Abstract
Objective:
This study aimed to test the non-inferiority of topical 1:1000 epinephrine compared to topical 1:10 000 with regard to intraoperative hemodynamic stability, and to determine whether it produced superior visibility conditions.
Methods:
A single-blinded, prospective, cross-over non-inferiority trial was performed. Topical 1:1000 or topical 1:10 000 was placed in 1 nasal passage. Hemodynamic parameters (heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressures, and mean arterial pressure) were measured prior to insertion then every minute for 10 minutes. This was repeated in the contralateral nasal passage of the same patient with the alternate concentration. The surgeon graded the visualization of each passage using the Boezaart Scale. The medians of the greatest absolute change in parameters were compared using a Wilcoxon Rank-Signed test and confidence intervals were calculated using a Hodges-Lehman test. The non-inferiority margin was pre-determined at 10 bpm for heart rate and 10 mmHg for blood pressures. A Wilcoxon Rank-Signed test was used to assess superiority in visualization.
Results:
Thirty-two patients were enrolled and after exclusions, nineteen were assessed (mean age = 35.63 ± 12.49). Differences in means of greatest absolute change between the 2 concentrations were calculated (heart rate = 2.49 ± 1.20; systolic = −1.51 ± 2.16; diastolic = 2.47 ± 1.47; mean arterial pressure = 0.07 ± 1.83). In analyses of medians, 1:1000 was non-inferior to the 1:10 000. There was a significant difference (–0.58 ± 0.84; P = .012) in visualization in favor of topical 1:1000.
Conclusion:
Topical 1:1000 epinephrine provides no worse intraoperative hemodynamic stability compared to topical 1:10 000 but affords superior visualization and should be used to optimize surgical conditions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.