Efficacy of intravenous acetaminophen and lidocaine on propofol injection pain

Esketamine prevents propofol-induced injection pain: Randomized controlled trial

Background: Propofol is widely used during anesthesia. However, propofol-induced injection pain (PIP) is considered an unpleasant perioperative outcome. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of a mixture of esketamine and propofol in preventing propofol injection pain in patients undergoing general anesthesia.

Methods: This was a prospective, double-blind, multicenter, and randomized controlled trial. We included 252 adult patients with the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I to II who underwent surgery under general anesthesia. Patients were randomly allocated in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to four groups (n = 63 per group). Group NS received a mixture of 1% propofol (20 ml) and 0.9% normal saline (1 ml), group ESK-4 received a mixture of 1% propofol (20 ml) and esketamine 4 mg (diluted with 0.9% normal saline, 1 ml), group ESK-12 received a mixture of 1% propofol (20 ml) and esketamine 12 mg (diluted with 0.9% normal saline, 1 ml), and group ESK-20 received a mixture of 1% propofol (20 ml) and esketamine 20 mg (diluted with 0.9% normal saline, 1 ml) as sedative drugs during anesthesia. The primary outcome was the incidence and distribution of different degrees of PIP. The secondary outcomes were vital signs, characteristics of surgery and anesthesia, and adverse events.

Results: The incidence of PIP in group ESK-20 (33.3%) was significantly lower than that in groups NS, ESK-4, and ESK-12 (63.3%, 62.2%, and 49.1%, respectively; p < 0.01). The incidence of moderate PIP in group NS (33.3%) and group ESK-4 (22.6%) was higher than that in groups ESK-12 (7.5%) and ESK-20 (6.7%). The incidence of severe PIP in group NS (6.7%) and group ESK-4 (9.4%) was higher than that in groups ESK-12 (1.9%) and ESK-20 (0%). There were no differences in the vital signs, characteristics of surgery and anesthesia, or adverse events between the groups.

Conclusion: Our results indicated that the esketamine–propofol admixture reduced the incidence of PIP in patients undergoing general anesthesia without severe side effects.

A comparison of ondansetron and lidocaine in reducing injection pain of propofol: a randomized controlled study

Background

Direct stimulation of the afferent nerve endings in the venous endothelium is one explanation of propofol injection pain. Previous studies found that ondansetron can also block sodium channels. This effect is similar to that of lidocaine.

Objective

The primary outcome was the efficacy of ondansetron compared to lidocaine and placebo for the reduction of propofol injection pain.

Method

This trial was conducted in 240 patients, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification I-III and aged between 18–65 years old, undergoing elective surgery, and having a 20-gauge intravenous catheter at the hand dorsum. Each group of 80 patients received 8 mg. of ondansetron in the O Group, 40 mg. of lidocaine in the L Group and normal saline in the C Group. The study medications were blindly administered to the patients through a 20-gauge intravenous catheter placed on the hand dorsum, and then 1 min later, the small dose of propofol (50 mg.) was infused via the syringe pump at a rate of 600 ml/hr. for 30 s. Following that, the syringe pump of propofol was temporarily stopped, and the patients were asked to rate their pain at the injection site.

Result

The incidence of pain was lowest in the L group (66.2%) compared with the O (82.5%) and the C groups (85.0%) (P < 0.01). The median pain score in the L, O, and C groups were 2 (0–4), 4 (2–5), and 4.5 (2–6), respectively (P < 0.01). The incidences of no pain, mild, moderate, and severe pain were also significantly different in the L group (33.8%, 37.5%, 21.2%, and 7.5%, respectively) compared with those in the O group (17.5%, 31.2%, 31.2%, and 20.0%, respectively) and the C groups (15.0%, 22.5%, 40.0%, and 22.5%, respectively) (P < 0.01).

Conclusion

Pretreatment with intravenous lidocaine, rather than ondansetron, can reduce the incidence and intensity of propofol-induced pain.

Clinical Study on the Combination of Transcutaneous Electrical Acupoint Stimulation and Lidocaine for Preventing Propofol Injection Pain

Purpose

Propofol is a widely used intravenous anesthetic in clinical practice. Lidocaine pretreatment is currently the most commonly used method to reduce the pain of propofol injection. However, propofol injection pain has not been eliminated and its incidence remains high. Transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation is a green therapy that combines transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation therapy with the traditional acupuncture therapy of our motherland. This study investigated the effectiveness of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS) combined with lidocaine in preventing propofol injection pain and determined whether it can reduce postoperative complications and promote rapid postoperative recovery of patients.

Patients and Methods

A total of 220 women scheduled to undergo hysteroscopic surgery were enrolled in the study. The included patients were randomly divided into four groups of 55 patients each: normal saline group (group K), lidocaine group (group L), TEAS group (group T), and lidocaine + TEAS group (group L + T). Patients in group K received 2 mL saline (0.9% NaCl) pre-injection before anesthesia induction. Group L received 40 mg lidocaine pre-injection (2 mL of 2% lidocaine) before anesthesia induction. Group T received 30 min of transcutaneous electrical stimulation at bilateral election Hegu, Neiguan, and 2 mL saline pre-injections before anesthesia induction. Group L + T received TEAS and lidocaine pre-injection.

Results

The VAS scores and the four-point verbal rating scale of propofol injection were significantly different among the four groups. The prevalence of nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and abdominal distension after surgery among the four groups were statistically different. The bleeding days after surgery were significantly different among the four groups.

