Intravenous infusion of lidocaine significantly reduces propofol dose for colonoscopy: a randomised placebo-controlled study

Effects of adding adjuvants to propofol on the post-anesthesia cognitive function in patients undergoing gastroscopy/colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to elucidate the effects of propofol plus adjuvants on postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) and patient satisfaction.

METHODS

Studies published up to September 2023 on the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, Sinomed, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Clinictrials.gov websites were searched. Binary summary of results was used for meta-analyses.

RESULTS

We included 18 studies (2691 patients). The combined sedation did not affect the processing speed (ES = 0.02, 95%CI: -0.01, 0.04; I2 = 79.3%, p < 0.001), attention (ES = 0.02, 95%CI: -0.02, 0.05; I2 = 95.0%, p < 0.001), nor working memory (ES = 0.02, 95%CI: -0.03, 0.06; I2 = 94.4%, p < 0.001) in CogState brief battery tool. A significant effect of combined sedation was observed in the domain of visual learning in CogState tool (ES = -0.03, 95%CI: -0.04, -0.02; I2 = 15.8%, p = 0.306). The TDT (ES = 4.96, 95%CI: 2.92, 7.00) indicates that combined sedation would increase error rates in the tests of cognitive function. The DSST (ES = 0.16, 95% CI: -0.44, 0.75) shown that combined sedation does not affect cognitive function. In addition, an insignificant difference in patient satisfaction between combined sedation and propofol alone was observed (ES = -0.03, 95%CI: -0.09, 0.02).

CONCLUSION

The available evidence suggests that propofol combined with adjuvants may affect POCD but not patient satisfaction.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

INPLASY2023110092.

Efficacy and safety of esketamine for pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Objective

The role of esketamine in pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy is still unclear. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of esketamine for pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Methods

Clinical trials of esketamine for pediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy were searched in eight common databases, up to October 2023. These clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA). The risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were used as the effect sizes for dichotomous variables and continuity variables, respectively. When the heterogeneity test showed I2 < 50%, the fixed effects model was used for the meta-analysis and TSA; Otherwise, the random effects model was used for them.

Results

In terms of efficacy endpoints, the meta-analysis showed that compared with placebo or blank, esketamine significantly decreased recovery time by 2.34 min (WMD -2.34; 95% Confidence interval [CI] -3.65, -1.02; p = 0.0005) and propofol consumption by 0.70 mg/kg (WMD -0.70; 95% CI -0.98, -0.43; p < 0.00001), and increased mean heart rate by 4.77 beats/min (WMD 4.77; 95% CI 2.67, 6.87; p < 0.00001) and mean arterial pressure by 3.10 mmHg (WMD 3.10; 95% CI 1.52, 4.67; p = 0.0001), while induction time and mean blood oxygen remained comparable. TSA indicated conclusive evidence for these benefits. In terms of safety endpoints, the meta-analysis revealed that esketamine significantly reduced involuntary movements by 59% (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.22, 0.76; p = 0.005) and choking by 51% (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.26, 0.92; p = 0.03), while significantly increasing dizziness by 98% (RR 1.98; 95% CI 1.11, 3.56; p = 0.02) and there were no significant differences in total adverse events, respiratory depression, and vomiting. TSA demonstrated conclusive evidence for involuntary movements and dizziness. Low-dose analysis showed that esketamine at ≤0.3 mg/kg significantly reduced recovery time, propofol consumption and involuntary movements, and significantly increasing mean heart rate, with no increase in dizziness. The Begg's test (p = 0.327) and the Egger's test (p = 0.413) indicated no significant publication bias, yet the funnel plot suggested potential publication bias.

Conclusion

Esketamine is an effective adjuvant anesthesia for children undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy. However, the general dose of esketamine may increase the risk of dizziness, which can be avoided by administering a low dose (≤0.3 mg/kg).

Effect of intravenous lidocaine on the ED50 of propofol induction dose in elderly patients undergoing painless gastroscopy: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, controlled study

BACKGROUND

Intravenous lidocaine could be a potential alternative adjuvant to propofol-based sedation for gastroscopy in elderly patients. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of intravenous lidocaine on the median effective dose (ED50) of propofol induction dose in elderly patients undergoing painless gastroscopy.

METHODS

The study included 70 patients aged ≥ 60 years undergoing painless gastroscopy with 64 randomly assigned to either group L (2% lidocaine 1.5 mg/kg, n = 31) or group N (equal volume normal saline, n = 33). All patients received propofol induction following 0.1 μg/kg intravenous sufentanil. The Dixon "up-and-down" sequential method was used, with a 1.5 mg/kg initial induction dose of propofol followed by a 0.1 mg/kg sequential variable dose. The primary endpoint was the ED50 of the propofol induction dose. The total propofol dose, recovery time, adverse events, and local anesthetic intoxication reactions were also recorded.

RESULTS

The ED50 of propofol induction dose was 0.670 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.216-0.827) mg/kg in group L and 1.118 (95% CI 0.803-1.232) mg/kg in group N. There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups (p < 0.001). The incidence of hypotension and propofol injection pain were lower in group L than in group N (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the orientation recovery time in group L was shorter compared to group N (p < 0.05). None of the participants in group L observed local anesthetic intoxication reactions after receiving lidocaine.

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of intravenous lidocaine to elderly patients undergoing painless gastroscopy resulted in a significant 40% reduction in the ED50 of propofol induction dose, which may be related to the decreased incidence of hypotension and injection pain, as well as the improved post-gastroscopy orientation recovery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR, ChiCTR2200065530. Registered on 08 November 2022.

Effect of intravenous lidocaine on outcomes in patients receiving propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures (GEPs) are frequently employed for the diagnosis and treatment of various gastrointestinal ailments. While propofol sedation is widely used during these procedures, there is a concern regarding its potential negative effects. Intravenous (IV) lidocaine has been suggested as an add-on to propofol sedation for GEPs, but current evidence on its efficiency and safety is limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the impact of IV lidocaine on outcomes in patients receiving propofol during GEPs.

METHODS

Electronic databases were screened for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), published up to 31 March 2023, investigating the effectiveness of intravenous lidocaine addition to propofol sedation during GEPs.

RESULTS

A total of 12 RCTs involving 712 patients that received IV lidocaine and propofol for GEF and 719 patients that received propofol were analyzed. Adding IV lidocaine to propofol sedation led to significant reduction in pain after the procedure (standardized mean difference (SMD) =  - 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI]; - 1.51 to - 0.32), decreased propofol usage (SMD =  - 0.89; 95% CI, - 1.31 to - 0.48), lower recovery time (SMD =  - 0.95 min; 95% CI, - 1.48 to - 0.43), and decreased pain score (SMD =  - 0.91; 95% CI, - 1.51 to - 0.32). The overall rate of adverse events was markedly less in the lidocaine group than in the control group (RR = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.99).

CONCLUSION

Our results show that IV lidocaine improves patient outcomes by reducing post-procedural pain, decreasing propofol usage, shortening recovery time, and lowering pain scores. This study provides compelling evidence supporting the use of intravenous lidocaine as an adjunct to propofol sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. However, further research is necessary to optimize the use of lidocaine and fully understand its long-term effects.

A Review of the Lidocaine in the Perioperative Period

This review analyzes the controversies surrounding lidocaine (LIDO), a widely recognized local anesthetic, by exploring its multifaceted effects on pain control in the perioperative setting. The article critically analyzes debates about lidocaine's efficacy, safety, and optimal administration methods. While acknowledging its well-documented analgesic attributes, the text highlights the ongoing controversies in its application. The goal is to provide clinicians with a comprehensive understanding of the current discourse, enabling informed decisions about incorporating lidocaine into perioperative protocols. On the other hand, emphasizes the common uses of lidocaine and its potential role in personalized medicine. It discusses the medication's versatility, including its application in anesthesia, chronic pain, and cardiovascular diseases. The text recognizes lidocaine's widespread use in medical practice and its ability to be combined with other drugs, showcasing its adaptability for individualized treatments. Additionally, it explores the incorporation of lidocaine into hyaluronic acid injections and its impact on pharmacokinetics, signaling innovative approaches. The discussion centers on how lidocaine, within the realm of personalized medicine, can offer safer and more comfortable experiences for patients through tailored treatments.

