Intravenous Lidocaine for Cancer Pain without Electrocardiographic Monitoring: A Retrospective Review

Lidocaine Infusion: An Analgesic Option for Checkpoint Inhibitor Arthritis: A Case Report

This report describes the use of subcutaneous lidocaine infusion to manage complex pain associated with checkpoint inhibitor inflammatory arthritis. In addition, the safe administration of lidocaine in the home setting is described. A 49-year-old man with metastatic melanoma to lung, right axilla and posterior chest wall on regular pembrolizumab developed checkpoint inhibitor inflammatory arthritis. Pain associated with this was unresponsive to simple analgesia, escalating opioids and adjuvant analgesics. Lidocaine infusion was used on separate occasions (inpatient unit and home setting) to gain rapid and sustained control of inflammatory pain. Inflammatory pain responded well to 2 mg/kg/h lidocaine infusion over 4 days with sustained response between infusions of up to 6 wk. Resulting in improved mobility, functional status, and overall quality of life. Lidocaine infusion should be considered as an option for analgesic management of checkpoint inhibitor inflammatory arthritis in patients for whom usual treatment is ineffective, and as an opioid-sparing intervention.

Perineural invasion: A potential driver of cancer-induced pain

Perineural invasion (PNI) is the process through which tumors invade and interact with nerves. The dynamic changes in the nerves caused by PNI may induce disturbing symptoms. PNI-related cancer pain in neuro-rich tumors has attracted much attention because the occurrence of tumor-induced pain is closely related to the invasion of nerves in the tumor microenvironment. PNI-related pain might indicate the occurrence of PNI, guide the improvement of treatment strategies, and predict the unresectability of tumors and the necessity of palliative care. Although many studies have investigated PNI, its relationship with tumor-induced pain and its common mechanisms have not been summarized thoroughly. Therefore, in this review, we evaluated the relationship between PNI and cancer-associated pain. We showed that PNI is a major cause of cancer-related pain and that this pain can predict the occurrence of PNI. We also elucidated the cellular and molecular mechanisms of PNI-induced pain. Finally, we analyzed the possible targets for alleviating PNI-related pain or combined antitumor and pain management. Our findings might provide new perspectives for improving the treatment of patients with malignant tumors.

Intravenous lidocaine bolus for reducing nefopam-induced venous pain: A randomized, intrasubject comparison trial

Background and Aims

Intravenous nefopam reduces postoperative pain and opioid consumption but can cause infusion-related pain. We aimed to investigate whether lidocaine can effectively reduce this pain.

Material and Methods

This prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled, intrasubject comparison trial included 42 patients (20-60 years) undergoing elective surgery under regional or peripheral anesthesia. In the postanesthesia care unit, two 50 mL syringes containing nefopam (20 mg) diluted in saline (100 mL) were sequentially infused in 15 min into venous catheters in the left and right arms. Patients were randomly assigned to the "left side" or "right side" group based on the arm in which a bolus of 1% lidocaine (2 mL) (study group) was administered before nefopam infusion. Normal saline (2 mL) was administered on the control side. Numerical Rating Scale scores and the incidence of pain (scores > 3) and nausea or vomiting were recorded at 1, 5, 10, and 15 min.

Results

The analysis included 42 patients (84 infusions). Compared with the placebo, lidocaine lowered the mean infusion-related pain at 1 (0.07 vs. 2.21, P < 0.001), 5 (2 vs. 4.21, P < 0.001), 10 (2.02 vs. 3.95, P < 0.001), and 15 min (1.62 vs. 3.16, P = 0.003). At 5 min, significantly higher percentages of infusion sites with moderate and higher pain scores (> 3) were observed on the control side (30.95% vs. 14.29%, P = 0.000). Seven patients exhibited nausea or vomiting (16.7%).

Conclusion

For the nefopam infusion rate and concentration that we used, a 20 mg lidocaine pretreatment bolus significantly reduces infusion-related pain.

Use of intravenous lignocaine in the perioperative and chronic pain setting

Intravenous lignocaine has an emerging role in the treatment of acute pain within the perioperative setting, as recent consensus guidelines from the Association of Anaesthetists have shown. It has played a role in chronic pain management in recent decades, and continues to be a useful tool for pain specialists.

