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

Safety of perioperative intravenous lidocaine in liver surgery - A pilot study

Background and Aims

Perioperative lidocaine infusion has many interesting properties such as analgesic effects in the context of enhanced recovery after surgery. However, its use is limited in liver surgery due to its hepatic metabolism.

Material and Methods

This prospective, monocentric study was conducted from 2020 to 2021. Patients undergoing liver surgery were included. They received a lidocaine infusion protocol until the beginning of hepatic transection (bolus dose of 1.5 mg kg-1, then a continuous infusion of 2 mg kg-1 h-1). Plasma concentrations of lidocaine were measured four times during and after lidocaine infusion.

Results

Twenty subjects who underwent liver resection were analyzed. There was 35% of preexisting liver disease before tumor diagnosis, and 75% of liver resection was defined as "major hepatectomy." Plasmatic levels of lidocaine were in the therapeutic range. No blood sample showed a concentration above the toxicity threshold: 1.6 (1.3-2.1) μg ml-1 one hour after the start of infusion, 2.5 (1.7-2.8) μg ml-1 at the end of hepatic transection, 1.7 (1.3-2.0) μg ml-1 one hour after the end of infusion, and 1.2 (0.8-1.4) μg ml-1 at the end of surgery. Comparative analysis between the presence of a preexisting liver disease or not and the association of intraoperative vascular clamping or not did not show significant difference concerning lidocaine blood levels.

Conclusion

Perioperative lidocaine infusion seems safe in the field of liver surgery. Nevertheless, additional prospective studies need to assess the clinical usefulness in terms of analgesia and antitumoral effects.

Efficacy of intraoperative intravenous lidocaine infusion on postoperative opioid consumption after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

We designed this study to evaluate the impact of intraoperative intravenous lidocaine infusion on postoperative opioid consumption after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

In total, 98 patients scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were included and randomized. In the experimental group, intravenous lidocaine (bolus 1.5 mg/kg and continuous infusion 2 mg/kg/h) was administered intraoperatively additionally to the standard analgesia, whereas the control group received a matching placebo. Blinding existed at the level of both the patient and the investigator.

RESULTS

Our study failed to confirm any benefit in opioid consumption, during the postoperative period. Lidocaine resulted to reduced intraoperative systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial pressure. Lidocaine administration did not change postoperative pain scores or the incidence of shoulder pain, at any time endpoint. Moreover, we did not identify any difference in terms of postoperative sedation levels and nausea rates.

CONCLUSION

Overall, lidocaine did not have any effect on postoperative analgesia after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Sedation for adult ICU patients: A narrative review including a retrospective study of our own data

The optimization of patients' treatment in the intensive care unit (ICU) needs a lot of information and literature analysis. Many changes have been made in the last years to help evaluate sedated patients by scores to help take care of them. Patients were completely sedated and had continuous intravenous analgesia and neuromuscular blockades. These three drug classes were the main drugs used for intubated patients in the ICU. During these last 20 years, ICU management went from fully sedated to awake, calm, and nonagitated patients, using less sedatives and choosing other drugs to decrease the risks of delirium during or after the ICU stay. Thus, the usefulness of these three drug classes has been challenged. The analgesic drugs used were primarily opioids but the use of other drugs instead is increasing to lessen or wean the use of opioids. In severe acute respiratory distress syndrome patients, neuromuscular blocking agents have been used frequently to block spontaneous respiration for 48 hours or more; however, this has recently been abolished. Optimizing a patient's comfort during hemodynamic or respiratory extracorporeal support is essential to reduce toxicity and secondary complications.

Efficacy of Lidocaine Infusion in High-Risk Vascular Surgery—A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Single-Center Clinical Trial

Background: In perioperative pain control, adjuvants such as lidocaine can reduce opioid consumption in a specific type of surgery. The aim of this single-center prospective double-blinded randomized controlled trial was to determine opioid consumption in the perioperative period in patients receiving continuous lidocaine infusion. Methods: Patients undergoing elective abdominal aorta and/or iliac arteries open surgery were randomized into two groups to receive 1% lidocaine or placebo at the same infusion rate based on ideal body weight (bolus of 0.15 mL/kg during the induction of anesthesia followed by continuous infusion of 0.2 mL/kg/h during surgery; postoperatively 0.1 mL/kg/h for 24 h) additionally to standard opioid analgesia. Results: Total opioid consumption within 24 h after surgery was 89.2 mg (95%CI 80.9–97.4) in the lidocaine and 113.1 mg (95%CI 102.5–123.6) in the placebo group (p = 0.0007). Similar findings were observed in opioid consumption intraoperatively (26.7 mg (95%CI 22.2–31.3) vs. 35.1 mg (95%CI 29.1–41.2), respectively, p = 0.029) and six hours postoperatively (47.5 mg (IQR 37.5–59.5) vs. 60 mg (IQR 44–83), respectively, p = 0.01). Conclusions: In high-risk vascular surgery, lidocaine infusion as an adjunct to standard perioperative analgesia is effective. It may decrease opioid consumption by more than 20% during the first 24 h after surgery, with no serious adverse effects noted during the study period.

Intravenous lidocaine infusion compared to thoracic epidural analgesia in cytoreductive surgery with or without heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy. A retrospective case-cohort study

BACKGROUND

Intravenous (IV) lidocaine is a proven analgesic therapy but has not been evaluated in extensive procedures such as cytoreductive surgery (CRS). Our aim was to assess the effectiveness and safety of IV lidocaine in this setting.

METHODS

This is a retrospective hybrid case-cohort study investigating analgesic effectiveness and complications of perioperative IV lidocaine at 1.5 mg/kg/h for 48 h compared to thoracic epidural anaesthesia (TEA) among patients undergoing CRS in a high-volume centre.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were included, 20 received IV lidocaine and 40 underwent TEA. Pain scores were low (median ≤2) and similar in both groups (p = 0.88). At 72 h, the lidocaine group had a lower median pain score (p = 0.03). Overall opioid consumption in the first 48 h was lower in the lidocaine compared to the TEA group (median 0 (IQR 0-9.5) mg vs. 45.4 (0-62.4) MME respectively, p = 0.001). Opioid consumption was also lower in the lidocaine compared to the TEA group during the whole 5-day period (median 1 (IQR 1-13.5) mg vs. 112 (36.6-137.85) MME respectively, p = 0.000). The incidence of PONV was significantly lower in the lidocaine group (27.5% vs 5%, p = 0.047) with no difference in other complications or length of in-hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

Intravenous lidocaine infusion may be a safe and effective analgesic approach in CRS and is associated with a significant reduction of opioid use and PONV compared to opioid-containing TEA.

Appropriate Duration of Perioperative Intravenous Administration of Lidocaine to Provide Satisfactory Analgesia for Adult Patients Undergoing Colorectal Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Perioperative lidocaine infusion has been reported to alleviate pain intensity after colorectal surgery. However, there is no consensus on whether prolonged lidocaine infusion is more effective than short lidocaine infusion. This meta-analysis aimed to determine an appropriate duration of lidocaine infusion in patients undergoing colorectal surgery.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases to identify articles published before December 17, 2021. Randomized controlled trials comparing intravenous lidocaine with placebo for pain relief in patients undergoing colorectal surgery were included. The primary outcome was pain scores (visual analog scale [VAS], 0-10 cm) at 24 hours postoperatively at rest and on movement. Secondary outcomes included pain scores at 12, 48, and 72 hours postoperatively, analgesic consumption (mg), gastrointestinal function return (hour), length of hospital stay (days), and incidence of complications. According to the duration of lidocaine infusion, studies were grouped into infusion for at least 24 hours (prolonged lidocaine infusion) and less than 24 hours (short lidocaine infusion) to assess the impact of lidocaine infusion duration on the outcomes of interests. Quantitative analyses were performed using a random effects model.