Conclusion

TEAS combined with lidocaine pre-injection reduced the incidence of propofol injection pain and significantly reduced patients’ pain levels compared with single lidocaine pre-injection. TEAS can also reduce the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, abdominal pain, and abdominal distension, shorten postoperative bleeding days, and accelerate the postoperative recovery of patients.

The propofol-sparing effect of intravenous lidocaine in elderly patients undergoing colonoscopy: a randomized, double-blinded, controlled study

Background

Propofol provides a prominent sedation effect in colonoscopy. However, anesthesia and sedation induced with propofol in the elderly might result in cardiopulmonary complications, especially when it is combined with opoids in the regimen. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that the addition of intravenous lidocaine to propofol-based sedation could decrease the overall propofol requirement in elderly patients during colonoscopy while the procedural sedation satisfaction and the hemodynamic stability were not compromised.

Methods

Ninety-two patients undergoing colonoscopy were randomly enrolled into lidocaine+propofol (L + P) group or normal saline+propofol (NS + P) groups. Subjects received intravenous bolus of 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine followed by 4 mg kg^− 1 h^− 1 lidocaine continuous infusion in L + P group or equivalent volumes of normal saline for boluses and infusion in NS + P group. Anesthesia was induced with 2.5 μg sufentanil followed by injection of 1.2 mg kg^− 1 propofol in all patients. A single supplemental bolus of 0.6 mg kg^− 1 propofol was administered whenever MOAA/S score > 1 or had body movement during the colonoscopy. The recorded primary endpoints included: the total amount of propofol administered during entire procedure, the supplemental amount of propofol after induction, and the frequencies of boluses of supplemental propofol.

Results

A total of 79 patients were included in the final analysis. Compared with NS + P group, the total amounts of propofol (induction plus supplemental) were no significant differences in L + P group; however, the required supplemental propofol was less (69.9 ± 39.2 mg vs. 51.5 ± 38.6 mg) (P = 0.039); the average frequencies of boluses of supplemental propofol given after induction were lower (2.1 ± 1.1 vs. 1.4 ± 0.9) (P = 0.003); the calculated “unit propofol” infusion rate was lower (0.18 ± 0.05 vs. 0.14 ± 0.04 mg kg^− 1 min^− 1) (P = 0.002).

Conclusions

The addition of intravenous lidocaine to propofol-based sedation resulted in a remarked reduction of supplemental propofol in the elderly during colonoscopy.

Trial registration

The present clinical trial was registered at http://www.chictr.org.cn on 11th March 2019 (registration No. ChiCTR1900021818).

The efficacy of Antipyretic Analgesics administration intravenously for Preventing Rocuronium-Associated Pain/Withdrawal Response: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Rocuronium-associated injection pain/withdrawal response (RAIPWR) was non-ideal but occurred frequently when injection intravenously during anesthesia induction. Many studies had reported that pretreating with antipyretic analgesics (AAs) could reduce the occurrence of RAIPWR, but there was no consensus yet. Therefore, this meta-analysis was designed to systematically evaluate the benefits of AAs on RAIPWR in patients.

Methods

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Ovid, EMbase, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wan Fang Data were searched by January 1st 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) applying AAs to alleviate RAIPWR in patients who underwent elective surgery under general anesthesia. Two investigators assessed quality of RCTs and extracted data respectively and the meta-analysis was carried on Revman 5.3 software. Moreover, we compared AAs in pros and cons directly with lidocaine, the most reported medicine to prevent RAIPWR.

Results

Data were analyzed from 9 RCTs totaling 819 patients. The results of Meta-analysis showed that compared to the control group, pretreating with AAs could prevent the total occurrence of RAIPWR [Risk ratio (RR), 0.52; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.42 to 0.66; P < 0.0001], and took effect on moderate (RR, 0.56; 95%CI, 0.43 to 0.73; P < 0.0001) and severe RAIPWR (RR = 0.14; 95%CI, 0.08 to 0.24; P < 0.00001). When compared to lidocaine, the preventive effect was not so excellent as the latter but injection pain induced by prophylactic occurred less.

Conclusion

The currently available evidence suggested that pretreating with AAs intravenously could alleviate RAIPWR.

Trial registration

PROSPERO CRD42019129776.

Efficacy of Intravenous Paracetamol in Combination with Lidocaine Pretreatment for Reducing Pain During Injection of Propofol

Introduction

The association of pain and discomfort of moderate to high severity and a high incidence with the intravenous (IV) administration of propofol is well known. Various physical and pharmacological methods are used to minimize propofol-induced pain, but the best intervention is still unknown. Therefore, our aim was to determine the analgesic efficacy of IV paracetamol when used in combination with lidocaine pretreatment in reducing propofol injection pain.

Materials and methods

This double-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted after receiving the approval of our institutional research ethics board. A total of 74 patients were included after providing informed consent, and participants were placed into two equal groups: group A received IV paracetamol (1 g) in combination with lidocaine pretreatment prior to the injection of propofol, and group B received lidocaine pretreatment alone prior to propofol injection. After propofol injection, all participants were asked to evaluate pain on the visual analog scale.

Results

Patients who received the lidocaine-paracetamol combination reported significantly more pain-free responses (51.35%) than those from patients who received lidocaine pretreatment alone (8.11%; P<0.05). The analgesic efficacy of group A was positive in 36 patients (97.3%), and for group B, the analgesic efficacy was positive in 24 patients (64.9%).