Lidocaine infusions and reduced opioid consumption-Retrospective experience in pediatric hematology and oncology patients with refractory pain

BACKGROUND

Despite a more robust experience with lidocaine infusions for pain management in adults and general pediatric population, there is limited evidence of efficacy of lidocaine infusions for pain management in patients with pediatric hematology and oncology diagnoses.

METHODS

Data pertaining to continuous intravenous lidocaine infusions prescribed between January 2009 and June 2019 were reviewed, including patients' demographic characteristics, hematology/oncology and pain diagnoses, concurrent pain medications, and lidocaine infusion dose regimens and duration. Pain scores and opioid consumption calculations based on morphine equivalent doses (mg/kg/day) of patient-controlled analgesia were collected 1 day before infusion (D1), during infusion (D2), and 1 day after infusion (D3).

RESULTS

The mean opioid consumption on D3 was significantly lower than that on D2 (p = .01). The pain scores on D3 were significantly lower than those on D1 when measured as average pain scores per 24 hours (p < .001) or as single pain scores immediately before and after infusions (p < .001). No significant associations were found between cumulative doses of lidocaine (loading dose plus total infusion dose) and either a decrease in the opioid consumption or a decrease in pain scores.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective series of pediatric hematology and oncology cases, we report positive outcomes in reducing opioid consumption and pain scores after lidocaine infusions. Prospective investigations designed in a collaborative, multi-institutional fashion, including a variety of pediatric populations are needed to further investigate the efficacy of lidocaine infusions.

Parenteral Lidocaine for Complex Cancer Pain in the Home or Inpatient Hospice Setting: A Review and Synthesis of the Evidence

Background: Cancer pain can remain refractory despite escalating opioids and adjuvants. Systemic Lidocaine is an option, but current approaches are hospital centered. While advantageous in advanced cancer, evidence is lacking for parenteral Lidocaine use in community-based care. Objectives: Review evidence for parenteral lidocaine in complex cancer pain outside the hospital setting. Design: Systematic review of peer-reviewed articles of any study design, including reviews. Search in four databases used keyword variations of "cancer," "pain," "Lidocaine," and "parenteral." Search was extended through reference lists of full texts assessed. Abstracted data from articles screened and selected were synthesized narratively by a palliative care clinician in Singapore. Results: Eight hundred eighty-three articles identified were screened by title and abstract. Twenty-eight full texts were assessed. Seven articles fulfilled criteria for synthesis of findings. A total of 73 patients received parenteral Lidocaine for mixed pains, reported collectively in 1 retrospective chart review, 3 practice guidelines, 2 case series, and 1 case study. Intravenous or subcutaneous Lidocaine was commenced in hospital or hospice and continued at home. Dosages and administration schedules varied, involving slow bolus with continuous infusion or the latter alone, for up to 240 days. All produced positive outcomes, with no severe adverse events. Monitoring included routine vital signs and conscious levels; electrocardiogram, liver, and renal function tests were uncommon. Lidocaine levels were not consistently assessed. Conclusion: Parenteral Lidocaine can be effective and safe in the community setting. More empirical studies are needed to inform patient selection and treatment protocol, and to validate expected outcomes.

Lidocaine Infusions for Pain Management in Pediatrics

Lidocaine is an amino amide with a well-established role as a local anesthetic agent. Systemic intravenous administration expands its clinical use to include acute and chronic pain circumstances, such as postoperative pain, neuropathic pain, postherpetic neuralgia, hyperalgesia, visceral pain, and centrally mediated pain. For refractory pain that has not responded to conventional therapy or if further escalation of treatment is prevented by contraindications or side effects to standard therapies, a continuous infusion of lidocaine may be considered as a single intervention or as a sequence of infusions. Here, we review and evaluate published data reflecting the use of lidocaine continuous infusions for pain management in the pediatric population.

Lidocaine inhibits the proliferation and metastasis of epithelial ovarian cancer through the Wnt/β-catenin pathway

BACKGROUND

Lidocaine, an amide local anesthetic, has recently been found to have anticancer action in various cancer cells. However, the role of lidocaine in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) remains largely unknown. In the present study, we investigated how lidocaine regulates the progression of EOC.

