Magnesium sulphate pretreatment to alleviate pain on propofol injection: A comparison with ketamine or lidocaine

Response-adaptive treatment allocation for clinical studies with ordinal responses

Ordinal responses are common in clinical studies. Although the proportional odds model is a popular option for analyzing ordered-categorical data, it cannot control the type I error rate when the proportional odds assumption fails to hold. The latent Weibull model was recently shown to be a superior candidate for modeling ordinal data, with remarkably better performance than the latent normal model when the data are highly skewed. In clinical trials with ordinal responses, a balanced design is common, with equal sample allocation for each treatment. However, a more ethical approach is to adopt a response-adaptive allocation scheme in which more patients receive the better treatment. In this paper, we propose the use of the doubly adaptive biased coin design to generate treatment allocations that benefit the trial participants. The proposed treatment allocation scheme not only allows more patients to receive the better treatment, it also maintains compatible test power for the comparison of treatment efficiencies. A clinical example is used to illustrate the proposed procedure.

[Comparison of granisetron and lidocaine on reducing injection pain of etomidate: a controlled randomized study]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Reducing pain on injection of anesthetic drugs is of importance to every anesthesiologist. In this study we pursued to define if pretreatment by granisetron reduces the pain on injection of etomidate similar to lidocaine.

METHODS

Thirty patients aged between 18 and 50 years of American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class I or II, whom were candidates for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgery were enrolled in this study. Two 20 gauge cannulas were inserted into the veins on the dorsum of both hands and 100mL of normal saline was administered during a 10min period from each cannula. Using an elastic band as a tourniquet, venous drainage of both hands was occluded. 2mL of granisetron was administered into one hand and 2mL of lidocaine 2% at the same time into the other hand. One minute later the elastic band was opened and 2mL of etomidate was administered to each hand with equal rates. The patients were asked to give a score from 0 to 10 (0=no pain, 10=severe pain) to each the pain sensed in each hand.

RESULTS

Two patients were deeply sedated after injection of etomidate and unable to answer any questions. The mean numerical rating score for injection pain of intravenously administered etomidate after intravenous granisetron was 2.3±1.7, which was lower when compared with pain sensed due to intravenously administered etomidate after administration of lidocaine 2% (4.6±1.8), p<0.05.

CONCLUSION

The result of this study demonstrated that, granisetron reduces pain on injection of etomidate more efficiently than lidocaine.

Efficacy of different fluids preload on propofol injection pain: A randomized, controlled, double-blinded study

Injection pain of propofol remains a common clinical problem. Previous studies demonstrated that propofol injection pain was alleviated by applying nitroglycerin ointment to the skin of injection site, which inspires us to test whether venous vasodilation induced by fluid preload could alleviate the pain. Different types or volumes of fluid preload were compared. 200 ASA I-II adult patients were randomly assigned to five groups of 40 each. A 20 G cannula was established on the dorsum or wrist of the hand. When fluid preload given with Plasma-Lyte A 100 mL (P100 group), 250 mL (P250 group), 500 mL (P500 group), 0.9% saline 500 mL (N500 group) or Gelofusine 500 mL (G500 group) was completed within 30 min, respectively, Propofol (0.5 mg/kg, 1%) was injected at a rate of 0.5 mL/s. A blind investigator assessed the pain using a four-point scale. Incidence of pain in P100, P250, and P500 groups was 87.5%, 57.5% and 35%, respectively (P<0.05). The median pain intensity score was significantly lower in P500 group than that in P250 and P100 groups (P<0.05 and P<0.01, respectively). Comparison of the effect of different types of solution preload indicated that the highest incidence of pain was in N500 group (62.5%) (N500 vs. P500, P=0.014; N500 vs. G500, P=0.007). The median pain intensity score in N500 group was higher than that in P500 group (P<0.05) and G500 group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between P500 and G500 groups. It is suggested that Plasma-Lyte A or Gelofusine preload with 500 mL before propofol injection is effective in alleviating propofol-induced pain.

Lidocaine for reducing propofol-induced pain on induction of anaesthesia in adults

