The effect of epidural lidocaine administration on sedation of propofol general anesthesia: a randomized trial

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.

Effect of lumbar epidural blockade and propofol on mean arterial pressure, cardiac output and bispectral index: A randomised controlled and pharmacodynamic modelling study

BACKGROUND

It is generally accepted that a neuraxial blockade strengthens the sedative effects of propofol. Deafferentation caused by neuraxial blockade is thought to play a key role.

OBJECTIVES

The objective is to determine whether epidural blockade affects the bispectral index (BIS) of propofol and two other pharmacodynamic endpoints, mean arterial pressure (MAP) and cardiac output (CO).

DESIGN

Randomised, placebo-controlled study.

SETTING

University hospital.

PATIENTS

Patients scheduled for surgery needing epidural analgesia.

INTERVENTION

28 ASA one or two patients received 0, 50, 100 or 150 mg of epidural ropivacaine. After stabilisation of the epidural blockade, propofol was given by target-controlled infusion. The propofol plasma target concentrations were increased at 6-min intervals from 0 to 1, 2.5, 4 and 6 μg ml-1. The study was performed before surgery.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Three endpoints, BIS, mean arterial blood pressure and CO were measured from baseline (prior to the administration of epidural ropivacaine) until 2 h after the start of propofol infusion. The propofol concentration-effect data were analysed to determine the interaction between epidural blockade and propofol sedation.

RESULTS

In the absence of propofol, the increase in number of epidural blocked segments from 0 to 15.5 (range 6 to 21) reduced the MAP by 30%, without affecting BIS or CO. In the absence of epidural blockade, the increase in propofol concentration to 6 μg ml-1 reduced BIS, MAP and CO. When combined, epidural anaesthesia and intravenous propofol exhibited no pharmacodynamic interaction on any of the three endpoints. In addition, epidural blockade did not affect the propofol effect-site equilibration half-life for its haemodynamic effects (11.5 ± 0.5 min) or for its effects on the BIS (4.6 ± 0.4 min).

CONCLUSION

Epidural blockade reduces the propofol requirements for sedative end points. This is not the result of a pharmacodynamic interaction.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Dutch trial register CCMO, Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects, trial number NL 32295.058.10.

Paravertebral Block Versus Intercostal Nerve Block in Non-Intubated Uniportal Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery: A Randomised Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Non-intubated uniportal video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) has been reported to be safe and feasible for patients with various thoracic diseases, including those who have respiratory dysfunction. This study examined the anaesthetic and analgesic sparing effects of either paravertebral block or intercostal nerve block on the non-intubated technique with spontaneous ventilation in patients under general anaesthesia (GA) using a supraglottic airway device. The primary aim was to compare the anaesthetic sparing effect of paravertebral block versus intercostal nerve block in non-intubated GA with airway support via a supraglottic airway device during VATS surgery. The secondary aim was to compare the recovery characters and postoperative outcomes of the patients.

METHODS

The study included 105 patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status II-III who had video-assisted thoracoscopy without endotracheal intubation and using a laryngeal airway. The patients were divided into three groups; each group consisted of 35 patients. Group I (35 patients): control group received only GA. Group 2 (35 patients): received a single-shot paravertebral block before induction of the GA. Group 3 (35 patients): received thoracoscopic intercostal block infiltration after induction of anaesthesia from the third to the eighth intercostal nerve block, in addition to intrathoracic vagal block. Heart rate, mean arterial pressure (MAP), and oxygen saturation were recorded before induction of GA (T0), after induction of GA (T1), 20 minutes later (T2), and before the end of the surgical procedure (T3).

RESULTS

Heart rate was significantly lower in Groups 2 and 3 compared with Group 1, and lower in Group 2 compared with Group 3. The MAP was significantly lower in Groups 2 and 3 compared with Group 1, and there was no significant difference between Groups 2 and 3. Oxygen saturation was significantly higher in Group 2 and in Group 3 compared with Group 1 and there was no significance difference between Groups 2 and 3. Expiratory fraction of sevoflurane (Ef sevo) was significantly lower in Groups 2 and 3 compared with Group 1, with no difference between Group 2 and 3. Groups 2 and 3 had lower fentanyl requirements, time to spontaneous eye movement, time to spontaneous arm movement, time to purposeful movement, and time to laryngeal mask removal than Group 1.

CONCLUSIONS

Regional anaesthesia by either preoperative paravertebral block or thoracoscopic intercostal nerve block with ipsilateral vagal block provided an anaesthetic sparing effect, guided by lower Ef sevo concentration, with comparable bi-spectral index in patients undergoing uniportal thoracoscopic surgery.

