Does lidocaine as an adjuvant to morphine improve pain relief in patients presenting to the ED with acute renal colic? A double-blind, randomized controlled trial

Magnesium Sulfate Versus Lidocaine as an Adjunct for Renal Colic in the Emergency Department: A Randomized, Double-Blind Controlled Trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We wished to determine whether the addition of magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) or lidocaine to diclofenac could improve the analgesic efficacy in emergency department (ED) patients with acute renal colic.

METHODS

In this prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial of patients aged 18 to 65 years with suspected acute renal colic, we randomized them to receive 75 mg intramuscular (IM) diclofenac and then intravenous (IV) MgSO4, lidocaine, or saline solution control. Subjects reported their pain using a numerical rating scale (NRS) before drug administration and then 5, 10, 20, 30, 60, and 90 minutes afterwards. Our primary outcome was the proportion of participants achieving at least a 50% reduction in the NRS score 30 minutes after drug administration.

RESULTS

We enrolled 280 patients in each group. A 50% or greater reduction in the NRS score at 30 minutes occurred in 227 (81.7%) patients in the MgSO4 group, 204 (72.9%) in the lidocaine group, and 201 (71.8%) in the control group, with significant differences between MgSO4 and lidocaine (8.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.89 to 15.7], P=.013) and between MgSO4 and control (9.9%, 95% CI [2.95 to 16.84], P=.004). Despite this, differences between all groups at every time point were below the accepted 1.3 threshold for clinical importance. There were no observed differences between groups in the frequency of rescue analgesics and return visits to the ED for renal colic. There were more adverse events, although minor, in the MgSO4 group.

CONCLUSION

Adding intravenous MgSO4, but not lidocaine, to IM diclofenac offered superior pain relief but at levels below accepted thresholds for clinical importance.

2022 Recommendations of the AFU Lithiasis Committee: Management of symptomatic urinary stones

The acute situation, caused by an obstructive stone, is defined by a renal colic that may be uncomplicated, complicated, or at risk in specific conditions. Its management may be medical or require interventional treatment by extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, endoscopic removal, or ureteroscopy. METHODOLOGY: These recommendations were developed using two methods, the Clinical Practice Recommendations (CPR) and the ADAPTE method, in function of whether the question was considered in the European Association of Urology (EAU) recommendations (https://uroweb.org/guidelines/urolithiasis) [EAU Guidelines on urolithiasis. 2022] and whether they could be adapted to the French context.

Can intravenous lidocaine definitely attenuate propofol requirement and improve outcomes among colonoscopic patients under intravenous sedation?: A double-blinded, randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Propofol-sparing effect of lidocaine has not been fully elucidated because propofol is usually mixed with many medications in anesthetic practice. Therefore, the study aimed to verify the additive effect of intravenous lidocaine to propofol without other sedative medications and control the depth of anesthesia using the bispectral index (BIS) during colonoscopy in a prospective, randomized, double-blinded controlled trial.

METHODS

Sixty-eight patients scheduled and undergoing colonoscopy were randomly allocated to receive intravenous lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg then 4 mg/kg/h) (Group L) or a similar volume of normal saline (Group C) with propofol administration guided by BIS monitoring. The primary outcome was total propofol requirements between group comparisons. The secondary outcomes included the number of hypoxemic periods, hemodynamic changes, duration in returning of BIS > 85, sedation scores, pain scores, postoperative opioid requirement, and patient satisfaction between group comparisons.

RESULTS

Intravenous lidocaine showed significantly reduced total propofol use (151.76 ± 50.78 mg vs 242.06 ± 50.86 mg, Group L vs Group C, respectively, P < .001). Duration in returning to BIS > 85, sedation scores, and patient satisfaction scores were significantly superior in Group L (P < .05). The number of hypoxemic episodes, changes of hemodynamic response, pain scores, and postoperative opioid requirement were similar in both groups. No adverse effects were detected in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Intravenous lidocaine produced a definitely effective reduced propofol requirement without other sedative agents and improved outcomes including patient satisfaction, duration in returning to BIS > 85, and sedation score during colonoscopy without adverse effects.