RESULTS

Eleven studies with 548 patients were included. Five studies used prolonged lidocaine infusion, while 6 studies used short lidocaine infusion. Prolonged lidocaine infusion reduced postoperative pain scores versus placebo at 24 hours at rest (mean difference [MD], -0.91 cm; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.54 to -0.28; P = .02) and on movement (MD, -1.69 cm; 95% CI, -2.15 to -1.22; P < .001), while short lidocaine infusion showed no benefit. Compared with placebo, prolonged lidocaine infusion reduced pain scores at 12 hours at rest and at 12 and 48 hours on movement, but short lidocaine infusion did not. However, there was no significant difference in pain scores between the prolonged and short lidocaine infusion groups at these time points. Compared with placebo, prolonged lidocaine infusion shortened the length of hospital stay (MD, -1.30 days; 95% CI, -1.72 to -0.88; P < .001) and time to first postoperative defecation (MD, -12.51 hours; 95% CI, -22.67 to -2.34; P = .02). There were no differences between groups regarding the other outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The analgesic effect of intravenous lidocaine may depend on the duration of infusion, and our results suggest that lidocaine infusion should be administered for at least 24 hours after colorectal surgery. Since overall evidence quality was low, further high-quality, large-sample trials are needed to explore an optimal lidocaine infusion strategy in patients undergoing colorectal surgery.

Lidocaine Intraoperative Infusion Pharmacokinetics during Partial Hepatectomy for Living Liver Donation

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pain associated with open partial hepatectomy can be intense and persistent. The multimodal approach used to lessen this problem includes an intraoperative intravenous infusion of lidocaine hydrochloride. Decreased hepatic metabolism after resection raises concerns about safe lidocaine dosing in this patient population. The hypothesis was that the elimination clearance of lidocaine and its metabolites, monoethylglycinexylidide and glycinexylidide, is reduced after a partial hepatectomy, as reflected by observed plasma concentrations that are higher and have a longer half-life than expected based on pharmacokinetic modeling (estimated for normal liver function). Secondarily, this study postulated that plasma concentrations of lidocaine, monoethylglycinexylidide, and glycinexylidide do not reach toxic concentrations with institutional protocol up to 24 h after surgery.

METHODS

Blood samples were collected from 15 patients undergoing a partial hepatectomy for living liver donation, at the following specific time points: before and immediately after induction of anesthesia, during hepatectomy, 30 min after hepatectomy completion, at case end, and 24 h after the end of surgery. Plasma concentrations of lidocaine and metabolites were measured by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. The population lidocaine pharmacokinetics were estimated, and total body weight and the fraction of remaining liver mass as potential model covariates were evaluated. The detection of any lidocaine, monoethylglycinexylidide, or glycinexylidide toxic plasma concentrations at any time point during and after hepatectomy were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The typical value for lidocaine elimination clearance was 0.55 ± 0.12 l/min (± standard error of the estimate) which, on average, was reduced to about one third of the baseline clearance, 0.17 ± 0.02 l/min, once the donor graft was surgically isolated, and remained so for 24 h according to the current data and model. The fraction of remaining liver was a significant covariate for the posthepatectomy lidocaine clearance' such that if 50% of the liver is removed the clearance is reduced by approximately 60%. Plasma concentrations of lidocaine and its metabolites remained below their theoretical combined toxic threshold concentrations throughout the surgical and postoperative course in all patients, with one exception obtained near induction of anesthesia. Plasma lidocaine concentrations decreased at case end and postoperatively, while metabolite concentrations continued to rise at the end of surgery with reduction postoperatively. Pharmacokinetic modeling revealed that the only significant covariate in the model was the fraction of liver remaining after isolation of the donor graft.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous lidocaine infusions are an acceptable option for multimodal pain management in patients undergoing a hepatectomy for living donation if the lidocaine infusion is stopped when the liver resection is complete. Clearance of lidocaine is decreased proportionally to the remaining liver mass, which should guide lidocaine infusion administration or dosing adjustments for patients undergoing liver resection surgery.

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

Intraoperative lidocaine infusion as a sole analgesic agent versus morphine in laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery

Background

The aim of this study was to assess the effect of intra-operative intra-venous (IV) lidocaine infusion compared to IV morphine, on the post-operative pain at rest, the intra-operative and post-operative morphine requirements, the sedation and the Modified Aldrete scores in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), the hemodynamic parameters; mean values of the mean blood pressure (MBP) and the heart rate (HR), the peri-operative changes in the SpO2, and the respiratory rate (RR) in laparoscopic Roux-en-y gastric bypass. Sixty patients ˃ 18 years old, with body mass index (BMI) ˃ 35 kg/m2, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status II or III, were randomly divided into 2 groups: the lidocaine (L) group patients received intra-operative IV lidocaine infusion, and the morphine (M) group patients received intra-operative IV morphine.

Results

The post-operative numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) at rest was statistically significant less in group L than in group M patients, in the post-operative 90 min in the PACU. This was reflected on the post-operative morphine requirements in the PACU, as 26.6% of patients in group M required morphine with a mean total dose of 10.8 mg. The mean values of the MBP and HR recorded after intubation were comparable between patients of both groups, indicating attenuation of the stress response to endotracheal intubation by both lidocaine and morphine. However, the mean values of the MBP and HR recorded after extubation were statistically significant lower in patients of group L, indicating the attenuation of the stress response to extubation by lidocaine. Patients in group M showed statistically significant lower mean values of the MBP; before pneumoperitoneum and after 15 min from the pneumoperitoneum, this was reflected on statistically significant higher mean values of the HR. Patients in group L showed statistically significant lower mean values of the MBP and the HR; at 30 and 45 min from the pneumoperitoneum. Patients in group L showed statistically significant lower mean values of the MBP; 60 min from the pneumoperitoneum, after release of pneumoperitoneum and in the PACU. Patients of both groups showed comparable mean values of the HR after 60 min from the pneumoperitoneum, after release of the pneumoperitoneum and in the PACU. No patient in either groups developed post-operative respiratory depression in the PACU. Patients in group L showed statistically significant higher median sedation score, which was reflected on statistically but not clinically significant less Modified Aldrete score in patients of group L.

Conclusions

In morbid obese patients, the intra-operative IV lidocaine infusion offered post-operative analgesia in the PACU, on the expense of a higher sedation score, which didn’t affect the Modified Aldrete score clinically, with attenuation of the stress response to endotracheal intubation and extubation.

Trial registrations

FMASU R16/2021. Registered 1st February 2021, with Clinical Trials Registry (NCT05150756) on 10/08/2021.