Conclusion

The administration of IV paracetamol with lidocaine pretreatment was more effective than lidocaine pretreatment alone in reducing the pain caused by the injection of propofol. Physicians should consider using IV paracetamol in combination with lidocaine pretreatment when patients require IV propofol to ease patient suffering and reduce pain, which may help provide optimal patient care.

Premedication with oral paracetamol for reduction of propofol injection pain: a randomized placebo-controlled trial

Background

To compare the effect of premedication with 2 different doses of oral paracetamol to prevent pain at propofol intravenous injection.

Methods

We conducted a double-blind randomized controlled trial in which patients scheduled for induction of general anesthesia with intravenous propofol received either a placebo, 500 mg or 1000 mg of oral paracetamol (P500 and P1000, respectively) 1 h prior to induction. Two mg/kg of propofol was injected at a rate of 600 ml/hr. After 1/4 of the full dose had been injected, the syringe pump was paused, and patients were asked to rate pain at the injection site using a verbal numerical rating score (VNRS) from 0 to 10.

Results

Three hundred and twenty-four patients were included. Pain intensity was lower in both P500 and P1000 groups (median VNRS [interquartile range] = 2 [0–3] and 4 [2–5], respectively) than in the placebo group (8 [7–10]; P < 0.001)*. The rate of pain was lower in the P1000 group (70.4%) than in both the P500 and the placebo group (86.1 and 99.1%, respectively; P < 0.001)*. The respective rates of mild (VNRS 1–3), moderate (VNRS 4–6) and severe pain (VNRS 7–10) were 47.2, 23.2 and 0% in the P1000 group, 28.7, 50 and 7.4% in the P500 group, and 0, 22.2 and 76.9% in the placebo group (P < 0.001* for between group comparisons). Tolerance was similar in the 3 groups.

Conclusions

A premedication with oral paracetamol can dose-dependently reduce pain at propofol intravenous injection. To avoid this common uncomfortable concern for the patients, this well-tolerated, available and cheap treatment appears as an option to be implemented in the current practice.

Trial registration

TCTR20150224002. Prospectively registered on 24 February 2015.

Effects of milrinone on serum IL-6, TNF-α, Cys-C and cardiac functions of patients with chronic heart failure

Effects of milrinone on serum interleukin-6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), cystatin C (Cys-C) and cardiac functions of patients with chronic heart failure were analyzed to investigate the value of milrinone in chronic heart failure. A total of 70 patients diagnosed with chronic heart failure were selected and randomly divided into treatment group (n=35) and control group (n=35). All patients were treated with conventional anti-heart failure therapy, and patients in the treatment group received milrinone on the basis of conventional therapy. The general data of patients, such as age, sex and course of chronic heart failure, were collected; the levels of serum IL-6, TNF-α and Cys-C before and after treatment were compared between the groups, and the cardiac function indexes were also compared, including cardiac output (CO), stroke volume (SV), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVDd), left ventricular end-systolic diameter (LVSd) and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) level. Besides, the curative effects and adverse reactions in the two groups were recorded. The results revealed that serum IL-6, TNF-α and Cys-C levels had no significant difference between the two groups before treatment; however, the curative effect in the treatment group was significantly superior to that in control group (p<0.05); after treatment, CO, SV and LVEF in both groups were obviously increased, but LVDd, LVSd and BNP levels were obviously decreased; the curative effect in the treatment group was significantly superior to that in control group (p<0.05); heart rate in both groups was obviously decreased after treatment (p<0.05); the total effective rate in the treatment group was significantly higher than that in control group after treatment (p<0.05). In conclusion, based on the conventional anti-heart failure therapy, the application of milrinone can reduce the serum IL-6, TNF-α and Cys-C levels and improve the cardiac functions of patients effectively.

Prevention of propofol injection-related pain using pretreatment transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation

Background/aim: This study aimed to study the effect of pretreatment transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS) in preventing propofol injection-related pain. Materials and methods: A total of 360 patients who were to undergo elective hysteroscopy surgery were randomly divided into the following three groups of 120 patients each: control (Group C), sham TEAS (Group F), and TEAS (Group T). Patients in Group C did not undergo any treatment before surgery; 30 min before the induction of anesthesia, patients in Groups F and T underwent electrical stimulation of the bilateral LI4-PC6 acupoint. Patients in Group F were subjected to 'feeling flow', while those in Group T were subjected to 'tolerance flow.' The stimulation frequency was 2/100 Hz and the duration of stimulation was 30 min. After the induction of anesthesia, propofol injection-related pain scores, hemodynamic parameters, and adverse reactions were recorded. Results: Of the 360 patients, 324 completed the study. There were significant differences among the groups in terms of the incidence of moderate-to-severe pain. In terms of the four-point scaling method, the end of the radial vein, the cubital vein, and the 'back of the hand' vein differed significantly among the three groups (P = 0.05). Finally, using a numerical rating scale, a significant difference was observed among the three groups in terms of the pain scores in the different veins. Conclusions: Pretreatment TEAS effectively reduces the incidence and severity of propofol injection-related pain, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, and patient postoperative pain scores.

Lornoxicam use to reduce the pain associated with propofol injection

Aim: To investigate the efficacy of lornoxicam in the prevention of the pain associated with propofol injection.