Efficacy of Intravenous Lidocaine for Pain Relief in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of intravenous (IV) lidocaine with standard analgesics (NSAIDS, opioids) for pain control due to any cause in the emergency department.

METHODS

The electronic databases of PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar were explored from 1st January 2000 to 30th March 2021 and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IV lidocaine with a control group of standard analgesics were included.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs including 1,351 patients were included. The cause of pain included abdominal pain, renal or biliary colic, traumatic pain, radicular low back pain, critical limb ischemia, migraine, tension-type headache, and pain of unknown origin. On pooled analysis, we found no statistically significant difference in pain scores between IV lidocaine and control group at 15 min (MD: -0.24 95% CI: -1.08, 0.61 I 2 = 81% p = 0.59), 30 min (MD: -0.24 95% CI: -1.03, 0.55 I 2 = 86% p = 0.55), 45 min (MD: 0.31 95% CI: -0.66, 1.29 I 2 = 66% p = 0.53), and 60 min (MD: 0.59 95% CI: -0.26, 1.44 I 2 = 75% p = 0.18). There was no statistically significant difference in the need for rescue analgesics between the two groups (OR: 1.45 95% CI: 0.82, 2.56 I 2 = 41% p = 0.20), but on subgroup analysis, the need for rescue analgesics was significantly higher with IV lidocaine in studies on abdominal pain but not for musculoskeletal pain. On meta-analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of side-effects between the two study groups (OR: 1.09 95% CI: 0.59, 2.02 I 2 = 48% p = 0.78).

CONCLUSION

IV lidocaine can be considered as an alternative analgesic for pain control in the ED. However, its efficacy may not be higher than standard analgesics. Further RCTs with a large sample size are needed to corroborate the current conclusions.

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.

Analgesic refractory colic pain: Is prolonged conservative management appropriate?

OBJECTIVES

To propose a clear definition and management pathway of patients with analgesic refractory colic pain (ARCP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Prospective cohort study from February 2018 to February 2019 including patients with ARCP defined as ongoing renal colic pain after one dose of IV NSAID, IV paracetamol, and a parenteral opioid, given sequentially in that order. Patients were observed in-hospital under full parenteral analgesic management for 8-12 h, whenever patients had minimal or absent pain after conservative management (CM) they were discharged, and followed-up with new imaging within four weeks. If the pain was not controlled after CM, surgical management (double-J stent or ureteroscopy) was performed. We excluded patients with any other indication for urgent intervention or in cases where CM was deemed inappropriate (sepsis, acute renal failure, stones >10 mm in size, suspected concomitant urinary tract infection, bilateral ureteral stones, pregnancy, patients with a single kidney, kidney transplant recipients, difficult access to medical care or refusal to undergo CM).

RESULTS

Data from 60 patients was collected. The only variable associated with an increased risk of failed CM was a history of previous renal colic (OR 3.98 [95% CI 1.14-13.84], p = 0.02). Neither gender, age, stone size, location, or hydronephrosis grade were able to predict CM failure. 41.6% of patients were successfully managed conservatively and only 8% of them required scheduled surgical management at follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Our results show that a high proportion of patients with ARCP may be successfully managed conservatively with an extended observation period without complications at follow-up. These results should be replicated in a randomized controlled trial to confirm them.

Approaching acute pain in emergency settings; European Society for Emergency Medicine (EUSEM) guidelines-part 2: management and recommendations

BACKGROUND

In Europe, healthcare systems and education, as well as the clinical care and health outcomes of patients, varies across countries. Likewise, the management of acute events for patients also differs, dependent on the emergency care setting, e.g. pre-hospital or emergency department. There are various barriers to adequate pain management and factors common to both settings including lack of knowledge and training, reluctance to give opioids, and concerns about drug-seeking behaviour or abuse. There is no single current standard of care for the treatment of pain in an emergency, with management based on severity of pain, injury and local protocols. Changing practices, attitudes and behaviour can be difficult, and improvements and interventions should be developed with barriers to pain management and the needs of the individual emergency setting in mind.

