Equivalent Outcomes During Postoperative Patient-Controlled Intravenous Analgesia with Lidocaine Plus Morphine Versus Morphine Alone

Continuous intravenous perioperative lidocaine infusion for postoperative pain and recovery in adults

BACKGROUND

The management of postoperative pain and recovery is still unsatisfactory in a number of cases in clinical practice. Opioids used for postoperative analgesia are frequently associated with adverse effects, including nausea and constipation, preventing smooth postoperative recovery. Not all patients are suitable for, and benefit from, epidural analgesia that is used to improve postoperative recovery. The non-opioid, lidocaine, was investigated in several studies for its use in multimodal management strategies to reduce postoperative pain and enhance recovery. This review was published in 2015 and updated in January 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (benefits and risks) of perioperative intravenous (IV) lidocaine infusion compared to placebo/no treatment or compared to epidural analgesia on postoperative pain and recovery in adults undergoing various surgical procedures.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and reference lists of articles in January 2017. We searched one trial registry contacted researchers in the field, and handsearched journals and congress proceedings. We updated this search in February 2018, but have not yet incorporated these results into the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of continuous perioperative IV lidocaine infusion either with placebo, or no treatment, or with thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) in adults undergoing elective or urgent surgery under general anaesthesia. The IV lidocaine infusion must have been started intraoperatively, prior to incision, and continued at least until the end of surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used Cochrane's standard methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were: pain score at rest; gastrointestinal recovery and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included: postoperative nausea and postoperative opioid consumption. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 new trials in the update. In total, the review included 68 trials (4525 randomized participants). Two trials compared IV lidocaine with TEA. In all remaining trials, placebo or no treatment was used as a comparator. Trials involved participants undergoing open abdominal (22), laparoscopic abdominal (20), or various other surgical procedures (26). The application scheme of systemic lidocaine strongly varies between the studies related to both dose (1 mg/kg/h to 5 mg/kg/h) and termination of the infusion (from the end of surgery until several days after).The risk of bias was low with respect to selection bias (random sequence generation), performance bias, attrition bias, and detection bias in more than 50% of the included studies. For allocation concealment and selective reporting, the quality assessment yielded low risk of bias for only approximately 20% of the included studies.IV Lidocaine compared to placebo or no treatment We are uncertain whether IV lidocaine improves postoperative pain compared to placebo or no treatment at early time points (1 to 4 hours) (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.72 to -0.28; 29 studies, 1656 participants; very low-quality evidence) after surgery. Due to variation in the standard deviation (SD) in the studies, this would equate to an average pain reduction of between 0.37 cm and 2.48 cm on a 0 to 10 cm visual analogue scale . Assuming approximately 1 cm on a 0 to 10 cm pain scale is clinically meaningful, we ruled out a clinically relevant reduction in pain with lidocaine at intermediate (24 hours) (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.04; 33 studies, 1847 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and at late time points (48 hours) (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.04; 24 studies, 1404 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Due to variation in the SD in the studies, this would equate to an average pain reduction of between 0.10 cm to 0.48 cm at 24 hours and 0.08 cm to 0.42 cm at 48 hours. In contrast to the original review in 2015, we did not find any significant subgroup differences for different surgical procedures.We are uncertain whether lidocaine reduces the risk of ileus (risk ratio (RR) 0.37, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.87; 4 studies, 273 participants), time to first defaecation/bowel movement (mean difference (MD) -7.92 hours, 95% CI -12.71 to -3.13; 12 studies, 684 participants), risk of postoperative nausea (overall, i.e. 0 up to 72 hours) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.91; 35 studies, 1903 participants), and opioid consumption (overall) (MD -4.52 mg morphine equivalents , 95% CI -6.25 to -2.79; 40 studies, 2201 participants); quality of evidence was very low for all these outcomes.The effect of IV lidocaine on adverse effects compared to placebo treatment is uncertain, as only a small number of studies systematically analysed the occurrence of adverse effects (very low-quality evidence).IV Lidocaine compared to TEAThe effects of IV lidocaine compared with TEA are unclear (pain at 24 hours (MD 1.51, 95% CI -0.29 to 3.32; 2 studies, 102 participants), pain at 48 hours (MD 0.98, 95% CI -1.19 to 3.16; 2 studies, 102 participants), time to first bowel movement (MD -1.66, 95% CI -10.88 to 7.56; 2 studies, 102 participants); all very low-quality evidence). The risk for ileus and for postoperative nausea (overall) is also unclear, as only one small trial assessed these outcomes (very low-quality evidence). No trial assessed the outcomes, 'pain at early time points' and 'opioid consumption (overall)'. The effect of IV lidocaine on adverse effects compared to TEA is uncertain (very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain whether IV perioperative lidocaine, when compared to placebo or no treatment, has a beneficial impact on pain scores in the early postoperative phase, and on gastrointestinal recovery, postoperative nausea, and opioid consumption. The quality of evidence was limited due to inconsistency, imprecision, and study quality. Lidocaine probably has no clinically relevant effect on pain scores later than 24 hours. Few studies have systematically assessed the incidence of adverse effects. There is a lack of evidence about the effects of IV lidocaine compared with epidural anaesthesia in terms of the optimal dose and timing (including the duration) of the administration. We identified three ongoing studies, and 18 studies are awaiting classification; the results of the review may change when these studies are published and included in the review.

Intravenous lidocaine infusions for 48 hours in open colorectal surgery: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial

Background

Although intravenous (i.v.) lidocaine is used as a perioperative analgesic in abdominal surgery, evidence of efficacy is limited. The infusion dose and duration remain unclear. This study aimed to investigate the effect of a longer low-dose 48-hour infusion regimen on these outcomes.

Methods

Fifty-eight adults undergoing elective open colorectal surgery were randomized into the lidocaine group (1.5 mg/kg bolus followed by 1 mg/kg/h infusion for 48 hours) and control group. After surgery, patients were given a fentanyl patient-controlled analgesia machine and time to first bowel movement (primary outcome) and flatus were recorded. Postoperative pain scores and fentanyl consumption were assessed for 72 hours.

Results

There was no significant difference in time to first bowel movement (80.1 ± 42.2 vs. 82.5 ± 40.4 hours; P = 0.830), time to first flatus (64.7 ± 38.5 vs. 70.0 ± 31.2 hours; P = 0.568), length of hospital stay (9 [8–13] vs. 11 [9–14) days; P = 0.531], nor postoperative pain scores in the lidocaine vs. control groups. Cumulative opioid consumption was significantly lower in the lidocaine vs. the control group from 24 hours onwards. At 72 hours, cumulative opioid consumption (µg fentanyl) in the lidocaine group (1,570 [825–3,587]) was over 40% lower than in the placebo group (2,730 [1,778–5,327]; P = 0.039).

Conclusions

A 48-hour low-dose i.v. lidocaine infusion does not significantly speed the return of bowel function in patients undergoing elective open colorectal surgery. It was associated with reduced postoperative opioid consumption, but not with earlier hospital discharge, or lower pain scores.

Is intravenous lidocaine effective for decreasing pain and speeding up recovery after surgery?

INTRODUCTION

Lidocaine is widely used in anesthesia due to its multiple properties, including its role as analgesic. However, it is not entirely clear which are the real benefits of its use in the perioperative setting.