METHODS

Real-time polymerase chain reaction was used to examine the expression of Snail, Wnt, β-catenin, E-cadherin, vimentin, matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-7, MMP-9, and vascular endothelial growth factor in lidocaine-treated cells. Cell proliferation assays, cell apoptosis assays, and cell migration assays were employed to verify the function of lidocaine in EOC cells. Cell proliferation and cell migration assays were employed to verify the function of Wnt/β-catenin signaling in lidocaine-treated EOC cells together with Wnt-overexpressing plasmids or inhibitor NVP-XAV939.

RESULTS

Lidocaine could inhibit proliferation, migration, and invasion, and induce apoptosis in ovarian cancer cells lines in a dose-dependent manner. Wnt/β-catenin signaling was involved in the suppression of epithelial-mesenchymal transition progression of ovarian cancer cells, which resulted in the downregulation of Snail and vimentin, as well as the upregulation of E-cadherin. Furthermore, overexpressed Wnt could reverse the carcinostatic effect of lidocaine, while Wnt inhibitor XAV-939 synergistically enhanced the antitumor effect of lidocaine.

CONCLUSIONS

Mechanistically, lidocaine could inhibit the proliferation and metastasis of EOC by the Wnt/β-catenin pathway to regulate the progression of EOC.

Subcutaneous Lidocaine Infusion for Complex Cancer Pain: A Retrospective Review

This retrospective review assesses the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous lidocaine infusions for complex cancer pain, in a specialist palliative care unit. A retrospective chart review was undertaken of 18 infusions over a 2-year period. Data collected included patient demographics, use of adjuvant analgesics, methadone use and opioid requirements (as oral morphine equivalent daily dose, oMEDD) at three time periods: 24 hours prior to starting infusion, 24 hours after starting infusion and 24 hours after stopping infusion. Data was collected on infusion characteristics, adverse events and the patient's perception of lidocaine efficacy. Eighteen infusions were analyzed; all patients had metastatic cancer with 83.3% having stage IV disease. The majority of patients were prescribed three or more adjuvant analgesics, in addition, methadone was prescribed in 16 oMEDD use both 24 hours after starting, and 24 hours after stopping the lidocaine infusions. Events were reported in three out of 18 infusions, only one minor adverse event was attributed to lidocaine. Thirteen out of 18 infusions were perceived, by patients, to be effective for pain. This retrospective review has shown that a subcutaneous lidocaine infusion is a safe and effective means of managing complex cancer pain in a specialist palliative care unit.

Repeated Intravenous Lidocaine Infusions for Patients with Fibromyalgia: Higher Doses of Lidocaine Have a Stronger and Longer-Lasting Effect on Pain Reduction

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of escalating doses of lidocaine infusion with or without added magnesium on pain levels and the duration of pain relief in patients with fibromyalgia (FM).

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of 74 patients diagnosed with FM who underwent at least three escalating doses of intravenous (IV) lidocaine infusions (5 mg/kg of body weight, 7.5 mg/kg, and 7.5 mg/kg of lidocaine + 2.5 g of magnesium sulfate) was conducted. Each patient's subjective impression of change in pain intensity and duration of pain relief after each treatment was recorded, along with an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS) for pain intensity, immediately before and after each infusion.

RESULTS

Short-term lidocaine analgesia was evaluated by the reduction in NRS pain score according to the patients reported pre- (immediately before treatment) and post-treatment (immediately after treatment) values. There was a statistical difference in the NRS score reduction between doses 5 mg/kg and 7.5 mg/kg of lidocaine (P = 0.009). Long-term analgesia was evaluated at follow-up visits by the patient's subjective impression of change in pain intensity and duration of pain relief. There was a statistical difference in the percentage of pain relief and the mean duration of pain relief between the treatments with 5 mg/kg and 7.5 mg/kg of lidocaine (P = 0.007 and P = 0.003). Although there was a trend of greater response to magnesium sulfate as a beneficial adjunct to the lidocaine infusion, we were unable to find a statistically significant difference for any of the variables studied.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that escalating doses of IV lidocaine to 7.5 mg/kg safely and effectively reduced the pain with prolonged effect in a significant number of patients diagnosed with fibromyalgia. Larger, prospective clinical studies are required to confirm this finding.

