Optimizing the Yield of Abnormal Preoperative Chest Radiographs in Elective Non-cardiothoracic Surgery: Development of a Risk Prediction Score and External Validation.

BACKGROUND: Guideline recommendations for preoperative chest radiographs vary to the extent that individual patient benefit is unclear. We developed and validated a prediction score for abnormal preoperative chest radiographs in adult patients undergoing elective non-cardiothoracic surgery. METHODS: Our prospective observational study recruited 703 adult patients who underwent elective non-cardiothoracic surgery at Ramathibodi Hospital. We developed a risk prediction score for abnormal preoperative chest radiographs with external validation using data from 411 patients recruited from Thammasat University Hospital. The discriminative performance was assessed by receiver operating curve analysis. In addition, we assessed the contribution of abnormal chest radiographs to perioperative management. RESULTS: Abnormal preoperative chest radiographs were found in 19.5% of the 703 patients. Age, pulmonary disease, cardiac disease, and diabetes were significant factors. The model showed good performance with a C-statistics of 0.739 (95% CI, 0.691-0.786). We classified patients into four groups based on risk scores. The posttest probabilities in the intermediate-, intermediate-high-, and high-risk groups were 33.2%, 59.8%, and 75.7%, respectively. The model fitted well with the external validation data with a C statistic of 0.731 (95% CI, 0.674-0.789). One (0.4%) abnormal chest radiograph from the low-risk group and three (2.4%) abnormal chest radiographs from the intermediate-to-high-risk group had a major impact on perioperative management. CONCLUSIONS: Four predictors including age, pulmonary disease, cardiac disease, and diabetes were associated with abnormal preoperative chest radiographs. Our risk score demonstrated good performance and may help identify patients at higher risk of chest abnormalities.

Comparative effectiveness of lidocaine sprays between sitting and supine position for patients undergoing upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Topical pharyngeal anesthesia has improved esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) efficiency with smooth insertion, reducing pain and discomfort. Lidocaine spray is one of the safe and widely used methods. In practice, the patients walk, sit in a wheelchair, or lie on a trolley bed, and the lidocaine sprays are applied to those in sitting or supine positions for pre-endoscopic preparation. Although there is no current guidance technique, this study aims to compare the effects of lidocaine sprays between sitting (Group A; Gp A) and supine positions (Group B; Gp B) for patients undergoing unsedated EGD. METHODS: This study was a single-center prospective randomized controlled trial. Unsedated EGD patients were randomly allocated the lidocaine spray in sitting or lidocaine spray in the supine position. RESULTS: Lidocaine spray treatments were significantly different in the gag reflex (NRS; Gp A: 1.28 ± 0.67, Gp B: 1 ± 0.63, p = 0.0003), ease of esophageal instrumentation (NRS; Gp A: 7.68 ± 0.91, Gp B: 7.95 ± 0.66, p = 0.0042), and pain score (NRS; Gp A: 5.16 ± 2.08, Gp B: 4.53 ± 1.93, p = 0.0059). When considering modified Mallampati classification (MMC), MMC classes III and IV were significantly different in the same direction but MMC classes I and II were not. CONCLUSION: The technique of spraying in the supine position was associated with less gagging, less pain, and easier esophageal instrumentation, especially in patients with MMC classes III and IV.

Comparison of Lidocaine Spray and Lidocaine Ice Popsicle in Patients Undergoing Unsedated Esophagogastroduodenoscopy: A Single Center Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) under topical pharyngeal anesthesia has the advantage of avoiding the unwanted cardiopulmonary adverse events experienced following intravenous sedation. Lidocaine spray is a common anesthetic option and is safe for unsedated EGD. Although several studies have compared different topical anesthetic agents, their formulations, and delivery techniques, questions still remain concerning the optimal mode of administration. We have designed a lidocaine formulation in the form of an ice popsicle and compared its effectiveness and tolerability with lidocaine spray in patients undergoing unsedated EGD. METHODS: This was a single-center prospective randomized controlled trial. Unsedated EGD patients were randomly allocated the lidocaine spray [Group (Gp) A] or lidocaine ice popsicle (Gp B) formulation. RESULTS: In total, 204 unsedated EGD patients were evaluated. Compared to the spray, the lidocaine ice popsicle group showed better scores for effects in terms of endoscopist satisfaction (Gp A, 7.28±1.44; Gp B, 7.8±0.89; p=0.0022), gag reflex (Gp A, 1.3±0.66; Gp B, 1.02±0.61; p=0.0016), patient satisfaction (Gp A, 7.74±0.82; Gp B, 8.08±0.82; p=0.0039), discomfort (Gp A, 6.54±1.34; Gp B, 5.95±1.21; p=0.0012), and pain (Gp A, 5.38±1.85; Gp B, 4.51±2.01; p=0.0015). CONCLUSION: Both the lidocaine spray and ice popsicle formulations are safe, effective options for diagnostic EGD with the ice popsicle exhibiting better performance. We propose the lidocaine ice popsicle formulation for topical pharyngeal anesthesia in patients undergoing unsedated diagnostic EGD and suggest it may be a suitable option during the COVID-19 pandemic. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTER: Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR) number TCTR20190502001.

Psychometric Validity and Reliability of the Thai Version of the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate validity and reliability of the Thai version of the Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI-T) in Thai patients with neuropathic pain. Although the Thai version of Neuropathic Pain Symptom Inventory (NPSI-T) has been linguistically validated, the tool has to be psychometrically validated before applying to neuropathic pain patients in daily practice. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Forty Thai patients with diagnosis of neuropathic pain were enrolled to the study and were evaluated by visual analog scale (VAS), the Thai version of Neuropathic Pain Diagnostic Questionnaire (DN4-T) and NPSI-T questionnaires. Four hours later the patients were asked to perform retest NPSI-T and to evaluate the understanding of each NPSI-T question. RESULTS: The total score of NPSI-T questionnaire was statistically correlated to visual analog scale (VAS) (Spearman's correlation coefficient = 0.599, p < 0.001) and neuropathic pain diagnostic questionnaire (DN4-T) (Spearman's correlation coefficient = 0.695, p < 0.001). The reliability was determined by Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), an excellent interobserver agreement (ICC > 0.8) and good agreement (ICC 0.6-0.8) were presented in 30% and 70% of the questionnaire, respectively. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated validity and reliability of the NPSI-T for assessing the neuropathic pain in Thai patients.