METHODS

To answer this question we used Epistemonikos, the largest database of systematic reviews in health, which is maintained by screening multiple information sources, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, among others. We extracted data from the systematic reviews, reanalyzed data of primary studies, conducted a meta-analysis and generated a summary of findings table using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

We identified 15 systematic reviews including 53 studies overall, all of them randomized controlled trials. We concluded the use of intravenous perioperative lidocaine probably results in a clinically irrelevant difference in pain and length of hospital stay, but it probably prevents postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Increasing patient knowledge on the proper usage of a PCA machine with the use of a post-operative instructional card

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to see if an instructional card, attached to the PCA machine following total hip arthroplasty describing proper use of the device, would positively affect subjects' understanding of device usage, pain scores, pain medication consumption and satisfaction.

METHODS

Eighty adults undergoing total hip replacements who had been prescribed PCA were randomized into two study groups. Forty participants received the standard post-operative instruction on PCA device usage at our institution. The other 40 participants received the standard of care in addition to being given a typed instructional card immediately post-operatively, describing proper PCA device use. This card was attached to the PCA device during their recovery period. On post-operative day one, each patient completed a questionnaire on PCA usage, pain scores and satisfaction scores.

RESULTS

The pain scores in the Instructional Card group were significantly lower than the Control group (p = 0.024). Subjects' understanding of PCA usage was also improved in the Instructional Card group for six of the seven questions asked.

CONCLUSION

The findings from this study strongly support that postoperative patient information on proper PCA use by means of an instructional card improves pain control and hence the overall recovery for patients undergoing surgery. In addition, through improved understanding it adds an important safety feature in that patients and potentially their family members and/or friends may refrain from PCA-by-proxy. This article demonstrates that the simple intervention of adding an instructional card to a PCA machine is an effective method to improve patients' knowledge as well as pain control and potentially increase the safety of the device use.

Continuous intravenous perioperative lidocaine infusion for postoperative pain and recovery

BACKGROUND

The management of postoperative pain and recovery is still unsatisfactory in clinical practice. Opioids used for postoperative analgesia are frequently associated with adverse effects including nausea and constipation. These adverse effects prevent smooth postoperative recovery. On the other hand not all patients may be suited to, and take benefit from, epidural analgesia used to enhance postoperative recovery. The non-opioid lidocaine was investigated in several studies for its use in multi-modal management strategies to reduce postoperative pain and enhance recovery.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to assess the effects (benefits and risks) of perioperative intravenous lidocaine infusion compared to placebo/no treatment or compared to epidural analgesia on postoperative pain and recovery in adults undergoing various surgical procedures.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 5 2014), MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2014), EMBASE (1980 to May 2014), CINAHL (1982 to May 2014), and reference lists of articles. We searched the trial registry database ClinicalTrials.gov, contacted researchers in the field, and handsearched journals and congress proceedings. We did not apply any language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of continuous perioperative intravenous lidocaine infusion either with placebo, or no treatment, or with epidural analgesia in adults undergoing elective or urgent surgery under general anaesthesia. The intravenous lidocaine infusion must have been started intraoperatively prior to incision and continued at least until the end of surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trial quality was independently assessed by two authors according to the methodological procedures specified by the Cochrane Collaboration. Data were extracted by two independent authors. We collected trial data on postoperative pain, recovery of gastrointestinal function, length of hospital stay, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), opioid consumption, patient satisfaction, surgical complication rates, and adverse effects of the intervention.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 45 trials involving 2802 participants. Two trials compared intravenous lidocaine versus epidural analgesia. In all the remaining trials placebo or no treatment was used as a comparator. Trials involved participants undergoing open abdominal (12), laparoscopic abdominal (13), or various other surgical procedures (20).The risk of bias was low with respect to selection bias (random sequence generation), performance bias, attrition bias, and detection bias in more than 50% of the included studies. For allocation concealment and selective reporting the quality assessment yielded low risk of bias for only approximately 20% of the included studies.We found evidence of effect for intravenous lidocaine on the reduction of postoperative pain (visual analogue scale, 0 to 10 cm) compared to placebo or no treatment at 'early time points (one to four hours)' (mean difference (MD) -0.84 cm, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.10 to -0.59; low-quality evidence) and at 'intermediate time points (24 hours)' (MD -0.34 cm, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.11; low-quality evidence) after surgery. However, no evidence of effect was found for lidocaine to reduce pain at 'late time points (48 hours)' (MD -0.22 cm, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.03; low-quality evidence). Pain reduction was most obvious at 'early time points' in participants undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery (MD -1.14, 95% CI -1.51 to -0.78; low-quality evidence) and open abdominal surgery (MD -0.72, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.47; moderate-quality evidence). No evidence of effect was found for lidocaine to reduce pain in participants undergoing all other surgeries (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.89 to 0.28; low-quality evidence). Quality of evidence is limited due to inconsistency and indirectness (small trial sizes).Evidence of effect was found for lidocaine on gastrointestinal recovery regarding the reduction of the time to first flatus (MD -5.49 hours, 95% CI -7.97 to -3.00; low-quality evidence), time to first bowel movement (MD -6.12 hours, 95% CI -7.36 to -4.89; low-quality evidence), and the risk of paralytic ileus (risk ratio (RR) 0.38, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.99; low-quality evidence). However, no evidence of effect was found for lidocaine on shortening the time to first defaecation (MD -9.52 hours, 95% CI -23.24 to 4.19; very low-quality evidence).Furthermore, we found evidence of positive effects for lidocaine administration on secondary outcomes such as reduction of length of hospital stay, postoperative nausea, intraoperative and postoperative opioid requirements. There was limited data on the effect of IV lidocaine on adverse effects (e.g. death, arrhythmias, other heart rate disorders or signs of lidocaine toxicity) compared to placebo treatment as only a limited number of studies systematically analysed the occurrence of adverse effects of the lidocaine intervention.The comparison of intravenous lidocaine versus epidural analgesia revealed no evidence of effect for lidocaine on relevant outcomes. However, the results have to be considered with caution due to imprecision of the effect estimates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low to moderate evidence that this intervention, when compared to placebo, has an impact on pain scores, especially in the early postoperative phase, and on postoperative nausea. There is limited evidence that this has further impact on other relevant clinical outcomes, such as gastrointestinal recovery, length of hospital stay, and opioid requirements. So far there is a scarcity of studies that have systematically assessed the incidence of adverse effects; the optimal dose; timing (including the duration of the administration); and the effects when compared with epidural anaesthesia.

