Intravenous Lidocaine for Acute Pain: A Single-Institution Retrospective Study

Intravenous lidocaine decreased the incidence of SRAEs for ERCP procedures in elderly frailty patients, a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Elderly frailty patients are at particular risk of sedation-related adverse events (SRAEs) during sedation. This study aimed to assess whether intravenous lidocaine could reduce the incidence of SRAEs in elderly frailty patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

METHODS

A total of 210 elderly frailty patients scheduled for ERCP were randomly divided into two groups: lidocaine and control. Patients in the lidocaine group received intravenous lidocaine (1.0 mg/kg) before anesthesia induction, followed by continuous intravenous infusion (2.0 mg/kg/h) during ERCP. The control group received an equal volume of saline solution. The primary endpoint was the composite incidence of SRAEs during ERCP. Secondary endpoints were propofol consumption, VAS score, endoscopists' and patients' satisfaction scores and lidocaine-related adverse events and so on.

RESULTS

The composite incidence of SRAEs in the lidocaine group was significantly lower than in the control group (41.05% vs. 21.86%, p < 0.05). The propofol requirement (436.11 ± 118.90, 388.54 ± 149.65. p < 0.001) and VAS score of patients (3.02 ± 1.07, 2.54 ± 1.10. p < 0.05) in the lidocaine group were significantly lower than those in the control group. The endoscopists' satisfaction scores (7.77 ± 1.12, 8.23 ± 1.10. p < 0.05) and patients' satisfaction scores (8.53 ± 0.95, 8.98 ± 0.86. p < 0.05) in lidocaine group were significantly higher than those in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous lidocaine can significantly decrease the incidence of SRAEs for ERCP procedures in elderly frailty patients, with no increase in lidocaine or other related adverse events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Trial ID: ChiCTR2300067796, https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=185763 ).

Intravenous Lidocaine for Gut Function Recovery in Colonic Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Despite the recovery advantages of minimally invasive surgical techniques, delayed return of gut function after colectomy is a common barrier to timely discharge from hospital.

Objective

To evaluate the effect of 2% perioperative intravenous lidocaine infusion on return of gut function after elective minimally invasive colon resection.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The ALLEGRO trial was a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial conducted in 27 UK hospitals. A total of 590 adults scheduled for elective minimally invasive colon resection for benign or malignant disease were randomized 1:1 to 2% intravenous lidocaine or saline placebo. Enrollment occurred from August 13, 2018, to April 11, 2023, with a pause in recruitment from March 20, 2020, through July 6, 2020; final follow-up was on August 10, 2023.

Interventions

The intervention patients received 2% intravenous lidocaine administered as 1.5-mg/kg bolus at induction of anesthesia followed by 1.5 mg/kg/h for 6 or 12 hours. Control patients received 0.9% saline placebo for 6 or 12 hours.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with return of gut function at 72 hours after surgery, defined by the GI-3 composite end point of tolerating diet (ingestion of food and drink without significant nausea or vomiting for 3 consecutive meals) and passage of flatus or stool. There were 11 secondary outcomes, including time to GI-3 recovery, time to GI-2 recovery (tolerance of oral diet and passage of stool), prolonged postoperative ileus, postoperative nausea and vomiting score, Overall Benefit of Analgesia Score, postoperative opioid consumption, Quality of Recovery-15, quality of life (EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-Level), enhanced recovery protocol adherence, time to meeting medically defined criteria for discharge, and time to patient self-assessed readiness for discharge.

Results

The trial enrolled 590 patients (295 intervention, 295 control); after 33 postrandomization exclusions, 557 patients were included (279 intervention, 278 control; 249 female patients [44.7%]; mean [SD] age, 66 [10.9] years); 532 (96%) received the randomized treatment. Return of gut function as defined by the GI-3 composite outcome was achieved at 72 hours by 160 patients (57.3%) in the intravenous lidocaine group vs 164 patients (59.0%) in the placebo group (adjusted absolute difference, -1.9% [95% CI, -8.0% to 4.2%]; relative risk, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.88 to 1.07]). There was no significant difference between the intervention and control groups in any of the 11 secondary end points.