The study of different dosages of remazolam combined with sufentanil and propofol on painless gastroscopy: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Gastroscopy is one of the most commonly used diagnostic modalities for upper gastrointestinal disorders. Remazolam besylate, a new type of ultrashort-acting benzodiazepine drug, has been less studied in gastroscopy. In this study, we studied the efficacy and safety of remazolam combined with propofol for painless gastroscopy.

METHODS

This is a single-center, randomized controlled clinical trial. Hundred patients undergoing painless gastroscopy were included in this study and randomly divided into 2 groups (n = 50 per group): the remazolam 3 mg group (R3 group) and the remazolam 6 mg group (R6 group). Sufentanil, remazolam, and propofol are used to anesthetize the patients, and then, the effects of different dosages of remazolam on these patients are compared and analyzed. The patient's general condition, vital signs at different times, the dosage of propofol (mg) and additional times, complications, duration of gastroscopy (minute), awakening time (minute), residence time in the resuscitation room (minute), and adverse reactions were recorded.

RESULTS

R3 group systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure are more stable (P < .05); The number of additional propofol in R6 group was less (P < .05). The incidence of hypotension was lower in R3 group, as well as the time of awakening and staying in the resuscitation room were shorter (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Remazolam 3mg combined with sufentanil and propofol have less effect on hemodynamics in painless gastroscopy, and the patients have shorter awakening time.

Prevention of pain on injection of propofol using ice gel pack versus pre-treatment with lignocaine: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Regardless of the positive attributes of propofol, it is frequently associated with pain on injection. We compared the efficacy of topical cold thermotherapy using an ice gel pack with intravenous lignocaine pre-treatment for reducing pain on propofol injection.

METHODS

This single-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted in 200 American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I, II, and III patients scheduled for elective/emergency surgery under general anesthesia. The patients were randomized into two groups: the Thermotherapy group- receiving an ice gel pack proximal to the intravenous cannula for 1 min, or the Lignocaine group-receiving 0.5 mg/kg of lignocaine administered intravenously, with occlusion proximal to the site of the intravenous cannula for 30 s. The primary objective was to compare the overall incidence of pain after propofol injection. The secondary objectives included the incidence of discomfort on the application of an ice gel pack, comparison of dose of propofol needed for induction, and hemodynamic changes at induction, between the two groups.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients in the lignocaine group and 15 patients in the thermotherapy group reported pain. The incidence of pain and the distribution of pain scores were comparable among groups (p = 1.00). Patients of the lignocaine group required significantly less amount of propofol for induction as compared to the thermotherapy group (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Topical thermotherapy using an ice gel pack was not found superior to lignocaine pre-treatment in alleviating pain on injection of propofol injection. However, topical cold therapy using an ice pack remains a non-pharmacological technique that is easily available, reproducible, and cost-effective. Further studies are required to prove its equivalence to lignocaine pre-treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CTRI (CTRI/2021/04/032950).

The Effect of Preoperative Combined with Intravenous Lidocaine and Ketamine vs. Intravenous Ketamine on Pediatric Patients Undergoing Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Background

Ketamine is widely used in pediatric sedation. New studies have recommended combination therapy to reduce the side effects of ketamine.

Objectives

This study investigated the effect of adding intravenous (IV) lidocaine to ketamine on hemodynamic parameters, endoscopist satisfaction, and recovery time of children undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Methods

This triple-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial was conducted in Isfahan, Iran (2021). One hundred twenty children between the ages of 1 and 6 were enrolled. Patients were divided into 2 groups. The intervention group received 1.0 mg/kg of IV lidocaine and 1.0 mg/kg of IV ketamine, and the placebo group received 1.0 mg/kg of IV ketamine and placebo 2 minutes before entering the endoscopic room. Patients in both groups were sedated with 1.0 mg/kg of propofol, 0.1 mg/kg of midazolam, and 2.0 ug/kg of fentanyl for the procedure. The pulse rate, mean arterial pressure (MAP), respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation were recorded 1 minute before injection and every 5 minutes afterward.

Results

The mean (SD) ages of the intervention and control groups were 3.4 (1.5) and 3.4 (1.7), respectively. The mean difference in hemodynamic parameters between the 2 groups was insignificant during the investigation (P > 0.05). Furthermore, no significant differences were found regarding endoscopist satisfaction scores and length of recovery room stay (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

Adding low-dose IV lidocaine to ketamine for pediatric sedation does not significantly affect the hemodynamic status, endoscopist satisfaction, and recovery time.

Effect of butorphanol on visceral pain in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Butorphanol slightly influences the respiratory and circulatory systems, has a better effect on relieving the discomfort caused by mechanical traction, and has a low incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Combined butorphanol and propofol may suppress postoperative visceral pain, which is avoidable in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Thus, we hypothesized that butorphanol could decrease the incidence of postoperative visceral pain in patients undergoing gastroscopy and colonoscopy.

METHODS

This was a randomized, placebo-controlled, and double-blinded trial. Patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy were randomized to intravenously receive either butorphanol (Group I) or normal saline (Group II). The primary outcome was visceral pain after the procedure 10 min after recovery. The secondary outcomes included the rate of safety outcomes and adverse events. Postoperative visceral pain was defined as a visual analog scale (VAS) score ≥ 1.

RESULTS

A total of 206 patients were enrolled in the trial. Ultimately, 203 patients were randomly assigned to Group I (n = 102) or Group II (n = 101). In total, 194 patients were included in the analysis: 95 in Group I and 99 in Group II. The incidence of visceral pain at 10 min after recovery was found to be statistically lower with butorphanol than with the placebo (31.5% vs. 68.5%, respectively; RR: 2.738, 95% CI [1.409-5.319], P = 0.002), and the notable difference was in pain level or distribution of visceral pain (P = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

The trial indicated that adding butorphanol to propofol results in a lower incidence of visceral pain after surgery without noticeable fluctuations in circulatory and respiratory functions for gastrointestinal endoscopy patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04477733 (PI: Ruquan Han; date of registration: 20/07/2020).

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.

Effect of intravenous lidocaine on the ED50 of propofol for inserting gastroscope without body movement in adult patients: a randomized, controlled study

Background

Circulatory and respiratory depression are common  problems that occur in propofol alone sedation during gastroscopy. As a widely used analgesic adjuvant, intravenous lidocaine can reduce the consumption of propofol during Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or colonoscopy. However, it is still unknown the median effective dose (ED₅₀) of propofol when combined with lidocaine intravenously. This study aimed to compare the ED₅₀ of propofol with or without intravenous lidocaine for inserting gastrointestinal endoscope successfully.

Methods

Fifty nine patients undergoing gastroscopy or gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy were randomly divided into control group (Group C, normal saline + propofol) or lidocaine group (Group L, lidocaine + propofol). Patients were initially injected a bolus of 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine in Group L, whereas equivalent volume of 0.9% saline in Group C. Anaesthesia was then induced with a single bolus of propofol in all subjects. The induction dose of propofol was determined by the modified Dixon’s up-and-down method, and the initial dose was 1.5 mg/kg in both groups. The primary outcome was the ED₅₀ of propofol induction dose with or without intravenous lidocaine. The secondary outcomes were the induction time, the first propofol bolus time (FPBT: from MOAA/S score ≤ 1 to first rescue bolus propofol), and adverse events (AEs: hypoxemia, bradycardia, hypotension, and body movements).

Results

Totally, 59 patients were enrolled and completed this study. The ED₅₀ of propofol combined with lidocaine was 1.68 ± 0.11 mg/kg, significantly reduced compared with the normal saline group, 1.88 ± 0.13 mg/kg (P = 0.002). There was no statistical difference in induction time (P = 0.115) and the FPBT (P = 0.655) between the two groups. There was no significantly difference about the AEs between the two groups.