Lidocaine Continuous Subcutaneous Infusion for Neuropathic Pain in Hospice Patients: Safety and Efficacy

Lidocaine continuous subcutaneous infusion (L-CSCI) for neuropathic pain in hospice patients has limited evidence for its safety and efficacy, and guidelines are lacking. This study assesses a series of patients admitted to a hospice over a six-month period that had neuropathic pain and received L-CSCI. The primary outcome was improvement in patient-rated distress from pain following L-CSCI titration. Also assessed were changes in oral morphine equivalent dose (OME), frequency of breakthrough medication, functional status, adverse effects and perception of response. Fifteen patients received L-CSCI for an average of 6.7 days (range 1-92). Average pain distress score decreased by 2 or more in six patients. Positive responses to L-CSCI were documented in the clinical notes of 10 patients. Opioid down-titration occurred in four patients. Lidocaine levels were performed in 3 patients but did not change management. Five patients experienced adverse effects attributable to lidocaine and all responded to simple measures. In conclusion, L-CSCI can help manage neuropathic pain in hospice patients, particularly in those who cannot swallow oral medications. Further systematic research is warranted to establish efficacy and tolerability, and to inform guideline development.

Non-opioid Analgesics and Emerging Therapies

Pain is a common and debilitating symptom of cancer. Cancer-related pain can occur at any point along the continuum from diagnosis to treatment to survivorship¹. A systematic review published in 2016 estimated the prevalence of cancer pain to be 55% in those undergoing antineoplastic treatment, 66.4% in advanced cancer, and 39.3% in the post-treatment population. Thirty-eight percent of cancer patients in this pooled analysis experienced moderate to severe pain².

[Pediatric pain treatment and prevention for hospitalized children]

INTRODUCTION

Prevention and treatment of pain in pediatric patients compared with adults is often not only inadequate but also less often implemented the younger the children are. Children 0 to 17 years are a vulnerable population.

OBJECTIVES

To address the prevention and treatment of acute and chronic pain in children, including pain caused by needles, with recommended analgesic starting doses.

METHODS

This Clinical Update elaborates on the 2019 IASP Global Year Against Pain in the Vulnerable "Factsheet Pain in Children: Management" and reviews best evidence and practice.

RESULTS

Multimodal analgesia may include pharmacology (eg, basic analgesics, opioids, and adjuvant analgesia), regional anesthesia, rehabilitation, psychological approaches, spirituality, and integrative modalities, which act synergistically for more effective acute pediatric pain control with fewer side effects than any single analgesic or modality. For chronic pain, an interdisciplinary rehabilitative approach, including physical therapy, psychological treatment, integrative mind-body techniques, and normalizing life, has been shown most effective. For elective needle procedures, such as blood draws, intravenous access, injections, or vaccination, overwhelming evidence now mandates that a bundle of 4 modalities to eliminate or decrease pain should be offered to every child every time: (1) topical anesthesia, eg, lidocaine 4% cream, (2) comfort positioning, eg, skin-to-skin contact for infants, not restraining children, (3) sucrose or breastfeeding for infants, and (4) age-appropriate distraction. A deferral process (Plan B) may include nitrous gas analgesia and sedation.

CONCLUSION

Failure to implement evidence-based pain prevention and treatment for children in medical facilities is now considered inadmissible and poor standard of care.

Practice review: Evidence-based and effective management of pain in patients with advanced cancer

BACKGROUND

Pain of a moderate or severe intensity affects over half of patients with advanced cancer and remains undertreated in at least one-third of these patients.

AIM

The aim of this study was to provide a pragmatic overview of the evidence supporting the use of interventions in pain management in advanced cancer and to identify where encouraging preliminary results are demonstrated but further research is required.

DESIGN

A scoping review approach was used to examine the evidence supporting the use of guideline-recommended interventions in pain management practice.

DATA SOURCES

National or international guidelines were selected if they described pain management in adult cancer patients and were written within the last 5 years in English. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 2014 to January 2019) was searched for 'cancer' AND 'pain' in the title, abstract or keywords. A MEDLINE search was also made.