Surgical Field Quality in Trans-Nasal Endoscopic Surgeries Using Lignocaine Infusion and Dexmedetomidine Infusion. A Prospective Randomized Control Study

Trans-nasal endoscopic surgery (TNES) is a helpful diagnostic and therapeutic modality in otorhinolaryngology surgeries and requires controlled hypotension for better visualization of the surgical field. Recent literature shows evidence of intravenous Lignocaine infusion to produce the controlled hypotension. The study aims to assess and compare the effects of Lignocaine (LIG) and Dexmedetomidine (DEX) infusion with respect to surgical field quality. 101 Consenting adult patients undergoing elective TNES were double-blinded, randomly allocated in one of the two groups and received either DEX infusion of 0.5ug/kg/hr (n = 51) or LIG infusion of 1.5 mg/kg/h (n = 50) after a loading dose. Surgical field score (SVF) as the primary outcome and secondary outcomes such as variations in hemodynamic parameters, the requirement for rescue agents and total blood loss were recorded. Both the groups were comparable with respect to patient demographics, total duration of anesthesia and surgery. SVF scores were significantly better in the LIG group during the first 105 min of the surgery (p < 0.05). In response to intubation, hemodynamic parameters were lower in LIG group. The requirement of other adjuvant drugs, total blood loss (166.40 ml vs. 251.17 ml) and extubation time were also significantly lower in the LIG group. The study concludes that intravenous Lignocaine gives a better surgical field in the first 105 min of surgery, comparable hemodynamics and decreased blood loss in patients undergoing TNES as compared to Dexmedetomidine infusion. Hence its role as an agent for controlled hypotension during TNES surgery is promising.

Effect of perioperative lignocaine infusion on postoperative pain relief for laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair: A randomized controlled study

INTRODUCTION

The focus on enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) and opioid-free anesthesia has renewed interest in use of lignocaine. We evaluated postoperative pain relief following intravenous (IV) lignocaine administration in patients undergoing laparoscopic intraperitoneal onlay mesh repair (IPOM).

METHODS

Seventy patients were randomized into two groups. Group L patients were administered IV lignocaine infusion (1.5 mg/kg) at induction of anesthesia followed by infusion (1.5 mg/kg/h), until 1 hour in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU). Group P patients received equal volumes of normal saline IV infusion. We recorded hemodynamics, perioperative analgesic consumption, postoperative visual analog scores (VAS), incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), bowel function, patient satisfaction and length of hospital stay (LOS).

RESULTS

The hemodynamics in both groups were maintained. Group L had lower VAS scores as compared to Group P (P < .05). Intraoperative fentanyl consumption in Group L was significantly less than Group P (P = .029). Group L patients scored lower on the Likert scale in comparison to the patients of Group P at 0 hour (P = .013). Recovery of bowel function as assessed by time to pass first flatus was significantly shortened by IV lignocaine (P = .001). The perioperative administration of IV lignocaine resulted in decreased postoperative analgesic requirement and greater patient satisfaction scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Perioperative IV lignocaine infusion provided good pain relief, hemodynamic stability and decreased perioperative analgesic consumption. PONV incidence decreased along with an early return of bowel function, reduced LOS and improved patient satisfaction in patients undergoing laparoscopic IPOM surgery.

Lidocaine and Ketamine Infusions as Adjunctive Pain Management Therapy: A Retrospective Analysis of Clinical Outcomes in Hospitalized Patients Admitted for Pain Related to Sickle Cell Disease

Objective

In this study, we aim to evaluate the efficacy of adjunctive lidocaine and ketamine infusions for opioid reduction in the treatment of sickle cell disease in patients with vaso-occlusive crisis (VOC).

Design

We retrospectively reviewed a cohort of 330 adult sickle-cell crisis hospital encounters with 68 patients admitted to our institution from July 2017 to August 2018.

Methods

Upon institutional IRB approval, we obtained initial data from billing records and performed chart reviews to obtain pain scores and confirm total opioid consumption. If provided by the acute pain consultation service, the patients received either a lidocaine or a ketamine infusion of 0.5–2 mg/min or 2–3 mcg/kg, respectively, for a maximum of 24–48 h. We compared the change in opioid consumption before and after infusion therapy to patients that did not receive ketamine or lidocaine.

Results

Compared to patients that did not receive infusion therapy, ketamine and lidocaine accounted for respective relative decreases of 28 and 23% in average daily morphine consumption (p = 0.02). Patients that received either infusion were 3 to 4 times more likely to decrease their opioid consumption independent of treatment length or baseline opioid doses (p < 0.01). Ketamine and lidocaine therapies were not associated with change in pain scores. When a patient had multiple admissions, opioid reduction was strongly correlated with initiation of infusions in the later visits.

Conclusion

Both ketamine and lidocaine infusion therapies are effective in reducing opioid consumption for patients with vaso-occlusive crisis. Lidocaine infusion is emerging as an agent for stabilizing opioid doses in VOC for patients with high daily MME.

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Intravenous Lidocaine Infusion With Thoracic Epidural for Perioperative Analgesia and Quality of Recovery After Surgery in Laparoscopic Left-Sided Colon and Sphincter-Sparing Rectal Resection Surgery

Background Protocols for Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) have been constantly evolving, and the best method of managing perioperative pain, especially in laparoscopic surgeries, is still debatable. The primary goal of these protocols is to steer toward opioid-sparing analgesia. Intravenous lidocaine, which has both analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties, may improve the overall recovery of patients. Objectives The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to compare the efficacy of intravenous lidocaine infusion (IVL) with thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) in the management of perioperative pain and recovery in the laparoscopic left-sided colon and sphincter-sparing rectal surgery. Methods In this study, 37 patients were randomized to either the IVL group or the TEA group. IVL infusion was started before the surgical incision and stopped 30 minutes after transferring the patient to the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). Postoperative pain scores, opioid consumption, rescue analgesic doses, quality of recovery scores, time to discharge, and adverse events were recorded prospectively. Data were analyzed using two independent sample t-test and paired t-test, with p < 0.05 taken as statistically significant. Results The mean difference of overall NRS (numerical rating scale) pain scores in the ward was significantly higher in the IVL group as compared to the TEA group, which was 3.58 (2.29) vs 2.23 1.95) (p < 0.001). The IVL group required more mean rescue opioid boluses than the TEA group, which was 11.36 (8.684) vs 5.96 (6.215) (p < 0.001). However, both IVL and TEA groups had similar pain scores intraoperatively and in the PACU. Conclusions TEA provides better analgesia and decreased opioid requirements compared to intravenous lidocaine during the 24-hour period in the ward after laparoscopic left-sided colon and sphincter-sparing rectal surgery, although there was no difference in the quality of recovery between IVL and TEA groups.

Lung-Protective Effects of Lidocaine Infusion on Patients with Intermediate/ High Risk of Postoperative Pulmonary Complications: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

Purpose

The non-local anesthetic effects of lidocaine have been widely reported, but there are still few studies on lung protection. We aimed to test the hypothesis that intravenous infusion of lidocaine exerts lung-protective effects in patients at intermediate/high risk of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) on major abdominal surgery.

Patients and Methods

Patients ≥18 years, ASA II or III, with intermediate/high risk for PPCs, were included. Patients were randomly assigned into group lidocaine (received a bolus of lidocaine 1.5 mg kg⁻¹ before the induction of anesthesia, then followed by a continuous infusion of 2.0 mg kg⁻¹ h⁻¹ intraoperatively until the end of surgery) or group control (received 0.9% saline in place of lidocaine at the same time points). The incidence of PPCs within 7 postoperative days was measured, defined as a collapsed composite outcome of atelectasis, respiratory infection, pleural effusion, pneumonia, respiratory failure or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) developed within 7 postoperative days, or hospital discharge, whichever came sooner.