Patient controlled opioid analgesia versus non-patient controlled opioid analgesia for postoperative pain

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2006. Patients may control postoperative pain by self administration of intravenous opioids using devices designed for this purpose (patient controlled analgesia or PCA). A 1992 meta-analysis by Ballantyne et al found a strong patient preference for PCA over non-patient controlled analgesia, but disclosed no differences in analgesic consumption or length of postoperative hospital stay. Although Ballantyne's meta-analysis found that PCA did have a small but statistically significant benefit upon pain intensity, a 2001 review by Walder et al did not find statistically significant differences in pain intensity or pain relief between PCA and groups treated with non-patient controlled analgesia.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of patient controlled intravenous opioid analgesia (termed PCA in this review) versus non-patient controlled opioid analgesia of as-needed opioid analgesia for postoperative pain relief.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran the search for the previous review in November 2004. For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014, Issue 12), MEDLINE (1966 to 28 January 2015), and EMBASE (1980 to 28 January 2015) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in any language, and reference lists of reviews and retrieved articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected RCTs that assessed pain intensity as a primary or secondary outcome. These studies compared PCA without a continuous background infusion with non-patient controlled opioid analgesic regimens. We excluded studies that explicitly stated they involved patients with chronic pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data, which included demographic variables, type of surgery, interventions, efficacy, and adverse events. We graded each included study for methodological quality by assessing risk of bias and employed the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence. We performed meta-analysis of outcomes that included pain intensity assessed by a 0 to 100 visual analog scale (VAS), opioid consumption, patient satisfaction, length of stay, and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-nine studies with 1725 participants receiving PCA and 1687 participants assigned to a control group met the inclusion criteria. The original review included 55 studies with 2023 patients receiving PCA and 1838 patients assigned to a control group. There were fewer included studies in our updated review due to the revised exclusion criteria. For the primary outcome, participants receiving PCA had lower VAS pain intensity scores versus non-patient controlled analgesia over most time intervals, e.g., scores over 0 to 24 hours were nine points lower (95% confidence interval (CI) -13 to -5, moderate quality evidence) and over 0 to 48 hours were 10 points lower (95% CI -12 to -7, low quality evidence). Among the secondary outcomes, participants were more satisfied with PCA (81% versus 61%, P value = 0.002) and consumed higher amounts of opioids than controls (0 to 24 hours, 7 mg more of intravenous morphine equivalents, 95% CI 1 mg to 13 mg). Those receiving PCA had a higher incidence of pruritus (15% versus 8%, P value = 0.01) but had a similar incidence of other adverse events. There was no difference in the length of hospital stay.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Since the last version of this review, we have found new studies providing additional information. We reanalyzed the data but the results did not substantially alter any of our previously published conclusions. This review provides moderate to low quality evidence that PCA is an efficacious alternative to non-patient controlled systemic analgesia for postoperative pain control.

Intravenous lidocaine for postmastectomy pain treatment: randomized, blind, placebo controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Postoperative pain treatment in mastectomy remains a major challenge despite the multimodal approach. The aim of this study was to investigate the analgesic effect of intravenous lidocaine in patients undergoing mastectomy, as well as the postoperative consumption of opioids.

METHODS

After approval by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Instituto de Medicina Integral Prof. Fernando Figueira in Recife, Pernambuco, a randomized, blind, controlled trial was conducted with intravenous lidocaine at a dose of 3mg/kg infused over 1h in 45 women undergoing mastectomy under general anesthesia. One patient from placebo group was.

RESULTS

Groups were similar in age, body mass index, type of surgery, and postoperative need for opioids. Two of 22 patients in lidocaine group and three of 22 patients in placebo group requested opioid (p=0.50). Pain on awakening was identified in 4/22 of lidocaine group and 5/22 of placebo group (p=0.50); in the post-anesthetic recovery room in 14/22 and 12/22 (p=0.37) of lidocaine and placebo groups, respectively. Pain evaluation 24h after surgery showed that 2/22 and 3/22 patients (p=0.50) of lidocaine and placebo groups, respectively, complained of pain.

CONCLUSION

Intravenous lidocaine at a dose of 3mg/kg administered over a period of an hour during mastectomy did not promote additional analgesia compared to placebo in the first 24h, and has not decreased opioid consumption. However, a beneficial effect of intravenous lidocaine in selected and/or other therapeutic regimens patients cannot be ruled out.

Analgesic comparison of systemic lidocaine, morphine or lidocaine plus morphine infusion in dogs undergoing fracture repair

PURPOSE

To compare the postoperative analgesic effects of lidocaine, morphine and lidocaine plus morphine administered by constant rate infusion (CRI) and analyzing their effects on opioid requirements after orthopedic surgery in dogs.

METHODS

Twenty-four dogs underwent fracture repairs were premedicated with IM acepromazine (0.05 mg/kg) combined with morphine (0.3mg/kg). Anesthesia was induced with IV propofol (4 to 5 mg/ kg) and maintained with isoflurane. The dogs were randomly assigned to 3 groups and administered a CRI IV of lidocaine (T-L), morphine (T-M) or lidocaine plus morphine (T-LM) at the same doses. Postoperative analgesia was assessed for 24 hours using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and the Glasgow Composite Pain Scale (GCPS). Rescue analgesia was performed if the evaluation score exceeded 50% of the VAS and/or 33% of the GCPS.

RESULTS

The pain score and postoperative opioid requirements did not differ among the treatments. Rescue analgesia was administered to 1/8 dogs in the T-M and T-LM, and to 3/8 dogs in the T-L.

CONCLUSION

Lidocaine, morphine or lidocaine/morphine CRI may be efficacious techniques for pain management in the first 24 hours post-surgery. However, the two drugs administered together did not reduce the postoperative opioid requirement in dogs undergoing fracture repair. Key words: Anesthesia. Analgesics. Analgesics, Opioid. Lidocaine. Morphine. Dogs.

Perioperative systemic lidocaine for postoperative analgesia and recovery after abdominal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pain management remains a significant challenge after abdominal surgery.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of systemic lidocaine for postoperative pain management and recovery after abdominal surgery.

DATA SOURCE

Data were derived from Medline (1966-2010), CINAHL, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials of systemic administration of lidocaine for postoperative analgesia and recovery after abdominal surgery in adults, ie, >18 years, were considered.

INTERVENTIONS

Combined data were analyzed with use of a random-effects model.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES

Data on opioid consumption, postoperative pain intensity, opioid-related side effects, time to first flatus, time to first bowel movement, and length of hospital stay were extracted.

RESULTS

Twenty-one trials comparing systemic lidocaine with placebo or blank control for postoperative analgesia and recovery after abdominal surgery were included in this meta-analysis. Weighted mean difference for cumulative analgesic opioid (morphine) consumption 48 hours after surgery was -7.04 mg (95% CI: -10.40, -3.68, I2= 46.1%).Systemic lidocaine also significantly reduced postoperative pain intensity(visual analog scale, 0-100 mm) 6 hours after surgery at rest (weighted mean difference: -8.07 mm (95% CI: -14.69, -1.49); I2 = 90.6%) and during activity (weighted mean difference: -10.56 mm (95% CI: -16.89, -4.23), I2 = 82%). The time to first flatus and bowel movement was significantly shortened with lidocaine intervention by 6.92 hours (95% CI: -9.21, -4.63, I2 = 62.8%) and 11.74 hours (95% CI:-16.97, -6.51, I2 = 0). Moreover, systemic lidocaine also reduced hospital length of stay following the open procedure (weighted mean difference: -0.71 days (95% CI: -1.35, -0.07); I2 = 37.3%).

LIMITATIONS

Heterogeneity of study results is the main limitation of this meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

Perioperative systemic lidocaine may be a useful adjunct for postoperative pain management by decreasing postoperative pain intensity, reducing opioid consumption, facilitating GI function, and shortening length of hospital stay.

Adjuvant use of intravenous lidocaine for procedural burn pain relief: a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over trial

BACKGROUND

Pain is a major issue for patients with severe burn. High dose intravenous opioids form the mainstay of procedural burns pain management; however it was suggested that intravenous lidocaine assists with minimising the pain experience. This study aimed to evaluate whether intravenous lidocaine improved analgesic efficacy and decreased opioid consumption during a burn wound care procedure.

