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

Appraising and highlighting gaps among prophylactic intervention studies for reducing the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in children: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a leading perioperative morbidity outcome following general anaesthesia. This systematic review aims to identify, appraise and summarise the evidence synthesis studies of prophylactic interventions that reduce the incidence of paediatric PONV, thereby highlighting knowledge gaps and avenues of future research.

DESIGN

Systematic review using the AMSTAR-2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2) tool and the ROBIS (Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews) tool.

DATA SOURCES

Seven major databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, from inception to 23 September 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Evidence synthesis studies of only randomised controlled trials that explored prophylactic interventions for PONV in children undergoing general anaesthesia.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Following screening process by two reviewers, data were extracted from all eligible studies, including demographic parameters and details of interventions. Eligible studies were categorised into 'pharmacological' and 'non-pharmacological' groups and high-risk surgical groups of 'strabismus' and 'tonsillectomy' for qualitative synthesis.

RESULTS

There were 20 evidence synthesis reviews (17 meta-analyses, 2 systematic reviews, 1 network meta-analysis): 14 investigated pharmacological PONV prophylaxis in children, 5 investigated non-pharmacological interventions, 1 studied both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. Monotherapy pharmacological prophylaxis agents, for example, dexamethasone (relative risk (RR) 0.49, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.58), 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT3) antagonists (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.20) and α2-adrenoreceptor agonists (dexmedetomidine: RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.54), are more effective than placebo. A combination of pharmacological agents provided superior efficacy to monotherapy, particularly dexamethasone and 5-HT3 antagonists (RR 0.21, 95% credible interval 0.15 to 0.28). Acustimulation practice was consistently favourable in preventing PONV compared with placebo (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.52).

CONCLUSION

Monotherapy pharmacological prophylaxis is more effective than placebo in reducing the incidence of paediatric PONV, with the efficacy increased further by using combination pharmacotherapy. Further research must compare multiple treatment arms of pharmacological and non-pharmacological prophylaxes for PONV to identify the optimal multimodal prophylaxis regimen.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021236698.

Is PONV still a problem in pediatric surgery: a prospective study of what children tell us

Background

Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is an unpleasant complication after surgery that commonly co-occurs with pain. Considering the high prevalence among pediatric patients, it is important to explore the main risk factors leading to PONV in order to optimize treatment strategies. The objectives of this study are as follows: (1) to determine the prevalence of PONV on the day of surgery by conducting interviews with pediatric patients, (2) to assess PONV prevalence in the recovery room and on the ward by analyzing nursing records, and (3) to collect information on PONV risk factors on the day of surgery and the following postoperative days. We wanted to investigate real-life scenarios rather than relying on artificially designed studies.

Methods

A prospective analysis [according to STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines] of PONV on the day of surgery and the following postoperative days was conducted by evaluating demographic and procedural parameters, as well as conducting interviews with the children under study. A total of 626 children and adolescents, ranging in age from 4 to 18 years, were interviewed on the ward following their surgery. The interviews were conducted using a questionnaire, as children aged 4 and above can participate in an outcome-based survey.

Results

On the day of surgery, several multivariable independent predictors were identified for PONV. The type of surgery was found to be a significant factor (p = 0.040) with the highest odds ratio (OR) in patients with procedural investigations [OR 5.9, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.8-19.2], followed by abdominal surgery (OR 3.1, 95% CI: 0.9-11.1) when inguinal surgery was used as the reference category. In addition, the study identified several predictors, including the amount of fentanyl administered during anesthesia (µg/kg body weight) (OR 1.4, 95% CI: 1.1-1.8), intraoperative use of piritramide (OR 2.6, 95% CI: 1.5-4.4) and diclofenac (OR 2.0, 95% CI: 1. 3-3.1), opioid administration in the recovery room (OR 3.0, 95% CI: 1.9-4.7), and piritramide use on the ward (OR 4.5, 95% CI: 1.7-11.6).

Conclusions

The main risk factors for PONV include the intraoperative administration of opioids during the recovery room stay and at the ward, the intraoperative use of non-opioids (diclofenac), and the specific type of surgical procedure. Real-life data demonstrated that in clinical praxis, there is a gap between the adherence to established guidelines and the use of antiemetic prophylaxis in surgeries that are generally not associated with a high PONV prevalence. Further efforts are needed to improve the existing procedures and thus improve the overall outcome.

Effects of an intravenous lidocaine bolus before tracheal extubation on recovery after breast surgery - Lidocaine at the End (LATE) study: a randomized controlled clinical trial

AIM

To investigate whether IV lidocaine improves emergence, early recovery, and late recovery after general anesthesia in women who undergo breast surgery.

