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

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

BACKGROUND

Intravenous lidocaine in adults undergoing general anesthesia has been shown to reduce the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). However, the anti-postoperative vomiting (POV) effect of lidocaine in pediatric patients remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis to evaluate the effect of intravenous lidocaine on prevention of POV/PONV.

METHODS

Six databases including trial registration sites were searched. Randomized clinical trials evaluating the incidence of POV/PONV after intravenous lidocaine compared with control were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of POV within 24 hours after general anesthesia. The incidence of POV was combined as a risk ratio with 95% confidence interval using a random-effect model. We used the I2 to assess heterogeneity. We evaluated the quality of trials using the Cochrane methodology, and we assessed quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We also assessed adverse events.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Six trials with 849 patients were included, of whom 433 received intravenous lidocaine. Three trials evaluated the incidence of POV, and 3 evaluated the incidence of PONV. The overall incidence of POV within 24 hours after anesthesia was 45.9% in the lidocaine group and 63.4% in the control group (risk ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-1.00; I2 = 32%; p = 0.05). The incidence of PONV within 24 hours after anesthesia was 3.73% in the lidocaine group and 4.87% in the control group (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.36-1.59; I2 = 0%; p = 0.47). The quality of evidence was downgraded to "very low" due to the study designs, inconsistency, imprecision, and possible publication bias.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis suggests that intravenous lidocaine infusion may reduce the incidence of POV, however, the evidence quality was "very low." Further trials with a low risk of bias are necessary.

Practicalities of Total Intravenous Anesthesia and Target-controlled Infusion in Children

Propofol administered in conjunction with an opioid such as remifentanil is used to provide total intravenous anesthesia for children. Drugs can be given as infusion controlled manually by the physician or as automated target-controlled infusion that targets plasma or effect site. Smart pumps programmed with pharmacokinetic parameter estimates administer drugs to a preset plasma concentration. A linking rate constant parameter (keo) allows estimation of effect site concentration. There are two parameter sets, named after the first author describing them, that are commonly used in pediatric target-controlled infusion for propofol (Absalom and Kataria) and one for remifentanil (Minto). Propofol validation studies suggest that these parameter estimates are satisfactory for the majority of children. Recommended target concentrations for both propofol and remifentanil depend on the type of surgery, the degree of surgical stimulation, the use of local anesthetic blocks, and the ventilatory status of the patient. The use of processed electroencephalographic monitoring is helpful in pediatric total intravenous anesthesia and target-controlled infusion anesthesia, particularly in the presence of neuromuscular blockade.

Efficacy of lidocaine on preventing incidence and severity of pain associated with propofol using in pediatric patients: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Propofol injection pain was considered as one conundrum during clinical anesthesia. The systematic review about the effect of lidocaine in reducing injection pain among children has not been established. The aim of the study was to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of such intervention.

METHODS

The literature search was performed from the inception to the May 31, 2016 in PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, and Cochrane database. All randomized controlled trials that using lidocaine for propofol injection pain in children were enrolled. The primary outcome included the incidence of injection pain and the incidence of propofol injection pain in different degrees. The data were combined to calculate the relative ratio and relevant 95% confidence interval. A meta-analysis was performed following the guidelines of the Cochrane Reviewer's Handbook and the PRISMA statement.

RESULTS

Data from the included 11 studies indicated that the incidence of injection pain was lower in lidocaine group than the incidence in saline control group and in propofol lipuro (medium- and long-chain triglycerides) group (pain occurrence: 22.1% in lidocaine vs 66.8% in saline, RR with 95% 0.34 [0.26, 0.43], I = 38%; 30.5% in lidocaine vs 46.9% in propofol lipuro, RR with 95% 0.68 [0.46, 1.00], I = 9%). There was no difference between lidocaine and ketamine/alfentanil both in reducing pain occurrence and in reducing pain severity (pain occurrence: 29.7% in lidocaine vs 25.8% in ketamine, RR with 95% 1.47 [0.16, 13.43], I = 94%; 31.0% in lidocaine vs 30.7% in alfentanil, RR with 95% 1.01 [0.69, 1.46], I = 11%). And the reported side effects revealed that the safety of lidocaine in pediatric patients was acceptable.