METHODS

A prospective double-blind randomized crossover study compared intravenous lidocaine versus placebo alongside patient controlled analgesia (PCA) in 45 patients with severe burn undergoing wound care procedures (i.e. dressing change±debridement) on two consecutive days. Subjects were randomised to either the intervention or control condition on the first dressing day, and received the alternate condition on the second dressing day. During the intervention condition, subjects received lidocaine of 1.5 mg/kg/body weight followed by two boluses of 0.5 mg/kg at 5-min intervals followed by a continuous infusion. During the control condition, 0.9% sodium chloride was administered at an equivalent volume, dose and rate to that of lidocaine. Primary end points included pain intensity as measured by verbal rating scale (VRS), time to rescue analgesia, opioid requests and consumption and overall anxiety and level of satisfaction.

RESULTS

Changes in the VRS score was significantly lower for lidocaine [difference (95% CI)=0.36 (0.17-0.55)] as compared to placebo. However, there were no significant clinical or statistical differences regarding the effects of lidocaine and placebo on opioid requests and consumption, anxiety or level of satisfaction during the first and second dressing procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the clinical benefit of intravenous lidocaine for pain relief during burn wound dressing changes in terms of overall pain scores and opioid consumption was unremarkable. Further investigations using different lidocaine regimes for the management of procedural burn pain are warranted.

Lidocaine vs. magnesium: effect on analgesia after a laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

This double-blinded study aimed at evaluating and comparing the effects of magnesium and lidocaine on pain, analgesic requirements, bowel function, and quality of sleep in patients undergoing a laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

METHODS

Patients were randomized into three groups (n=40 each). Group M received magnesium sulfate 50 mg/kg intravenously (i.v.), followed by 25 mg/kg/h i.v., group L received lidocaine 2 mg/kg i.v., followed by 2 mg/kg/h i.v., and group P received saline i.v. Bolus doses were given over 15 min before induction of anesthesia, followed by an i.v. infusion through the end of surgery. Intraoperative fentanyl consumption and averaged end-tidal sevoflurane concentration were recorded. Abdominal and shoulder pain were evaluated up to 24 h using a visual analog scale (VAS). Morphine consumption was recorded at 2 and 24 h, together with quality of sleep and time of first flatus.

RESULTS

Lidocaine or magnesium reduced anesthetic requirements (P<0.01), pain scores (P<0.05), and morphine consumption (P<0.001) relative to the control group. Lidocaine resulted in lower morphine consumption at 2 h [4.9 + or - 2.3 vs. 6.8 + or - 2.8 (P<0.05)] and lower abdominal VAS scores compared with magnesium (1.8 + or - 0.8 vs. 3.2 + or - 0.9, 2.2 + or - 1 vs. 3.6 + or - 1.6, and 2.1 + or - 1.4 vs. 3.3 + or - 1.9) at 2, 6, and 12 h, respectively (P<0.05). Lidocaine was associated with earlier return of bowel function and magnesium was associated with better sleep quality (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

I.v. lidocaine and magnesium improved post-operative analgesia and reduced intraoperative and post-operative opioid requirements in patients undergoing LC. The improvement of quality of recovery might facilitate rapid hospital discharge.

Perioperative considerations for patients with morbid obesity

The anesthetic management of the MO patient requires an important focus on a number of issues beginning with a careful preoperative evaluation and synthesizing pre-existing disease processes with the anesthetic management plan. The common misperception that all MO patients are "full stomach" has been challenged and may be a nonissue. New approaches to pre-oxygenation to lessen the likelihood of desaturation during apnea may be a valuable tool if difficulty is encountered in tracheal intubation. In addition, promising results have been demonstrated with the use of the ILMA for ventilation and for blindly establishing tracheal tube placement. Proper patient positioning is essential to aid in successful intubation when a laryngoscope is employed. Intraoperative anesthetic management can be guided with a processed electroencephalogram monitor to help improve emergence and to enhance wakefulness in the PACU. Careful consideration must be given to postoperative analgesic needs by minimizing the use of opioids and employing nonopioid analgesics including NSAIDs, alpha2-adrenergic agonists, and low doses of ketamine.

Patient-controlled analgesia in the management of postoperative pain

Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) is a delivery system with which patients self-administer predetermined doses of analgesic medication to relieve their pain. Since its introduction in the early 1980s, the daily management of postoperative pain has been extensively optimised. The use of PCA in hospitals has been increasing because of its proven advantages over conventional intramuscular injections. These include improved pain relief, greater patient satisfaction, less sedation and fewer postoperative complications. All PCA modes contain the following variables: initial loading dose, demand dose, lockout interval, background infusion rate and 1-hour or 4-hour limits. Morphine is the most studied and most commonly used intravenous drug for PCA. In spite of the fact that it is the 'first choice' for PCA, other opioids have been successfully used for this option. The most observed adverse effects of opioid-based PCA are nausea and vomiting, pruritus, respiratory depression, sedation, confusion and urinary retention. Although intravenous PCA is the most studied route of PCA, alternative routes have extensively been described in the literature. PCA by means of peridural catheters and peripheral nerve catheters are the most studied. Recently, transdermal PCA has been described. The use of peripheral or neuraxial nerve blocks is recommended to avoid the so called opioid tolerance observed with the intravenous administration of opioids. Numerous studies have shown the superiority of epidural PCA to intravenous PCA. The beneficial postoperative effects of epidural analgesia are more apparent for high-risk patients or those undergoing higher risk procedures. PCA with peripheral nerve catheters results in increased postoperative analgesia and satisfaction for surgery on upper and lower extremities. Serious complications occur rarely with these catheters. With the introduction of an Acute Pain Service, management of postoperative pain can be improved. This will also help to minimise adverse effects related to PCA and to avoid lethal mishaps.

Patient controlled opioid analgesia versus conventional opioid analgesia for postoperative pain

BACKGROUND

Patients may control postoperative pain by self-administration of intravenous opioids using devices designed for this purpose (patient controlled analgesia or PCA). A 1992 meta-analysis by Ballantyne found a strong patient preference for PCA over conventional analgesia but disclosed no differences in analgesic consumption or length of postoperative hospital stay. Although Ballantyne's meta-analysis found that PCA did have a small but statistically significant benefit upon pain intensity, Walder's review in 2001 did not find a significant differences in pain intensity and pain relief between PCA and conventionally treated groups.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of PCA versus conventional analgesia (such as a nurse administering an analgesic upon a patient's request) for postoperative pain control.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2004, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1966 to 2004), and EMBASE (1994 to 2004). Additional reports were identified from the reference lists of retrieved papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs of PCA versus conventional analgesia that employed pain intensity as a primary or secondary outcome were selected. These trials included RCTs that compared PCA without a continuous background infusion versus conventional parenteral analgesic regimens. Studies that explicitly stated they involved patients with chronic pain were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trials were scored using the Oxford Quality Scale. Meta-analyses were performed of outcomes that included analgesic efficacy assessed by a Visual Analog Scale (VAS), analgesic consumption, patient satisfaction, length of stay and adverse effects. A sufficient number of the retrieved trials reported these parameters to permit meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-five studies with 2023 patients receiving PCA and 1838 patients assigned to a control group met inclusion criteria. PCA provided better pain control and greater patient satisfaction than conventional parenteral 'as-needed' analgesia. Patients using PCA consumed higher amounts of opioids than the controls and had a higher incidence of pruritus (itching) but had a similar incidence of other adverse effects. There was no difference in the length of hospital stay.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides evidence that PCA is an efficacious alternative to conventional systemic analgesia for postoperative pain control.

