Serum lidocaine (lignocaine) concentrations during prolonged perioperative infusion in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery: A secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial

Perioperative lidocaine (lignocaine) infusions are being employed with increasing frequency. The determinants of systemic lidocaine concentrations during prolonged administration are unclear. In the Long-term Outcomes after Lidocaine Infusions for PostOperative Pain (LOLIPOP) pilot trial, the impact of infusion duration and body size metrics on serum lidocaine concentrations was examined with regression models in 48 women undergoing breast cancer surgery. Lidocaine was delivered as an intravenous bolus (1.5 mg/kg) and infusion (2 mg/kg per h) intraoperatively, followed by a 12-h subcutaneous infusion (1.33 mg/kg per h) postoperatively. Dosing was based on total body weight. Wound infiltration with other long-acting local anaesthetics was permitted. Protein binding and pharmacogenomic data were also collected. Lidocaine concentrations (median (interquartile range) (range)) during prolonged administration were in the safe and potentially therapeutic range: post-anaesthesia care unit 2.16 (1.73-2.82) (1.12-6.06) µg/ml; ward 1.41 (1.22-1.75) (0.64-2.81) µg/ml. Concentrations increased non-linearly during the early intravenous phase of administration (mean rise 1.21 µg/ml per hour of infusion, P = 0.007) but reached a pseudo steady-state during the later subcutaneous phase. Higher dose rates received per kilogram of lean (P = 0.004), adjusted (P = 0.006) and ideal body weight (P = 0.009) were associated with higher steady-state concentrations. The lidocaine free fraction was unaffected by the presence of ropivacaine, and phenotypes linked to slow metabolism were infrequent. Serum lidocaine concentrations reached a pseudo steady-state during a 12-h postoperative infusion. Greater precision in steady-state concentrations can be achieved by dosing on lean body weight versus adjusted or ideal body weight (equivalent lean body weight doses: intravenous bolus 2.5 mg/kg; intravenous infusion 3.33 mg/kg per h; subcutaneous infusion 2.22 mg/kg per h.

The Use of Intravenous Lidocaine in Perioperative Medicine: Anaesthetic, Analgesic and Immune-Modulatory Aspects

This narrative review provides an update on the applied pharmacology of lidocaine, its clinical scope in anaesthesia, novel concepts of analgesic and immune-modulatory effects as well as the current controversy around its use in perioperative opioid-sparing multi-modal strategies. Potential benefits of intravenous lidocaine in the context of cancer, inflammation and chronic pain are discussed against concerns of safety, toxicity and medico-legal constraints.

A survey of anaesthetists on uterotonic usage practices for elective caesarean section in Australia and New Zealand

Prophylactic administration of uterotonics ensures adequate uterine contraction at elective caesarean section to prevent substantial haemorrhage. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guidelines advise the administration of oxytocin 5 IU as a 'slow bolus' but there are variations in clinical practice. This study aimed to determine the beliefs and uterotonic usage practices at elective caesarean section by surveying anaesthetist members of the Obstetric Anaesthesia Special Interest Group in Australia and New Zealand. Questionnaires were emailed to Obstetric Anaesthesia Special Interest Group members and the response rate was 33%, with analysis of 279 completed reports. Oxytocin was the most commonly used first-line uterotonic, but extensive variation in oxytocin bolus use was identified. Thirty-eight percent of anaesthetists routinely administered Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guideline-recommended 5 IU, whereas 38% favoured low dose (<5 IU), 10% high dose (≥10 IU) oxytocin, and 13% carbetocin (100 µg). More than 50% felt the evidence was weak for guideline-recommended 5 IU. Wide variation in the duration of oxytocin administration was also identified. Fifty-eight percent of anaesthetists routinely gave follow-up oxytocin infusions, most commonly at 40 IU over four hours, but there was significant variation in the dosage (10-40 IU) and administration duration (one hour to ≥six hours). In conclusion, there is significant variation in oxytocin usage practices at elective caesarean section among Australian and New Zealand anaesthetists. This variation may be due to a lack of strong evidence to guide practice. This emphasises the need for high quality trials in this clinically important area.

Improving the Uptake of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement in Ontario

