The efficacy of intravenous lidocaine and its side effects in comparison with intravenous morphine sulfate in patients admitted to the ED with right upper abdominal pain suspected of biliary colic

Ultrasound-guided selective peripheral nerve block compared with the sub-dissociative dose of ketamine for analgesia in patients with extremity injuries

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare the analgesic efficacy of ultrasound-guided selective peripheral nerve block (PNB) and sub-dissociative dose ketamine (SDK) for management of acute pain in patients with extremity injuries presenting to the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

This prospective, open-label randomized clinical trial was conducted in the ED of a tertiary care Institute. The patients were provided with either ultrasound-guided selective PNB or SDK. The primary outcome was a reduction in pain in numerical rating scale (NRS) by at least 3 points without rescue analgesia. The secondary outcomes were the need for rescue analgesia, adverse events, and patient satisfaction on either arm.

RESULTS

A total of 111 patients with isolated traumatic extremity injuries were included in the final analysis. The NRS score was significantly lower in the PNB group compared to the SDK group at 30, 60,120, 180-, and 240-min post-intervention [group ∼ time interaction, F (5, 647) = 21.53, p ≤ 0.001]. All the patients in the PNB group exhibited primary outcome (NRS ≥3 reductions) at 30 min post-intervention compared with 36 (65%) in the SDK group [-1.02(-1.422,0.622)]. Rescue analgesia was required in 10 (18%) patients in the SDK group compared to none in the PNB group [0.663(0.277,1.050)]. The decrease in NRS score from baseline at 30 min was significantly higher in PNB groups compared to the SDK group [-2.166(-2.640, -1.692)]. The most common side effect reported in the SDK group was dizziness 35(64%), followed by nausea 15(27%). None of the patients in the PNB group reported any complications. Patient satisfaction was higher in the PNB group than SDK group.

CONCLUSION

The study provides evidence that ultrasound-guided PNB is superior to SDK in terms of its analgesic efficacy in the management of acute pain due to extremity injuries and is associated with higher patient satisfaction. The need for rescue analgesia was significantly less in the PNB group. SDK was associated with a high incidence of dizziness and nausea.

Efficacy of Intravenous Lidocaine for Pain Relief in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

To compare the efficacy of intravenous (IV) lidocaine with standard analgesics (NSAIDS, opioids) for pain control due to any cause in the emergency department.

Methods

The electronic databases of PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar were explored from 1st January 2000 to 30th March 2021 and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IV lidocaine with a control group of standard analgesics were included.

Results

Twelve RCTs including 1,351 patients were included. The cause of pain included abdominal pain, renal or biliary colic, traumatic pain, radicular low back pain, critical limb ischemia, migraine, tension-type headache, and pain of unknown origin. On pooled analysis, we found no statistically significant difference in pain scores between IV lidocaine and control group at 15 min (MD: −0.24 95% CI: −1.08, 0.61 I2 = 81% p = 0.59), 30 min (MD: −0.24 95% CI: −1.03, 0.55 I2 = 86% p = 0.55), 45 min (MD: 0.31 95% CI: −0.66, 1.29 I2 = 66% p = 0.53), and 60 min (MD: 0.59 95% CI: −0.26, 1.44 I2 = 75% p = 0.18). There was no statistically significant difference in the need for rescue analgesics between the two groups (OR: 1.45 95% CI: 0.82, 2.56 I2 = 41% p = 0.20), but on subgroup analysis, the need for rescue analgesics was significantly higher with IV lidocaine in studies on abdominal pain but not for musculoskeletal pain. On meta-analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of side-effects between the two study groups (OR: 1.09 95% CI: 0.59, 2.02 I2 = 48% p = 0.78).

Conclusion

IV lidocaine can be considered as an alternative analgesic for pain control in the ED. However, its efficacy may not be higher than standard analgesics. Further RCTs with a large sample size are needed to corroborate the current conclusions.

Intravenous lidocaine vs. NSAIDs for migraine attack in the ED: a prospective, randomized, double-blind study

PURPOSE

Although different forms of lidocaine are used for migraine attack headaches, the effect of intravenous lidocaine is still limited. This study aimed to investigate the effects of intravenous lidocaine infusion for the treatment of migraine attack headaches.

METHODS

A hundred patients with migraine attacks, aged between 18 and 65, were randomly divided into two groups. The lidocaine group (n = 50) received a 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine bolus and a 1 mg/kg infusion (first 30 min), followed by a 0.5 mg/kg infusion for a further 30 min intravenously. The non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) group (n = 50) received 50 mg dexketoprofen trometamol and saline at the same volume as the lidocaine at the same time intervals intravenously. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores, additional analgesia requirement, side effects, and revisits to the emergency department were recorded.

RESULTS

The VAS score was significantly lower in the lidocaine group than in the NSAID group for the first 20th and 30th minutes (p = 0.014 and p = 0.024, respectively). There was no difference between the VAS scores for the remaining evaluation times (p > 0.05). In terms of secondary outcomes, rescue medication requirement was not different between the two groups at both the 60th and 90th minutes (p > 0.05). However, the number of patients revisiting ED within 48-72 h was statistically less in the lidocaine group than in the NSAID group (1/50 vs. 8/50; p = 0.031).

CONCLUSION

Intravenous lidocaine may be an alternative treatment method for patients with migraine attack headaches in the emergency department.