Effects of systemic administration of lidocaine and QX-314 on hyperexcitability of spinal dorsal horn neurons after incision in the rat

Although systemic lidocaine has been shown to suppress postoperative pain in a clinical setting, the mechanisms of action of lidocaine have not been elucidated. The present study was therefore designed to determine the relative contribution of central and peripheral sites to the action of lidocaine on incision-induced hyperexcitation of spinal dorsal horn (SDH) neurons in the rat. Receptive field (RF) areas, spontaneous activities, and responses of single wide-dynamic-range (WDR) neurons of the SDH to nonnoxious and noxious stimuli were recorded before and after longitudinal incisions of 1cm through the skin, fascia, and muscle had been made in the center of their RFs of the hindquarters. Significant increases in spontaneous activities, RF sizes, and responses of WDR neurons to both nonnoxious and noxious stimuli were observed at 30 min after the incision (P<0.001). Systemic administration of lidocaine (1 mg/kg bolus plus 0.5 mg/kg/h and 2 mg/kg bolus plus 1 mg/kg/h) and QX-314 (1mg/kg bolus plus 0.5 mg/kg/h and 2 mg/kg bolus plus 1 mg/kg/h) significantly but temporarily suppressed and reversed the increases in spontaneous activity, responses to nonnoxious, and noxious stimuli and RF sizes (P<0.01). Systemic administration of the same doses of lidocaine and QX-314 did not affect responses of WDR neurons to nonnoxious or noxious stimuli or their RF sizes in sham-operated animals in which an incision had not been made. The results suggest that systemic administration of lidocaine has suppressive effects on postoperative pain mainly through peripheral sites of action.

Patient-controlled analgesia

One of the most common methods for providing postoperative analgesia is via patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). Although the typical approach is to administer opioids via a programmable infusion pump, other drugs and other modes of administration are available. This article reviews the history and practice of many aspects of PCA and provides extensive guidelines for the practice of PCA-administered opioids. In addition, potential adverse effects and recommendations for their monitoring and treatment are reviewed.

Effects of intravenous administration of lidocaine on the thermal threshold in cats

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effects of IV administration of lidocaine on thermal antinociception in conscious cats.

ANIMALS

6 cats.

PROCEDURE

2 experiments were performed in each cat (interval of at least 2 months). In experiment 1, lidocaine pharmacokinetics were determined for each conscious cat following IV administration of a bolus of lidocaine (2 mg/kg). In experiment 2, data from experiment 1 were used to calculate appropriate doses of lidocaine that would achieve predetermined plasma lidocaine concentrations in the cats; lidocaine (or an equivalent volume of saline [0.9% NaCl] solution as the control treatment) was administered IV to target pseudo-steady-state plasma concentrations of 0, 0.5, 1, 2, 5, and 8 microg/mL. Skin temperature and thermal threshold were determined at the start of the experiment (baseline) and at each concentration. Samples of venous blood were obtained at each target concentration for plasma lidocaine concentration determination.

RESULTS

In experiment 2, actual plasma lidocaine concentrations were 0.00 +/- 0.00 microg/mL, 0.25 +/- 0.18 microg/mL, 0.57 +/- 0.20 microg/mL, 1.39 +/- 0.13 microg/mL, 2.33 +/- 0.45 microg/mL, and 4.32 +/- 0.66 microg/mL for target plasma concentrations of 0, 0.5, 1, 2, 5, and 8 microg/mL, respectively. Compared with baseline values, no significant change in skin temperature or thermal threshold was detected at any lidocaine plasma concentration (or saline solution equivalent). Skin temperature or thermal threshold values did not differ between lidocaine or control treatments.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Results indicated that these moderate plasma concentrations of lidocaine did not affect thermal antinociception in cats.

Intravenous patient-controlled analgesia: one size does not fit all

Patient-controlled analgesia was introduced as a technique that would allow greater flexibility in opioid delivery for the management of acute pain. However, so far, any benefit compared with conventional methods of pain relief appears to be small. This article reviews some of the factors that could limit the usefulness of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia in the clinical setting and what strategies might allow patient-controlled analgesia to become more effective.

Perioperative intravenous lidocaine has preventive effects on postoperative pain and morphine consumption after major abdominal surgery

Sodium channel blockers are approved for IV administration in the treatment of neuropathic pain states. Preclinical studies have suggested antihyperalgesic effects on the peripheral and central nervous system. Our objective in this study was to determine the time course of the analgesic and antihyperalgesic mechanisms of perioperative lidocaine administration. Forty patients undergoing major abdominal surgery participated in this randomized and double-blinded study. Twenty patients received lidocaine 2% (bolus injection of 1.5 mg/kg in 10 min followed by an IV infusion of 1.5 mg. kg(-1). h(-1)), and 20 patients received saline placebo. The infusion started 30 min before skin incision and was stopped 1 h after the end of surgery. Lidocaine blood concentrations were measured. Postoperative pain ratings (numeric rating scale of 0-10) and morphine consumption (patient-controlled analgesia) were assessed up to 72 h after surgery. Mean lidocaine levels during surgery were 1.9 +/- 0.7 microg/mL. Patient-controlled analgesia with morphine produced good postoperative analgesia (numeric rating scale at rest, <or=3; 90%-95%; no group differences). Patients who received lidocaine reported less pain during movement and needed less morphine during the first 72 h after surgery (103.1 +/- 72.0 mg versus 159.0 +/- 73.3 mg; Student's t-test; P < 0.05). Because this opioid-sparing effect was most pronounced on the third postoperative day, IV lidocaine may have a true preventive analgesic activity, most likely by preventing the induction of central hyperalgesia in a clinically relevant manner.

IMPLICATIONS

The perioperative administration of systemic small-dose lidocaine reduces pain during surgery associated with the development of pronounced central hyperalgesia, presumably by affecting mechanoinsensitive nociceptors, because these have been linked to the induction of central sensitization and were shown to be particularly sensitive to small-dose lidocaine.

Addition of ultralow dose naloxone to postoperative morphine PCA: unchanged analgesia and opioid requirement but decreased incidence of opioid side effects

Ultralow doses of naloxone (0.001-0.1 microg/kg) produce analgesia in animal models. However, no clinical study has evaluated the combination of ultralow dose naloxone and morphine using patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). This randomized, double blind controlled study sought to determine if the combination of ultralow dose naloxone and morphine in PCA solutions affects opioid requirements, analgesia, and side effects. Two-hundred and sixty-five patients (18-65 years old) undergoing operations were randomized to receive PCA morphine 1 mg/ml (n=129) or PCA morphine 1 mg/ml plus naloxone 0.6 microg/ml (n=136). We evaluated the numbers of supplemental rescue doses, the cumulative dose of each PCA solution, pain intensity, pain relief, and opioid side effects during the first 24 h after surgery. We found that opioid requirements did not differ significantly between groups. The morphine+naloxone group on average required 0.07 mg more morphine (95% CI -1.1 to 1.3) during the 24 h than the morphine group. Pain intensity levels were also similar in both groups. The morphine+naloxone group had 0.06 units lower (95% CI -0.5 to 0.4) pain intensity levels than the morphine group. The morphine+naloxone group had a lower incidence of nausea and pruritus than the morphine group (P=0.01 for both symptoms). However, the incidence of vomiting, time to tolerate fluids, sedation, and urinary retention were similar between groups (all P values >0.1). The combination of ultralow dose naloxone and morphine in PCA does not affect analgesia or opioid requirements, but it decreases the incidence of nausea and pruritus.