Background The rising costs of healthcare delivery globally and the increasing research production rate create immense opportunities for implementing novel and more effective medical interventions that significantly benefit patient outcomes. However, the successful uptake of medical innovations is complex and often extremely contextual based on many sociopolitical and economic factors. These barriers to implementation can delay or derail new practices, procedures, products, and pharmaceuticals. Understanding the barriers to the successful implementation of medical innovations and the best practices and strategies to mitigate them is an extremely important area for translational research in health sciences. This study examines the barriers and potential challenges in implementing medical innovations and the possible preemptive measures that can be addressed early to increase the use of life-saving medical innovations. We consider the importance of appropriate, timely, and user-defined implementation techniques as a critical component of the successful uptake of medical innovations and use the uptake of transcatheter valve replacement therapy (TAVR), which is an alternative life-saving intervention for patients at risk for surgical complications, in Ontario, Canada as the practical case study of the challenges and potential instructive opportunities to establish best practices for systematic and effective innovation uptake. Methodology In addition to contextual and informal investigations, a small pilot survey of decision-makers across the University of Toronto-affiliated teaching hospitals helped compare and contrast the barriers to medical innovation uptake (in the literature) with the suggested barriers to the successful implementation of TAVR. This study looks primarily at the role of funding, physician preference, clinical guidelines, and patient comorbidities as decision-making factors contributing to TAVR uptake. The study also explores how the differences and similarities of TAVR uptake related to the decision-making factors above can help develop recommended strategies to address future implementation barriers. Results We observed that the decision-makers across the surveyed institutions refer patients with intermediate to high risk for surgery for TAVR. Funding and physician preference were identified as possible barriers to TAVR uptake, with underlying comorbidities of patients being a primary decision determinant for TAVR referral. Physician preferences were based on multiple factors such as clinical judgment, patient comorbidities, clinical guidelines, knowledge, TAVR, and surgical valve replacement skills. Conclusions To the best of our knowledge, this study is one of the first to use the Toronto Translational Thinking Framework to assess an innovative treatment uptake in the Ontario healthcare system. Although the study sample size was 11 and did not reflect the views of all decision-makers regarding TAVR use in Ontario, the survey reflected participants who directly make decisions regarding TAVR use, strengthening the credibility of the survey results. The insights from this study are intended to inform both the continued implementation of TAVR and to contribute to a broader field of investigation that aims to identify and operationalize the principles and best practices of translational research that may contribute to the efficacy of implementing other medical innovations in Ontario hospitals and beyond.

Anesthetic technique and cancer surgery outcomes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Surgery remains integral to treating solid cancers. However, the surgical stress response, characterized by physiologic perturbation of the adrenergic, inflammatory, and immune systems, may promote procancerous pathways. Anesthetic technique per se may attenuate/enhance these pathways and thereby could be implicated in long-term cancer outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

To date, clinical studies have predominantly been retrospective and underpowered and, thus limit meaningful conclusions. More recently, prospective studies of regional anesthesia for breast and colorectal cancer surgery have failed to demonstrate long-term cancer outcome benefit. However, based on the consistent observation of protumorigenic effects of surgical stress and that of volatile anesthesia in preclinical studies, supported by in vivo models of tumor progression and metastasis, we await robust prospective clinical studies exploring the role of propofol-based total intravenous anesthesia (cf. inhalational volatiles). Additionally, anti-adrenergic/anti-inflammatory adjuncts, such as lidocaine, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the anti-adrenergic propranolol warrant ongoing research.

SUMMARY

The biologic perturbation of the perioperative period, compounded by the effects of anesthetic agents, renders patients with cancer particularly vulnerable to enhanced viability of minimal residual disease, with long-term outcome consequences. However, low level and often conflicting clinical evidence equipoise currently exists with regards to optimal oncoanesthesia techniques. Large, prospective, randomized control trials are urgently needed to inform evidence-based clinical practice guidelines.

A pilot multicentre randomised controlled trial of lidocaine infusion in women undergoing breast cancer surgery

Chronic postoperative pain is common after breast cancer surgery. Peri-operative lidocaine infusion may prevent the development of chronic postoperative pain, but a large-scale trial is required to test this hypothesis. It is unclear whether a pragmatic, multicentre trial design that is consistent with expert guidance, addresses the limitations of previous studies, and overcomes existing translational barriers is safe, effective and feasible. We conducted a double-blind, randomised controlled pilot study in 150 patients undergoing breast cancer surgery across three hospitals in Western Australia. Patients received lidocaine, or equivalent volumes of saline, as an intravenous bolus (1.5 mg.kg^-1 ) and infusion (2 mg.kg^-1 .h^-1 ) intra-operatively, and a subcutaneous infusion (1.33 mg.kg^-1 .h^-1 ) postoperatively for up to 12 h on a standard surgical ward, with novel safety monitoring tools in place. The co-primary outcomes were: in-hospital safety events; serum levels of lidocaine during intravenous and subcutaneous infusion; and annualised enrolment rates per site with long-term data capture. In-hospital safety events were rare, and similar in the placebo and lidocaine arms (3% vs. 1%). Median (IQR [range]) serum lidocaine levels during intravenous (2.16 (1.74-2.83 [1.12-6.06]) µg.ml^-1 , n = 41) and subcutaneous (1.52 (1.28-1.83 [0.64-2.85]) µg.ml^-1 , n = 48) infusion were comparable with previous trials reporting improved pain outcomes. Annualised enrolment approximated 50 patients per site per year, with high levels of protocol adherence and ≥ 99% capture of outcomes at 3 and 6 months. The adjusted odds ratio (95%CI) for postoperative pain at 6 months in the lidocaine arm was 0.790 (0.370-1.684). We conclude that this trial, as designed, is safe, effective and feasible in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery, and a larger-scale trial is planned.