The analgesic efficacy of forearm versus upper arm intravenous regional anesthesia (Bier's block): A randomized controlled non-inferiority trial

Dexmedetomidine Prolongs Lidocaine Intravenous Regional Anesthesia in Rats by Blocking the Hyperpolarization-Activated Cation Current

Purpose

Intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA) using lidocaine provides effective localized analgesia but its duration is limited. The mechanism by which dexmedetomidine enhances lidocaine IVRA is unclear but may involve modulation of hyperpolarization-activated cyclic nucleotide-gated (HCN) channels.

Materials and Methods

Lidocaine IVRA with varying dexmedetomidine concentrations was performed in the tails of Sprague-Dawley rats. Tail-flick and tail-clamping tests assessed IVRA analgesia and anesthesia efficacy and duration. Contributions of α2 adrenergic receptors and HCN channels were evaluated by incorporating an α adrenergic receptor antagonist, the HCN channel inhibitor ZD7288, and the HCN channel agonist forskolin. Furthermore, whole-cell patch clamp electrophysiology quantified the effects of dexmedetomidine on HCN channels mediating hyperpolarization-activated cation current (Ih) in isolated dorsal root ganglion neurons.

Results

Dexmedetomidine dose-dependently extended lidocaine IVRA duration and analgesia, unaffected by α2 receptor blockade. The HCN channel inhibitor ZD7288 also prolonged lidocaine IVRA effects, while the HCN channel activator forskolin shortened effects. In dorsal root ganglion neurons, dexmedetomidine concentration-dependently inhibited Ih amplitude and shifted the voltage-dependence of HCN channel activation.

Conclusion

Dexmedetomidine prolongs lidocaine IVRA duration by directly inhibiting HCN channel activity, independent of α2 adrenergic receptor activation. This HCN channel inhibition represents a novel mechanism underlying the anesthetic and analgesic adjuvant effects of dexmedetomidine in IVRA.

Regional versus systemic dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to lidocaine for intravenous regional anaesthesia in healthy volunteers: a randomized crossover study

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine enhances the quality and duration of lidocaine intravenous regional anaesthesia (IVRA). However, the two administration routes have not been directly compared regarding effects on tourniquet tolerance time with lidocaine IVRA. Additionally, it remains unclear whether the prolonged tourniquet tolerance stems from the direct peripheral action of dexmedetomidine or indirect systemic analgesic effects.

METHODS

We conducted forearm IVRA in 12 healthy volunteers using a crossover design on two separate study days. One day, the systemic dexmedetomidine group received an intravenous infusion of 0.5 μg/kg dexmedetomidine (20 mL) in one arm, followed by 0.5% lidocaine (25 mL) forearm IVRA in the contralateral arm. On the other day, the regional dexmedetomidine group received an intravenous 0.9% saline infusion (20 mL) in one arm, followed by combined 0.5% lidocaine (25 mL) and 0.5 μg/kg dexmedetomidine forearm IVRA in the opposite arm. After a two-week washout period, participants crossed over to receive the alternate treatment. The primary outcome was tourniquet tolerance time, from initiating IVRA until the patient-reported tourniquet pain numerical rating scale exceeded three.

RESULTS

The tourniquet tolerance time was longer with regional versus systemic dexmedetomidine (36.9 ± 7.6 min vs 23.3 ± 6.2 min, respectively), with a 13.6 min mean difference (95% CI: 10.8 to 16.4 min, p < 0.001). Regional dexmedetomidine also hastened sensory onset and extended sensory recovery compared to systemic administration. Delayed sedation after tourniquet release occurred in 5 of 12 subjects receiving regional dexmedetomidine.

CONCLUSION

The addition of regional dexmedetomidine to lidocaine prolonged tourniquet tolerance time in forearm IVRA to a greater extent compared to systemic dexmedetomidine in healthy volunteers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2300067978.

Regional anaesthesia for ambulatory surgery

Regional anaesthesia (RA) has an important and ever-expanding role in ambulatory surgery. Specific practices vary depending on the preferences and resources of the anaesthesia team and hospital setting. It is used for various purposes, including as primary anaesthetic technique for surgery but also as postoperative analgesic modality. The limited duration of action of currently available local anaesthetics limits their application in postoperative pain control and enhanced recovery. The search for the holy grail of regional anaesthetics continues. Current evidence suggests that a peripheral nerve block performed with long-acting local anaesthetics in combination with intravenous or perineural dexamethasone gives the longest and most optimal sensory block. In this review, we outline some possible blocks for ambulatory surgery and additives to perform RA. Moreover, we give an update on local anaesthesia drugs and adjuvants, paediatric RA in ambulatory care and discuss the impact of RA by COVID-19.

Noninferiority Trial Design: Opportunities and Challenges

Defining treatment effectiveness is the foundation of evidence-based practice. Most studies comparing the effectiveness of treatment options involve superiority designs in which a treatment is compared against a placebo, standard care, or an alternative treatment. However, in scenarios in which it is not ethical to consider these options, noninferiority designs can be considered. Noninferiority (NI) trials aim to demonstrate that a new treatment is not unacceptably worse than a standard treatment. Noninferiority is determined relative to a noninferiority margin, which is the difference between the test and active control treatment that is not unacceptably clinically inferior. However, there are important considerations with respect to the design, analysis, and interpretation of NI studies, which differ from superiority trials. This review will outline the key components of NI trials, how to interpret the findings, and understand their nuances and potential limitations.