Conclusion

The ED₅₀ of propofol combined with intravenous lidocaine for successful endoscope insertion in adult patients, was 1.68 ± 0.11 mg/kg significantly reduced compared with the control group.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, No: ChiCTR2200059450. Registered on 29 April 2022. Prospective registration. http://www.chictr.org.cn.

Can intravenous lidocaine definitely attenuate propofol requirement and improve outcomes among colonoscopic patients under intravenous sedation?: A double-blinded, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Propofol-sparing effect of lidocaine has not been fully elucidated because propofol is usually mixed with many medications in anesthetic practice. Therefore, the study aimed to verify the additive effect of intravenous lidocaine to propofol without other sedative medications and control the depth of anesthesia using the bispectral index (BIS) during colonoscopy in a prospective, randomized, double-blinded controlled trial.

METHODS

Sixty-eight patients scheduled and undergoing colonoscopy were randomly allocated to receive intravenous lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg then 4 mg/kg/h) (Group L) or a similar volume of normal saline (Group C) with propofol administration guided by BIS monitoring. The primary outcome was total propofol requirements between group comparisons. The secondary outcomes included the number of hypoxemic periods, hemodynamic changes, duration in returning of BIS > 85, sedation scores, pain scores, postoperative opioid requirement, and patient satisfaction between group comparisons.

RESULTS

Intravenous lidocaine showed significantly reduced total propofol use (151.76 ± 50.78 mg vs 242.06 ± 50.86 mg, Group L vs Group C, respectively, P < .001). Duration in returning to BIS > 85, sedation scores, and patient satisfaction scores were significantly superior in Group L (P < .05). The number of hypoxemic episodes, changes of hemodynamic response, pain scores, and postoperative opioid requirement were similar in both groups. No adverse effects were detected in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Intravenous lidocaine produced a definitely effective reduced propofol requirement without other sedative agents and improved outcomes including patient satisfaction, duration in returning to BIS > 85, and sedation score during colonoscopy without adverse effects.

Effects of intravenous lidocaine on hypoxemia induced by propofol-based sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures: study protocol for a prospective, randomized, controlled trial

Background

Oxygen-desaturation episodes, blood pressure drops, and involuntary body movement are common problems that occur in propofol-based sedation in the procedure of painless gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. As a widely used analgesic adjuvant, intravenous lidocaine can reduce the consumption of propofol during ERCP or colonoscopy. However, it is still unknown how lidocaine affects the incidence of oxygen-desaturation episodes and cardiovascular events, and involuntary movement during painless GI endoscopy. Therefore, we aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of intravenous lidocaine in propofol-based sedation for GI endoscopy.

Methods

We will conduct a single-center, prospective, randomized, double-blind, saline-controlled trial. A total number of 300 patients undergoing painless GI procedures will be enrolled and randomly divided into the lidocaine group (Group L) and the control group (Group C). After midazolam and sufentanil intravenous injection, a bolus of 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine was immediately injected and followed by a continuous infusion of 4 mg/kg/h in the lidocaine group, whereas the same volumes of saline solution in the control group. Then, propofol was titrated to produce unconsciousness during the procedure. The primary outcome will be the incidence of oxygen-desaturation episodes. Secondary outcomes will be the incidence of involuntary body movement, discomfort symptoms, propofol consumption, endoscopist, and patient satisfaction.

Discussion

Propofol-based deep sedation without intubation is widely used in painless GI endoscopy. However, adverse events such as hypoxemia often occur clinically. We expect to assess the effect of lidocaine on reducing the incidence of oxygen-desaturation episodes, cardiovascular events, and involuntary body movement. We believe that the results of this trial will provide an effective and safe method for painless GI endoscopy.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2100053818. Registered on 30 November 2021.

The effect of intravenous lidocaine on propofol dosage in painless bronchoscopy of patients with COPD

Background

We tested the hypothesis that intravenous (IV) lidocaine reduces propofol requirements in painless bronchoscopy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Methods

A total of 93 patients who underwent bronchoscopy were included in this randomized placebo-controlled study. The patients were randomly divided into two groups. After the IV doses of nalbuphine, patients were given a bolus of propofol, which was titrated if necessary until loss of consciousness. Then patients were given IV lidocaine (2 mg/kg then 4 mg/kg/h) or the same volume of saline. The primary endpoint was the propofol requirements. Secondary endpoints were the incidence of hypoxemia, the incidence of cough during glottis examination, the systolic blood pressure (SBP) and heart rate (HR) during bronchoscopy procedures, the bronchoscopist's comforts, and the time for wakefulness before recovery.

Results

Lidocaine infusion resulted in a significant reduction in propofol requirements (p &lt; .0001), and the incidence of hypoxemia (p = .001) and cough (p = .003) during examination decreased significantly in the lidocaine group. During the examination, the fluctuation of SBP and HR was significantly lower than that in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (p &lt; .05). Bronchoscopist's comforts were higher in the lidocaine group (p &lt; .001), and time for wakefulness (p &lt; .001) were significantly lower in the lidocaine group.

Conclusion

In painless bronchoscopy in patients with COPD, IV infusion of lidocaine resulted in a reduction in propofol dose requirements and reduce the incidence of adverse events.

ED50 and ED95 of Propofol Combined with Different Doses of Intravenous Lidocaine for First-Trimester Uterine Aspiration: A Prospective Dose-Finding Study Using Up-and-Down Sequential Allocation Method

Purpose

This study aimed to test the effect of different doses of intravenous lidocaine on the median effective dose (ED50) and 95% effective dose (ED95) of propofol-induction dose and identify the optimal dose.

Patients and Methods

Patients undergoing first-trimester uterine aspiration were screened and randomly enrolled into the following groups: saline (L₀), 0.5 mg/kg lidocaine (L_0.5), 1.0 mg/kg lidocaine (L_1.0), and 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine (L_1.5). Anesthesia was induced with 1.0 µg/kg fentanyl. Prepared lidocaine or saline solution was injected later according to allocation, followed by propofol. The dose of propofol for each patient was determined using the up-and-down sequential study design. The primary end point was the ED50 and ED95 of the propofol-induction dose. The total propofol doses, awakening time, and adverse events were recorded.

Results

The ED50 (95% confidence interval) of propofol was significantly lower in groups L_1.0 and L_1.5 than group L₀ (1.6 [1.5–1.7] mg/kg and 1.8 [1.6–1.9] mg/kg, versus 2.4 [2.3–2.5] mg/kg, respectively; p<0.001). There was no significant difference in ED50 between groups L_1.0 and L_1.5 (p>0.05). However, surprisingly, the ED50 was significantly higher in group L_0.5 than L₀ (2.8 [2.6–3.0] mg/kg vs 2.4 [2.3–2.5] mg/kg; p<0.05). The total doses of propofol in groups L_1.0 and L_1.5 were lower than those in groups L₀ and L_0.5 (p<0.05). The systolic blood pressure (SBP) decline after anesthesia induction in group L_0.5 was greater than that in group L₀ (p<0.01). The incidence of respiratory depression in group L_0.5 was greater than that in groups L₀ and L_1.0 (p<0.05).

Conclusion

In patients who underwent first-trimester uterine aspiration, intravenous lidocaine 1.0 mg/kg prior to propofol injection significantly reduced the ED50 of propofol induction dose without severe side effects, equivalent to the effect of 1.5 mg/kg dose. We recommend 1.0 mg/kg as the optimal dose.

Intravenous Lidocaine Significantly Reduces the Propofol Dose in Elderly Patients Undergoing Gastroscopy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective

Propofol-based sedation has been widely used for gastroscopy, but the risk of respiratory suppression in elderly patients should not be overlooked. Intravenous (IV) lidocaine during surgery can reduce the demand for propofol and the incidence of cardiopulmonary complications. We examined whether IV lidocaine reduces the dose of propofol and the occurrence of adverse events during gastroscopy in elderly patients.

