Benzocaine-Induced Methemoglobinemia: A Condition of which all Endoscopists Should Be Aware
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methemoglobinemia is a rare complication that can occur with the use of benzocaine-containing compounds. Two cases of methemoglobinemia are reported, and the pathophysiology and treatment of methemoglobinemia are reviewed. Both patients received topical 20% benzocaine spray before endoscopy. Immediately following the procedure, there was a reduction in O2 saturation assessed by pulse oximetry that was refractory to O2 therapy. Dramatic peripheral and central cyanosis developed. O2 saturation measured by pulse oximetry ranged from 83% to 87% on O2 by nasal prongs and 100% O2 by a nonrebreathing mask. Both patients were mildly confused and one patient complained of a significant headache. The diagnosis of methemoglobinemia was considered and arterial blood gas sampling was performed. In both patients, the arterial blood had a chocolate brown colour. A methemoglobin level of 48% and 18% was noted in patient 1 and patient 2, respectively. Both patients were treated with methylene blue, resulting in a significant improvement with gradual normalization of their O2 saturation within 10 min to 30 min. The use of benzocaine spray may not markedly alter the patient's perception of endoscopy and thus, the routine use of these agents should be questioned. If such agents are used, the physician must be aware of this association to prevent a delay in the diagnosis and management of this rare, but potentially lethal, condition.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".