Conclusions and Relevance

Among patients undergoing elective minimally invasive colon resection, perioperative administration of 2% intravenous lidocaine did not improve return of gut function at 72 hours.

Trial Registration

isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN52352431.

Serum lidocaine (lignocaine) concentrations during prolonged perioperative infusion in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery: A secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial

Perioperative lidocaine (lignocaine) infusions are being employed with increasing frequency. The determinants of systemic lidocaine concentrations during prolonged administration are unclear. In the Long-term Outcomes after Lidocaine Infusions for PostOperative Pain (LOLIPOP) pilot trial, the impact of infusion duration and body size metrics on serum lidocaine concentrations was examined with regression models in 48 women undergoing breast cancer surgery. Lidocaine was delivered as an intravenous bolus (1.5 mg/kg) and infusion (2 mg/kg per h) intraoperatively, followed by a 12-h subcutaneous infusion (1.33 mg/kg per h) postoperatively. Dosing was based on total body weight. Wound infiltration with other long-acting local anaesthetics was permitted. Protein binding and pharmacogenomic data were also collected. Lidocaine concentrations (median (interquartile range) (range)) during prolonged administration were in the safe and potentially therapeutic range: post-anaesthesia care unit 2.16 (1.73-2.82) (1.12-6.06) µg/ml; ward 1.41 (1.22-1.75) (0.64-2.81) µg/ml. Concentrations increased non-linearly during the early intravenous phase of administration (mean rise 1.21 µg/ml per hour of infusion, P = 0.007) but reached a pseudo steady-state during the later subcutaneous phase. Higher dose rates received per kilogram of lean (P = 0.004), adjusted (P = 0.006) and ideal body weight (P = 0.009) were associated with higher steady-state concentrations. The lidocaine free fraction was unaffected by the presence of ropivacaine, and phenotypes linked to slow metabolism were infrequent. Serum lidocaine concentrations reached a pseudo steady-state during a 12-h postoperative infusion. Greater precision in steady-state concentrations can be achieved by dosing on lean body weight versus adjusted or ideal body weight (equivalent lean body weight doses: intravenous bolus 2.5 mg/kg; intravenous infusion 3.33 mg/kg per h; subcutaneous infusion 2.22 mg/kg per h.

Lipid emulsion for xenobiotic overdose: PRO

Infusion of lipid emulsion for drug overdose arose as a treatment for local anaesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST) initially based on laboratory results in animal models with the subsequent support of favourable case reports. Following successful translation to the clinic, practitioners also incorporated lipid emulsion as a treatment for non-local anaesthetic toxicities but without formal clinical trials. Recent clinical trials demonstrate a benefit of lipid emulsion in antipsychotic, pesticide, metoprolol and tramadol overdoses. Formal trials of lipid emulsion in LAST may never occur, but alternative analytic tools indicate strong support for its efficacy in this indication; for example, lipid emulsion has obviated the need for cardiopulmonary bypass in most cases of LAST. Herein, we describe the pre-clinical support for lipid emulsion, evaluate the most recent clinical studies of lipid emulsion for toxicity, identify a possible dose-based requirement for efficacy and discuss the limitations to uncontrolled studies in the field.

Evaluation of Propofol-Sparing Effect of Intravenous Lignocaine in Patients Undergoing Daycare Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Procedures