Results

Of 200 subjects screened, 195 patients were finally analyzed. Overall, 35.9% (70/195) patients sustained PPCs, which occurred fewer in group lidocaine 25.8% (25/97), compared with group control 45.9% (45/98) (relative risk: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.38 to 0.84; absolute risk reduction: −20.1%; P = 0.003). Considering single PPCs episode, the most common PPC in both groups was atelectasis. The atelectasis incidence was 11.3% (11/97) in group lidocaine, much lower than that in group control 29.6% (29/98) (relative risk: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.72; absolute risk reduction: −18.3%, P = 0.002). However, the incidences of any other PPCs episodes were similar between the two groups.

Conclusion

Intraoperative intravenous infusion lidocaine could decrease the incidence of PPCs in patients at intermediate/high risk of postoperative pulmonary complications undergoing major abdominal surgery.

Intravenous Lidocaine Infusion Reduce Post-operative Pain and Length of Hospital in Elderly Patients Undergoing Surgery: Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective. It is debated wheter intravenous (IV) lidocaine improves post-operative pain and has other potential benefits in elderly patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the effect of perioperative continuous IV lidocaine in elderly patients undergoing surgery. Method. PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Embase, and CENTRAL databases (through OVID SP) were searched independently until October 10, 2020 by two authors. We included all randomized controlled trials that compared the effect of continuous IV lidocaine and any placebo or no treatment in elderly patients after surgery. Primary outcomes were length of hospital stay and post-operative pain score. Results. Eighteen studies (988 patients) were included. Meta-analysis suggested that IV lidocaine reduced the post-operative pain scores 2 hours (standardized mean difference [SMD]: −1.58, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −2.03 to −1.13), 4 hours (SMD:−1.20, 95% CI: −2.02 to −.39), 8 hours (SMD:−.82, 95% CI: −1.51 to −.13), 12 hours (SMD:−.66, 95% CI: −1.28 to −.04), and 24 hours (SMD:−.42, 95% CI: −.72 to −.12) post-operatively. Moreover, those patients given IV lidocaine had a shorter length of hospital stay (MD: −.24, 95% CI: −.71 to −.23) and required fewer opioid drugs (SMD: −.31, 95% CI: −.31 to −.01). Conclusion. The evidence suggested that IV lidocaine significantly reduced post-operative pain intensity and opioid consumption and shortened the length of hospital stay in elderly patients. IV lidocaine decreased the incidence of post-operative nausea while it could not reduce the incidence of post-operative vomiting and accelerate the recovery of gastrointestinal function.

Feasibility and effectiveness of opioid-free anesthesia in cytoreductive surgery with or without heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) provides analgesia minimizing opioids. OFA has not been evaluated in cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with or without heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy. We aim to evaluate OFA feasibility and effectiveness in CRS.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of adult patients (84) undergoing CRS in a tertiary center from May 2020 until June 2021. Predefined protocols for either opioid-based anesthesia (OBA) or OFA were followed.

RESULTS

OFA protocol patients (41) had better mean pain scores (1 ± 0.8 vs. 2 ± 1; p = 0.00) despite the avoidance of intravenous and epidural fentanyl intraoperatively (220 ± 104 and 194 ± 73 µg, respectively, in OBA vs. 0; p = 0.00). Postoperative epidural levobupivacaine was also lower in the OFA group (575 ± 192 vs. 706 ± 346 mg; p = 0.034) despite the lack of epidural fentanyl without difference in duration (4.3 ± 1.2 vs. 4 ± 1.2 days; p = 0.22). Morphine consumption was very low (4.1 ± 10 vs. 1.7 ± 5 mg; p = 0.16). Intraoperative hypertensive events and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) were higher for OBA (43) (30.2% vs. 7.3%; p = 0.01% and 69.8% vs. 34.1%; p = 0.001, respectively). Postoperative epidural fentanyl was independently associated with PONV (p = 0.004). There was no difference in total complications or length of stay.

CONCLUSION

OFA is feasible, safe, and offers optimal pain control while minimizing the use of opioids in CRS.

Total Intravenous Anesthesia with Ketofol versus Combination of Ketofol and Lidocaine for Short-Term Anesthesia in Pediatric Patients; Double Blind, Randomized Clinical Trial of Effects on Recovery

Background: Ketofol admixture has been proposed to be useful for sedation and general anesthesia. The beneficial effect of the combination of ketofol with lidocaine may be a shortened time of anesthesia and recovery period. This study aimed to establish the effect of total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with ketofol and ketofol with lidocaine on recovery in children. Methods: Two hundred children from the ages of 1–12 years who underwent short surgical procedures were randomly allocated into two groups. Propofol mixtures (ketofol) were prepared for group l. A ratio of 1:4 of ketofol was used for induction and for the maintenance of anesthesia a ratio of was used 1:7. For the induction and maintenance of anesthesia ketofol with lidocaine (lidoketofol) was used in group II. The McFarlan infusion regimen was used with reduction. The extubating time, anesthesia duration and the length of stay in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) were recorded. Results: Extubation time showed to be considerably shorter in the lidoketofol group than in the ketofol group (120 s versus 240 s; p < 0.00001). The anesthesia duration was also significantly shorter in the lidoketofol group (35 min vs. 50 min; p < 0.00001). The lidoketofol group showed to have a lower length of stay in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) than the ketofol group (20 min vs. 35 min; p < 0.00001). The lidoketofol group showed lower fentanyl consumption per kg (2.1 µg per kg vs. 2.3 µg per kg; p < 0.056) and lower propofol consumption (6.6 mg per kg vs. 7.6 mg per kg; p < 0.032). Conclusion: The recovery in pediatric anesthesia can improve with usage of TIVA with ketofol plus lidocaine admixture with a reduced McFarlan dose regimen.

Perioperative Dexmedetomidine or Lidocaine Infusion for the Prevention of Chronic Postoperative and Neuropathic Pain After Gynecological Surgery: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind Study

Introduction

The transition of acute to chronic postoperative pain (CPP) remains a significant burden to the rehabilitation of patients. The research for adjuvants to prevent CPP continues; among others, dexmedetomidine and lidocaine seem promising agents.

Methods

This is a long-term follow-up of a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study on women who underwent open abdominal gynecological surgery and received dexmedetomidine or lidocaine or placebo infusion perioperatively (n = 81). The effect of these adjuvants on the development of CPP and neuropathic pain was assessed during a 12-month follow-up. Eighty-one (81) women ASA I–II, aged between 30 and 70 years, were randomly assigned to receive either dexmedetomidine (DEX group) or lidocaine (LIDO group) or placebo (CONTROL group) perioperatively. Before anesthesia induction, all patients received a loading intravenous dose of either 0.6 μg/kg dexmedetomidine or 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine or placebo, followed by 0.6 μg/kg/h dexmedetomidine or 1.5 mg/kg/h lidocaine or placebo until last suture. Patients were followed up to obtain the long-term outcomes at 3, 6, and 12 months. At these time-points, pain intensity was assessed with the Numerical Rating Scale, (NRS: 0–10) and the development of neuropathic elements with the Douleur Neuropathique 4 (DN4) score. Prognostic parameters that could affect chronic pain and its components were also identified.