RESULTS

A strong opioid remains the drug of choice for treating moderate or severe pain. Bisphosphonates and radiotherapy are also effective for cancer-related bone pain. Optimal management requires a tailored approach, support for self-management and review of treatment outcomes. There is likely a role for non-pharmacological approaches. Paracetamol should not be used in patients taking a strong opioid to treat pain. Cannabis-based medicines are not recommended. Weak opioids, ketamine and lidocaine are indicated in specific situations only.

CONCLUSION

Interventions commonly recommended by guidelines are not always supported by a robust evidence base. Research is required to evaluate the efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, anti-convulsants, anti-depressants, corticosteroids, some invasive anaesthetic techniques, complementary therapies and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation.

Pediatric pain treatment and prevention for hospitalized children

Introduction:

Prevention and treatment of pain in pediatric patients compared with adults is often not only inadequate but also less often implemented the younger the children are. Children 0 to 17 years are a vulnerable population.

Objectives:

To address the prevention and treatment of acute and chronic pain in children, including pain caused by needles, with recommended analgesic starting doses.

Methods:

This Clinical Update elaborates on the 2019 IASP Global Year Against Pain in the Vulnerable “Factsheet Pain in Children: Management” and reviews best evidence and practice.

Results:

Multimodal analgesia may include pharmacology (eg, basic analgesics, opioids, and adjuvant analgesia), regional anesthesia, rehabilitation, psychological approaches, spirituality, and integrative modalities, which act synergistically for more effective acute pediatric pain control with fewer side effects than any single analgesic or modality. For chronic pain, an interdisciplinary rehabilitative approach, including physical therapy, psychological treatment, integrative mind–body techniques, and normalizing life, has been shown most effective. For elective needle procedures, such as blood draws, intravenous access, injections, or vaccination, overwhelming evidence now mandates that a bundle of 4 modalities to eliminate or decrease pain should be offered to every child every time: (1) topical anesthesia, eg, lidocaine 4% cream, (2) comfort positioning, eg, skin-to-skin contact for infants, not restraining children, (3) sucrose or breastfeeding for infants, and (4) age-appropriate distraction. A deferral process (Plan B) may include nitrous gas analgesia and sedation.

Conclusion:

Failure to implement evidence-based pain prevention and treatment for children in medical facilities is now considered inadmissible and poor standard of care.

Recent advances in pain treatment for children with serious illness

Pain is a common distressing symptom in children receiving pediatric palliative care. Both in children with cancer, but especially in children with progressive neurodegenerative and chromosomal conditions with CNS impairment pain is common, and often under-recognized and undertreated. Multimodal analgesia for children with serious illness acts synergistically for more effective pediatric pain and symptom control with fewer side effects than a single analgesic or modality. Successful pain treatment and prevention usually include integrative 'nonpharmacological' therapies, rehabilitation, psychology and spirituality in addition to pharmacology and regional anesthesia. This review article will address these effective components of multimodal pediatric analgesia and present starting doses of basic analgesia, opioids and adjuvants analgesia in infants, children and adolescents with serious illness.

The Analgesic and Emotional Response to Intravenous Lidocaine Infusion in the Treatment of Postherpetic Neuralgia: A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-controlled Study

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the analgesic efficacy and emotional response to intravenous lidocaine infusion compared with placebo in patients with postherpetic neuralgia (PHN).

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blinded study, patients with PHN received 5 mg/kg intravenous lidocaine infusion or placebo. The primary outcome was pain measured by Visual Analogue Scale, Von Frey, and area of allodynia. Moreover, emotional status of anxiety and depression were evaluated by Self-rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) and Self-rating Depression Scale (SDS). Quality of life was assessed by Short Form Health Survey 36.

RESULTS

In total, 197 patients were enrolled and eligible data were collected from 183 of those patients. The Visual Analogue Scale scores were reduced to a minimum at 2 weeks (2.74, 2.99) after infusion, but no significant difference was found between the lidocaine and placebo groups. Similar changes were also found in mechanical pain threshold and area of allodynia. However, the lidocaine group was associated with a statistically significant reduction in consumption of analgesics with a relative risk of 6.2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.24-17.16). Lidocaine infusion also significantly improved the anxiety and depression status; the values of mean change in anxiety and depression were 3.89 (95% CI, 1.43-6.35) and 4.3 (95% CI, 0.63-7.98), respectively, at 2 weeks. Moreover, improvement was exhibited in Short Form Health Survey 36 health status, with the mean change of 49.81 (95% CI, 28.17-71.46) at 1 week, in particular scores on vitality, physical and emotional role functioning, and mental health.