METHODS

Sixty-seven women with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II, scheduled for breast surgery were randomized to receive an IV lidocaine 1.5 mg/kg bolus (n=34) or saline placebo (n=33) before tracheal extubation. Anesthesia was induced with thiopental, vecuronium, and fentanyl, and maintained with sevoflurane~1 MAC and 50% nitrous-oxide in oxygen. No postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) prophylaxis was given. Time to extubation, bucking before extubation, and quality of emergence, as well as early and late recovery (coughing post-extubation, sore throat, PONV, and pain scores) within 24 hours postoperatively were evaluated. Diclofenac and meperidine were used for the treatment of pain and metoclopramide for PONV.

RESULTS

The groups did not significantly differ in demographics, intraoperative data, or PONV risk scores. Extubation was~8 minutes in both groups. Patients who received IV lidocaine had significantly smoother recovery, both statistically and clinically; they had better extubation quality scores (1.5 [1-3] vs 3 [1-5], P<0.001), less bucking before extubation (38% vs 91%, P<0.001), less coughing after extubation (at 1 min 18% vs 42%, P=0.026; and at 24 hours 9% vs 27%, P=0.049), and less sore throat (6% vs 48%, P<0.001). Late PONV decreased (3% vs 24%, P=0.013). There were no differences in pain scores and treatment.

CONCLUSION

In women who underwent breast surgery, IV lidocaine bolus administered just before extubation attenuated bucking, cough and sore throat, and PONV for 24 hours after general anesthesia, without prolonging the emergence.

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.

Use of intravenous lidocaine for dose reduction of propofol in paediatric colonoscopy patients: a randomised placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Propofol, a widely used sedative in endoscopic procedures, sometimes causes cardiopulmonary complications. Intravenous lidocaine can diminish visceral pain and decrease the dose of propofol. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous lidocaine in reducing propofol dosage during paediatric colonoscopy.

METHODS

Forty children who underwent colonoscopy were divided into two groups. Lidocaine hydrochloride (1.5 mg/kg induction and 2 mg/kg/h maintenance) was given intravenously to the lidocaine group, and the same amount of saline was given to the control group after they received lidocaine induction. Propofol initial plasma concentration of 5 μg/mL was targeted, and the procedure was performed after the bispectral index value reached 55. The primary outcome was propofol requirement.

RESULTS

The propofol requirement in the lidocaine group was decreased by 35.5% (128.6 ± 30.4 mg vs. 199.4 ± 57.6 mg; p < 0.001; 95%CI: - 100.60, - 41.02). The incidence of involuntary body movements was significantly lower in the lidocaine group (p = 0.028; OR = 0.17; 95%CI: 0.03, 0.92). The awakening time (p < 0.001; 95%CI: - 7.67, - 5.13) and recovery times (p < 0.001; 95%CI: - 7.45, - 4.35) were significantly lower in the lidocaine group. Pain was significantly less at 30 min and 60 min after the procedure in the lidocaine group (0 [0-4] vs. 3 [0-5], p < 0. 001; 0 [0-2] vs. 1 [0-3], p = 0.001). There was no difference in the incidence of bradycardia, hypotension, or hypoxia between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

For colonoscopy procedures in paediatric patients, intravenous lidocaine reduces the amount of propofol needed, provides better sedation and postprocedural pain management, as well as a reduction in recovery time.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered on November 6, 2020 at China Clinical Trials Registration Center ( www.chictr.org.cn ) ref.: ChiCTR 2,000,039,706.

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.

Intravenous Infusion of Lidocaine Can Accelerate Postoperative Early Recovery in Patients Undergoing Surgery for Obstructive Sleep Apnea

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is defined by intermittent and recurrent episodes of partial or complete obstruction of the upper airway during sleep. Intermittent and recurrent hypoxia/reoxygenation is the main pathophysiological mechanism of OSA. Its consequences include systemic inflammation, activation of the sympathetic nervous system, and release of oxygen free radicals. Infusion of intravenous (IV) lidocaine has anti-inflammatory, antihyperalgesic, and analgesic properties, supporting its use as an anesthetic adjuvant. Lidocaine can reduce nociception and/or cardiovascular responses to surgical stress, as well as postoperative pain and/or analgesic requirements. Because of the high prevalence of OSA in obese patients, the use of opioids to manage postoperative pain in that population is often accompanied by the development of adverse respiratory events, such as hypoventilation and hypoxemia. IV infusion of lidocaine has been shown to enhance the quality of early recovery after laparoscopic bariatric and upper airway surgery. However, limited evidence exists regarding its use in patients undergoing surgery for OSA. In addition, whether IV infusion of lidocaine can improve postoperative early recovery in patients undergoing surgery for OSA remains unknown. Therefore, we hypothesized that IV infusion of lidocaine can improve postoperative early recovery in patients undergoing surgery for OSA. Perioperative infusion also may be a promising analgesic adjunct to enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols.