The effectiveness of lidocaine viscous compared with lidocaine spray has not been reported in the medical literature. The aim of this study was to study check details the impact of topical pharyngeal anesthesia for unsedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy in cirrhotic patients in the World Gastroenterology Organization (WGO) Endoscopy Training Center in Thailand. Methods: Retrospectively analyzed the patients on whom UEGD procedure had been performed during the

period of December, 2007 to April, 2009 in Siriraj Hospital. The patients’ characteristics, pre-anesthetic problems, anesthetic techniques, anesthetic agents, anesthetic time, type and route of procedure and anesthesia-related complications. Results: There were 344 cirrhotic patients who underwent UEGD procedure during the study period. The mean age of the patients was 55.9 ± 12.0 years, and most were American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class III (55.2%). Indications for this procedure were esophageal varice (55.5%) and surveillance (44.5%). The mean anesthetic time was 13.5 ± 7.4 minutes. The anesthesia-related complication rate was relatively high. Complications in patients who had Child-Pugh classification C were significantly

higher than those in the patients who had Child-Pugh classification A and B. All anesthesia-related complications were transient, easily treated, with no adverse sequelae. Conclusion: Topical medchemexpress pharyngeal anesthesia for unsedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy in cirrhotic patients is Fulvestrant mw safe and effective. Anesthesia-related complications in severe cirrhotic patients were relatively high. Key Word(s): 1. EGD; 2. Unsedated; 3. Topical anesthesia; 4. Cirrhosis; Presenting Author: SOMCHAI AMORNYOTIN Additional Authors: KONGPHLAY KONGPHLAY Corresponding Author: SOMCHAI AMORNYOTIN Affiliations: Department of Anesthesiology and Siriraj

GI Endoscopy Center, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital Objective: The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy of propofol deep sedation (PDS) for small bowel enteroscopy procedure in sick (American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] physical status III-IV) and nonsick (ASA physical status I-II) patients in a teaching hospital in Thailand. Methods: We undertook a retrospective review of the anesthesia or sedation service records of adult patients who underwent small bowel enteroscopy procedures from June 2007 to December 2009. All patients were classified into two groups according to the ASA physical status. In group A, the patients had ASA physical status I-II, while in group B, the patients had ASA physical status III-IV.