An admixture of 3 mg x kg(-1) of propofol and 3 mg x kg(-1) of thiopentone reduces pain on injection in pediatric anesthesia

Lidocaine for reducing propofol-induced pain on induction of anaesthesia in adults

BACKGROUND

Pain on propofol injection is an untoward effect and this condition can reduce patient satisfaction. Intravenous lidocaine injection has been commonly used to attenuate pain on propofol injection. Although many studies have reported that lidocaine was effective in reducing the incidence and severity of pain, nevertheless, no systematic review focusing on lidocaine for preventing high-intensity pain has been published.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to determine the efficacy and adverse effects of lidocaine in preventing high-intensity pain on propofol injection.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 10), Ovid MEDLINE (1950 To October 2014), Ovid EMBASE (1988 to October 2014), LILACS (1992 to October 2014) and searched reference lists of articles.We reran the search in November 2015. We found 11potential studies of interest, those studies were added to the list of 'Studies awaiting classification' and will be fully incorporated into the formal review findings when we update the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using intravenous lidocaine injection as an intervention to decrease pain on propofol injection in adults. We excluded studies without a placebo or control group.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected selected studies with relevant criteria. We identified risk of bias in five domains according to the following criteria: random sequence generation, allocation concealment, adequacy of blinding, completeness of outcome data and selective reporting. We performed meta-analysis by direct comparisons of intervention versus control. We estimated the summary odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals using the random-effects Mantel-Haenszel method in RevMan 5.3. We used the I(2) statistic to assess statistical heterogeneity. We assessed overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 87 studies, 84 of which (10,460 participants) were eligible for quantitative analysis in the review. All participants, aged 13 years to 89 years, were American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-III patients undergoing elective surgery. Each study was conducted in a single centre in high- , middle- and low-income countries worldwide. According to the risk of bias assessment, all except five studies were identified as being of satisfactory methodological quality, allowing 84 studies to be combined in the meta-analysis. Five of the 84 studies were assessed as high risk of bias: one for participant and personnel blinding, one for incomplete outcome data, and three for other potential sources of bias.The overall incidence of pain and high-intensity pain following propofol injection in the control group were 64% (95% CI 60% to 67.9%) and 38.1% (95% CI 33.4% to 43.1%), respectively while those in the lidocaine group were 30.2% (95% CI 26.7% to 33.7%) and 11.8% (95% CI 9.7% to 13.8%). Both lidocaine admixture and pretreatment were effective in reducing pain on propofol injection (lidocaine admixture OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.25, 31 studies, 4927 participants, high-quality evidence; lidocaine pretreatment OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.18, 43 RCTs, 4028 participants, high-quality evidence). Similarly, lidocaine administration could considerably decrease the incidence of pain when premixed with the propofol (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.24, 36 studies, 5628 participants, high-quality evidence) or pretreated prior to propofol injection (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.18, 52 studies, 4832 participants, high-quality evidence). Adverse effects of lidocaine administration were rare. Thrombophlebitis was reported in only two studies (OR not estimated, low-quality evidence). No studies reported patient satisfaction.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the quality of the evidence was high. Currently available data from RCTs are sufficient to confirm that both lidocaine admixture and pretreatment were effective in reducing pain on propofol injection. Furthermore, there were no significant differences of effect between the two techniques.

Prevention of propofol-induced pain in children: pretreatment with small doses of ketamine

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of ketamine in preventing propofol injection pain in children.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study.

SETTING

University-affiliated hospital.

PATIENTS

192 ASA physical status 1 and 2 pediatric patients.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly assigned to 4 groups. Group S (control) received normal saline as a placebo; Group K1, Group K3, and Group K5 received 0.1 mg/kg, 0.3 mg/kg, and 0.5 mg/kg of ketamine, respectively. Fifteen seconds after the ketamine injection, patients were injected with propofol at a rate of 12 mL/min until loss-of-eyelash reflex.

MEASUREMENT

Pain was evaluated blindly at the time of induction using a 4-point scale: 0 = no pain, 1 = mild pain, 2 = moderate pain, and 3 = severe pain. Adverse effects were recorded. Characteristics of induction of anesthesia, such as dose of propofol and time from propofol injection to loss of consciousness (induction duration), were noted.