METHODS

With these principles at the forefront, The European Society for Emergency Medicine (EUSEM) launched a programme-the European Pain Initiative (EPI)-with the aim of providing information, advice, and guidance on acute pain management in emergency settings.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

This article provides treatment recommendations from recently developed guidelines, based on a review of the literature, current practice across Europe and the clinical expertise of the EPI advisors. The recommendations have been developed, evaluated, and refined for both adults and children (aged ≥ 1 year, ≤ 15 years), with the assumption of timely pain assessment and reassessment and the possibility to implement analgesia. To provide flexibility for use across Europe, options are provided for selection of appropriate pharmacological treatment.

Evaluation of opioid requirements in the management of renal colic after guideline implementation in the emergency department

PURPOSE

Evaluate opioid prescribing before and after emergency department (ED) renal colic guideline implementation focused on multi-modal pain management.

METHODS

Retrospective study of ED patients who received analgesia for urolithiasis before and after guideline implementation. The guideline recommends oral acetaminophen, intravenous (IV) ketorolac, and a fluid bolus as first line, IV lidocaine as second line, and opioids as refractory therapy to control pain. Opioid exposure, adverse effects, length of stay (LOS), and ED representation were evaluated. Comparisons were made with univariate analyses. Backwards stepwise binomial multivariate logistic regression to identify factors related to opioid use was performed.

RESULTS

Overall, 962 patients were included (451 pre- and 511 post-implementation). ED and discharge opioid use decreased; 65% vs. 58% and 71% vs. 63% in pre- and post-implementation groups, respectively. More post-implementation patients received non-opioid analgesia (65% vs. 56%) and non-opioid analgesia prior to opioids (50% vs. 38%). A longer ED LOS and higher initial pain score were associated with ED opioid administration. Guideline implementation, receiving non-opioid therapy first, and first renal colic episode were associated with decreased ED opioid administration. Seventeen adverse events (1.8%) were reported. There was no difference in change in ED pain score between groups, but patients in the post-implementation group were admitted more and had a higher 7-day ED representation (11% vs. 7%).

CONCLUSIONS

A multimodal analgesia protocol for renal colic was associated with decreased opioid prescribing, higher rates of admission to the hospital, and a higher 7-day ED representation rate.

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.

Randomized Trial of Intravenous Lidocaine Versus Hydromorphone for Acute Abdominal Pain in the Emergency Department

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous lidocaine with that of hydromorphone for the treatment of acute abdominal pain in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial conducted in 2 EDs in the Bronx, NY. Adults weighing 60 to 120 kg were randomized to receive 120 mg of intravenous lidocaine or 1 mg of intravenous hydromorphone. Thirty minutes after administration of the first dose of the study drug, participants were asked whether they needed a second dose of the investigational medication to which they were randomized. Patients were also stratified according to clinical suspicion of nephrolithiasis. The primary outcome was improvement in pain scores of 0 to 10 between baseline and 90 minutes. An important secondary outcome was need for "off-protocol" parenteral analgesics, including opioids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

RESULTS

We enrolled 154 patients, of whom 77 received lidocaine and 77 received hydromorphone. By 90 minutes, patients randomized to lidocaine improved by a mean of 3.8 points on the 0-to-10 scale, whereas those randomized to hydromorphone improved by a mean of 5.0 points (mean difference 1.2; 95% confidence interval 0.3 to 2.2). Need for off-protocol "rescue" analgesics occurred for 39 of 77 lidocaine patients (51%) and 20 of 77 hydromorphone patients (26%) (difference 25%; 95% confidence interval 10% to 40%). Adverse events were comparable between groups. Among the subset of 22 patients with nephrolithiasis, lidocaine patients reported a mean improvement of 3.4 points on the pain scale, whereas hydromorphone patients reported a mean improvement of 6.4 points (mean difference 3.0; 95% confidence interval 0.5 to 5.5).

CONCLUSION

Intravenous hydromorphone was superior to intravenous lidocaine both for general abdominal pain and a subset of patients with nephrolithiasis. A majority of patients randomly allocated to lidocaine required additional analgesics.

