4

How to cite this URL:
Kesavan R, Purushothaman SS, Tosh P, Balakrishnan S, Varghese R, Rajan S. Comparison of hemodynamic changes to nasal application of lignocaine jelly versus lubricant gel and responses to Ryle's tube insertion following their use in patients under general anesthesia. Anesth Essays Res [serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 Oct 29];14:331-4. Available from: https://www.aeronline.org/text.asp?2020/14/2/331/297837


   Introduction Top


Ryle's tube insertion is a common procedure done during surgeries to decompress stomach and also for feeding the patients in the postoperative period. Lignocaine jelly is commonly used prior to urinary catheterization, urological procedures, and nasogastric tube insertion, etc., for smooth passage of the tubes and also to provide topical anesthesia.[1],[2],[3] Often, it has been observed that awake patients complain of burning sensation, and tachycardia and hypertension are observed in anesthetized patients following nasal application of lignocaine jelly.

The rationale of conducting the present study was that if use of 2% lignocaine jelly was found to cause exaggerated hemodynamic responses compared to use of plain lubricant gel, a change in current practice could be recommended for Ryle's tube insertion under general anesthesia. The primary objective of the present study was to assess the mean arterial pressure (MAP) changes that occur 1 min following nasal application of 2% lignocaine jelly versus lubricant gel for insertion of Ryle's tube in patients undergoing surgeries under general anesthesia. The secondary objectives included assessment of heart rate response to nasal application of 2% lignocaine jelly versus lubricant gel and the hemodynamic responses to Ryle's tube insertion following use of both drugs. Need for intervention in the form of increasing sevoflurane concentration and propofol bolus administration for control of tachycardia or hypertension in both groups as well as the ease of insertion of Ryle's tube, number of attempts taken, and the time required for insertion were also compared.


   Subjects and Methods Top


It was a prospective, randomized, open-label study conducted after obtaining the Institutional Ethical Committee clearance (IEC-AIMS-2019-ANES-271) and was registered in Clinical Trial Registry India (CTRI/2020/01/022945). Patients undergoing surgeries under general anesthesia who required insertion of a Ryle's tube and aged 20–70 years, belonging to American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA PS) classes 1–3 were included in the study. Those patients with a history of allergy to local anesthetics, patients with abnormal coagulation, deviated nasal septum, or nasal polyps, and those requiring nasal intubation were excluded from the study.

There were two groups and the patients were randomly allocated to either of the two groups, Group A or B, based on computer-generated random sequence of numbers. In Group A, 2% lignocaine jelly was used, whereas in Group B, a lubricant gel (GenTeal Gel ®, NOVARTIS) was administered nasally prior to Ryle's tube insertion. Concealment of allocation was done using sequentially numbered opaque-sealed envelopes. Before induction of anesthesia, the nostril which was more patent was identified, by asking the patient to breathe in and out while closing the other, and was decongested with oxymetazoline drops.

All patients received anesthesia as per a standardized protocol. In the operation theater, a large bore intravenous cannula was placed under local anesthesia. Preinduction monitors such as electrocardiogram, noninvasive blood pressure monitor, and pulse oximeter were attached. Following preoxygenation for 3 min, all patients received intravenous glycopyrrolate 0.2 mg, fentanyl 2 μg.kg −1 body weight, and midazolam 2 mg. Induction was performed with propofol 1.5–2.5 mg.kg −1 body weight till there was loss of response to verbal commands. After ensuring ability to mask ventilate, patients were paralyzed with vecuronium 0.1 mg.kg−1 body weight and ventilated with 2% sevoflurane in oxygen for 3 min and intubated with 2% sevoflurane in oxygen for 3 min and were intubated with 8.0 or 7.0 mm internal diameter cuffed endotracheal tube as appropriate. The patients were then mechanically ventilated with 2% sevoflurane in 1:1 air oxygen mixture with tidal volume of 6–8 mL.kg −1 body weight with a respiratory rate of 12–15.min −1 to maintain end-tidal carbon dioxide levels (EtCO2) between 35 and 45 mm Hg.

Ten minutes later, a dollop of either 2% lignocaine jelly (Group A) or lubricant gel (Group B) was applied to the more patent nostril. The Ryle's tube was inserted and the ease, attempts, and time taken for insertion were noted. Heart rate and MAP were documented before and after premedication, following induction, 1, 5, and 10 min after intubation, 1 min after nasal application of the test drug, and 1 and 5 min after Ryle's tube insertion.

More than 20% increase in heart rate or MAP from baseline was considered as tachycardia or hypertension, respectively. Any observed hypertension and/or tachycardia was managed by increasing sevoflurane by 0.5%–1%, followed by propofol bolus of 0.5 mg.kg − 1. If tachycardia or hypertension persisted despite these measures, labetalol 5 mg in incremental doses was administered intravenously. Need for increasing sevoflurane concentration, propofol bolus, and labetalol administration, if any, after test drug application and Ryle's tube insertion were also noted.

Ease of insertion was classified as easy, moderate, hard, and impossible. Time taken for insertion of Ryle's tube was calculated from the time of introducing the Ryle's tube to the nostril till confirmation of correct placement by auscultation. Number of attempts taken for successful placement was noted. If the Ryle's tube was fully taken out of the nostril and reintroduced again, it was counted as an additional attempt.

As there was no similar study published, we initiated the present study as a pilot study in 40 patients with 20 in each group. The mean MAP at 1 min after application of lignocaine jelly and lubricant gel was found to be 102.6 ± 11.9 mm Hg and 93.3 ± 13.3 mm Hg, respectively. With a mean difference of 9.3, with 95% confidence interval and 90% power, the minimum required sample size to obtain statistically significant result, with P < 0.05, was calculated as 39 patients per group. Therefore, we recruited 40 patients into each group.

Chi-square test was used to compare the categorical variables of Group A and B. Independent samples t-test was used to compare the continuous variable in Group A and B. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS Version 20.0 for Windows (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA).


   Results Top


Results of 80 patients were analyzed [Table 1]. The mean age, weight, and the distribution of ASA PS and gender were comparable in both groups [Table 2]. The baseline HR and MAP were comparable between the groups. The hemodynamic variables did not show any statistically significant difference after premedication, following induction, 1, 5, and 10 min after intubation. Both HR and MAP were significantly higher at 1 min after nasal application of lignocaine jelly and 1 and 5 min after Ryle's tube insertion in Group A compared to Group B [Table 3] and [Table 4]. Ease of insertion of Ryle's tube and number of attempts taken for insertion were comparable in both groups. The mean time taken for insertion was also similar. The number of patients in whom sevoflurane had to be increased during Ryle's tube insertion was significantly higher in Group A. Percentage of patients who needed propofol bolus was also significantly higher in Group A [Table 5]. No patient in either groups required labetalol for control of blood pressure.
Table 1: Consort flow diagram

Click here to view
Table 2: Comparison of demographics and American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status

Click here to view
Table 3: Changes in mean heart rate

Click here to view
Table 4: Changes in mean arterial pressure

Click here to view
Table 5: Comparison of number of times sevoflurane increased, propofol bolus administered, attempts, and time taken for insertion and ease of insertion

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


The present study had shown that use of a lubricant gel instead of lignocaine jelly was associated with reduced hemodynamic responses to application of the topical agent as well as that following Ryle's tube insertion. Use of lubricant gel was associated with reduced use of inhaled and intravenous anesthetics as well as labetalol for control of heart rate and/or blood pressure without affecting ease of insertion of Ryle's tube.

Usefulness of lignocaine jelly for insertion of Ryle's tube in awake patients is well proven as the topical anesthesia and lubrication it provides are essential in ensuring patient comfort and success during insertion. Application of lignocaine jelly to mucosa is known to result in severe burning, stinging, or irritation. However, these complaints are usually overlooked in awake patients. However, this discomfort can result in stimulation of sympathetic nervous system. The resultant accelerated hemodynamic effects could cause adverse events in susceptible patients.[4],[5]

The composition of lignocaine jelly includes lignocaine hydrochloride with preservatives such as methylparaben and propylparaben. As the preservative-free solution of lignocaine for intravenous administration does not produce burning sensation on nasal application, it is highly probable that the preservatives added in lignocaine jelly could be the reason for irritation when applied to nasal mucosa. GenTeal® Gel, the lubricant gel we used, contains hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (hypromellose) 0.3% for ophthalmic use.