Material and method: Approval for this study was granted by the ethics committee of our hospital. Using a computer randomisation software, 120 patients undergoing elective surgery were assigned to four equal groups. In Group I (control group), immediately before anaesthesia induction, 10 ml of isotonic 0.9% NaCl solution (placebo) was administered intravenously (IV). In Groups II, III and IV, the same injection contained 2 mg, 4 mg and 8 mg of lornoxicam respectively. A tourniquet was then applied to the forearm for two minutes. Pain evaluation was made using a verbal pain score.

Results: Differences in pain severity scores were statistically significant between Groups I and II, Groups I and III, Groups I and IV and between Groups II and III (p < 0.05). However, no significant difference was determined between Groups III and IV (p = 0.401).

Conclusion: In all groups administered with lornoxicam, there was a significant reduction in the severity of pain associated with propofol injection, in comparison with the control group. Maximum effect is obtained with a dose of 4 mg.

Prevention of Withdrawal Movement Associated with the Injection of Rocuronium in Children: Comparison of Paracetamol and Lidocaine

OBJECTIVE

Pain from rocuronium injection is observed in 50%-80 % of patients. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of pretreatment with paracetamol and lidocaine in preventing pain-induced withdrawal caused by the intravenous injection of rocuronium during the induction of general anaesthesia in paediatric patients.

METHODS

Ninety children were randomized into two groups using a simple drawing from the box method: a paracetamol group (Group P, n=45) and a lidocaine group (Group L, n=45). After anaesthesia induction, venous occlusion was applied by a paediatric cuff inflated to a pressure of 75 mmHg and by 50 mg paracetamol and 0.5 mg kg(-1) lidocaine was injected in Groups P and L, respectively. Venous occlusion was then released, followed by rocuronium injection (0.6 mg kg(-1)). Withdrawal was evaluated using a 4-point scale (1, no response; 2, movement at the wrist only; 3, movement/withdrawal involving arm only (elbow/shoulder) and 4, generalized response, movement/withdrawal in more than one extremity).

RESULTS

The incidence of withdrawal movement was 42% and 26% in the Groups P and L, respectively (p=0.120). Although no significant differences were noted in the number of patients who had no withdrawal movement and mild withdrawal movement in Groups P and L, compared with Group L, the incidences of moderate withdrawal movement were significantly higher in Group P (p<0.05). No patient in either group revealed generalized movement.

CONCLUSION

Using a venous occlusion technique, pretreatment with 50 mg paracetamol can prevent withdrawal movement caused by rocuronium injection in children but is not as effective as lidocaine to prevent moderate withdrawal movement.

Efficacy of different fluids preload on propofol injection pain: A randomized, controlled, double-blinded study

Injection pain of propofol remains a common clinical problem. Previous studies demonstrated that propofol injection pain was alleviated by applying nitroglycerin ointment to the skin of injection site, which inspires us to test whether venous vasodilation induced by fluid preload could alleviate the pain. Different types or volumes of fluid preload were compared. 200 ASA I-II adult patients were randomly assigned to five groups of 40 each. A 20 G cannula was established on the dorsum or wrist of the hand. When fluid preload given with Plasma-Lyte A 100 mL (P100 group), 250 mL (P250 group), 500 mL (P500 group), 0.9% saline 500 mL (N500 group) or Gelofusine 500 mL (G500 group) was completed within 30 min, respectively, Propofol (0.5 mg/kg, 1%) was injected at a rate of 0.5 mL/s. A blind investigator assessed the pain using a four-point scale. Incidence of pain in P100, P250, and P500 groups was 87.5%, 57.5% and 35%, respectively (P<0.05). The median pain intensity score was significantly lower in P500 group than that in P250 and P100 groups (P<0.05 and P<0.01, respectively). Comparison of the effect of different types of solution preload indicated that the highest incidence of pain was in N500 group (62.5%) (N500 vs. P500, P=0.014; N500 vs. G500, P=0.007). The median pain intensity score in N500 group was higher than that in P500 group (P<0.05) and G500 group (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between P500 and G500 groups. It is suggested that Plasma-Lyte A or Gelofusine preload with 500 mL before propofol injection is effective in alleviating propofol-induced pain.

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.

Haemodynamic Responses to Tracheal Intubation Using Propofol, Etomidate and Etomidate-Propofol Combination in Anaesthesia Induction

Introduction: The aim of this study was to measure the haemodynamic responses to a etomidate-propofol combination used for anaesthesia induction and to compare the haemodynamic responses with the separate use of each drug.

Methods: The patients were randomly divided into three groups as group P (n = 30, propofol 2.5 mg kg^-1), group E (n = 30, etomidate 0.3 mg kg^-1) and group PE (n = 30, propofol 1.25 mg kg^-1 + etomidate 0.15 mg kg^-1). For each patient, the times of measurement of the heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure values were defined as baseline, after the induction, before the intubation, immediately after the intubation and 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10 minutes after the intubation.

Results: In all 3 groups, a significant decrease in MAP values were seen at T2 and T3 compared to the baseline values, and this decrease was greater in group P compared to that in group E and PE (P < 0.001, P < 0.01). A significant increase was seen in all 3 groups in the mean arterial pressure (MAP) value at T4 after the intubation. When the groups were compared with each other, this increase was greater in group E than in the other two groups (with group P, P < 0.001; with group PE, P < 0.01).

Conclusion: Etomidate-propofol combination may be a valuable alternative when extremes of hypotensive and hypertensive responses due to propofol and etomidate are best to be avoided.