Comparison of intravenous lidocaine/ketorolac combination to either analgesic alone for suspected renal colic pain in the ED

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare analgesic efficacy and safety of intravenous lidocaine and ketorolac combination to each analgesic alone for ED patients with suspected renal colic.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, double-blind trial comparing analgesic efficacy of a combination of intravenous lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg) and ketorolac (30 mg), to ketorolac (30 mg), and to lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg) in patients aged 18-64 presenting to the ED with suspected renal colic. Primary outcome included difference in pain scores between the groups at 30 min. Secondary outcomes included a comparative reduction in pain scores in each group from baseline to 30 and 60 min as well as rates of adverse events and need for rescue analgesia at 30 and 60 min.

RESULTS

We enrolled 150 subjects (50 per group). The difference in mean pain scores at 30 min between Lidocaine and Lidocaine/Ketorolac groups was -2.89 (95% CI: -4.39 to -1.39); between Ketorolac and Lidocaine/Ketorolac group was -0.92 (95% CI: -2.44 to 0.61); and between Ketorolac and Lidocaine was -1.98 (95% CI: -3.69 to -0.27). A comparative percentage of subjects in each group required rescue analgesia at 30 and 60 min. No clinically concerning changes in vital signs were observed. No serious adverse events occurred in either group. Commonly reported adverse effects were dizziness, nausea, and headache.

CONCLUSION

The administration of intravenous lidocaine/ketorolac combination to ED patients with suspected renal colic results in better analgesia in comparison to lidocaine alone but provides no analgesic advantages over ketorolac alone. Clinicaltrials.gov Registration: NCT02902770.

Essential pharmacologic options for acute pain management in the emergency setting

Pain is the root cause for the overwhelming majority of emergency department (ED) visits worldwide. However, pain is often undertreated due to inappropriate analgesic dosing and ineffective utilization of available analgesics. It is essential for emergency providers to understand the analgesic armamentarium at their disposal and how it can be used safely and effectively to treat pain of every proportion within the emergency setting. A 'balanced analgesia' regimen may be used to treat pain while reducing the overall pharmacologic side effect profile of the combined analgesics. Channels-Enzymes-Receptors Targeted Analgesia (CERTA) is a multimodal analgesic strategy incorporating balanced analgesia by shifting from a system-based to a mechanistic-based approach to pain management that targets the physiologic pathways involved in pain signaling transmission. Targeting individual pain pathways allows for a variety of reduced-dose pharmacologic options - both opioid and non-opioid - to be used in a stepwise progression of analgesic strength as pain advances up the severity scale. By developing a familiarity with the various analgesic options at their disposal, emergency providers may formulate safe, effective, balanced analgesic combinations unique to each emergency pain presentation.

Analgesic Administration for Patients with Renal Colic in the Emergency Department Before and After Implementation of an Opioid Reduction Initiative

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to evaluate the patterns of analgesic prescribing for emergency department (ED) patients suffering from pain of renal colic before, during, and after implementation of an opioid reduction initiative. We hypothesized that this initiative based on the concept of channels/enzymes/receptors-targeted analgesia would result in overall decrease in opioid utilization in the ED and at discharge.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of ED electronic medical record of patients presenting with renal colic who received analgesics in the ED and at discharge over a five-year period. Patients were divided into three groups based on the following periods: 2012-2014 (pre-implementation phase); 2014-2015 (implementation phase); and 2015-2017 (post-implementation).

RESULTS

A total of 4,490 patients presented to the ED with renal colic over a five-year study period. Analgesics were administered to 3,793 ED patients of whom 1,704 received opioids and 2,675 received non-opioid analgesics. A total of 3,533 ED patients received a prescription for analgesic(s) upon discharge from the ED: 2,692 patients received opioids, and 2,228 received non-opioids. We observed a 12.7% overall decrease from the pre-implementation to post-implementation time period in opioid prescribing in the ED and a 25.5% decrease in opioid prescribing at discharge, which translated into 432 and 768 fewer patients receiving opioids, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of an opioid-reduction initiative based on patient-specific, pain syndrome-targeted opioid alternative protocols resulted in a reduction in opioid administration in the ED by 12.7% and at prescriptions at discharge by 25.5%. Adoption of similar ED initiatives nationwide has the potential to foster effective non-opioid analgesic practices for ED patients presenting with renal colic and to reduce physicians' reliance on administering and prescribing opioids.