Methods

We conducted a prospective, single-center, double-blind randomized controlled trial in elderly patients aged ≥65 years with ASA I-II. Subjects were randomly assigned to the lidocaine group (Group L, n=70), who received IV 1.5 mg kg⁻¹ lidocaine followed by a continuous infusion of 4 mg kg⁻¹ h⁻¹ lidocaine, or the normal saline group (Group N, n=70), who received an equal volume of saline in the same way.

Results

IV lidocaine reduced the total and maintenance propofol dose in Group L (p<0.001), with no significant effect on the induction dose. The incidence of intraoperative hypoxia (p=0.035), emergency airway management events (p=0.005), duration of gastroscopy (p<0.05), consciousness recovery time (p<0.001), and postoperative pain (p=0.009) were all reduced in Group L. Patient (p=0.025) and gastroscopist (p=0.031) satisfaction was higher in Group L. Intraoperative hemodynamic parameters, the respiratory rate, the incidence of sedation-related events and anesthesiologist satisfaction were similar between the two groups.

Conclusion

IV lidocaine can significantly reduce the amount of propofol, the incidence of hypoxia and postoperative pain during gastroscopy in elderly patients, with a higher patient and gastroscopist satisfaction.

Low-Dose Esketamine as an Adjuvant to Propofol Sedation for Same-Visit Bidirectional Endoscopy: Protocol for a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Same-visit bidirectional endoscopy (esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy) is widely performed under sedation. At present, the optimal sedation regimen remains unclear. This study aims to test the hypothesis that a low-dose esketamine added to propofol sedation reduces hemodynamic and respiratory adverse events in these procedures.

Methods

In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 660 adult patients scheduled for same-visit bidirectional endoscopy under sedation from 3 teaching hospitals in China will be recruited. Patients will be randomly allocated, in a 1:1 ratio, to an esketamine group or a normal saline group (n = 330 in each group), stratified by study center. All patients will receive intravenous propofol 0.5 mg/kg and sufentanil 0.1 μg/mL for induction of sedation, followed by intravenous esketamine 0.15 mg/kg or the same volume of normal saline. Propofol will be titrated to the target sedation levels during the procedures. The primary endpoint is a composite of desaturation (peripheral oxygen saturation < 90%) and hypotension (systolic blood pressure <80 mmHg or decrease >30% of baseline). Secondary endpoints include desaturation, hypotension, total dose of propofol, pain scores and fatigue scores on the 0-10 numerical rating scale, dizziness or headache, hallucination or nightmare, nausea or vomiting, endoscopist satisfaction, and patient satisfaction. All analyses will be intention-to-treat.

Discussion

We expect that a low-dose esketamine adjunct to propofol-based sedation will improve cardiorespiratory stability in patients undergoing same-visit bidirectional endoscopy, providing reference for clinical sedation practice during these procedures.

Trial Registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Identifier: ChiCTR-ChiCTR2200055938).

Management of Postoperative Pain in Patients Following Spine Surgery: A Narrative Review

Perioperative pain management is a unique challenge in patients undergoing spine surgery due to the increased incidence of both pre-existing chronic pain conditions and chronic postsurgical pain. Peri-operative planning and counseling in spine surgery should involve an interdisciplinary approach that includes consideration of patient-level risk factors, as well as pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic pain management techniques. Consideration of psychological factors and patient focused education as an adjunct to these measures is paramount in developing a personalized perioperative pain management plan. Understanding the currently available body of knowledge surrounding perioperative opioid management, management of opioid use disorder, regional/neuraxial anesthetic techniques, ketamine/lidocaine infusions, non-opioid oral analgesics, and behavioral interventions can be useful in developing a comprehensive, multi-modal treatment plan among patients undergoing spine surgery. Although many of these techniques have proved efficacious in the immediate postoperative period, long-term follow-up is needed to define the impact of such approaches on persistent pain and opioid use. Future techniques involving the use of precision medicine may help identify phenotypic and physiologic characteristics that can identify patients that are most at risk of developing persistent postoperative pain after spine surgery.

Effect of wrist-ankle acupuncture on propofol dosage during painless colonoscopy: A randomized controlled prospective study

BACKGROUND

The clinical advantages of painless colonoscopy can reduce the fear and discomfort of patients and increase the detection rate of diseases. Propofol has the characteristics of fast effect and short action time. It is a common choice for painless endoscopic sedation and anesthetics. However, propofol can cause severe respiratory and circulatory depression. Therefore, it is important to find a way to reduce the dose of propofol.

AIM

To explore the effect of wrist-ankle acupuncture on propofol dose during colonoscopy.

METHODS

Two hundred patients who were going to receive selective painless colonoscopy in Hebei Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine were selected and divided into wrist-ankle acupuncture group (WAA group, n = 100) and control group (CON group, n = 100). After entering the operation room, patients were given 0.025 mg/kg nabufine intravenously and propofol at the initial dose of 0.5 mg/kg. In patients who did not fall asleep, propofol (10 mg/time) was given until loss of consciousness. Prior to anesthesia, patients in WAA group were punctured by specialist in the inferior 1, 2 and 3 regions according to the zoning principle of wrist-ankle acupuncture. The primary endpoint was required dose of propofol, and the secondary endpoints were the incidence of hypoxemia and hypotension. Furthermore, the following data were recorded: The operation time, wake-up time, incidence of nausea and vomiting, incidence of abdominal distention, post-colonoscopy pain, examiners' satisfaction, patients' satisfaction and Borg fatigue index. This study has been registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Registration Code: ChiCTR1900022177).

RESULTS

The induced dose of propofol and the total dose of propofol in WAA group were 80 mg and 110 mg, respectively, which were significantly lower than those in CON group (P < 0.05). The incidences of hypoxemia and hypotension in the WAA group were 2.2% and 3.3%, respectively, significantly lower than those in the CON group (P < 0.05). The incidence of abdominal distension in the WAA group was 8.8%, which was significantly lower than that in the CON group (P < 0.05, 28.9%). The waking time of WAA group was 3.26 ± 0.87 min, which was significantly lower than that of CON group (6.06 ± 0.88 min, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Wrist-ankle acupuncture can reduce the induction dose and total dose of propofol as well as the incidence of adverse reactions in painless colonoscopy without affecting the satisfaction of examiners and patients. This procedure is simple in operation and easy to promote in clinical practice.

Effect of Systemic Lidocaine on Postoperative Early Recovery Quality in Patients Undergoing Supratentorial Tumor Resection

Purpose

Lidocaine has been gradually used in general anesthesia. This study was designed to investigate the effect of systemic lidocaine on postoperative quality of recovery (QoR) in patients undergoing supratentorial tumor resection, and to explore its brain-injury alleviation effect in neurosurgical anesthesia.

Patients and Methods

Sixty adult patients undergoing elective supratentorial tumor resection. Patients were randomly assigned either to receive lidocaine (Group L: 1.5 mg/kg bolus completed 10 min before anesthesia induction followed by an infusion at 2.0 mg/kg/h) or to receive normal saline (Group C: received volume-matched normal saline at the same infusion rate). Primary outcome measures were Quality of Recovery-40 (QoR-40) scores on postoperative day (POD) 1 and 2. Plasma concentrations of S100B protein (S100B), neuron specific enolase (NSE), interleukin-6 (IL-6) and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) before anesthesia induction and at the end of surgery were assessed. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores were assessed at 1, 2, 6, 12, 24 and 48 h after surgery. Perioperative parameters and adverse events were also recorded.

Results

Patients between two groups had comparable baseline characteristics. Global QoR-40 scores on POD 1 and POD 2 were significantly higher (P <0.001) in group L (165.5±3.8 vs 173.7±4.7) than those in group C (155.6±4.0 vs 163.2±4.5); and scores of physical comfort, emotional state, and pain in group L were superior to those in group C (P <0.05). In group L, patients possessed lower plasma concentration of pro-inflammatory factors (IL-6, TNF-α) and brain injury-related factors (S100B, NSE) (P <0.05), consumed less remifentanil and propofol, and experienced lower pain intensity. Multiple linear regression analysis demonstrated age and pain were correlated with postperative recovery quality.