Effect of sevoflurane on human neutrophil apoptosis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Both chronic occupational exposure to volatile anaesthetic agents and acute in vitro exposure of neutrophils to isoflurane have been shown to inhibit the rate of apoptosis of human neutrophils. It is possible that inhibition of neutrophil apoptosis arises through delaying mitochondrial membrane potential collapse. We assessed mitochondrial depolarization and apoptosis in unexposed neutrophils and neutrophils exposed to sevoflurane in vivo.

METHODS

A total of 20 mL venous blood was withdrawn pre- and postinduction of anaesthesia, the neutrophils isolated and maintained in culture. At 1, 12 and 24 h in culture, the percentage of neutrophil apoptosis was assessed by dual staining with annexin V-FITC and propidium iodide. Mitochondrial depolarization was measured using the dual emission styryl dye JC-1.

RESULTS

Apoptosis was significantly inhibited in neutrophils exposed to sevoflurane in vivo at 24 (exposed: 38 (12)% versus control: 28 (11)%, P = 0.001), but not at 1 or 12 h, in culture. Mitochondrial depolarization was not delayed in neutrophils exposed to sevoflurane.

CONCLUSIONS

The most important findings are that sevoflurane inhibits neutrophil apoptosis in vivo and that inhibition is not mediated primarily by an effect on mitochondrial depolarization.

Opioid-induced respiratory depression is associated with increased tidal volume variability

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

mu-agonistic opioids cause concentration-dependent hypoventilation and increased irregularity of breathing. The aim was to quantify opioid-induced irregularity of breathing and to investigate its time-course during and after an opioid infusion, and its ability to predict the severity of respiratory depression.

METHODS

Twenty-three patients breathing spontaneously via a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) mask received an intravenous (i.v.) infusion of alfentanil (2.3 microg kg(-1) min(-1), 14 patients) or pirinitramide (piritramide) (17.9 microg kg(-1) min(-1), nine patients) until either a cumulative dose of 70 microg kg(-1) for alfentanil or 500 microg kg(-1) for pirinitramide had been achieved or the infusion had to be stopped for safety reasons. Tidal volumes (VT) and minute ventilation were measured with an anaesthesia workstation. For every 20 breaths, the quartile coefficient was calculated (Qeff20V(T)).

RESULTS

Both the decrease of minute volume and the increase of Qeff20V(T) during and after opioid infusion were highly significant (P < 0.001, ANOVA). Patients in which the alfentanil infusion had to be terminated prematurely had lower minute volumes (P = 0.002, t-test) and higher Qeff20V(T) (P = 0.034, t-test) than those who received the complete dose. Changes in the regularity of breathing measured as Qeff20V(T) parallel those of minute ventilation during and after opioid infusion.

CONCLUSIONS

Opioids cause a more complicated disturbance of the control of respiration than a mere resetting to higher PCO2. Furthermore, Qeff20V(T) appears to predict the severity of opioid-induced respiratory depression.

Intravenous patient-controlled analgesia after thoracotomy: a comparison of morphine with tramadol

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

This study examined the quality of analgesia together with the side-effects produced by tramadol compared with morphine using intravenous patient-controlled analgesia during the first 24 h after thoracotomy.

METHODS

Forty-four patients scheduled for thoracotomy were included in the study. Morphine 0.3 mg kg(-1) was given interpleurally 20 min before a standard general anaesthetic. In the postanaesthetic care unit, the patients were randomly allocated to one of two groups to self-administer tramadol or morphine using a patient-controlled analgesia device throughout a 24 h period. The patient-controlled analgesia device was programmed to deliver tramadol 20 mg as an intravenous bolus or morphine 2 mg with a lockout time of 10 min.

RESULTS

Mean cumulative morphine and tramadol consumption were 48.13 +/- 30.23 and 493.5 +/- 191.5 mg, respectively. There was no difference in the quality of analgesia between groups. Five (26.3%) patients in the tramadol group and seven (33%) in the morphine group had nausea, and three of the latter patients vomited. The incidence rate of vomiting with tramadol was 5.2%. All vital signs were within safe ranges. Sedation was less in the tramadol group, but not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

In this clinical setting, which includes interpleural morphine pre-emptively, postoperative analgesia provided by tramadol was similar to that of morphine at rest and during deep inspiration. Side-effects were slight and comparable between the patients receiving morphine and tramadol.

Effects of ropivacaine on human neutrophil function: comparison with bupivacaine and lidocaine

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Neutrophils are important both for the immunological defence system and for the inflammatory tissue autoinjury mechanism. However, many local anaesthetics impair certain neutrophil functions. The aim was to assess the effects of ropivacaine, bupivacaine and lidocaine on human neutrophils from adult volunteers.

METHODS

Chemotaxis, phagocytosis, reactive oxygen species production, intracellular calcium ion ([Ca2+]i) concentrations and protein kinase C activity were measured in the absence and presence of ropivacaine, bupivacaine or lidocaine. The lowest concentrations of the local anaesthetics were similar to those clinically observed in the plasma.

RESULTS

Bupivacaine did not affect any neutrophil function (P > 0.05). Ropivacaine failed to change chemotaxis or phagocytosis, while lidocaine suppressed both these neutrophil functions. Ropivacaine (15, 150 microg mL(-1)) and lidocaine (20, 200 microg mL(-1)) impaired neutrophil production of O2-, H2O2 and OH- (P < 0.05) at similar rates (by 7-10%). These same concentrations of ropivacaine and lidocaine suppressed [Ca2+1i elevation. Finally, neither ropivacaine nor bupivacaine inhibited protein kinase C activity, while lidocaine did.

CONCLUSIONS

Suppression of the [Ca2+]i response in neutrophils by ropivacaine may represent one of the mechanisms responsible for the impairment of neutrophil functions. It should be emphasized that the inhibitory effects of ropivacaine are minor and are attained only at high concentrations, which may minimize the clinical implication of ropivacaine-associated impairment of reactive oxygen species production. Further studies using in vivo systems are required to identify the inhibitory effects of ropivacaine on reactive oxygen species production in clinical settings.

Neural nets and prediction of the recovery rate from neuromuscular block

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The aim was to train artificial neural nets to predict the recovery of a neuromuscular block during general anaesthesia. It was assumed that the initial/early neuromuscular recovery data with the simultaneously measured physical variables as inputs into a well-trained back-propagation neural net would enable the net to predict a rough estimate of the remaining recovery time.

METHODS

Spontaneous recovery from neuromuscular block (electrically evoked electromyographic train-of-four responses) were recorded with the following variables known to affect the block: multiple minimum alveolar concentration, end-tidal CO2 concentration, and peripheral and central temperature.