Lidocaine for prevention of propofol injection-induced pain: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled study of the effect of duration of venous occlusion with a tourniquet in adults

BACKGROUND

Many patients experience pain on injection of propofol. The use of lidocaine to prevent propofol injection pain is common. The analgesic effect of pre-injected lidocaine has been found to increase when a tourniquet is used.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of various venous occlusion times with lidocaine analgesia to prevent pain during propofol injection.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled study, women aged 18 to 45 years, classifed as American Society of Anesthesiologists physical sta- tus I or II, who were scheduled to undergo elective surgery under general anesthesia induced with propofol, were randomly assigned to 1 of 5 groups: group 1, 2% lidocaine 20 mg in saline in a total volume of 10 mL and no venous occlusion; group 2, 2% lidocaine 20 mg in saline in a total volume of 10 mL plus venous occlusion for 15 seconds; group 3, 2% lidocaine plus venous occlusion for 30 seconds; group 4, 2% lidocaine plus venous occlusion for 60 seconds; and group 5, saline 10 mL and no venous occlusion. When the first 25% of the calculated propofol dose was administered, patients were asked about propofol-induced pain using a verbal pain scale (0 = no pain; 1 = mild pain; 2 = moderate pain; and 3 = severe pain). All patients and the anesthesiologist who evaluated pain severity were blinded to the study preparation being used.

RESULTS

The study comprised 100 women who were randomly divided into 5 groups of 20 patients each. Significantly more patients in group 5 (18 [90%] patients; P < 0.05) reported pain compared with the other treatment groups. In groups 2, 3, and 4, in which venous occlusion was applied, pain was reported during propofol injection in 6 (30%), 7 (35%), and 2 (10%) patients, respectively. The incidence of reported pain was significantly greater in group 1 (lidocaine without venous occlusion) than in group 4 (P < 0.05); however, the incidence of pain was similar in group 1 compared with groups 2 and 3.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study found that pretreatment with lidocaine 20 mg with or without venous occlusion significantly reduced the incidence and the severity of pain during the injection of propofol when compared with the group with no venous occlusion administered saline. In addition, pretreatment with lidocaine 20 mg plus venous occlusion for 60 seconds significantly reduced the incidence of propofol-induced pain compared with lidocaine without venous occlusion.

Paracetamol, ondansetron, granisetron, magnesium sulfate and lidocaine and reduced propofol injection pain

Background:

Propofol is a most widely used intravenous anesthetic drug. One of its most common complications is the pain upon injection; therefore, different methods, with various effects, have been proposed in order to alleviate the pain.

Objectives:

This study investigates the effects of paracetamol, ondansetron, granisetron, magnesium sulfate and lidocaine drugs on reducing the pain of propofol injection during anesthetic induction. Also, the hemodynamic changes will be analyzed.

Patients and Methods:

This is an interventional study containing 336 patients underwent elective orthopedic surgeries in Educational Hospitals of Mashhad University, using systematic sampling, the patients were divided into six groups. A 20-gauge needle was inserted into a venous vessel in the back of the hand and 100 cc of Ringer serum was injected into the vein, which was applied proximal to the injection site. Afterwards, paracetamol 2 mg/kg (group p), magnesium sulfate 2 mmol (group M), ondansetron 4 mg (group O), granisetron 2 mg (group G), lidocaine 40 mg (group L) and 5 cc saline (group S) were injected into the vessel, after 60 seconds, the tourniquet was opened. One quarter of the total dose of propofol (2.5 mg/kg) was injected with a flow rate of 4 mg/sec and then the injection pain was measured. Finally, the fentanyl (2 µg/kg), atracurium 0.5 mg/kg, and the remaining dose of propofol were injected and the vital signs were recorded before the administration of propofol and 1, 3, 5 and 10 minutes after the propofol injection.

Results:

The six groups did not significantly differ, regarding their gender, weight or age. Propofol injection pain was less in L and G groups, in comparison with the others (P ≤ 0.001). By analyzing the hemodynamic changes, it was observed that the least amount of change in mean arterial pressure was observed in the paracetamol group.

Conclusions:

The reduction of propofol injection pain was observed by using medications (in comparison with normal saline), but it was more significant in groups G and L. Moreover, Hypotension was higher in groups S and G and it was lessened in group P.

Intravenous lidocaine pretreatment with venous occlusion for reducing microemulsion propofol induced pain: Comparison of three doses of lidocaine

Objective

Pretreatment with intravenous 40 mg or 0.5 mg/kg lidocaine with venous occlusion is recommended to prevent pain following injection of lipid emulsion propofol. This approach is not sufficient to prevent pain from the injection of microemulsion propofol. The present study investigated whether a higher dose of lidocaine pretreatment with venous occlusion would be more effective for reducing pain following injection of microemulsion propofol compared with 40 mg lidocaine.

Methods

Patients undergoing elective surgery were randomly assigned to one of three groups: pretreatment with 40 mg (group L40), 60 mg (group L60) or 80 mg (group L80) lidocaine intravenously with venous occlusion, followed by injection with microemulsion propofol 1 min later. Pain was assessed on a four-point scale (severe, moderate, mild, none) based on physical responses to the injection.

Results

A total of 68 patients were included in the final analysis. Pain severity and incidence were significantly lower in patients in group L60 and L80 compared with patients in group L40. There were no statistically significant differences in pain incidence or severity between group L60 and group L80.