Results

Data from 74 women were analyzed. Dexmedetomidine significantly reduced NRS scores comparing to placebo at 3 months (p = 0.018), while at 6 months, lidocaine was found superior to placebo (p = 0.02), but not to dexmedetomidine, in preventing neuropathic pain (DN4 < 4). Regarding secondary endpoints, higher NRS cough scores at 48 h were associated with statistically significant NRS and DN4 scores at 3, 6, and 12 months (p < 0.02). At 6 months, a statistically significant correlation was also found between higher NRS values and older age (p = 0.020).

Conclusions

Dexmedetomidine was superior to placebo regarding the duration and severity of CPP, while lidocaine exhibited a protective effect against neuropathic elements of CPP.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03363425.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40122-022-00361-5.

Evaluation of lignocaine, dexmedetomidine, lignocaine-dexmedetomidine infusion on pain and quality of recovery for robotic abdominal hysterectomy: a prospective randomized controlled trial

Background: Acute postoperative pain is associated with poor quality of recovery after surgery. Perioperative use of intravenous lignocaine or dexmedetomidine have demonstrated better pain control, early return of bowel function, and effects on quality of recovery.

Methods: Ninety-six women planned for elective robotic abdominal hysterectomy were randomized into four groups. Groups received lignocaine infusion (1.5 mg.kg⁻¹ loading, 2 mg.kg⁻¹.h⁻¹ infusion) (Group I), dexmedetomidine infusion (1 µg.kg⁻¹ loading, 0.6 µg.kg⁻¹.h⁻¹ infusion) (Group 2), lidocaine (1.5 mg.kg⁻¹ loading, 2 mg.kg⁻¹.h⁻¹ infusion), and dexmedetomidine infusions (1 µg.kg⁻¹ loading, 0.5 µg.kg⁻¹.h⁻¹ infusion) (Group 3), and normal saline 10 mL loading, 1 mL.kg⁻¹.h⁻¹ infusion) (Group 4). Primary outcome was visual analogue pain scores at 1, 2, 4, 12, and 24 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes included postoperative fentanyl requirement, time of return of bowel sounds and flatus, QoR15 score on day 1, 2, and discharge.

Results: The VAS was significantly lower in Groups 2 and 3 compared to Groups 1 and 4. Total postoperative fentanyl consumption in the first 24 hours was 256.25 ± 16.36 mcg (Group 1), 177.71 ± 16.81 mcg (Group 2), 114.17 ± 16.19 mcg (Group 3), and 304.42 ± 31.26 mcg (Group 4), respectively. Time to return of bowel sounds and passage of flatus was significantly shorter in Groups 2 and 3 (p < 0.01). QoR15 scores after surgery were higher in Group 3 compared to Groups 1, 2, and 4, (p < 0.01) respectively.

Conclusion: Combined infusion of lignocaine and dexmedetomidine significantly decreased postoperative pain, fentanyl consumption, and improved quality of recovery score after surgery in patients undergoing Robotic abdominal hysterectomy.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Dexmedetomidine vs. lidocaine for postoperative analgesia in pediatric patients undergoing craniotomy: a protocol for a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial

Background

Postoperative pain is a common problem that occurs in pediatric patients following neurosurgery which may lead to severe complications. Dexmedetomidine is a commonly used adjuvant medicine in craniotomy owing to its sedative, amnestic, analgesic, and neuroprotective properties. Besides, studies suggest that lidocaine has similar effects on sedation, analgesia, and neuroprotection. Both two adjuvants can reduce postoperative pain after neurosurgery in adults. However, it is still unknown whether dexmedetomidine or lidocaine can reduce postoperative pain in children undergoing craniotomy, and if yes, which is a better medicine choice. Therefore, we aimed to compare the effect of dexmedetomidine vs. lidocaine on postoperative pain in pediatric patients after craniotomy.

Methods/design

We will perform a randomized (1:1:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-center trial. Children aged 1–12 years scheduled for craniotomy will be eligible for inclusion. The 255 recruited participants will be stratified by age in two strata (1–6 years and 7–12 years), and then each stratum will be equally randomized to three groups: group D (infusion of dexmedetomidine [intervention group]), group L (infusion of lidocaine [intervention group]), and group C (infusion of normal saline [control group]). Patients will be followed up at 1 h, 2 h, 4 h, 24 h, and 48 h after surgery. The primary outcome will be total sufentanil consumption within 24 h after surgery.

Discussion

In this clinical trial, we expect to clarify and compare the postoperative analgesic effect of dexmedetomidine vs. lidocaine infusion on pediatric patients undergoing craniotomy. We believe that the results of this trial will provide more choices for postoperative analgesia for the pediatric population.

Trial registration

Chinese ClinicalTrials.gov ChiCTR1800019411. Registered on 10 November 2018

Comparison of bolus administration effects of lidocaine on preventing tourniquet-induced hypertension in patients undergoing general anesthesia: a randomized controlled trial

Background

This study assessed the effect of a single bolus administration of lidocaine on the prevention of tourniquet-induced hypertension (TIH) and compared the effect of lidocaine to that of ketamine in patients undergoing general anesthesia.

Methods

This randomized, controlled, double-blind study included 75 patients who underwent lower limb surgery using a tourniquet. The patients were administered lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg, n = 25), ketamine (0.2 mg/kg, n = 25) or placebo (n = 25). The study drugs were administered intravenously 10 min before tourniquet inflation. Systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and heart rate (HR) were measured before tourniquet inflation, after tourniquet inflation for 60 min at 10 min intervals, and immediately after tourniquet deflation. The incidence of TIH, defined as an increase of 30% or more in SBP or DBP during tourniquet inflation, was also recorded.

Results

SBP, DBP, and HR increased significantly over time in the control group compared to those in the lidocaine and ketamine groups for 60 min after tourniquet inflation (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, and P = 0.007, respectively). The incidence of TIH was significantly lower in the lidocaine (n = 4, 16%) and ketamine (n = 3, 12%) group than in the control group (n = 14, 56%) (P = 0.001).

Conclusion

Single-bolus lidocaine effectively attenuated blood pressure increase due to tourniquet inflation, with an effect comparable to that of bolus ketamine.

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

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

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.

The effect of systemic lidocaine on post-operative opioid consumption in ambulatory surgical patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Ambulatory surgical procedures continue to grow in relevance to perioperative medicine. Clinical studies have examined the use of systemic lidocaine as a component of multimodal analgesia in various surgeries with mixed results. A quantitative review of the opioid-sparing effects of systemic lidocaine in ambulatory surgery has not been investigated. The primary objective of this study was to systematically review the effectiveness of systemic lidocaine on postoperative analgesic outcomes in patients undergoing ambulatory surgery.

Methods

We performed a quantitative systematic review of randomized controlled trials in electronic databases (Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Google Scholar) from their inception through February 2019. Included trials investigated the effects of intraoperative systemic lidocaine on postoperative analgesic outcomes, time to hospital discharge, and adverse events. Methodological quality was evaluated using Cochrane Collaboration’s tool and the level of evidence was assessed using GRADE criteria. Data was combined in a meta-analysis using random-effects models.