RESULTS

The mean prediction errors, mean absolute prediction errors, root-mean-squared prediction errors and correlation coefficients of all the nets were significantly better than those of average-based predictions used in the study. The root-mean-squared prediction error of the net - employing minimum alveolar concentrations from the whole recovery period (the recovery time from E2/E1 = 0.30 to E4/E1 = 0.75; E1 = first response of train-of-four, E2 = second response of train-of-four, etc.)--were significantly smaller than those of other nets, or the same net employing minimum alveolar concentrations only from the initial recovery period (from E2/E1 = 0.30 to E4/E1 = 0.25).

CONCLUSIONS

Neural nets could predict individual recovery times from the neuromuscular block significantly better than the average-based method used here, which was supposed to be more accurate than guesses by any clinician. The minimum alveolar concentration was the only monitored variable that influenced the recovery rate, but it did not aid neural net prediction.

Sevoflurane but not isoflurane can reduce prostacyclin production of endothelial cells

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Little is known about the interaction of newer volatile anaesthetics with endothelial eicosanoid production. Sevoflurane may possibly reduce prostacyclin formation. Thus, we compared the influences of sevoflurane and isoflurane on endothelial prostacyclin production.

METHODS

Production of prostacyclin of human umbilical vein endothelial cells was measured by the ELISA technique under basal conditions and after stimulation with calcium ionophore A 23187 10 micromol or histamine 0.1 micromol in the absence and presence of 1 and 2 minimal alveolar concentrations (MAC) of sevoflurane or isoflurane.

RESULTS

The basal production of prostacyclin was unaffected by the volatile anaesthetics. Stimulation of endothelial cells increased prostacyclin formation 3-5-fold. Sevoflurane at 2 MAC, but not at 1 MAC, could reduce stimulated prostacyclin production by about half (P < 0.05). Isoflurane had no inhibitory effect. Inhibition of cyclo-oxygenase function by acetylsalicylic acid abolished the induced burst of prostacyclin formation completely.

CONCLUSIONS

Sevoflurane, but not isoflurane, can reduce stimulated endothelial prostacyclin production in a concentration-dependent manner. Because at least 2 MAC of sevoflurane were required, this effect should be of minor importance under clinical conditions of balanced anaesthesia.

Adsorption of sufentanil to epidural filters and catheters

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Stable drug concentrations must be administered to provide adequate patient-controlled epidural analgesia. This study investigated the stability of sufentanil after the epidural delivery system had been flushed with solutions containing the drug.

METHODS

Sufentanil citrate, 5 microg mL(-1) was injected through an epidural catheter system into a glass container. The concentrations of the drug leaving the system, in 1 mL aliquots (1-5 mL) were measured using high-performance liquid chromatography. In the same manner, sufentanil samples were analysed after flushing the filter, as well as after priming the filter and catheter.

RESULTS

ANOVA for repeated measurements demonstrated that sufentanil concentrations remained constant as long as the catheter had been adequately flushed. However, the concentration of sufentanil in the solution exiting the filter was reduced significantly. Hardly any sufentanil could be detected (0.09 +/- 0.01 microg mL(-1), P < 0.001) in the first 1 mL aliquot (probe) leaving the filter. Altogether, 3 mL sufentanil solution was needed to pass through the filter before the baseline values were restored (P > 0.05). The greatest decrease occurred when the whole epidural delivery apparatus (catheter and filter) was primed; to regain baseline values, as much as 4 mL solution was needed to flush the system.

CONCLUSIONS

Sufentanil citrate is adsorbed by the materials used to manufacture systems (catheters, filters) used in epidural anaesthesia. Hence, the epidural catheter system should be primed with sufentanil before connecting it to the patient so as to deliver reliable concentrations.

Nitrous oxide/oxygen mixture and the prevention of pain during injection of propofol

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The incidence of pain associated with the injection of propofol still remains a problem. This study sought to examine the analgesic effects of inhaled nitrous oxide in oxygen on the prevention of propofol injection pain.

METHODS

Nitrous oxide in oxygen was compared with a lidocaine (20 mg)-propofol mixture and with propofol alone (control) in a prospective, randomized, observer-blinded study. ASA I and II patients (n = 135) scheduled for elective surgical procedures were studied. A standard propofol injection technique and scoring system to measure the pain on injection was used.

RESULTS

Demographic variables were similar between the study groups. Without analgesia (control) 26 of 45 patients (58%) reported pain on injection compared with 11 of 45 patients (24%) in both the nitrous oxide (95% CI: 14-52%, P = 0.001) and lidocaine groups (95% CI: 14-52%, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The inhalation of a nitrous oxide/oxygen mixture significantly reduces the incidence of pain during propofol injection. This therapeutic stratagem was as effective as a lidocaine-propofol mixture.

Effects of repeated anaesthesia on central cholinergic function in the rat cerebral cortex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

General anaesthesia may contribute to postoperative cognitive decline in the elderly. The aim was to determine the effects of repeated pentobarbital anaesthesia throughout life on central cholinergic function in the rat.

METHODS

Young Lewis rats were randomly allocated to two groups. The anaesthesia group (n = 15) was anaesthetized with pentobarbital 20 mg kg(-1) intraperitoneally at 6, 8.5, 11, 13.5, 16, 18.5, 21 and 23.5 months of age. The control group (n = 12) was treated identically, apart from the anaesthesia. At 26 months of age, the animals were killed and the brain dissected and stored for analysis. Central cholinergic function in the cortex and hippocampus was assessed by measuring [3H]-epibatidine and [125I]alpha-bungarotoxin binding to nicotinic receptors and choline acetyltransferase (ChAT) activity.

RESULTS

Tissue from nine rats in the anaesthesia group and eight in the control group was available for analysis. There was a significant reduction in alpha-bungarotoxin binding in the anaesthetized compared with the control group in the superior cortex (P < 0.0002) and molecular cortex (P < 0.04). There were no significant differences between the groups for epibatidine binding or ChAT.

CONCLUSIONS

Repeated anaesthesia in rat reduces central nicotinic cholinergic binding in the cortex. The findings may have implications for postoperative cognitive function studies.

Induced arterial hypotension for interventional thoracic aortic stent-graft placement: impact on intracranial haemodynamics and cognitive function

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The study investigated the impact of induced arterial hypotension for the facilitation of endovascular stent-graft placement in patients with thoracic aortic aneurysm on cerebral blood flow velocity and neurological/neurocognitive outcome.

METHODS

In 27 ASA III patients, cerebral blood flow velocity was recorded during induced arterial hypotension for endovascular stent-graft placement using transcranial Doppler sonography and the Folstein Mini Mental State Examination and the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale were performed before and after the intervention.

RESULTS

Mean arterial pressure was decreased <50 mmHg, and in 22 patients it was <40 mmHg. Diastolic cerebral blood flow velocity decreased by 59%. Postoperatively, six of 21 patients exhibited changes in the Folstein Mini Mental State Examination and four of these six patients in the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale as indices of new-found neurocognitive dysfunction, but there were no signs of stroke. Loss of the diastolic blood flow profile was detected in two of six patients with new-found neurocognitive dysfunctions and in 18 of 21 patients with no new-found neurocognitive dysfunction. Changes in the Folstein Mini Mental State Examination on postoperative day 1 were correlated to the pre-procedural Folstein Mini Mental State Examination, but not to the time spent with a mean arterial pressure <50 mmHg, <40 mmHg or with a loss of diastolic blood flow profile.