Conclusions

Pretreatment with 60 mg lidocaine intravenously with venous occlusion may be the most effective minimum dose for reducing injection pain following microemulsion propofol administration for induction of anaesthesia.

Efficacy comparison of the novel water-soluble propofol prodrug HX0969w and fospropofol in mice and rats

BACKGROUND

HX0969w is a novel water-soluble prodrug designed to release propofol and gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) and has a sedative-hypnotic effect. This study was performed to compare the efficacy of HX0969w with fospropofol in mice and rats.

METHODS

We performed hydrolysis studies in the plasma from mice and rats. The half-maximal effective doses (ED50) and half-maximal lethal doses (LD50) of fospropofol and HX0969w were determined. A pharmacodynamics comparison of these two compounds was also performed. Time to loss of righting reflex, time to return of righting reflex, recovery time, and adverse effects were recorded.

RESULTS

The hydrolysis studies demonstrated that HX0969w released propofol as expected. HX0969w ED50 values in mice and rats were 133.03 and 53.79 mg kg(-1), respectively, and LD50 values were 607.11 and 283.79 mg kg(-1), respectively. The calculated therapeutic index (TI), safety index (SI), and certain safety factor (CSF) of HX0969w were 4.56, 3.33, and 2.92 for mice, and 5.28, 3.94, and 3.49 for rats, respectively. The pharmacodynamic comparison studies suggest that HX0969w has a longer onset time and shorter duration than fospropofol.

CONCLUSIONS

Similar to fospropofol, HX0969w is an effective, water-soluble prodrug that is capable of inducing a sedative-hypnotic effect in mice and rats. Unlike fospropofol, HX0969w releases GHB instead of formaldehyde. Further studies regarding the efficacy and safety of HX0969w are necessary.

Role of intravenous acetaminophen in postoperative pain management

SUMMARY The need to safely treat the postoperative pain of patients is apparent. Opioids, although effective, have multiple morbidities associated with their use. A multimodal approach to postoperative pain management can serve to minimize the undesirable effects of opioids. Intravenous acetaminophen (paracetamol) has recently become available in the USA where many practitioners are not familiar with this drug. This article reviews the history, pharmacology and clinical uses of intravenous acetaminophen in the treatment of perioperative pain.

Clinical and economic evidence for intravenous acetaminophen

Intravenous acetaminophen received United States Food and Drug Administration approval in November 2010 for the management of mild-to-moderate pain, management of moderate-to-severe pain with adjunctive opioid analgesics, and reduction of fever. Although intravenous acetaminophen generally improved pain relief and demonstrated opioid-sparing effects compared with placebo, it did not consistently reduce the frequency of opioid-related adverse events (e.g., postoperative nausea and vomiting). The safety and efficacy of intravenous acetaminophen as an antipyretic agent have been documented in adults and children; however, its cost is several-fold higher than that of the oral and rectal formulations. Although use of intravenous acetaminophen has reduced other postoperative resource utilization (e.g., hospital length of stay) in some studies outside the United States in patients undergoing abdominal surgery, a full economic evaluation in the United States has yet to be undertaken. In addition, its administration time (15-min infusion) and packaging (glass, single-use vial) have the potential to adversely affect patient flow in the postanesthesia care unit, create burden on patient care units, and lead to drug waste. Furthermore, 1 g of intravenous acetaminophen is formulated in 100 ml of solution, which may be an issue for patients with fluid restrictions. Given the clinical and economic evidence currently available, intravenous acetaminophen should not replace oral or rectal acetaminophen, but its use may be considered in a limited number of patients who cannot receive drugs orally and rectally and who cannot tolerate other parenteral nonopioid analgesic or antipyretic agents.

Acetaminophen injection: a review of clinical information including forms not available in the United States

Acetaminophen injection is an antipyretic and analgesic agent recently marketed in the United States as Ofirmev. A recent review published in the Journal of Pain & Palliative Care Pharmacotherapy focused on the labeled uses of acetaminophen injection in the United States. A variety of studies were excluded that may be of interest to clinicians. This addendum provides these citations and further insight into the strategy used to develop the review. Acetaminophen injection represents another agent for multimodal pain management.

Midazolam is associated with delay in recovery and agitation after ambulatory general anesthesia for dental treatment in patients with disabilities: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

Some patients with intellectual disabilities (IDs) who undergo total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) have complications associated with the anesthesia such as prolonged recovery. The purposes of this study were to estimate the frequency of TIVA complications among patients with IDs and to identify factors associated with TIVA complications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was designed as a retrospective cohort study. Study samples were selected from the clinical records of patients with IDs who underwent ambulatory general anesthesia in a special dental clinic at the Okayama University Hospital, Okayama, Japan. Predictor variables were patient background, anesthesia-related variables, and dental treatment. Outcome variables were delayed recovery and the complication of agitation. Factors affecting delayed recovery and complications were examined with multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

We enrolled 106 cases (81 male and 25 female patients) in this study. The mean age was 23.9 years. Serious complications were not observed in any cases. The amount of intravenous midazolam was an independent determinant of delayed recovery. Oral midazolam contributed to delayed recovery, although it is very useful for induction in patients with a high level of fear. Oral midazolam and a younger age were independent predictors of agitation.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous midazolam may not have an advantage in ambulatory general anesthesia. Oral midazolam contributes to delayed recovery and is an independent predictor of agitation.