Conclusion

Systemic lidocaine improved early recovery quality after supratentorial tumor resection with general anesthesia, and had certain brain-injury alleviation effects. These benefits may be attributed to the inflammation-alleviating and analgesic properties of lidocaine.

Esketamine as an Adjuvant to Ciprofol or Propofol Sedation for Same-Day Bidirectional Endoscopy: Protocol for a Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial With Factorial Design

Background: Same-day esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy procedures under sedation have been increasingly performed. This study aims to assess the effects of esketamine combined with ciprofol (a novel anesthetic/sedative agent) or propofol on respiratory and hemodynamic adverse events in patients undergoing same-day bidirectional endoscopy.

Methods: This is a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2 × 2 factorial trial. A total of 180 adult patients scheduled for same-day bidirectional endoscopy under sedation will be randomized, in a 1:1:1:1 ratio, to receive 1 of 4 sedation regimens: 1) ciprofol and esketamine, 2) propofol and esketamine, 3) ciprofol and normal saline placebo, or 4) propofol and normal saline placebo. The primary outcome is a composite of desaturation [peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂) < 95%] and hypotension [mean blood pressure (MBP) < 65 mmHg or decrease in MBP ≥20% of baseline] during the sedation and in the recovery room. Secondary outcomes include episodes of desaturation, severe desaturation (SpO₂ < 90%), hypotension, severe hypotension (decrease in MBP ≥30% of baseline), bradycardia, postoperative nausea and vomiting, dizziness or headache, hallucination or nightmare, injection pain, pain scores and fatigue scores, endoscopist satisfaction, and patient satisfaction. Data will be analyzed on the modified intention-to-treat basis.

Discussion: We hypothesize that esketamine as an adjuvant to ciprofol or propofol sedation would improve cardiorespiratory stability. In addition, the potential interactions between interventions will be explored using the factorial design. The results of this trial will provide evidence for daily practice of sedation regimens for same-day bidirectional endoscopy.

Clinical Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trials Registry, Identifier ChiCTR2100052523.

Effect of intravenous lidocaine on propofol consumption in elderly patients undergoing colonoscopy: a double-blinded, randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Elderly patients undergoing colonoscopy with propofol as sedation are prone to respiratory or cardiovascular complications. Intravenous lidocaine has analgesic efficacy and reduces propofol consumption during surgery. Here, the effect of intravenous lidocaine on propofol consumption was evaluated in elderly patients undergoing colonoscopy.

METHODS

Patients were randomly allocated to receive intravenous lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg bolus dose, followed by a 2 mg/kg/h continuous infusion during the procedure; Group L) or a placebo (saline; Group N). During the procedure, sedation was achieved by propofol. The following outcomes were recorded: total propofol consumption; time to loss of consciousness; number of airway modifications; time to the first airway intervention; incidence of sedation-related events; pain score after awakening; endoscopists' and patients' satisfaction scores; memory level of the procedure; and adverse events within 24 h postoperatively.

RESULTS

Compared with Group N, propofol consumption was reduced by 13.2% in Group L (100.30 ± 25.29 mg vs. 115.58 ± 27.52 mg, respectively, p = 0.008). Kaplan-Meier curves showed that the median time to the loss of consciousness episode was shorter in Group L than in Group N (40 s vs. 55 s, respectively, log rank p < 0.0001). The number of airway modifications, time to the first airway intervention, incidence of sedation-related events, time to awakening, pain score after awakening, endoscopists' and patients' satisfaction scores, memory level of the procedure and adverse events within 24 h postoperatively did not differ between the two groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous lidocaine can reduce propofol consumption in elderly patients undergoing colonoscopy, with quicker time to loss of consciousness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The clinical trial was registered at (12/01/2021, ChiCTR2100042001 ).

The effects of target-controlled infusion of lidocaine undergoing vocal cord polypectomy: A randomized controlled trial (CONSORT compliant)

BACKGROUND

The present study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of general anesthesia-assisted target-controlled plasma infusion of lidocaine in patients with vocal cord polypectomy using a supporting laryngoscope.

METHODS

In total, 80 patients undergoing vocal cord polypectomy using a supporting laryngoscope were randomly divided into an intervention group and a control group; each group contained 40 subjects: both groups received general anesthesia; subjects in the intervention also received an additional 3 mg/L of lidocaine by target-controlled plasma infusion during induction and maintenance of anesthesia; heart rate (HR) mean arterial pressure (MAP), propofol and urapidil consumption (Uradil, which is a blood pressure drug that blocks alpha-1, is called Urapidi Hydrochloride Injection. It is produced by Germany, the enterprise name is Nycomed Deutschland GmbH, the import drug registration number is H20090715, and it is widely used in China), recovery time, and cough score (measured by Minogue et al's 5-grade scoring method) during extubation, and throat pain score (measured by visual analogue scale,[VAS]) after extubation and adverse events were recorded.

RESULTS

Significant differences were observed in HR (P < .05) and MAP (P < .05) immediately after intubation (T2), immediately after the operation starting to support laryngoscope exposure (T3), immediately after operation field adrenergic tampon hemostasis (T4), and 5 minutes after hemostasis (T5) between the 2 groups, and significant differences were also observed in HR (P < .05) before intubation (T1). Moreover, significant differences were observed in propofol consumption (P < .05), urapidil consumption (P < .05), cough score during extubation (P < .05), and throat pain score after extubation (P < .05). However, no significant difference was observed in the recovery time (P > .05). Furthermore, no adverse events were detected in either group.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study showed that target-controlled plasma infusion of lidocaine can reduce propofol consumption in patients undergoing vocal cord polypectomy by supporting laryngoscopy, and the hemodynamics are more stable and reduce the coughing reaction in the wake period and throat pain after extubation without adverse events.

Clinical Efficacy of Perioperative Intravenous Dexmedetomidine and Lidocaine Combined Infusion for Thyroidectomy: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of perioperative dexmedetomidine (DEX) combined with lidocaine intravenous infusion on relieving postoperative pain and improving recovery for patients undergoing thyroidectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 138 patients undergoing thyroidectomy with general anesthesia were randomly divided into 4 groups: lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg bolus followed by 2 mg/kg/h infusion) in the group L, DEX (0.5 µg/kg) in the group D, lidocaine (same as the group L) with DEX (0.5 µg/kg) in the group L+D, and placebo as normal saline in the group C. All drugs were infused until the end of the surgery. The visual analog scale (VAS) scores of patients at 1, 4, 8, 12, and 24 hours following surgery, opioid requirement, propofol consumption, incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, awaking time, hemodynamic variables, and any adverse effects were assessed.

RESULTS

Compared with the group C, the VAS scores in the group L+D were significantly lower until 8 hours after surgery (P<0.05), while the VAS scores were significantly decreased just until 4 hours in the group L and 1 hour in the group D after surgery (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in opioid consumption between 4 groups. Propofol consumption in the group L+D was significantly lower than other groups (P<0.05). Compared with the group C, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in the group L+D was lower (P<0.05), and awaking time in the group L+D and the group L was shorter (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

DEX combined with lidocaine infusion can effectively attenuate the postoperative pain without any serious adverse events, which may improve postoperative recovery in patients undergoing thyroidectomy.

Evaluation of anesthesia quality with three methods: "propofol + fentanyl" vs. "propofol + fentanyl + lidocaine" vs. "propofol + fentanyl + lidocaine + ketamine" in patients referred to the scoping ward

Introduction:

Toleration of the complexity and pain of interventions such as endoscopy and colonoscopy is highly difficult for patients. Considering the disagreement on the method of injection of propofol, this study was performed to evaluate the quality of anesthesia using the three methods of propofol + fentanyl, propofol + fentanyl + lidocaine, and propofol + fentanyl + lidocaine + ketamine.

