Incidence of the “Adrenaline Rush” and Vasovagal Response with Local Anesthetic Injection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many patients feel an "adrenaline rush" or a vasovagal reaction when injected with lidocaine and epinephrine during wide awake surgery. The incidence of these reactions is not well documented in the literature. METHODS: In total, 387 patients were prospectively injected with lidocaine and epinephrine for minor procedures without sedation between July 1, 2019 and November 1, 2020. A concentration of epinephrine with 1:100,000 in 2% lidocaine was injected, with most patients getting less than 20 mL of volume. RESULTS: Eight (2.2%) of the patients had adrenaline rush symptoms, which included nervousness, anxiety, tremors, shaky feelings, flushing, diaphoresis, light-headedness, tingling, and "heart racing." Seven patients (1.8%) experienced vasovagal responses, which included nausea, a feeling of being unwell, faint, or lightheaded, or had circumoral pallor. CONCLUSIONS: Patients run a low risk of feeling an adrenaline rush or vasovagal reaction when injected with lidocaine and epinephrine. Routinely advising patients that the adrenaline rush can happen, and that this is not an allergic reaction can be helpful to allay fear of the unknown and to prevent false allergy beliefs. Injecting patients lying down may decrease the incidence of vasovagal reactions by increasing cerebral blood flow with the advantage of gravity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".