The Evolving Landscape of Acute Pain Management in the Era of the Opioid Crisis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of the study is to evaluate and analyze the role of both opioid and non-opioid analgesics in the emergency department (ED).

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies have shown that the implementation of opioid-prescribing policies in the ED has the potential to reduce the opioid addiction burden. Clinical studies point to inconsistencies in providers' approach to pain treatment. In this review, we discuss specific aspects of opioid utilization and explore alternative non-opioid approaches to pain management. Pain is the most common reason patients present to the ED. As such, emergency medicine (EM) providers must be well versed in treating pain. EM providers must be comfortable using a wide variety of analgesic medications. Opioid analgesics, while effective for some indications, are associated with significant adverse effects and abuse potential. EM providers should utilize opioid analgesics in a safe and rational manner in an effort to combat the opioid epidemic and to avoid therapeutic misadventures. EM providers should be aware of all of their therapeutic options, e.g., opioid and non-opioid, in order to provide effective analgesia for their patients, while avoiding adverse effects and minimizing the potential for misuse.

Does co-treatment with ultra-low-dose naloxone and morphine provide better analgesia in renal colic patients?

OBJECTIVE

This study attempted to evaluate the efficacy of ultra-low-dose intravenous (IV) naloxone combined with IV morphine, as compared to IV morphine alone, in terms of reducing pain and morphine-induced side effects in patients with renal colic.

METHODS

In this double-blind clinical trial, 150 patients aged 34 to 60 years old who presented to the emergency department (ED) with renal colic were randomly allocated to either an intervention group that received ultra-low-dose IV naloxone combined with IV morphine or to a control group that received morphine plus a placebo. The severity of pain, sedation, and nausea were assessed and recorded for all patients at entrance to the ED (T1), then at 20 (T2), 40 (T3), 60 (T4), 120 (T5), and 180 (T6) minutes after starting treatment. The Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) was used for the assessment of pain and nausea intensities, and the Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) was used to assess sedation.

RESULTS

A GEE model revealed that patients in the naloxone group had non-significantly reduced pain scores compared to those in the morphine group (coefficient = -0.68; 95% CI: -1.24 to -0.11, Wald X2 (1) = 5.41, p = 0.02). The sedation outcome demonstrated no statistically significant differences at T1 to T4 among patients with renal colic compared to the ones who only received morphine. At T5 and T6, 1.5% vs. 20% and 1.5% vs. 16.9% of subjects from the naloxone group versus the morphine group obtained RSS scores equal to 3, respectively (p = 0.001 and p = 0.004, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to patients who only received IV morphine, co-treatment of ultra-low-dose naloxone with morphine could not provide better analgesia and sedation/agitation states in renal colic patients.

Pain management of renal colic in the emergency department with intravenous lidocaine

OBJECTIVE

To describe our experience with intravenous lidocaine (IVL) to manage pain of renal colic origin in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all patients presenting with pain of renal colic origin from the periods of 2014 to 2017 by using the ED electronic medical record database (Allscripts™).

RESULTS

Forty-four patients received IVL for renal colic over a three-year period. The average dose of IVL as a primary analgesic was 117.2 mg, and as a rescue was 108 mg. Administration of IVL resulted in a decrease in overall pain score by 6.3 points (numerical rating scale), by 7.4 points when IVL was used as a primary analgesic, and by 5.2 points when IVL was given as a rescue. There were no documented adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

Intravenous lidocaine has a potential of being used for patients presenting to the ED with a pain of renal colic origin as a primary analgesic or as a rescue. Although promising, this therapy will need to be studied in prospective randomized fashion and larger patients' population with underlying cardiac disease before it can be recommended for broad use in the ED.