Background Propofol is the most common sedative for endoscopies. Propofol alone may require larger doses for adequate level of sedation. Lignocaine is known for its anesthetic-sparing effect. We tested whether the addition of intravenous lignocaine to propofol-based sedation reduces its dose. Methods This prospective, randomized study was performed on 90 patients of 18 to 60 years of age, of either sex of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Grade-I & II, and was divided into two groups. Group L + P received IV bolus of 1.5 mg/kg 2% lignocaine over 10 minutes followed by 1.5 mg/ kg/ h infusion and group NS + P- received the equivalent volumes of normal saline in bolus and infusion. Patients were induced with fentanyl (2 µg/kg) and propofol (1 mg/kg). To maintain an adequate sedation level, a supplemental bolus of 0.5 mg /kg propofol was administered. The outcomes recorded were the total and supplemental amount of propofol administered, as well as recovery time. Results The mean supplemental propofol for group L + P and group NS + P- 37.00 ± 29.93 and 58.67 ± 19.49 mg, respectively and mean total propofol consumption was 98.22 ± 34.00 mg and 131.11 ± 23.18 mg, respectively, (p < 0.001). Mean recovery time in group L + P was also shorter (5.22 ± 2.14 versus 9.96 ± 2.14). The incidence of adverse events like gag reflux, upper airway obstruction, pain on injection, and hypotension was significantly lower in group L + P (p < 0.05). Conclusion The addition of lignocaine to propofol-based sedation reduced the overall propofol requirement at the same time maintaining hemodynamic stability, spontaneous respiration, and early recovery.

Mechanism-Based Pharmacological Treatment for Chronic Non-cancer Pain in Adolescents: Current Approaches and Future Directions

Chronic non-cancer pain in pediatrics is a widespread phenomenon that affects about 20% of adolescents (10-19 years old). Although interdisciplinary pain treatment programs, which often include pharmacological treatment, have emerged as the standard of care in management of this patient population, evidence regarding an optimal treatment is lacking. The efficacy and safety profiles of pharmacological treatments used to help adolescents suffering from chronic non-cancer pain remain understudied. This lack of evidence may increase polypharmacy and the risk of drug interactions and adverse events. This review examines evidence for the use of pharmacological treatments prescribed to treat chronic pain in adolescents (10-19 years old), with a focus on mechanism-based pharmacology. The objectives of this review are to: (a) review the evidence for mechanism-based pharmacological treatments for chronic non-cancer pain in adolescents and (b) describe the pharmacological agents that are commonly prescribed to manage chronic pain in adolescents, including dosage information, mechanism, and potential adverse effects. Pharmacological treatments should be used carefully with adolescents, ideally within an interdisciplinary treatment program that will incorporate physical rehabilitation, integrative medicine/active mind-body techniques, psychology, and global efforts to normalize daily activities.

Lidocaine Infusion for the Management of Postoperative Pain and Delirium (LIMPP): protocol for a randomised control trial

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative delirium is a frequent adverse event following elective non-cardiac surgery. The occurrence of delirium increases the risk of functional impairment, placement to facilities other than home after discharge, cognitive impairment at discharge, as well as in-hospital and possibly long-term mortality. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of effective strategies to minimise the risk from modifiable risk factors, including postoperative pain control and the analgesic regimen. Use of potent opioids, currently the backbone of postoperative pain control, alters cognition and has been associated with an increased risk of postoperative delirium. Literature supports the intraoperative use of lidocaine infusions to decrease postoperative opioid requirements, however, whether the use of postoperative lidocaine infusions is associated with lower opioid requirements and subsequently a reduction in postoperative delirium has not been investigated.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Lidocaine Infusion for the Management of Postoperative Pain and Delirium trial is a randomised, double-blinded study of a postoperative 48-hour infusion of lidocaine at 1.33 mg/kg/hour versus placebo in older patients undergoing major reconstructive spinal surgery at the University of California, San Francisco. Our primary outcome is incident delirium measured daily by the Confusion Assessment Method in the first three postoperative days. Secondary outcomes include delirium severity, changes in cognition, pain scores, opioid use, incidence of opioid related side effects and functional benefits including time to discharge and improved recovery from surgery. Lidocaine safety will be assessed with daily screening questionnaires and lidocaine plasma levels.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study protocol has been approved by the ethics board at the University of California, San Francisco. The results of this study will be published in a peer-review journal and presented at national conferences as poster or oral presentations. Participants wishing to know the results of this study will be contacted directly on data publication.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05010148.