Methods:

This one-way blind clinical trial study included 99 patients who were admitted in three groups by block randomization method. In a group of patients that were sedated with propofol + fentanyl + lidocaine + ketamine, the dose of all drugs is reduced by half the amount of the other groups. Variables included age, sex, frequency of cough, apnea, need for jaw thrust maneuver, O₂ saturation, duration of recovery, and procedural satisfaction. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 20.0. P value of < 0.05 was considered to be significant.

Results:

The three groups were similar in terms of demographic characteristics. The effects of the three sedation protocols on the variables showed that patient’s apnea, cough, O₂ saturation, and also proceduralist satisfaction in the group of the patient that sedated with four drugs was significantly higher (P < 0.05) than other groups. But there was no significant difference between the three groups when comparing the recovery time and need for jaw thrust during the procedure.

Conclusion:

The findings of the present study showed that the use of combination of “propofol + fentanyl + lidocaine + ketamine” with lower doses, significantly results in higher quality sedation compared with higher doses of “propofol + fentanyl + lidocaine” or “propofol + fentanyl” for scoping procedures.

Ketamine as the main analgesic agent during analgesia-based sedation for elective colonoscopy – A randomised, double-blind, control study

Aim:

The aim of the study was to compare the analgesic effects of ketamine over fentanyl combined with propofol in analgesia-based elective colonoscopy with purpose of patient safety and satisfaction.

Methods:

This is a double-blinded prospective randomized controlled trial. Ninety patients were included and randomized to either fentanyl-propofol (Group FP, n: 30), ketamine-propofol (Group KP, n: 30) or propofol-control group (Group C, n: 30). Group FP patients received fentanyl and propofol, Group KP received ketamine and propofol and Group C, propofol. In all groups, incremental doses of propofol were used to maintain a Ramsay sedation score (RSS) of 5. Respiratory depression and hemodynamic parameters were monitored for the first minute and every 5 min during endoscopy. Fifteen minutes after the procedure, the degree of pain was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS), the quality of recovery according to the Aldrete score (ARS), complications during and after the procedure and additional doses of propofol were recorded.

Results:

Mean arterial pressure (MAP) at 5 and 30 min (p < 0.05), heart rate (HR) at 15, 25 and 30 min (p < 0.05) and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO₂) at 30 min (p < 0.05) were statistically significant for Group FP. Desaturation (*p = 0.033), and weakness (*p = 0.004) was also significant for Group FP at 20, 25 and 30 min (p < 0.05). Pain was lower assessed for the Group KP according to the VAS (**p = 0.025).

Conclusion:

In analgesia-based colonoscopy, ketamine provides appropriate analgesia and less incidence of complications compared to fentanyl.

Use of intravenous lidocaine for dose reduction of propofol in paediatric colonoscopy patients: a randomised placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Propofol, a widely used sedative in endoscopic procedures, sometimes causes cardiopulmonary complications. Intravenous lidocaine can diminish visceral pain and decrease the dose of propofol. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous lidocaine in reducing propofol dosage during paediatric colonoscopy.

METHODS

Forty children who underwent colonoscopy were divided into two groups. Lidocaine hydrochloride (1.5 mg/kg induction and 2 mg/kg/h maintenance) was given intravenously to the lidocaine group, and the same amount of saline was given to the control group after they received lidocaine induction. Propofol initial plasma concentration of 5 μg/mL was targeted, and the procedure was performed after the bispectral index value reached 55. The primary outcome was propofol requirement.

RESULTS

The propofol requirement in the lidocaine group was decreased by 35.5% (128.6 ± 30.4 mg vs. 199.4 ± 57.6 mg; p < 0.001; 95%CI: - 100.60, - 41.02). The incidence of involuntary body movements was significantly lower in the lidocaine group (p = 0.028; OR = 0.17; 95%CI: 0.03, 0.92). The awakening time (p < 0.001; 95%CI: - 7.67, - 5.13) and recovery times (p < 0.001; 95%CI: - 7.45, - 4.35) were significantly lower in the lidocaine group. Pain was significantly less at 30 min and 60 min after the procedure in the lidocaine group (0 [0-4] vs. 3 [0-5], p < 0. 001; 0 [0-2] vs. 1 [0-3], p = 0.001). There was no difference in the incidence of bradycardia, hypotension, or hypoxia between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

For colonoscopy procedures in paediatric patients, intravenous lidocaine reduces the amount of propofol needed, provides better sedation and postprocedural pain management, as well as a reduction in recovery time.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered on November 6, 2020 at China Clinical Trials Registration Center ( www.chictr.org.cn ) ref.: ChiCTR 2,000,039,706.

Continuous infusion of lidocaine in pediatric colonoscopy: A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Propofol is commonly used for providing procedural sedation during pediatric colonoscopy. Intravenous (i.v.) lidocaine can mitigate visceral pain and reduce propofol requirements during surgery. The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of i.v. lidocaine on perioperative propofol and sufentanil dose, pulse oxygen saturation, postoperative pain score, and recovery time during pediatric colonoscopy.

METHODS

We designed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study and enrolled 40 children aged from 3 to 10 years who underwent colonoscopy. After titration of propofol to achieve unconsciousness, the patients were given i.v. lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg later 2 mg/kg^/hour) or the same volume of saline. Sedation was standardized and combined propofol with sufentanil. The primary outcome variables were intraoperative propofol and sufentanil requirements, and the number of oxygen desaturation episodes. Secondary outcome variables were recovery time after colonoscopy and post-colonoscopy pain.

RESULTS

Lidocaine infusion resulted in a significant reduction in propofol requirements: (median (quartile) 1.8 (1.5-2.0) vs. 3.0 (2.8-3.3) mg/kg respectively; P < 0.001) and sufentanil requirements: (median (quartile) 0.06 (0.05-0.08) vs. 0.1 (0.1-0.1) μg/kg respectively; P < 0.001). The number of subjects who experienced oxygen desaturation below 95% in the lidocaine group was also significantly less than that in the control group: 1 vs. 6 (P = 0.04). The mean (SD) recovery time was significantly shorter in the lidocaine group: (19.2 (2.6) vs. 13.3 (2.6) min respectively; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in post-colonoscopy pain.

CONCLUSION

Continuous infusion of lidocaine resulted in reduction of propofol and sufentanil requirements, recovery time, and risk of hypoxemia during pediatric colonoscopy.

Impact of intravenous and topical lidocaine on clinical outcomes in patients receiving propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of i.v. or topical lidocaine as an anaesthesia adjunct in improving clinical outcomes in patients receiving gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures under propofol sedation remains unclear.

METHODS

Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library) were searched for RCTs comparing the clinical outcomes with or without lidocaine application (i.v. or topical) in patients receiving propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures from inception to 29 March 2021. The primary outcome was propofol dosage, while secondary outcomes included procedure time, recovery time, adverse events (e.g. oxygen desaturation), post-procedural pain, and levels of endoscopist and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Twelve trials (1707 patients) published between 2011 and 2020 demonstrated that addition of i.v. (n=7) or topical (n=5) lidocaine to propofol sedation decreased the level of post-procedural pain (standardised mean difference [SMD]=-0.47, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.8 to -0.14), risks of gag events (risk ratio [RR]=0.51, 95% CI: 0.35-0.75), and involuntary movement (RR=0.4, 95% CI: 0.16-0.96). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that only i.v. lidocaine reduced propofol dosage required for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures (SMD=-0.83, 95% CI: -1.19 to -0.47), increased endoscopist satisfaction (SMD=0.75, 95% CI: 0.21-1.29), and shortened the recovery time (SMD=-0.83, 95% CI: -1.45 to -0.21). Intravenous or topical lidocaine did not affect the incidence of oxygen desaturation (RR=0.72, 95% CI: 0.41-1.24) or arterial hypotension (RR=0.6, 95% CI: 0.22-1.65) and procedure time (SMD=0.21, 95% CI: -0.09 to 0.51).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrated that i.v. or topical lidocaine appears safe to use and may be of benefit for improving propofol sedation in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. Further large-scale trials are warranted to support our findings.