Sevoflurane to alleviate pain on propofol injection

PURPOSE

Since the introduction of propofol, several drugs and methods have been used to alleviate the pain on its injection. This study was designed to evaluate the effect of adding sevoflurane 3% during preoxygenation in alleviation of pain on propofol injection.

METHODS

In this randomized single-blinded study, 100 patients were randomly allocated equally into five groups: sevoflurane-lidocaine-tourniquet (SLT), sevoflurane-lidocaine (SL), lidocaine-tourniquet (LT), lidocaine (L), and sevoflurane (S). Approximately 10 min before the induction of anesthesia, midazolam 1-2 mg was administered intravenously to all patients. All patients received fentanyl 1 µg/kg as pretreatment and a full induction dose of propofol. A blinded anesthesia nurse assessed pain and hand movements throughout the injection of propofol.

RESULTS

In the SLT group, all patients (100%) were pain free and had no hand movements. There was no significant difference in pain grade or in hand movements between the L and the S groups, or between the SLT and the SL groups. However, significant differences were observed in pain grade between the SLT and the L groups as well as between the SLT and the S groups. In addition, a significant difference in hand movement was observed only between the SLT and the S groups.

CONCLUSION

The addition of 3% sevoflurane at the time of preoxygenation for 1 min along with routine use of lidocaine-tourniquet completely prevented pain upon propofol injection, whereas sevoflurane by itself provided similar analgesia to premixed lidocaine with propofol.

A clinical comparison of etomidate-lipuro, propofol and admixture at induction

Objective:

The purpose of this study was to compare etomidate-lipuro and propofol and 50%, (1:1) admixture of these agents at induction with special reference to injection pain, hemodynamic changes, and myoclonus.

Methods:

Ninety patients were assigned at random to three groups in which induction was performed with either etomidate-lipuro, propofol or etomidate-lipuro–propofol admixture. After monitorization with bispectral index (BIS) all agents were given with infusion with a perfuser at a constant rate of 200 ml/min till the BIS values decreased to 40. Blood pressure and heart rate were measured every 30 s at this period. Patients were asked for pain at the injection site and observed visually for myoclonus. The time BIS values decreased to 40 (BIS 40 time) and total amounts of induction doses were measured.

Results:

BIS 40 time measurements were P > E > PE (199.4 ± 40.9, 176.9 ± 31.6, 163.5 ± 20.6 s). The hemodynamic (systolic, diastolic and mean blood pressures, heart rate) changes were minimal in group PE than other two groups (P = 0.017). The intensity of myoclonus was graded as mild in 9, moderate in 12, and severe in 5 patients in the group E (76.3%). Myoclonus was not observed in group PE and group P. There were no injection pain in group PE as the incidence were (83.8%) in group P and in (63.2%) group E.

Conclusion:

Incidence of hemodynamic changes, myoclonus, and injection pain is significantly lower in group PE. BIS 40 times is least in group PE. We concluded that 1:1 admixture of etomidate-lipuro and propofol is a valuable agent for induction.

Acetaminophen Intravenous

Each month, subscribers to The Formulary Monograph Service receive 5 to 6 well-documented monographs on drugs that are newly released or are in late phase 3 trials. The monographs are targeted to Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committees. Subscribers also receive monthly 1-page summary monographs on agents that are useful for agendas and pharmacy/nursing in-services. A comprehensive target drug utilization evaluation/medication use evaluation (DUE/MUE) is also provided each month. With a subscription, the monographs are sent in print and are also available on-line. Monographs can be customized to meet the needs of a facility. Subscribers to The Formulary Monograph Service also receive access to a pharmacy bulletin board, The Formulary Information Exchange (The F.I.X.). All topics pertinent to clinical and hospital pharmacy are discussed on The F.I.X. Through the cooperation of The Formulary, Hospital Pharmacy publishes selected reviews in this column. For more information about The Formulary Monograph Service or The F.I.X., call The Formulary at 800-322-4349. The April 2011 monograph topics are on vilazodone hydrochloride, hydroxyprogesterone caproate, gabapentin extended-release, spinosad 0.9% topical suspension, and aclidinium bromide. The DUE/MUE is on pegloticase.

Intravenous acetaminophen

Acetaminophen has unique analgesic and antipyretic properties. It is globally recommended as a first-line agent for the treatment of fever and pain due to its few contraindications. Acetaminophen lacks the significant gastrointestinal and cardiovascular side effects associated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and narcotics. An intravenous formulation of acetaminophen is available in Europe and is currently undergoing extensive clinical development for use in the United States. This use may have important implications for management of postoperative pain and fever. This review summarizes recent clinical trial experiences with intravenous acetaminophen for the treatment of postoperative pain and fever in adult and pediatric subjects.

Prevention of pain on injection of propofol: a comparison of lidocaine with different doses of paracetamol

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of pretreatment with paracetamol 0.5 mg kg(-1), 1 mg kg(-1), 2 mg kg(-1) and lidocaine 0.5 mg kg(-1) for prevention of propofol induced pain.