MAIN RESULTS

39 (84.8%) Group S (control) patients had pain. Pretreatment with ketamine reduced the frequency of pain significantly to 56.5%, 17.0%, and 14.9% in Groups K1, K3, and K5, respectively. Furthermore, the frequency of moderate and severe pain in Group K1 (21.8%), Group K3 (6.4%), and Group K5 (4.3%) was significantly (P < 0.001, respectively) reduced compared with Group S (76.1%). Moreover, the dose of propofol for induction in Group K5 was smaller than in Group S, Group K1, and Group K3 (P < 0.05). One patient in Group K5 had emergence agitation.

CONCLUSION

Pretreatment with a small dose of ketamine (0.3 mg/kg) reduced the frequency and intensity of propofol injection pain without severe adverse effects.

The effect of a 3 : 1 volume mixture of propofol 1% and thiopental 2.5% in reducing the pain on injection of propofol in children

BACKGROUND

In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial, our primary objective was to assess the effect of a 3 : 1 mixture of propofol and thiopental in reducing pain on injection in children. Our hypothesis was that a 3 : 1 mixture of propofol and thiopental (treatment) would reduce the incidence of pain on injection to 20% compared to the expected incidence of 40% in the control group of an 11 : 1 mixture of propofol and 2% lidocaine.

METHODS

Study subjects were patients 12-17 years old who were scheduled to undergo surgery and general anesthesia. Pain was assessed by a single-blinded observer present in the operating room. The major statistical method used in the analysis was multiple logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among the 164 children analyzed, 96 patients (58.5%) were male. The average age was 14.3 (sd = 1.65). The incidence of pain in the control group was 32.1% (26/81), compared to 25.3% (21/83) in the treatment group. The logistic regression analysis showed that there was not sufficient evidence that the treatment group was better than control group in reducing pain (P = 0.24). There were no significant differences in postoperative recovery time, nausea, vomiting, or blood pressure between the two groups (all P values >0.10).

CONCLUSION

There was not sufficient evidence to show that a 3 : 1 mixture of propofol and thiopental was better than an 11 : 1 volume admixture of propofol and lidocaine in reducing the incidence of pain on injection to 20%.

Lidocaine pretreatment for the prevention of propofol-induced transient motor disturbances in children during anesthesia induction: a randomized controlled trial in children undergoing invasive hematologic procedures

BACKGROUND

We examined the effect of lidocaine pretreatment before propofol administration on the incidence of transient motor disturbances and on propofol requirements for anesthesia induction in infants and children undergoing repeated painful diagnostic and therapeutic hematological procedures.

METHODS

A series of 358 children subgrouped according to the presence of a peripheral-vein or central venous catheter were randomly assigned to receive an intravenous dose of 2% lidocaine (2.0 mg.kg(-1)) or an equivalent volume of saline, 1 min before propofol (1.5-3.5 mg.kg(-1)) injected for anesthesia induction.

RESULTS

The incidence of spontaneous movements was significantly lower in patients pretreated with lidocaine than in those receiving placebo (2.5% vs 29%; P < 0.001, by chi-square test), as was the propofol induction dose (1.6 +/- 0.2 mg.kg(-1) vs 2.2 +/- 0.3 mg.kg(-1); P < 0.001) and pain at the injection site in patients peripheral-vein catheter (12% vs. 54%; P < 0.001). Lidocaine administration also improved children's acceptance as reported by parents on the Observational Scale of Behavioral Distress administered 2 h after the procedure (6.5 +/- 2.5 vs. 9.4 +/- 3.3; P < 0.001). Bouts of coughing developed significantly more frequently after lidocaine pretreatment than after placebo (62.5% vs. 17.5%; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Because lidocaine pretreatment before the induction of propofol-based anesthesia decreases propofol-induced motor disturbances, lowers hypnotic requirements and reduces pain at the injection site, without inducing untoward events, thus improving children's and parental acceptance, it should become standard practice in infants and children undergoing repeated painful diagnostic and therapeutic hematological procedures.