CONCLUSIONS

The analgesic response of 5 mg/kg lidocaine intravenous infusion is comparable to placebo in patients with PHN, but intravenous lidocaine infusion significantly reduced total analgesic consumption, and improved the overall emotional and health status.

Intravenous Lidocaine for Chronic Neuropathic Pain A Systematic Review Addressing Nursing Care

BACKGROUND

The intravenous administration of lidocaine for patients with chronic neuropathic pain is well documented in the literature. However, little is known about the role of the nurse caring for patients receiving the infusion.

AIM

The purpose of this systematic review was to examine and describe common side effects associated with the intravenous administration of lidocaine to patients with chronic neuropathic pain and outline nursing care described in an effort to develop evidence-based protocols for care.

METHOD

A comprehensive search of databases was completed and yielded eleven (n = 11) articles and one care protocol for analysis.

RESULTS

Evidence was appraised and findings suggest intravenous lidocaine has a low risk of causing adverse events, however patients should be monitored closely.

CONCLUSIONS

Nursing care focuses on pain assessment, close observation and intervention if neurological changes occur.

Comparative Efficacy of Therapeutics for Chronic Cancer Pain: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Opioids are the primary choice for managing chronic cancer pain. However, many nonopioid therapies are currently prescribed for chronic cancer pain with little published evidence comparing their efficacy.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any systemic pharmaceutical intervention and/or combination thereof in treating chronic cancer pain. The primary outcome was global efficacy reported as an odds ratio (OR). The secondary outcome was change in pain intensity reported as a standardized mean difference (SMD).

RESULTS

We included 81 RCTs consisting of 10,003 patients investigating 11 medication classes. Most RCTs (80%) displayed low risk of bias. The top-ranking classes for global efficacy were nonopioid analgesics (network OR, 0.30; 95% credibility interval [CrI], 0.13 to 0.67), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (network OR, 0.44; 95% CrI, 0.22 to 0.90), and opioids (network OR, 0.49; 95% CrI, 0.27 to 0.86), whereas the top-ranked interventions were lidocaine (network OR, 0.04; 95% CrI, 0.01 to 0.18; surface under the cumulative ranking curve analysis [SUCRA] score, 98.1), codeine plus aspirin (network OR, 0.22; 95% CrI, 0.08 to 0.63; SUCRA score, 81.1), and pregabalin (network OR, 0.29; 95% CrI, 0.08 to 0.92; SUCRA score, 73.8). In terms of reducing pain intensity, we found that no class was superior to placebo, whereas the following top-ranked interventions were superior to placebo: ziconotide (network SMD, −24.98; 95% CrI, −32.62 to −17.35; SUCRA score, 99.8), dezocine (network SMD, −13.56; 95% CrI, −23.37 to −3.69; SUCRA score, 93.5), and diclofenac (network SMD, −11.22; 95% CrI, −15.91 to −5.80; SUCRA score, 92.9).

CONCLUSION

There are significant differences in efficacy among current regimens for chronic cancer pain. Our evidence suggests that certain nonopioid analgesics and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can serve as effectively as opioids in managing chronic cancer pain.

Intravenous Lidocaine Alleviates the Pain of Propofol Injection by Local Anesthetic and Central Analgesic Effects

Objective

Lidocaine alleviates propofol injection pain. However, whether lidocaine works through a local anesthetic effect at the site of intravenous injection or through a systemic effect on the central nervous system remains unknown. This study aimed to determine the pain-alleviating mechanism of lidocaine.

Design

A randomized controlled study.

Setting

A gastroscopy facility.

Methods

The study was divided into two parts. Part 1 involved 717 patients who were randomly assigned into five groups. Groups PR, RL20, and RL40 received normal saline or saline containing 20 or 40 mg of lidocaine, injected via the vein on the right hand. Groups LL20 and LL40 received 20 or 40 mg of lidocaine, injected via the vein on the left hand. Part 2 involved 378 patients who were randomly assigned into five groups. Groups RL40, RL1.2, and RL1.5 received 40 mg, 1.2 mg/kg, and 1.5 mg/kg of lidocaine, injected via the vein on the right hand. Groups LL1.2 and LL1.5 received 1.2 or 1.5 mg/kg of lidocaine, injected via the vein on the left hand. All received 2 mg/kg of propofol via the vein on the right hand two minutes later. Injection pain and patient satisfaction were recorded.

Results

The incidence of pain of group RL40 was lower than that of group PR. The incidence of pain of group LL1.2 was higher than that of other groups.

Conclusions

A dosage of 40 mg lidocaine is an appropriate dosage to alleviate propofol injection pain within the same vein. Lidocaine reduces propofol injection pain through both a local anesthetic effect and a central analgesic effect when the dosage reaches 1.5 mg/kg.

Case Report: Utility of Ketamine, Lidocaine, and Mexiletine as Nonopioid Adjuvants in Complex Cancer-Associated Pain

Ketamine, lidocaine, and mexiletine are potential nonopioid adjuvant medications for the use of refractory cancer-related pain, particularly when opioids are demonstrating limited objective benefit. This is a case report of a single patient admitted to a large academic medical center in the United States. The patient is a 43-year-old woman with a history of Crohn's disease complicated by rectal squamous cell carcinoma and complex, progressive, and intractable pelvic and rectal pain. Over the course of hospitalization, her pain demonstrated limited opioid responsiveness despite marked fluctuations of her oral morphine equivalent doses. She also demonstrates variable responsiveness to ketamine. Lidocaine continuous infusion ultimately proves beneficial, and she is discharged after conversion to oral mexiletine. An overview of the hospital system's protocols for ketamine and lidocaine continuous infusions for pain and considerations for transitioning to mexiletine from lidocaine infusion are included.

Subcutaneous Lidocaine Infusion for Pain in Patients with Cancer

BACKGROUND

Intravenous lidocaine is effective in treating pain. Limited studies have assessed the effectiveness and safety of subcutaneous lidocaine infusions.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of patients with cancer who received subcutaneous lidocaine infusions for pain. Patient characteristics, pain scores and opioid doses before and after lidocaine, and details of infusions were recorded. We identified three time periods of interest. T0 is defined as the 24-hour period immediately before commencing lidocaine treatment. T1 is defined as the 24-hour period before lidocaine was ceased. T2 is defined as the first 24-hour period after lidocaine was ceased. In addition, the overall impression of the effectiveness of lidocaine was subjectively evaluated by the authors.

RESULTS

Twenty patients (13M;7F) received lidocaine. Two patients received it twice, totaling 22 episodes. The median lidocaine dose was 0.67 mg/kg/h with the median duration being 5.5 days. The median worst pain score at T0 and T1 was 8.5 and 5.5, respectively. The difference in the mean pain scores was 3.2 95% CI (2.1, 4.4; p < 0.001). In 15/22 episodes (68%), patients experienced a decrease in pain scores of more than 2. The median morphine oral equivalent (MOE) daily doses at T0, T1, and T2 were 425, 362.5, and 275 mg, respectively. The difference in the mean MOE between T0 and T1 was -126 (95% CI [-281, 28]; p = 0.13). The difference in the mean MOE between T0 and T2 was -207 (95% CI [-370, -44]; p = 0.025). Lidocaine was subjectively deemed effective in 10/22 episodes (45%). There were no documented adverse events attributed to lidocaine. Univariate analyses did not identify any subgroups likely to benefit from lidocaine.

CONCLUSION

Subcutaneous lidocaine infusions may be used safely in cancer pain management and is effective in some patients.

Efficacy of Intravenous Lidocaine During Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection for Gastric Neoplasm: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Study