METHODS

In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 250 adult patients ASA I or II, scheduled to undergo elective surgery, were randomly assigned into five groups of 50 each. Group P0.5, group P1 and group P2 received 0.5, 1 and 2 mg kg(-1) paracetamol respectively; group L received 0.5 mg kg(-1) lidocaine; and the control group, group C, received isotonic saline pretreatment in the dorsum of the hand, followed by propofol 1 min later. A blinded researcher assessed the patient's pain level via a four-point scale.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in patient characteristics among the groups. The incidence of propofol injection pain in all treatment groups was significantly lower than in the control group (P < 0.001). When the paracetamol 0.5 mg kg(-1) group was compared with both the paracetamol 1 mg kg(-1) group (P < 0.01) and the paracetamol 2 mg kg(-1) group (P < 0.001), significant differences were observed. In the lidocaine 0.5 mg kg(-1) group propofol injection pain was significantly reduced compared with the paracetamol 0.5 mg kg(-1) group (P < 0.01). However, in the paracetamol 2 mg kg(-1) group pain was more significantly reduced than in the lidocaine 0.5 mg kg(-1) group (P < 0.001). In the paracetamol 2 mg kg(-1) group the incidence of pain was significantly less than in paracetamol 1 mg kg(-1) group (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

When given as venous retention pretreatments 1 min before propofol, paracetamol 1 mg kg(-1) and lidocaine 0.5 mg kg(-1) were equally effective in attenuating pain during intravenous (i.v.) injection of propofol whereas pretreatment with paracetamol 2 mg kg(-1) was shown to be the most effective treatment.

Effect of pretreatment with acetaminophen on withdrawal movements associated with injection of rocuronium: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled study

BACKGROUND

Withdrawal movement during rocuronium injection is a common, unresolved adverse effect. We aimed to investigate the effect of IV acetaminophen pretreatment on withdrawal movement during rocuronium injection.

METHODS

This study enrolled 120 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I-II patients undergoing general anesthesia. They were randomly assigned to three treatment groups. After occluding venous drainage using a tourniquet on the upper arm, the saline group received 5 ml of 0.9% sodium chloride solution, the lidocaine group received 40 mg of lidocaine, and the acetaminophen group received 50 mg of acetaminophen. During injection of pretreatment drug, pain was assessed on a four-point scale. The tourniquet was released after 120 seconds and anesthesia was performed using thiopental sodium 5 mg/kg followed by rocuronium 0.6 mg/kg. The withdrawal movement was graded on a four-point scale in a double-blind manner.

RESULTS

The incidence of pain on pretreatment injection in saline, lidocaine, and acetaminophen groups was 7.7%, 5.1%, and 2.5%, respectively. The incidence of withdrawal movements was 77.5% in saline group, 32.5% in lidocaine group, and 37.5% in acetaminophen group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Acetaminophen and lidocaine reduced the incidence of withdrawal movement after rocuronium injection compared with saline.

Comparison of the effects of acetaminophen to ketorolac when added to lidocaine for intravenous regional anesthesia

BACKGROUND

This study was done to evaluate the effect on pain relief when acetaminophen was added to lidocaine for intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA).

METHODS

SIXTY PATIENTS UNDERGOING HAND OR FOREARM SURGERY RECEIVED IVRA WERE ASSIGNED TO THREE GROUPS: Group C received 0.5% lidocaine diluted with 0.9% normal saline to a total volume of 40 ml (n = 20), Group P received 0.5% lidocaine diluted with intravenous acetaminophen 300 mg to a total volume of 40 ml (n = 20) and Group K received 0.5% lidocaine diluted with 0.9% normal saline plus ketorolac 10 mg made up to a total volume of 40 ml (n = 20). Sensory block onset time, tourniquet pain onset time, which was defined as the time from tourniquet application to fentanyl administration for relieving tourniquet pain and amount of analgesic consumption during surgery were recorded. Following deflation of tourniquet sensory recovery time, postoperative pain and quantity of analgesic uses in post-anesthesia care unit were assessed.

RESULTS

Sensory block onset time was shorter in Group P compared to Group C (P < 0.05). Tourniquet pain onset time was delayed in Group P when compared with group C (P < 0.05). Postoperative pain and analgesic consumption were reduced in Group P and Group K compared to Group C (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of acetaminophen to lidocaine for IVRA shortens the onset time of sensory block and delays tourniquet pain onset time, but not with ketorolac. Both acetaminophen and ketorolac reduce postoperative pain and analgesic consumption.

Intravenous paracetamol (acetaminophen)

Intravenous paracetamol (rINN)/intravenous acetaminophen (USAN) is an analgesic and antipyretic agent, recommended worldwide as a first-line agent for the treatment of pain and fever in adults and children. In double-blind clinical trials, single or multiple doses of intravenous paracetamol 1 g generally provided significantly better analgesic efficacy than placebo treatment (as determined by primary efficacy endpoints) in adult patients who had undergone dental, orthopaedic or gynaecological surgery. Furthermore, where evaluated, intravenous paracetamol 1 g generally showed similar analgesic efficacy to a bioequivalent dose of propacetamol, and a reduced need for opioid rescue medication. In paediatric surgical patients, recommended doses of intravenous paracetamol 15 mg/kg were not significantly different from propacetamol 30 mg/kg for the treatment of pain, and showed equivocal analgesic efficacy compared with intramuscular pethidine 1 mg/kg in several randomized, active comparator-controlled studies. In a randomized, noninferiority study in paediatric patients with an infection-induced fever, intravenous paracetamol 15 mg/kg treatment was shown to be no less effective than propacetamol 30 mg/kg in terms of antipyretic efficacy. Intravenous paracetamol was well tolerated in clinical trials, having a tolerability profile similar to placebo. Additionally, adverse reactions emerging from the use of the intravenous formulation of paracetamol are extremely rare (<1/10 000). [table: see text].