Endogenous Opiates and Behavior: 2016

This paper is the thirty-ninth consecutive installment of the annual review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system. It summarizes papers published during 2016 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides, opioid receptors, opioid agonists and opioid antagonists. The particular topics that continue to be covered include the molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors related to behavior, and the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia, stress and social status, tolerance and dependence, learning and memory, eating and drinking, drug abuse and alcohol, sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology, mental illness and mood, seizures and neurologic disorders, electrical-related activity and neurophysiology, general activity and locomotion, gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions, cardiovascular responses, respiration and thermoregulation, and immunological responses.

A Review of Current and Emerging Approaches to Pain Management in the Emergency Department

INTRODUCTION

Pain is the most common symptom prompting an emergency department visit and emergency physicians are responsible for managing both acute pain and acute exacerbations of chronic pain resulting from a broad range of illnesses and injuries. The responsibility to treat must be balanced by the duty to limit harm resulting from analgesics. In recent years, opioid-related adverse effects, including overdose and deaths, have increased dramatically in the USA. In response to the US opioid crisis, emergency physicians have broadened their analgesic armamentarium to include a variety of non-opioid approaches. For some of these therapies, sparse evidence exists to support their efficacy for emergency department use. The purpose of this paper is to review historical trends and emerging approaches to emergency department analgesia, with a particular focus on the USA and Canada.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative review of past and current descriptive studies of emergency department pain practice, as well as clinical trials of emerging pain treatment modalities. The review considers the increasing use of non-opioid and multimodal analgesic therapies, including migraine therapies, regional anesthesia, subdissociative-dose ketamine, nitrous oxide, intravenous lidocaine and gabapentinoids, as well as broad programmatic initiatives promoting the use of non-opioid analgesics and nonpharmacologic interventions.

RESULTS

While migraine therapies, regional anesthesia, nitrous oxide and subdissociative-dose ketamine are supported by a relatively robust evidence base, data supporting the emergency department use of intravenous lidocaine, gabapentinoids and various non-pharmacologic analgesic interventions remain sparse.

CONCLUSION

Additional research on the relative safety and efficacy of non-opioid approaches to emergency department analgesia is needed. Despite a limited research base, it is likely that non-opioid analgesic modalities will be employed with increasing frequency. A new generation of emergency physicians is seeking additional training in pain medicine and increasing dialogue between emergency medicine and pain medicine researchers, educators and clinicians could contribute to better management of emergency department pain.

BET 2: Usefulness of IV lidocaine in the treatment of renal colic

A shortcut review was carried out to establish whether intravenous lidocaine is effective in the management of renal colic. Two studies were directly relevant to the question. The author, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes, results and study weaknesses of these studies are tabulated. The clinical bottom line is that intravenous lidocaine may be of some benefit in renal colic. However, there are other maybe more effective drugs available.

Comparison of Different Analgesic Techniques for Pain Relief During Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy: a Double-blind, Randomized Clinical Trial

Background:

Most patients experience some degree of pain during extracorporeal shock waves lithotripsy (ESWL).

Aim:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of target-controlled infusion (TCI) of remifentanil or sufentanil and patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with sufentanil or morphine for pain relief during ESWL.

Materials and Methods:

In a double blind, randomized clinical trial, a total of 60 patients who were scheduled for elective ESWL, randomly assigned into four groups (A, B, C and D). Patients in group A and B received remifentanil and sufentanil with TCI, respectively. Also, patients in group C and D received sufentanil and morphine with PCA, respectively. All patients in four groups were assessed about the intensity of their pain with Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) in three phases; the discharge of the waves (phase A), during breaking the stones (phase B) and the end of the procedure (phase C).

Results:

Patients in morphine PCA group experienced highest pain intensity in all stages, but patients in remifentanil TCI group experienced lowest pain intensity during lithotripsy. Remifentanil/TCI group experienced the lowest pain in B and C phases and the sufentanil/TCI group had the lowest pain only in the phase A. There was no significant difference in the occurrence of complications in all four groups.

Conclusion:

The current study demonstrates that efficacy of TCI pump in the reduction of pain during ESWL is superior to the PCA pump. Among the drugs that used in this study, remifentanil has more effective in pain management in the all phases during ESWL. We believe that using remifentanil/TCI should strongly be considered to clinicians in ESWL units.