BACKGROUND

Pain on propofol injection is an untoward effect and this condition can reduce patient satisfaction. Intravenous lidocaine injection has been commonly used to attenuate pain on propofol injection. Although many studies have reported that lidocaine was effective in reducing the incidence and severity of pain, nevertheless, no systematic review focusing on lidocaine for preventing high-intensity pain has been published.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to determine the efficacy and adverse effects of lidocaine in preventing high-intensity pain on propofol injection.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 10), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 To October 2014), Ovid EMBASE (1988 to October 2014), LILACS (1992 to October 2014) and searched reference lists of articles.We reran the search in November 2015. We found 11potential studies of interest, those studies were added to the list of 'Studies awaiting classification' and will be fully incorporated into the formal review findings when we update the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using intravenous lidocaine injection as an intervention to decrease pain on propofol injection in adults. We excluded studies without a placebo or control group.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected selected studies with relevant criteria. We identified risk of bias in five domains according to the following criteria: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, adequacy of blinding, completeness of outcome data and selective reporting. We performed meta-analysis by direct comparisons of intervention versus control. We estimated the summary odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals using the random-effects Mantel-Haenszel method in RevMan 5.3. We used the I(2) statistic to assess statistical heterogeneity. We assessed overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 87 studies, 84 of which (10,460 participants) were eligible for quantitative analysis in the review. All participants, aged 13 years to 89 years, were American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-III patients undergoing elective surgery. Each study was conducted in a single centre in high- , middle- and low-income countries worldwide. According to the risk of bias assessment, all except five studies were identified as being of satisfactory methodological quality, allowing 84 studies to be combined in the meta-analysis. Five of the 84 studies were assessed as high risk of bias: one for participant and personnel blinding, one for incomplete outcome data, and three for other potential sources of bias.The overall incidence of pain and high-intensity pain following propofol injection in the control group were 64% (95% CI 60% to 67.9%) and 38.1% (95% CI 33.4% to 43.1%), respectively while those in the lidocaine group were 30.2% (95% CI 26.7% to 33.7%) and 11.8% (95% CI 9.7% to 13.8%). Both lidocaine admixture and pretreatment were effective in reducing pain on propofol injection (lidocaine admixture OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.25, 31 studies, 4927 participants, high-quality evidence; lidocaine pretreatment OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.18, 43 RCTs, 4028 participants, high-quality evidence). Similarly, lidocaine administration could considerably decrease the incidence of pain when premixed with the propofol (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.24, 36 studies, 5628 participants, high-quality evidence) or pretreated prior to propofol injection (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.18, 52 studies, 4832 participants, high-quality evidence). Adverse effects of lidocaine administration were rare. Thrombophlebitis was reported in only two studies (OR not estimated, low-quality evidence). No studies reported patient satisfaction.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the quality of the evidence was high. Currently available data from RCTs are sufficient to confirm that both lidocaine admixture and pretreatment were effective in reducing pain on propofol injection. Furthermore, there were no significant differences of effect between the two techniques.

Magnesium sulfate with lidocaine for preventing propofol injection pain: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

PURPOSE

Propofol injection pain, despite various strategies, remains common and troublesome. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that pretreatment with the combination of intravenous lidocaine and magnesium would have an additive effect on reducing propofol injection pain.

METHODS

After institutional review board (IRB) approval and informed consent, we performed a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial. Subjects were randomly assigned to pretreatment with either lidocaine (50 mg), magnesium sulfate (0.25 mg), lidocaine (50 mg) plus magnesium sulfate (0.25 mg), or 0.9 % sodium chloride. Following pretreatment, propofol (50 mg) was administered, and subjects were questioned regarding injection site pain and observed for behavioral signs of pain.

RESULTS

Two hundred subjects were enrolled and 158 subjects (39 placebo, 38 lidocaine, 44 magnesium sulfate, and 37 lidocaine plus magnesium sulfate) received their assigned pretreatment intervention. Intergroup baseline characteristics were similar. The proportion of subjects reporting propofol injection pain was highest in those pretreated with magnesium sulfate (57 %), followed by those pretreated with placebo (46 %), lidocaine plus magnesium sulfate (41 %), and then lidocaine (29 %; p = 0.011). When adjusted for age, gender, diabetes mellitus, chronic pain, tobacco use, and selective-serotonin reuptake inhibitor use, the pain response scale scores were significantly reduced by lidocaine pretreatment compared to magnesium sulfate and placebo (p = 0.031 and p = 0.0003, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial, the combination of intravenous magnesium sulfate and lidocaine offered no additional benefit for the relief of propofol injection pain compared to intravenous lidocaine alone. An improved, receptor-based understanding of the mechanism of propofol injection pain is still needed.

Paracetamol, ondansetron, granisetron, magnesium sulfate and lidocaine and reduced propofol injection pain

Background:

Propofol is a most widely used intravenous anesthetic drug. One of its most common complications is the pain upon injection; therefore, different methods, with various effects, have been proposed in order to alleviate the pain.

Objectives:

This study investigates the effects of paracetamol, ondansetron, granisetron, magnesium sulfate and lidocaine drugs on reducing the pain of propofol injection during anesthetic induction. Also, the hemodynamic changes will be analyzed.

Patients and Methods:

This is an interventional study containing 336 patients underwent elective orthopedic surgeries in Educational Hospitals of Mashhad University, using systematic sampling, the patients were divided into six groups. A 20-gauge needle was inserted into a venous vessel in the back of the hand and 100 cc of Ringer serum was injected into the vein, which was applied proximal to the injection site. Afterwards, paracetamol 2 mg/kg (group p), magnesium sulfate 2 mmol (group M), ondansetron 4 mg (group O), granisetron 2 mg (group G), lidocaine 40 mg (group L) and 5 cc saline (group S) were injected into the vessel, after 60 seconds, the tourniquet was opened. One quarter of the total dose of propofol (2.5 mg/kg) was injected with a flow rate of 4 mg/sec and then the injection pain was measured. Finally, the fentanyl (2 µg/kg), atracurium 0.5 mg/kg, and the remaining dose of propofol were injected and the vital signs were recorded before the administration of propofol and 1, 3, 5 and 10 minutes after the propofol injection.

Results:

The six groups did not significantly differ, regarding their gender, weight or age. Propofol injection pain was less in L and G groups, in comparison with the others (P ≤ 0.001). By analyzing the hemodynamic changes, it was observed that the least amount of change in mean arterial pressure was observed in the paracetamol group.

Conclusions:

The reduction of propofol injection pain was observed by using medications (in comparison with normal saline), but it was more significant in groups G and L. Moreover, Hypotension was higher in groups S and G and it was lessened in group P.