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.

Effects of intravenous lidocaine on alfentanil consumption during procedural sedation for colonoscopy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a randomized controlled trial

Background: Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) is used during colonoscopy to facilitate the procedure and relieve patient’s discomfort. The foremost risk of PSA is respiratory depression. Lidocaine could be a promising additional analgesic in IBD patients to minimise side effects of PSA. Objective: Our primary objective was to investigate whether i.v. lidocaine reduces the amount of alfentanil used during PSA in IBD patients. Additionally, we investigated whether lidocaine reduces cardiorespiratory incidents and the amount of propofol required during the procedure. Design: A randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled study. Setting: Single-center study from November 2016 to December 2018. Methods: Seventy-six patients with IBD, ASA 1 or 2, between 18 and 65 years, scheduled for colonoscopy with PSA were included. Exclusion criteria were: pregnancy, emergency colonoscopy, allergies for study medication, rhythm disorders, cardiomyopathy, BMI < 18 kg m -2 , BMI > 35 kg m -2 , obstructive sleep apnea syndrome and uncontrolled hypertension. Patients received lidocaine 1.5 mg kg -1 followed by a continuous infusion of 2 mg kg -1 h -1 (intervention group, n=38) or 0.9% saline in equivalent volumes (control group, n=38) during colonoscopy. Main outcome measures: Amount of alfentanil and propofol used during the interventional procedure. Cardiorespiratory events as defined in methods during the colonoscopy. Results: There was a not statistically significant reduction in the use of alfentanil [327 µg (95%CI=-31-505, p=0.082)] and propofol [39 mg (95%CI=-5-83, p=0.083)] in the lidocaine group compared with the control group. Ten patients (26%) in the control group and 8 patients in the lidocaine group (21%) experienced a period of hypoxia (p=0.788). In both groups, no periods of hypotension were noted. Conclusion: Our investigation has shown a trend for reduced alfentanil and propofol consumption in patients receiving lidocaine during colonoscopy under sedation. The differences were not statistically significant. Lidocaine did not reduce the incidence of cardiorespiratory events.

Efficacy and safety of supplemental intravenous lidocaine for sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Some studies have shown that intravenous (IV) lidocaine reduces the dose requirement of propofol in GI endoscopic procedures. We conducted this study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination of IV lidocaine and propofol compared with propofol alone in GI endoscopic procedures.

METHODS

We reviewed several databases from inception to October 13, 2020, to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the role of IV propofol and lidocaine with IV propofol plus placebo for sedation in endoscopic procedures. Our outcomes of interest were the differences in total dose of propofol administered, procedure time, and intraoperative adverse events. For categorical variables, we calculated pooled risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI); for continuous variables, we calculated standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI. Data were analyzed using a random effect model. We used the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework to ascertain the quality of evidence.

RESULTS

We included 5 randomized controlled trials with 318 patients. We found that the total dose of propofol administered was significantly lower in the lidocaine group than the control group (SMD, -0.76; 95% CI, -1.09 to -0.42). We found no significant difference in procedure time (SMD, 0.16; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.57) or adverse events (risk ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.35-1.03) between the groups. There was moderate to substantial heterogeneity in the data. Quality of evidence based on the GRADE framework ranged from low to moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate quality of evidence suggests that IV lidocaine decreases the dose of propofol administered for GI endoscopic procedures.

Adequacy of Anesthesia Guidance for Colonoscopy Procedures

In patients undergoing colonoscopy procedures (CPs), inadequate dosing of hypnotic drugs (HD) and opioid analgesics (OA) during intravenous sedoanalgesia (ISA) may lead to intraprocedural awareness with recall (IAwR), intraprocedural (IPP) and postprocedural pain (PPP), as well as postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the titration of HD and OA based on the observance of changing values of state entropy (SE) and surgical pleth index (SPI) (adequacy of anesthesia-AoA), state entropy alone, or standard practice may reduce the number of adverse events. One hundred and fifty-eight patients were included in the final analysis. The rate of IAwR and IPP was statistically more frequent in patients from the C group in comparison with the AoA and SE groups (p < 0.01 and p < 0.05, respectively). In turn, the rate of PPP, PONV, and patients' and operators' satisfaction with ISA between groups was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Changes in hemodynamic parameters, demand for HD, and OA were statistically significant, but of no clinical value. In patients undergoing CPs under ISA using propofol and FNT, as compared to standard practice, intraprocedural SE monitoring reduced the rate of IAwR and IPP, with no influence on the rate of PPP, PONV, or patients' and endoscopists' satisfaction. AoA guidance on propofol and FNT titration, as compared to SE monitoring only, did not reduce the occurrence of the aforementioned studied parameters, imposing an unnecessary extra cost.

Pre-procedure intravenous lidocaine administration on propofol consumption for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedure is generally performed in patients with high comorbidity. We aimed to reduce the consumption of propofol by adding lidocaine before ERCP.

METHODS

Eighty ERCP patients with ASA I-III, aged between 45-75 years, were randomly divided into two groups. Lidocaine group (group L, n = 40), received 1-mg midazolam, 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine, and 1 mg/kg propofol intravenously. The control group (group C, n = 40) received 1-mg midazolam, saline in the same volume as the lidocaine group, and 1 mg/kg propofol intravenously. Propofol was administered with intermittent bolus doses. Propofol consumption, oropharyngeal reflex, recovery time, endoscopist satisfaction, ketamine need, and side-effects were recorded.

RESULTS

Propofol consumption during the procedure was statistically lower in group L than in the control group (157.25 ± 39.16 mg vs 228.75 ± 64.62 mg respectively, P < 0.001). Additionally, recovery time was statistically faster in group L compared with the control group (7.78 ± 3.95 min vs 11.92 ± 3.24 min respectively, P < 0.001). The oropharyngeal reflex was less in group L than control group (6/40 vs 15/40 respectively, P = 0.042). There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding visual analogue scale scores and endoscopist satisfaction (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend the use of intravenous lidocaine before the ERCP procedure as it reduces propofol consumption, recovery times, and oropharyngeal reflex.

Intravenous Infusion of Lidocaine Can Accelerate Postoperative Early Recovery in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Obstructive Sleep Apnea

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is defined by intermittent and recurrent episodes of partial or complete obstruction of the upper airway during sleep. Intermittent and recurrent hypoxia/reoxygenation is the main pathophysiological mechanism of OSA. Its consequences include systemic inflammation, activation of the sympathetic nervous system, and release of oxygen free radicals. Infusion of intravenous (IV) lidocaine has anti-inflammatory, antihyperalgesic, and analgesic properties, supporting its use as an anesthetic adjuvant. Lidocaine can reduce nociception and/or cardiovascular responses to surgical stress, as well as postoperative pain and/or analgesic requirements. Because of the high prevalence of OSA in obese patients, the use of opioids to manage postoperative pain in that population is often accompanied by the development of adverse respiratory events, such as hypoventilation and hypoxemia. IV infusion of lidocaine has been shown to enhance the quality of early recovery after laparoscopic bariatric and upper airway surgery. However, limited evidence exists regarding its use in patients undergoing surgery for OSA. In addition, whether IV infusion of lidocaine can improve postoperative early recovery in patients undergoing surgery for OSA remains unknown. Therefore, we hypothesized that IV infusion of lidocaine can improve postoperative early recovery in patients undergoing surgery for OSA. Perioperative infusion also may be a promising analgesic adjunct to enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols.

Effect of intravenous administration of lidocaine on the ED50 of propofol induction dose during gastroscopy in adult patients: A randomized, controlled study

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Propofol provides a prominent sedation effect in gastroscopy. However, sedation with propofol alone during gastroscopy might result in circulatory and respiratory depression. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that the addition of intravenous lidocaine to propofol-based sedation could decrease the ED50 of propofol induction dose during gastroscopy in adult patients while the respiratory and haemodynamic stability were not compromised.