Results

Five trials evaluating 297 patients were included in the analysis. The pooled effect of systemic lidocaine on postoperative opioid consumption at post-anesthesia care unit revealed a significant effect, weighted mean difference (95% CI) of − 4.23 (− 7.3 to 1.2, P = 0.007), and, at 24 h, weighted mean difference (95% CI) of − 1.91 (− 3.80 to − 0.03, P = 0.04) mg intravenous morphine equivalents. Postoperative pain control during both time intervals, postoperative nausea and vomiting reported at post anesthesia care unit, and time to hospital discharge were not different between groups. The incidence rate of self-limiting adverse events of the included studies is 0.007 (2/297).

Conclusion

Our results suggest that intraoperative systemic lidocaine as treatment for postoperative pain has a moderate opioid-sparing effect in post anesthesia care unit with limited effect at 24 h after ambulatory surgery. Moreover, the opioid-sparing effect did not impact the analgesia or the presence of nausea and vomiting immediately or 24 h after surgery. Clinical trials with larger sample sizes are necessary to further confirm the short-term analgesic benefit of systemic lidocaine following ambulatory surgery.

Trial registration

PROSPERO (CRD42019142229)

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13741-021-00181-9.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of ropivacaine use in laparoscopic hysterectomy

To assess the efficacy of all forms of ropivacaine administration for the management of pain and opioid use, specifically in patients undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy. We searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and SCOPUS for relevant clinical trials matching our eligibility criteria. Outcomes of interest included: Pain intensity (measured either by visual analog scale score or by numerical rating scale score), QoR-40 score (Overall quality of recovery tool, designed to measure physical comfort, physical independence, pain, emotional status, and need for support), and the need for opioid rescue. We performed the analysis under the fixed-effects model for homogeneous data and random-effects model for heterogeneous data. Most heterogeneous data were solved by the leave-one-out method, in cases where this was not successful, we then proceeded to conduct at least one subgroup meta-analysis in an attempt to solve heterogeneity. We assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. A total of five clinical trials were included. Regarding the pain score, there was no significant difference between either group [standardized mean difference=-0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI): (-0.56, 0.23); p=0.41]. The analysis of the overall RoQ40 scores favored the ropivacaine group over the control group significantly [mean difference (MD)=17.68, 95% CI: (1.48, 33.87); p<0.001]. Regarding the use of opioids, the analysis revealed no significant difference between either group [MD=-2.57, 95% CI: (-6.62, 1.49); p=0.21]. Ropivacaine administration by any method does not seem to be effective in reducing pain or reducing the need for opioid use after laparoscopic hysterectomy procedures; however, the administration did show a significant improvement in the patient's "overall quality of recovery," as measured using the QoR-40 tool.

Effect of intravenous lidocaine on ischemia-reperfusion injury in DIEP microsurgical breast reconstruction. A prospective double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Ischemia-reperfusion injury in free flaps is associated with tissue damage and is one of the main factors causing flap failure in reconstructive microsurgery. The aim of this study is to assess whether any ischemia-reperfusion injury takes place during a microsurgical flap reconstruction as seen through the levels of malondialdehyde (MDA) and superoxide dismutase, biomarkers of oxidative stress, and to analyze the effect of lidocaine in this process.

METHODS

Twenty-four patients operated for immediate breast reconstruction using the Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator free flap technique were divided into two groups: one group was treated with a lidocaine intravenous perfusion and the other group with a saline perfusion. MDA and superoxide dismutase (SOD) levels were measured at several points before, during, and after surgery.

RESULTS

There was an increase in MDA levels in both groups, but the lidocaine group experienced a decrease during reperfusion. On the other hand, we observed a rise in SOD levels in both groups, but a decrease during reperfusion in the placebo group. However, these differences between groups were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The decreased SOD activity and increased MDA content in our research prove a redox imbalance and high reactive oxygen species levels in flaps, indicating that tissues experience ischemia-reperfusion injury during microsurgical reconstruction. Lidocaine may have a protective effect in free flap surgery, but our results were not statistically significant, so further studies will be required.

The use of intravenous lidocaine for postoperative pain and recovery: international consensus statement on efficacy and safety

Intravenous lidocaine is used widely for its effect on postoperative pain and recovery but it can be, and has been, fatal when used inappropriately and incorrectly. The risk-benefit ratio of i.v. lidocaine varies with type of surgery and with patient factors such as comorbidity (including pre-existing chronic pain). This consensus statement aims to address three questions. First, does i.v. lidocaine effectively reduce postoperative pain and facilitate recovery? Second, is i.v. lidocaine safe? Third, does the fact that i.v. lidocaine is not licensed for this indication affect its use? We suggest that i.v. lidocaine should be regarded as a 'high-risk' medicine. Individual anaesthetists may feel that, in selected patients, i.v. lidocaine may be beneficial as part of a multimodal peri-operative pain management strategy. This approach should be approved by hospital medication governance systems, and the individual clinical decision should be made with properly informed consent from the patient concerned. If i.v. lidocaine is used, we recommend an initial dose of no more than 1.5 mg.kg^-1 , calculated using the patient's ideal body weight and given as an infusion over 10 min. Thereafter, an infusion of no more than 1.5 mg.kg^-1 .h^-1 for no longer than 24 h is recommended, subject to review and re-assessment. Intravenous lidocaine should not be used at the same time as, or within the period of action of, other local anaesthetic interventions. This includes not starting i.v. lidocaine within 4 h after any nerve block, and not performing any nerve block until 4 h after discontinuing an i.v. lidocaine infusion.

Pharmacokinetics of lidocaine after bilateral ESP block

INTRODUCTION

Erector spinae plane (ESP) block is an emerging interfascial block with a wide range of indications for perioperative analgesia and chronic pain treatment. Recent studies have focused their attention on mechanisms of action of ESP block. However, the pharmacokinetics of drugs injected in ESP is, as of now, uninvestigated. The aim of this brief report is to investigate the pharmacokinetics of lidocaine in a series of 10 patients.

METHODS

We are reporting a case series of 10 patients undergoing bilateral ESP block for multilevel lumbar spine surgery.ESP was performed with 3.5 mg/kg of lidocaine based on ideal body weight. Lidocaine concentration was dosed at 5, 15, 30 min and at 1, 2 and 3 hours.

RESULTS

T_max was 5 min for all the patients. C_max ranged from 1.2 to 3.8 mg/L (mean: 2.59 mg/L). AUC_0-3 was high (76%, on average) suggesting an almost complete bioavailability. Age had a negative correlation with T½ of lidocaine.

CONCLUSIONS

Lidocaine pharmacokinetic after ESP block is well-described by a two-compartment model with a rapid and extensive rate of absorption. Nevertheless, its peak concentrations never exceeded the accepted toxicity limit. Elimination half-life was slightly prolonged, probably due to the advanced age of some patients.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

ChiCTR2000028937.