CONCLUSION

Compared with ketamine and alfentanil, lidocaine would be served as one more effective treatment in consideration of its well-matched efficacy, acceptable accessibility, and reasonable safety. However, more high-quality evidences in pediatric patients are necessary.

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

STUDY OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

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

SETTING

University-affiliated hospital.

PATIENTS

192 ASA physical status 1 and 2 pediatric patients.

INTERVENTIONS

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

MEASUREMENT

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Prevention of propofol injection pain in children: a comparison of pretreatment with tramadol and propofol-lidocaine mixture

BACKGROUND

The pain on propofol injection is considered to be a common and difficult to eliminate problem in children. In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy of pretreatment with tramadol 1 mg.kg(-1)and propofol-lidocaine 20 mg mixture for prevention of propofol induced pain in children.

METHODS

One hundred and twenty ASA I-II patients undergoing orthopedic and otolaryngological surgery were included in this study and were divided into three groups with random table numbers. Group C (n=39) received normal saline placebo and Group T (n=40) received 1 mg.kg(-1) tramadol 60 sec before propofol (180 mg 1% propofol with 2 ml normal saline) whereas Group L (n=40) received normal saline placebo before propofol-lidocaine mixture (180 mg 1% propofol with 2 ml %1 lidocaine). One patient in Group C was dropped out from the study because of difficulty in inserting an iv cannula. Thus, one hundred and nineteen patients were analyzed for the study. After given the calculated dose of propofol, a blinded observer assessed the pain with a four-point behavioral scale.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in patient characteristics and intraoperative variables (p>0.05) except intraoperative fentanyl consumption and analgesic requirement one hr after surgery among the groups (p<0.05). Both tramadol 1 mg.kg(-1) and lidocaine 20 mg mixture significantly reduced propofol pain when compared with control group. Moderate and severe pain were found higher in control group (p<0.05). The incidence of overall pain was 79.4% in the control group, 35% in tramadol group, 25% in lidocaine group respectively (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Pretreatment with tramadol 60 sec before propofol injection and propofol-lidocaine mixture were significantly reduced propofol injection pain when compared to placebo in children.

Early postoperative cognitive dysfunction and postoperative delirium after anaesthesia with various hypnotics: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial--the PINOCCHIO trial

Background

Postoperative delirium can result in increased postoperative morbidity and mortality, major demand for postoperative care and higher hospital costs. Hypnotics serve to induce and maintain anaesthesia and to abolish patients' consciousness. Their persisting clinical action can delay postoperative cognitive recovery and favour postoperative delirium. Some evidence suggests that these unwanted effects vary according to each hypnotic's specific pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic characteristics and its interaction with the individual patient.

We designed this study to evaluate postoperative delirium rate after general anaesthesia with various hypnotics in patients undergoing surgical procedures other than cardiac or brain surgery. We also aimed to test whether delayed postoperative cognitive recovery increases the risk of postoperative delirium.

Methods/Design

After local ethics committee approval, enrolled patients will be randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups. In all patients anaesthesia will be induced with propofol and fentanyl, and maintained with the anaesthetics desflurane, or sevoflurane, or propofol and the analgesic opioid fentanyl.

The onset of postoperative delirium will be monitored with the Nursing Delirium Scale every three hours up to 72 hours post anaesthesia. Cognitive function will be evaluated with two cognitive test batteries (the Short Memory Orientation Memory Concentration Test and the Rancho Los Amigos Scale) preoperatively, at baseline, and postoperatively at 20, 40 and 60 min after extubation.

Statistical analysis will investigate differences in the hypnotics used to maintain anaesthesia and the odds ratios for postoperative delirium, the relation of early postoperative cognitive recovery and postoperative delirium rate. A subgroup analysis will be used to categorize patients according to demographic variables relevant to the risk of postoperative delirium (age, sex, body weight) and to the preoperative score index for delirium.

Discussion

The results of this comparative anaesthesiological trial should whether each the three hypnotics tested is related to a significantly different postoperative delirium rate. This information could ultimately allow us to select the most appropriate hypnotic to maintain anaesthesia for specific subgroups of patients and especially for those at high risk of postoperative delirium.

Registered at Trial.gov Number

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00507195