METHODS

Patients undergoing gastroscopy were randomly enrolled into lidocaine + propofol (L + P) group or normal saline + propofol (NS + P) group. Subjects were initially administered intravenous bolus of 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine in L + P group or equivalent volume of 0.9% saline in NS + P group. Anaesthesia was then induced with a single bolus of 1.0 μg sufentanil followed by injection of propofol in all patients. The induction dose of propofol for each individual patient was determined by the protocol of Dixon "up-and-down" method for both groups. The primary end point was the ED50 of propofol induction dose.

RESULTS

Totally, 48 patients were enrolled and completed this study. Compared with the NS + P group, the ED50 of propofol induction dose was significantly reduced in the L + P group (2.01 mg/kg vs. 1.69 mg/kg) (U = 61.5, p < 0.001).

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

The addition of intravenous lidocaine significantly reduced the ED50 of propofol induction dose during gastroscopy in adult patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The present clinical trial was registered at http://www.chictr.org.cn/ (registration No. ChiCTR1900024025, 23 June 2019).

Procedure-specific and patient-specific pain management for ambulatory surgery with emphasis on the opioid crisis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Postoperative pain is frequent while, on the other hand, there is a grooving general concern on using effective opioid pain killers in view of the opioid crisis and significant incidence of opioid abuse. The present review aims at describing nonopioid measures in order to optimize and tailor perioperative pain management in ambulatory surgery.

RECENT FINDINGS

Postoperative pain should be addressed both preoperatively, intraoperatively and postoperatively. The management should basically be multimodal, nonopioid and procedure-specific. Opioids should only be used when needed on top of multimodal nonopioid prophylaxis, and then limited to a few days at maximum, unless strict control is applied. The individual patient should be screened preoperatively for any risk factors for severe postoperative pain and/or any abuse potential.

SUMMARY

Basic multimodal analgesia should start preoperatively or peroperatively and include paracetamol, cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-2 specific inhibitor or conventional nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) and in most cases dexamethasone and local anaesthetic wound infiltration. If any of these basic analgesics are contraindicated or there is an extra risk of severe postoperative pain, further measures may be considered: nerve-blocks or interfascial plane blocks, gabapentinnoids, clonidine, intravenous lidocaine infusion or ketamine infusion. In the abuse-prone patient, a preferably nonopioid perioperative approach should be aimed at.

Application of Intravenous Lidocaine in Obese Patients Undergoing Painless Colonoscopy: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Study

OBJECTIVE

Propofol for procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) for colonoscopy can result in a high prevalence of severe respiratory depression. Studies have shown that intravenous (IV) infusion of lidocaine can reduce propofol requirements significantly and increase the ventilatory response to carbon dioxide in humans. We tested the hypothesis that IV lidocaine could improve propofol-induced respiratory depression in obese patients during colonoscopy.

METHODS

Ninety obese patients scheduled for painless colonoscopy were randomized to receive lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg, then 2 mg/kg/h, IV) or the same volume of 0.9% saline. Intraoperative sedation was provided by propofol. The primary outcome was the number of oxygen-desaturation episodes. Secondary outcomes were: the number of apnea episodes; total propofol consumption; time to the first hypoxia episode; time to consciousness loss; intraoperative hemodynamic parameters; awakening time; adverse events; duration of post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) stay; satisfaction of endoscopists and patients.

RESULTS

Demographic characteristics between the two groups were comparable. The number of oxygen-desaturation episodes in group L (1.49±1.12) decreased by 0.622 (P=0.018) compared with that in group N (2.11±1.32), and the number of apnea episodes in group L decreased by 0.533 (P<0.001). Kaplan-Meier curves showed that the median time to the first hypoxia episode was longer in group L (86.78 s) than that in group N (63.83 s) (Log rank P=0.0008). The total propofol consumption, awakening time, and duration of PACU stay were reduced in group L. There was no significant difference in the prevalence of adverse events (P>0.05 for all). Satisfaction scores for endoscopists and patients in group L were higher than that in group N (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Intravenous infusion of lidocaine could significantly reduce the number of oxygen-desaturation and apnea episodes in obese patients during painless colonoscopy. This method is worthy of clinical promotion.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

ChiCTR2000028937.

Efficacy and safety of intravenous lidocaine in propofol-based sedation for ERCP procedures: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Propofol-based sedation is widely used in ERCP procedures, but adverse respiratory or cardiovascular events commonly occur. Intravenous injection of lidocaine has an analgesic effect and can reduce the requirements of fentanyl and propofol during abdominal surgery. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous lidocaine on propofol requirements during ERCP procedures.

METHODS

Forty-eight patients scheduled for ERCP were randomly divided into 2 groups, the lidocaine group and the control group. All patients received .02 mg/kg midazolam and .1 μg/kg sufentanil intravenously as premedication. A bolus of propofol was applied for induction of sedation, and perfusion of propofol was applied for maintenance. Patients in the lidocaine group received a bolus of 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine intravenously followed by continuous infusion of 2 mg/kg/h, whereas the control group received the same volumes of saline solution. The primary outcome was the propofol requirement during ERCP.

RESULTS

Compared with the control group, propofol requirements were reduced by 33.8% in the lidocaine group (212.0 ± 118.2 mg vs 320.0 ± 189.6 mg, P = .023). Involuntary movement was less common in the lidocaine group than in the control group (12.5% vs 41.7%, P = .049). In the lidocaine group, postprocedure pain and fatigue, as measured by the visual analog scale, were significantly reduced (0 [range, 0-4] vs 3 [range, 0-5], P = .005; 2 [range, 0-4] vs 5 [range, 2-8], P < .001).The incidence of oxygen desaturation, hypotension, and bradycardia tended to be lower in the lidocaine group.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous lidocaine can significantly decrease propofol requirements during ERCP, with higher sedation quality and endoscopist satisfaction. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03996577.).

The propofol-sparing effect of intravenous lidocaine in elderly patients undergoing colonoscopy: a randomized, double-blinded, controlled study

Background

Propofol provides a prominent sedation effect in colonoscopy. However, anesthesia and sedation induced with propofol in the elderly might result in cardiopulmonary complications, especially when it is combined with opoids in the regimen. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that the addition of intravenous lidocaine to propofol-based sedation could decrease the overall propofol requirement in elderly patients during colonoscopy while the procedural sedation satisfaction and the hemodynamic stability were not compromised.

Methods

Ninety-two patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomly enrolled into lidocaine+propofol (L + P) group or normal saline+propofol (NS + P) groups. Subjects received intravenous bolus of 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine followed by 4 mg kg^− 1 h^− 1 lidocaine continuous infusion in L + P group or equivalent volumes of normal saline for boluses and infusion in NS + P group. Anesthesia was induced with 2.5 μg sufentanil followed by injection of 1.2 mg kg^− 1 propofol in all patients. A single supplemental bolus of 0.6 mg kg^− 1 propofol was administered whenever MOAA/S score > 1 or had body movement during the colonoscopy. The recorded primary endpoints included: the total amount of propofol administered during entire procedure, the supplemental amount of propofol after induction, and the frequencies of boluses of supplemental propofol.

Results

A total of 79 patients were included in the final analysis. Compared with NS + P group, the total amounts of propofol (induction plus supplemental) were no significant differences in L + P group; however, the required supplemental propofol was less (69.9 ± 39.2 mg vs. 51.5 ± 38.6 mg) (P = 0.039); the average frequencies of boluses of supplemental propofol given after induction were lower (2.1 ± 1.1 vs. 1.4 ± 0.9) (P = 0.003); the calculated “unit propofol” infusion rate was lower (0.18 ± 0.05 vs. 0.14 ± 0.04 mg kg^− 1 min^− 1) (P = 0.002).

Conclusions

The addition of intravenous lidocaine to propofol-based sedation resulted in a remarked reduction of supplemental propofol in the elderly during colonoscopy.

Trial registration

The present clinical trial was registered at http://www.chictr.org.cn on 11th March 2019 (registration No. ChiCTR1900021818).