CONCLUSIONS

Transcranial Doppler sonography visualizes the individual effect of induced hypotension and the period of intracranial circulatory arrest during aortic stent-graft placement. However, transient new-found neurocognitive dysfunctions occur independently of the transcranial Doppler data, and are in close correlation to the neurocognitive state before the procedure. The results suggest that induced arterial hypotension is not the major factor for postoperative new-found neurocognitive dysfunction.

Gastric mucosal-to-end-tidal PCO2 difference during major abdominal surgery: influence of the arterial-to-end-tidal PCO2 difference?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Because gastric mucosal PCO2 must be referenced to arterial values via a gastric-to-arterial PCO2 gap (Pg-aCO2), the gastric-to-end-tidal PCO2 difference (Pg-ETCO2) may be proposed as a surrogate method to monitor Pg-aCO2. However, the influence of arterial-to-end-tidal PCO2 (Pa-ETCO2) on its value remains unknown. Pa-ETCO2 may be enhanced by a low cardiac output and subsequent reduced perfusion of the lungs. This study was designed to compare such gaps observed during abdominal surgery in patients with or without preoperative cardiac dysfunction.

METHODS

Haemodynamic, metabolic and tonometric variables were measured in seven patients with Crohn's disease and in five patients with chronic heart failure scheduled for abdominal surgery. Data were collected before skin incision (T0); at extractor placement (T1), 30 (T2) and 60 (T3) min later; at organ extraction (T4), 30 (T5) and 60 (T6) min later, and at the end of surgery (T7).

RESULTS

Gradients appeared larger in the cardiac group. The difference was significant for Pg-ETCO2 during the whole study period, while it was only reached at T1-T2 for Pa-ETCO2 and at T5-T6 for Pg-aCO2. Gaps did not change significantly over the peroperative time points in either group. No major haemodynamic variations were registered in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with preoperative chronic heart failure, Pg-ETCO2 remained constant throughout a major general surgical procedure and was only moderately influenced by the Pa-ETCO2 gap. In these patients, Pg-ETCO2 may be used as a reliable index of gastrointestinal perfusion after control of PaCO2.

Ondansetron disintegrating tablets of 8 mg twice a day for 3 days did not reduce the incidence of nausea or vomiting after laparoscopic surgery

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Although many antiemetic drugs are available for intravenous use in the hospital setting, few are available after patient discharge. Consequently, nausea and vomiting are frequent complaints from patients at home after ambulatory surgery. We tested the hypothesis that the new 8 mg ondansetron disintegrating tablets will decrease the rate of nausea and vomiting at home after laparoscopic surgery.

METHODS

Ninety-six patients were studied in a randomized double-blind study. Starting the first evening after operation and continuing every 12 h for 3 days, patients received either placebo or ondansetron 8 mg disintegrating tablets orally. The patients returned a questionnaire about postoperative nausea and vomiting, other side-effects, e.g. dizziness, headache, nightmare, anxiety and pain, as well as their overall satisfaction at 24 and 72 h after completion of surgery.

RESULTS

The rates of nausea and vomiting were similar in the two groups, both during the first 24 h (28 versus 48%, placebo and ondansetron, respectively (ns) and during the 24-72 h (21 versus 35% (ns)). The incidence rate of vomiting was 8% (placebo) versus 12% (ondansetron) during the first 24 h (ns) and 9 versus 13% respectively in the 24-72 h (ns). No difference between groups was observed in overall satisfaction, incidence of postoperative pain or other side-effects.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of ondansetron disintegrating tablets of 8 mg twice a day for 3 days did not reduce the incidence of nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing outpatient laparoscopic surgery.

Effects of xenon on mesenteric blood flow

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The effects of xenon on mesenteric vascular resistance have not been investigated. Because human beings anaesthetized with xenon show good cardiovascular stability, we believed that the agent would have little or no effect on vascular resistance in the splanchnic bed. We determined the effects of different inhaled xenon concentrations on mesenteric blood flow and mesenteric oxygen consumption in pigs sedated with intravenous propofol.

METHODS

Twenty-three minipigs were instrumented with transit time flow probes around the pulmonary and superior mesenteric arteries as well as with pulmonary artery and portal venous catheters. A 14 h recovery was allowed followed by recordings of baseline values. Xenon was then randomly administered in 0.30, 0.50, and 0.70 end-tidal fractions.

RESULTS

The administration of xenon resulted in an 8% (not dose dependent) decrease in mean arterial pressure (from 99 +/- 15 to 91 +/- 19 mmHg; P < 0.05), a 20% decrease in calculated systemic oxygen consumption (from 0.23 +/- 0.07 to 0.19 +/- 0.04L min(-1); P < 0.01), a 20% reduction in mesenteric oxygen delivery (from 41 +/- 12 to 33 +/- 11 mL min; P < 0.001), a 37% reduction in mesentericmetabolic rate of oxygen (from 11.3 +/- 3.6 to 7.1 +/- 3.2 mL min(-1); P < 0.01) and an 8% decrease in mesenteric artery blood flow (0.22 +/- 0.07 to 0.20 +/- 0.07 L min(-1); P < 0.05) in a dose-dependent fashion. Heart rate, cardiac output, systemic vascular resistance, mesenteric vascular resistance, mesenteric oxygen extraction fraction and portal lactate concentration were not significantly altered by xenon.

CONCLUSIONS

Xenon inhalation in the propofol-sedated pig had no measurable effects on mesenteric vascular resistance. This finding may partly explain the well-known cardiovascular stability observed in patients anaesthetized with xenon. Although mesenteric artery blood flow and mesenteric oxygen delivery decreased during xenon administration, unchanged mesenteric oxygen extraction fraction and portal lactate suggest that metabolic regulation of the splanchnic circulation remained unaltered.

Dopamine stabilizes milrinone-induced changes in heart rate and arterial pressure during anaesthesia with isoflurane

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Phosphodiesterase-III inhibitors and dobutamine effectively improve cardiac function in patients with cardiac failure, but they are limited by possible hypotensive effects. We tested the hypothesis that dopamine contributes to stabilizing milrinone-induced haemodynamic changes.

METHODS

Nine patients undergoing major surgery were anaesthetized using nitrous oxide and oxygen supplemented with isoflurane 1-2%. After baseline haemodynamics were recorded, milrinone (25 or 50 microg kg(-1)) was administered over 10min, followed by a continuous infusion (0.5 microg kg(-1) min(-1). The second set of haemodynamic values was measured 50 min after beginning the continuous infusion of milrinone. Dopamine (4 microg kg(-1) min(-1)) was then administered with milrinone.

RESULTS

Milrinone significantly increased the heart rate from 81 +/- 8 to 102 +/- 16beats min(-1), but it decreased the mean arterial pressure from 83 +/- 10 to 66 +/- 10 mmHg and systemic vascular resistance (P < 0.05 for each). The pulmonary capillary wedge pressure, cardiac index and pulmonary vascular resistance did not change significantly. The addition of dopamine to the milrinone infusion significantly decreased the heart rate (94 +/- 12 beats min(-1)) and increased the mean arterial pressure (82 +/- 11 mmHg). Dopamine and milrinone, but not milrinone alone, significantly increased the cardiac index and the rate-pressure product.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination regimen of milrinone and dopamine improved cardiac function, and changes in heart rate and mean arterial pressure induced by milrinone were attenuated by dopamine. The results suggest that a combination regimen of milrinone and dopamine rather than milrinone alone should be used to maintain arterial pressure.