Intravenous Lidocaine for Acute Pain: A Single-Institution Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

In the perioperative period, intravenous lidocaine has been used as an opioid-sparing systemic analgesic with additional anti-inflammatory and anti-hyperalgesic properties.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this retrospective study was to review the utilization, efficacy, and safety of intravenous lidocaine on our Acute Pain Service (APS) and identify surgical and patient populations where this intervention was found to be useful.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective study was designed to assess acute pain management in patients who received an intravenous lidocaine infusion between February 2013 and December 2017. Data collected included demographics, surgery type, infusion duration, pain scores, analgesic consumption, and adverse effects. Pain scores included rest and active pain scores and were analyzed by surgical model and subgroups. Clinically important differences (CIDs) in pain were determined by changes in pain score difference of ≥ 2 (11-point scale) or ≥ 30% reduction in pain intensity. A patient was considered to have a true CID if a CID was observed with rest and/or active pain scores at both first to second (4-24 h) and first to final time point (4 h to infusion end) comparisons.

RESULTS

In total, 544 patients received intravenous lidocaine during this period, and 394 were included in the final analysis. The average (± standard deviation) duration of infusion was 68.60 ± 49.52 h. Surgical specialties included gastrointestinal surgery (41%), orthopedics (28%), neurosurgery (15%), vascular surgery (10%), and others (6%). Overall, 56.1% of the study population experienced a CID, with reduced pain scores at rest and/or with activity. CIDs were also observed in patients with chronic pain (53.5%) and when intravenous lidocaine was used as a rescue technique (69.6%). Within the rescue cohort, opioid-dependent and opioid-naïve patients experienced 23.0% and 45.6% reductions, respectively, in their 8-h intravenous opioid consumption. In total, 37 patients in the study experienced transient signs of mild local anesthetic toxicity, which resolved with infusion titration (conservative) management. One serious adverse event required intervention, and the patient was successfully resuscitated.

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective study at a single institution with an APS policy for intravenous lidocaine in the postoperative period identifies benefits of intravenous lidocaine in certain surgical and patient populations. The findings need to be confirmed with further research.

Intraoperative lidocaine infusion and 24-hour postoperative opioid consumption in obese patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery

BACKGROUND

Bariatric surgery is the most effective long-term treatment for obesity. Opioid-sparing anesthesia and multimodal analgesia such as lidocaine infusion have been recommended in these patients to reduce opioid-related complications. However, evidence supporting its use for bariatric surgery population is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether intraoperative lidocaine infusion is associated with decreasing opioid consumption in laparoscopic bariatric surgery.

SETTING

A university hospital, California, USA.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, outcomes among consecutive obese patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery between January 2016 to December 2018 were evaluated to determine the impact of adjunctive intraoperative lidocaine infusion on 24-hour postoperative opioid consumption. Secondary outcomes, including opioid consumption during hospitalization, length of stay, and postoperative complications were determined. Post hoc analyses were performed exploring possible dose effects and drug-drug interactions. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify factors associated with opioid consumption.

RESULTS

Among 345 patients, 54 (15.7%) received intraoperative lidocaine infusion (L+) whereas 291 (84.3%) did not receive intraoperative lidocaine infusion (L-). Both L+ and L- groups shared similar demographic characteristics. The 24-hour postoperative opioid consumption was 17.6% lower in L+ (95% confidence interval -28.4 to -5.2, P = .007), but nonsignificantly lower in the multivariate model (12.8%, 95% confidence interval -24.4 to .5, P = .06). Opioid consumption during hospitalization, length of stay, and other clinically significant outcomes did not differ. However, subgroup analysis restricted to opioid-naïve patients indicated significantly reduced opioid consumption in the L+ group. Post hoc analysis suggested interaction between lidocaine and ketamine in decreasing 24-hour postoperative opioid consumption.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative lidocaine infusion was not significantly associated with decreasing 24-hour postoperative opioid consumption in obese patients undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery.

The efficacy of intravenous lidocaine and its side effects in comparison with intravenous morphine sulfate in patients admitted to the ED with right upper abdominal pain suspected of biliary colic

BACKGROUND

Intravenous (IV) Lidocaine can be used as analgesic in acute pain management in the emergency department (ED).

OBJECTIVE

Efficacy of IV Lidocaine in comparison with IV morphine in acute pain management in the ED.

METHOD

This is a double-blind randomized clinical trial on adult (18-64 year) patients with right upper abdominal pain suspected of biliary colic who needed pain management. Participants randomly received IV lidocaine (5 cc = 100 mg) or morphine sulfate (5 cc = 5 mg). In both groups, patients' pain scores were recorded and assessed by Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) at baseline, 10, 20, 30, 45, 60 and 120 min after drug administration. Adverse side effects of lidocaine and morphine sulfate and changes in vital signs were also recorded and compared.

RESULTS

A total number of 104 patients were enrolled in the study, including 49 men and 55 women. IV lidocaine reduced pain in less time in comparison with morphine sulfate. Mean (±SD) basic pain score was 8.23 (±1.76) in the lidocaine group and 8.73 (±0.96) in the morphine group. Patients' mean (±SD) pain score in both groups had no significant difference during the study except that of NRS2 (10 min after drug administration), which was 5.05 (±2.69) in lidocaine group compared with 6.39 (±2.06) in the morphine group and NRS4 (30 min after drug administration), which was significantly lower (P-value = 0.01) in the morphine group [3.84(±1.73) vs 4.41(±2.82)]. Only 9 patients had adverse effects in either group.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study suggest that IV lidocaine can be a good choice in pain management in biliary colic and can reduce pain in less time than morphine sulfate (in 10 min) without adding significant side effects; however, our primary outcome was the comparison of these two drugs after 60 min of drug administration in pain reduction which showed no significant difference between two groups.

Effectiveness of intravenous lidocaine in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in pediatric patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Intravenous lidocaine in adults undergoing general anesthesia has been shown to reduce the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). However, the anti-postoperative vomiting (POV) effect of lidocaine in pediatric patients remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis to evaluate the effect of intravenous lidocaine on prevention of POV/PONV.

METHODS

Six databases including trial registration sites were searched. Randomized clinical trials evaluating the incidence of POV/PONV after intravenous lidocaine compared with control were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of POV within 24 hours after general anesthesia. The incidence of POV was combined as a risk ratio with 95% confidence interval using a random-effect model. We used the I2 to assess heterogeneity. We evaluated the quality of trials using the Cochrane methodology, and we assessed quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We also assessed adverse events.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Six trials with 849 patients were included, of whom 433 received intravenous lidocaine. Three trials evaluated the incidence of POV, and 3 evaluated the incidence of PONV. The overall incidence of POV within 24 hours after anesthesia was 45.9% in the lidocaine group and 63.4% in the control group (risk ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-1.00; I2 = 32%; p = 0.05). The incidence of PONV within 24 hours after anesthesia was 3.73% in the lidocaine group and 4.87% in the control group (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.36-1.59; I2 = 0%; p = 0.47). The quality of evidence was downgraded to "very low" due to the study designs, inconsistency, imprecision, and possible publication bias.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis suggests that intravenous lidocaine infusion may reduce the incidence of POV, however, the evidence quality was "very low." Further trials with a low risk of bias are necessary.

Effect of ketamine combined with lidocaine in pediatric anesthesia

Background

We conducted a randomized clinical trial to determine whether adjunctive lidocaine diminishes the incidence of adverse effects in pediatric patients sedated with ketamine.

Methods

This case‐control study involved 586 consecutive pediatric patients necessitating anesthesia. Then systolic blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, and blood oxygen saturation were observed. Alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), urea nitrogen (BUN), and creatinine (Cr) levels were tested. General dose of ketamine, the time of onset and duration of anesthesia and postoperative recovery, anesthesia effect, and adverse reaction were subsequently compared. High‐performance liquid chromatography was employed to detect ketamine concentration at different time points after administration, and the postoperative cognition function was further evaluated.