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an advanced therapy for early gastric neoplasm and requires sedation with adequate analgesia. Lidocaine is a short-acting local anesthetic, and intravenous lidocaine has been shown to have analgesic efficacy in surgical settings. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of intravenous lidocaine on analgesic and sedative requirements for ESD and pain after ESD.Sixty-six patients scheduled for ESD randomly received either intravenous lidocaine as a bolus of 1.5 mg/kg before sedation, followed by continuous infusion at a rate of 2 mg/kg/h during sedation (lidocaine group; n = 33) or the same bolus and infusion volumes of normal saline (control group; n = 33). Sedation was achieved with propofol and fentanyl. The primary outcome was fentanyl requirement during ESD. We recorded hemodynamics and any events during ESD and evaluated post-ESD epigastric and throat pain.Fentanyl requirement during ESD reduced by 24% in the lidocaine group compared with the control group (105 ± 28 vs. 138 ± 37 μg, mean ± SD; P < 0.001). The lidocaine group reached sedation faster [40 (20-100) vs. 55 (30-120) s, median (range); P = 0.001], and incidence of patient movement during ESD decreased in the lidocaine group (3% vs. 26%, P = 0.026). Numerical rating scale for epigastric pain was significantly lower at 6 hours after ESD [2 (0-6) vs. 3 (0-8), median (range); P = 0.023] and incidence of throat pain was significantly lower in the lidocaine group (27% vs. 65%, P = 0.003). No adverse events associated with lidocaine were discovered.Administration of intravenous lidocaine reduced fentanyl requirement and decreased patient movement during ESD. Moreover, it alleviated epigastric and throat pain after ESD. Thus, we conclude that the use of intravenous adjuvant lidocaine is a new and safe sedative method during ESD.

Treatment of Convulsive Status Epilepticus

OPINION STATEMENT

Convulsive status epilepticus (CSE) is a medical emergency with an associated high mortality and morbidity. It is defined as a convulsive seizure lasting more than 5 min or consecutive seizures without recovery of consciousness. Successful management of CSE depends on rapid administration of adequate doses of anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs). The exact choice of AED is less important than rapid treatment and early consideration of reversible etiologies. Current guidelines recommend the use of benzodiazepines (BNZ) as first-line treatment in CSE. Midazolam is effective and safe in the pre-hospital or home setting when administered intramuscularly (best evidence), buccally, or nasally (the latter two possibly faster acting than intramuscular (IM) but with lower levels of evidence). Regular use of home rescue medications such as nasal/buccal midazolam by patients and caregivers for prolonged seizures and seizure clusters may prevent SE, prevent emergency room visits, improve quality of life, and lower health care costs. Traditionally, phenytoin is the preferred second-line agent in treating CSE, but it is limited by hypotension, potential arrhythmias, allergies, drug interactions, and problems from extravasation. Intravenous valproate is an effective and safe alternative to phenytoin. Valproate is loaded intravenously rapidly and more safely than phenytoin, has broad-spectrum efficacy, and fewer acute side effects. Levetiracetam and lacosamide are well tolerated intravenous (IV) AEDs with fewer interactions, allergies, and contraindications, making them potentially attractive as second- or third-line agents in treating CSE. However, data are limited on their efficacy in CSE. Ketamine is probably effective in treating refractory CSE (RCSE), and may warrant earlier use; this requires further study. CSE should be treated aggressively and quickly, with confirmation of treatment success with epileptiform electroencephalographic (EEG), as a transition to non-convulsive status epilepticus is common. If the patient is not fully awake, EEG should be continued for at least 24 h. How aggressively to treat refractory non-convulsive SE (NCSE) or intermittent non-convulsive seizures is less clear and requires additional study. Refractory SE (RSE) usually requires anesthetic doses of anti-seizure medications. If an auto-immune or paraneoplastic etiology is suspected or no etiology can be identified (as with cryptogenic new onset refractory status epilepticus, known as NORSE), early treatment with immuno-modulatory agents is now recommended by many experts.

Opiate refractory pain from an intestinal obstruction responsive to an intravenous lidocaine infusion

A 24-year-old female patient presented to our community emergency department (ED) for abdominal pain that had progressively worsened over the last 28 hours. Of note, 1 month prior to her presentation, the patient had a colostomy due to a rectal abscess and required stoma revision 5 days prior to her visit to our ED. The patient's pain was refractory to opiate analgesia in our ED, but experienced significant relief after an intravenous lidocaine infusion. Computer tomography of the abdomen and pelvis ultimately revealed a large bowel obstruction just proximal to the colostomy site. Historically, options for ED management of severe pain have been limited beyond narcotic analgesia. For patients whom are refractory to opiates in the ED, or for whom opiates are contraindicated, lidocaine infusions have shown promise for a variety of both acute and chronic painful conditions.