Patients with sleep-disordered breathing for bariatric surgery

The prevalence of patients with obesity continues to rise worldwide and has reached epidemic proportions. There is a strong correlation between obesity and sleep-disordered breathing (SDB), and, in particular, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). OSA is often undiagnosed in the surgical population. Bariatric surgery has been recognized as an effective treatment option for both obesity and OSA. Laparoscopic bariatric procedures, particularly laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), have become the most frequently performed procedures. OSA has been identified as an independent risk factor for perioperative complications and failure to recognize and prepare for patients with OSA is a major cause of postoperative adverse events, suggesting that all patients undergoing bariatric surgery should be screened preoperatively for OSA. These patients should be treated with an opioid-sparing analgesic plan and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) perioperatively to minimize respiratory complications. With the number of bariatric surgical patients with SDB likely to continue rising, it is critical to understand the best practices to manage this patient population.

A pilot multicentre randomised controlled trial of lidocaine infusion in women undergoing breast cancer surgery

Chronic postoperative pain is common after breast cancer surgery. Peri-operative lidocaine infusion may prevent the development of chronic postoperative pain, but a large-scale trial is required to test this hypothesis. It is unclear whether a pragmatic, multicentre trial design that is consistent with expert guidance, addresses the limitations of previous studies, and overcomes existing translational barriers is safe, effective and feasible. We conducted a double-blind, randomised controlled pilot study in 150 patients undergoing breast cancer surgery across three hospitals in Western Australia. Patients received lidocaine, or equivalent volumes of saline, as an intravenous bolus (1.5 mg.kg^-1 ) and infusion (2 mg.kg^-1 .h^-1 ) intra-operatively, and a subcutaneous infusion (1.33 mg.kg^-1 .h^-1 ) postoperatively for up to 12 h on a standard surgical ward, with novel safety monitoring tools in place. The co-primary outcomes were: in-hospital safety events; serum levels of lidocaine during intravenous and subcutaneous infusion; and annualised enrolment rates per site with long-term data capture. In-hospital safety events were rare, and similar in the placebo and lidocaine arms (3% vs. 1%). Median (IQR [range]) serum lidocaine levels during intravenous (2.16 (1.74-2.83 [1.12-6.06]) µg.ml^-1 , n = 41) and subcutaneous (1.52 (1.28-1.83 [0.64-2.85]) µg.ml^-1 , n = 48) infusion were comparable with previous trials reporting improved pain outcomes. Annualised enrolment approximated 50 patients per site per year, with high levels of protocol adherence and ≥ 99% capture of outcomes at 3 and 6 months. The adjusted odds ratio (95%CI) for postoperative pain at 6 months in the lidocaine arm was 0.790 (0.370-1.684). We conclude that this trial, as designed, is safe, effective and feasible in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery, and a larger-scale trial is planned.

The use of intravenous lidocaine for postoperative pain and recovery: international consensus statement on efficacy and safety

Intravenous lidocaine is used widely for its effect on postoperative pain and recovery but it can be, and has been, fatal when used inappropriately and incorrectly. The risk-benefit ratio of i.v. lidocaine varies with type of surgery and with patient factors such as comorbidity (including pre-existing chronic pain). This consensus statement aims to address three questions. First, does i.v. lidocaine effectively reduce postoperative pain and facilitate recovery? Second, is i.v. lidocaine safe? Third, does the fact that i.v. lidocaine is not licensed for this indication affect its use? We suggest that i.v. lidocaine should be regarded as a 'high-risk' medicine. Individual anaesthetists may feel that, in selected patients, i.v. lidocaine may be beneficial as part of a multimodal peri-operative pain management strategy. This approach should be approved by hospital medication governance systems, and the individual clinical decision should be made with properly informed consent from the patient concerned. If i.v. lidocaine is used, we recommend an initial dose of no more than 1.5 mg.kg^-1 , calculated using the patient's ideal body weight and given as an infusion over 10 min. Thereafter, an infusion of no more than 1.5 mg.kg^-1 .h^-1 for no longer than 24 h is recommended, subject to review and re-assessment. Intravenous lidocaine should not be used at the same time as, or within the period of action of, other local anaesthetic interventions. This includes not starting i.v. lidocaine within 4 h after any nerve block, and not performing any nerve block until 4 h after discontinuing an i.v. lidocaine infusion.