Results

Intra‐ and post‐operation, the rising degree of ALT, AST, BUN, and Cr in patients treated with ketamine was higher than those in patients treated with the ketamine‐lidocaine complex. General dose of ketamine, the time of onset and duration of anesthesia, postoperative recovery time, and the incidence rate of adverse reaction in patients treated with ketamine‐lidocaine complex were lower, but the concentration of ketamine was higher compared to the patients treated with ketamine. In patients treated with the ketamine‐lidocaine complex, elimination half‐life of ketamine was prolonged, the area under curve was increased, and the plasma clearance rate was decreased relative to those with ketamine alone.

Conclusions

Ketamine combined with lidocaine may be beneficial in shortening the onset of anesthesia, promoting postoperative awake, prolonging elimination half‐life, increasing area under curve, and decreasing plasma clearance rate and incidence of adverse reactions.

Continuous Intravenous Lidocaine as an Effective Pain Adjunct for Opioid-Induced Bowel Dysfunction: A Case Report

This case study describes a patient with suspected opioid-induced bowel dysfunction who had improved pain control when treated with intravenous (IV) lidocaine. An 80-year-old man with failed back surgery syndrome managed with an intrathecal (IT) pump presented with protracted abdominal pain. The acute pain service initiated a lidocaine infusion at 1 mg·min, and the patient reported significant pain relief. The patient experienced refractory abdominal pain with 3 attempts to wean the lidocaine infusion. Eventually, a successful transitional regimen was achieved with methylnaltrexone and transdermal lidocaine patches. Lidocaine infusions may be an effective and underutilized multimodal adjunct for nonsurgical pain conditions.

Effect of opioid-free anaesthesia on post-operative period in cardiac surgery: a retrospective matched case-control study

Background

No study has been conducted to demonstrate the feasibility of an opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) protocol in cardiac surgery to improve patient care. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of OFA on post-operative morphine consumption and the post-operative course.

Methods

After retrospectively registering to clinicaltrial.gov (NCT03816592), we performed a retrospective matched cohort study (1:1) on cardiac surgery patients with cardiopulmonary bypass between 2018 and 2019. Patients were divided into two groups: OFA (lidocaine, dexamethasone and ketamine) or opioid anaesthesia (OA) (sufentanil). The main outcome was the total postoperative morphine consumption in the 48 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes were rescue analgesic use, a major adverse event composite endpoint, and ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS).

Results

One hundred ten patients were matched (OFA: n = 55; OA: n = 55). On inclusion, demographic and surgical data for the OFA and OA groups were comparable. The total morphine consumption was higher in the OA group than in the OFA group (15 (6–34) vs 5 mg (2–18), p = 0.001). The pain score during the first 48 post-operative hours did not differ between the two groups. Creatinine values did not differ on the first post-operative day (80 (IQR: 66–115) vs 77 mmol/l (IQR: 69–95), p = 0.284). Incidence of the composite endpoint was lower in the OFA group (25 patients (43%) vs 38 patients (68%), p = 0.021). The time to extubation and the ICU stays were shorter in the OFA group (3 (1–5) vs 5 (3–6) hours, p = 0.001 and 2 (1–3) vs 3 (2–5) days, p = 0.037).

Conclusion

The use of OFA was associated with lower morphine consumption. OFA might be associated with shorter intubation time and ICU stays. Further randomized studies are needed to confirm these results.

Trial registration

This study was retrospectively registered to ct2 (identifier: NCT03816592) on January 25, 2019.

The Effect of Adding Lidocaine to Patient Controlled Analgesia with Morphine on Pain Intensity after Caesarean Section with Spinal Anesthesia: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND:

Caesarean section is one of the commonest gynaecological surgeries.

AIM:

Given the importance of pain relief after caesarean section surgery as well as contradictions in the studies conducted on intravenous lidocaine analgesic effects, this study aimed to evaluate the effect of adding lidocaine to patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with morphine on pain intensity after caesarean section surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS:

In a double-blinded, randomised clinical trial, 80 women who were scheduled for caesarean section surgery with spinal anaesthesia at Sari Imam Khomeini Hospital in 2017 were randomly assigned into two intervention and control groups. After surgery, all patients were connected to a morphine PCA pump. The PCA solution (total volume = 100 ml) in intervention group contained 50 ml of 2% lidocaine and 30 mg (3 ml) of morphine in 47 ml normal saline. In the control group, the PCA pump contained 30 mg (3 ml) of morphine, and the rest (97 cc) was normal saline. Patients’ pain intensity was assessed at 2, 4, 6, 12, 18 and 24 hours after surgery using a visual analogue scale (VAS). Additionally, their postoperative nausea and vomiting, duration of hospitalisation, duration of ileus relapse after surgery, and patients’ satisfaction after surgery were evaluated. Data were analysed using SPSS version 22 software.

RESULTS:

The mean and standard deviation of pain intensity in all patients at the intervals of 2, 4, 6, 12, 18 and 24 hours after surgery were 5.91 ± 1.57, 4.97 ± 1.55, 3.84 ± 1.60, 3.54 ± 1.45, 2.56 ± 1.70 and 0.94 ± 1.70, respectively. Data analysis revealed that, regardless of the groups, postoperative pain intensity significantly decreased (P < 0.0001). However, there were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of mean postoperative pain intensity at any time interval (p > 0.05). Also, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of frequency of receiving the diclofenac suppositories after the surgery (p > 0.05). Additionally, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of postoperative nausea and vomiting, duration of hospitalisation, duration of postoperative ileus relapse and patients’ satisfaction (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION:

Based on the results of this study, it seems that adding lidocaine to PCA with morphine, compared with morphine PCA alone, do not have a significant effect on reducing the pain intensity after cesarean section using spinal anaesthesia. Although, further studies with larger sample size are warranted.

Rectus sheath single-injection blocks: a study to quantify local anaesthetic absorption using serial ultrasound measurements and lidocaine serum concentrations

Objectives

Rectus sheath blocks are an established option for analgesia following abdominal surgery, but pharmacokinetic data are limited. This study sought to characterise the absorption of lidocaine injectate and the pharmacokinetics of lidocaine after rectus sheath injection.

Methods

Bilateral rectus sheath single-injection blocks were given to 10 patients undergoing general or urological surgery. Afterwards, serial lidocaine serum levels and ultrasound measurements of the rectus sheath injectate reservoir were collected.

Key findings

Injectate within the rectus sheath was visible with ultrasound up to 12 h after injection. However, the rate of drug absorption exceeded that of injectate disappearance. Peak serum concentration occurred within 30 min with average peak concentrations of 1.65 μg/ml. Lidocaine clearance was lower than reported in young healthy subjects. The body mass index positively correlated with lidocaine terminal phase half-life, and clearance negatively correlated with age.

Conclusions

The study provides the first data describing lidocaine pharmacokinetics after rectus sheath injection. Peak serum concentrations transiently achieved systemic levels associated with pain relief after a single bolus injection. The data from this study could be used to develop a regime using single shot rectus sheath blockade with a bolus of lidocaine followed by infusion using bilateral rectus sheath catheters.