Effects of intrathecal bupivacaine on the NR2B/CaMKIIα/CREB signaling pathway in the rat lumbar spinal cord

Neuraxial anesthesia produces an anesthetic-sparing, sedative effect. The mechanism underlying this effect potentially involves decreased spinal afferent input. However, the neurochemical mechanisms at the spinal level remain unknown. The N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor 2B subunit/calcium-calmodulin-dependent protein kinase II α/cAMP response element-binding protein (NR2B/CaMKIIα/CREB) signaling pathway serves an important role in regulating the transmittance of peripheral noxious stimulation to supraspinal regions in the process of nociception. The present study investigated the effects of intrathecal bupivacaine on the NR2B/CaMKIIα/CREB signaling pathway. Following catheterization, 36 male Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly assigned to a normal saline (NS) or bupivacaine treatment group, in which each rat intrathecally received 20 µl normal saline or 0.5% bupivacaine, respectively. The expression levels of NR2B, CaMKIIα/p-CaMKIIα, and CREB/phosphorylated (p)-CREB in the lumbar spinal cord were investigated by western blotting, reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction and immunohistochemistry (IHC). Following bupivacaine treatment, western blot analysis demonstrated that the protein expression levels of NR2B, p-CaMKIIα, and p-CREB in the spinal cord were reduced by approximately 54, 56 and 33%, respectively, compared with NS control rats. Similar alterations in expression were observed by IHC analysis. Additionally, mRNA expression levels of NR2B, CaMKIIα, and CREB were also downregulated following the intrathecal administration of bupivacaine. Therefore, the sedative effect of subarachnoid blockade with bupivacaine possibly occurs through de-afferentation, which may reduce cortical arousal by downregulating the spinal NR2B/CaMKIIα/CREB pathway in vivo, however further investigation is required in order to verify this.

Epidural local anaesthetics versus opioid-based analgesic regimens for postoperative gastrointestinal paralysis, vomiting and pain after abdominal surgery

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal paralysis, nausea and vomiting and pain are major clinical problems following abdominal surgery. Anaesthetic and analgesic techniques that reduce pain and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), while preventing or reducing postoperative ileus, may reduce postoperative morbidity, duration of hospitalization and hospital costs. This review was first published in 2001 and was updated by new review authors in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To compare effects of postoperative epidural analgesia with local anaesthetics versus postoperative systemic or epidural opioids in terms of return of gastrointestinal transit, postoperative pain control, postoperative vomiting, incidence of anastomotic leak, length of hospital stay and costs after abdominal surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified trials by conducting computerized searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 12), MEDLINE (from 1950 to December 2014) and EMBASE (from 1974 to December 2014) and by checking the reference lists of trials retained. When we reran the search in February 2016, we added 16 potential new studies of interest to the list of 'Studies awaiting classification' and will incorporate these studies into formal review findings during the next review update.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel randomized controlled trials comparing effects of postoperative epidural local anaesthetic versus regimens based on systemic or epidural opioids.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We rated the quality of studies by using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. Two review authors independently extracted data and judged the quality of evidence according to the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group) scale.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 128 trials with 8754 participants in the review, and 94 trials with 5846 participants in the analysis. Trials included in the review were funded as follows: charity (n = 19), departmental resources (n = 8), governmental sources (n = 15) and industry (in part or in total) (n = 15). The source of funding was not specified for the other studies.Results of 22 trials including 1138 participants show that an epidural containing a local anaesthetic will decrease the time required for return of gastrointestinal transit as measured by time to first flatus after an abdominal surgery (standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.71 to -0.86; high quality of evidence; equivalent to 17.5 hours). The effect is proportionate to the concentration of local anaesthetic used. A total of 28 trials including 1559 participants reported a decrease in time to first faeces (stool) (SMD -0.67, 95% CI -0.86 to -0.47; low quality of evidence; equivalent to 22 hours). Thirty-five trials including 2731 participants found that pain on movement at 24 hours after surgery was also reduced (SMD -0.89, 95% CI -1.08 to -0.70; moderate quality of evidence; equivalent to 2.5 on scale from 0 to 10). From findings of 22 trials including 1154 participants we did not find a difference in the incidence of vomiting within 24 hours (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.23; low quality of evidence). From investigators in 17 trials including 848 participants we did not find a difference in the incidence of gastrointestinal anastomotic leak (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.32; low quality of evidence). Researchers in 30 trials including 2598 participants noted that epidural analgesia reduced length of hospital stay for an open surgery (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.04; very low quality of evidence; equivalent to one day). Data on costs were very limited.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

An epidural containing a local anaesthetic, with or without the addition of an opioid, accelerates the return of gastrointestinal transit (high quality of evidence). An epidural containing a local anaesthetic with an opioid decreases pain after abdominal surgery (moderate quality of evidence). We did not find a difference in the incidence of vomiting or anastomotic leak (low quality of evidence). For open surgery, an epidural containing a local anaesthetic would reduce the length of hospital stay (very low quality of evidence).