The physiological manifestations of the stress response to anesthesia and surgery are increases in heart rate and blood pressure as well as intraoperative hyperglycemia.[6],[7],[8] Under general anesthesia, it is always advisable to avoid or blunt events that cause stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system, which add to the stress response and may adversely affect patient outcome. [9,10] Under general anesthesia any agent which provides lubrication for smooth passage of the Ryle's tube only is needed since there is no requirement for additional local analgesia.

Ryle's tube insertion was performed in our study 10 min after tracheal intubation since we wanted the hemodynamic response following laryngoscopy and intubation to subside to reduce bias. The increased interventions such as use of propofol boluses and need for increasing sevoflurane concentration, in turn, reflected the accelerated hemodynamic responses observed after lignocaine application. Comparable number of attempts and time taken for insertion of Ryle's tube in both groups in our study indicate that use of lubricant gel is as effective as lignocaine jelly for aiding Ryle's tube insertion under general anesthesia. Hence, based on the observations of our study, we recommend use of lubricant gel instead of lignocaine jelly for Ryle's tube insertion in patients under general anesthesia.

The strong point of our study was that there is no similar research published, which looked into the possibility of an added stress response that can happen under general anesthesia on application of lignocaine jelly to the nostril for insertion of Ryle's tube. Our study had drawbacks as it was not a blinded one. The results of the study are not applicable to awake patients as lubricant gels do not provide topical anesthesia.


   Conclusion Top


Use of lubricant gel for aiding insertion of Ryle's tube in patients under general anesthesia was associated with attenuated heart rate and blood pressure responses without affecting the ease, number of attempts, or time taken for successful insertion of the Ryle's tube.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
   References Top

1.
Uri O, Yosefov L, Haim A, Behrbalk E, Halpern P. Lidocaine gel as an anesthetic protocol for nasogastric tube insertion in the ED. Am J Emerg Med 2011;29:386-90.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Lor YC, Shih PC, Chen HH, Liu SJ, Chao HC, Hwang LC, et al. The application of lidocaine to alleviate the discomfort of nasogastric tube insertion: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018;97:e9746.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Ducharme J, Matheson K. What is the best topical anesthetic for nasogastric insertion? A comparison of lidocaine gel, lidocaine spray, and atomized cocaine. J Emerg Nurs 2003;29:427-30.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Kihara S, Brimacombe J, Yaguchi Y, Watanabe S, Taguchi N, Komatsuzaki T. Hemodynamic responses among three tracheal intubation devices in normotensive and hypertensive patients. Anesth Analg 2003;96:890-5.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Horak J, Weiss S. Emergent management of the airway. New pharmacology and the control of comorbidities in cardiac disease, ischemia, and valvular heart disease. Crit Care Clin 2000;16:411-27.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Ledowski T, Bein B, Hanss R, Paris A, Fudickar W, Scholz J, et al. Neuroendocrine stress response and heart rate variability: A comparison of total intravenous versus balanced anesthesia. Anesth Analg 2005;101:1700-5.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Geze S, Yilmaz AA, Tuzuner F. The effect of scalp block and local infiltration on the haemodynamic and stress response to skull-pin placement for craniotomy, Eur J Anaesthesiol 2009;26:298-303.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Yokoyama M, Itano Y, Katayama H, Morimatsu H, Takeda Y, Takahashi T, et al. The effects of continuous epidural anesthesia and analgesia on stress response and immune function in patients undergoing radical esophagectomy. Anesth Analg 2005;101:1521-7.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Kain ZN, Sevarino F, Pincus S, Alexander GM, Wang SM, Ayoub C, et al. Attenuation of the preoperative stress response with midazolam: Effects on postoperative outcomes. Anesthesiology 2000;93:141-7.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Grass JA. The role of epidural anesthesia and analgesia in postoperative outcome. Anesthesiol Clin North Am 2000;18:407-28, viii.  Back to cited text no. 10
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5]



 

Top
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
   Subjects and Methods
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed33    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded6    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal