Pre-procedure intravenous lidocaine administration on propofol consumption for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study

Intravenous lidocaine decreased the incidence of SRAEs for ERCP procedures in elderly frailty patients, a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Elderly frailty patients are at particular risk of sedation-related adverse events (SRAEs) during sedation. This study aimed to assess whether intravenous lidocaine could reduce the incidence of SRAEs in elderly frailty patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

METHODS

A total of 210 elderly frailty patients scheduled for ERCP were randomly divided into two groups: lidocaine and control. Patients in the lidocaine group received intravenous lidocaine (1.0 mg/kg) before anesthesia induction, followed by continuous intravenous infusion (2.0 mg/kg/h) during ERCP. The control group received an equal volume of saline solution. The primary endpoint was the composite incidence of SRAEs during ERCP. Secondary endpoints were propofol consumption, VAS score, endoscopists' and patients' satisfaction scores and lidocaine-related adverse events and so on.

RESULTS

The composite incidence of SRAEs in the lidocaine group was significantly lower than in the control group (41.05% vs. 21.86%, p < 0.05). The propofol requirement (436.11 ± 118.90, 388.54 ± 149.65. p < 0.001) and VAS score of patients (3.02 ± 1.07, 2.54 ± 1.10. p < 0.05) in the lidocaine group were significantly lower than those in the control group. The endoscopists' satisfaction scores (7.77 ± 1.12, 8.23 ± 1.10. p < 0.05) and patients' satisfaction scores (8.53 ± 0.95, 8.98 ± 0.86. p < 0.05) in lidocaine group were significantly higher than those in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous lidocaine can significantly decrease the incidence of SRAEs for ERCP procedures in elderly frailty patients, with no increase in lidocaine or other related adverse events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (Trial ID: ChiCTR2300067796, https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=185763 ).

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Anesthetic and Sedative Regimens for Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Network Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of various anesthetic and sedative regimens for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published until March 2024. Primary outcomes included procedure time, patient satisfaction, oxygen saturation (SpO2), incidence of SpO2 below 90%, and adverse events. The analysis was performed using R software, analyzing continuous outcomes with mean differences and dichotomous outcomes with risk ratios.

RESULTS

42 RCTs were included. Combination therapies such as remifentanil plus tramadol and propofol plus midazolam plus pethidine demonstrated significantly shorter procedure times. Propofol plus oxycodone yielded higher patient satisfaction. Oxygenation results indicated that propofol plus fentanyl, oxycodone, and ketamine improved SpO2. Propofol plus oxycodone (RR <0.01), dexmedetomidine plus fentanyl (RR <0.01), propofol plus nalbuphine (RR = 0.01), Mg sulfate plus propofol (RR = 0.01), and propofol plus fentanyl (RR = 0.02) showed a significant lower rate of patients with SpO2 below 90% compared to propofol. Midazolam plus pethidine plus dexmedetomidine (RR = 0.01), propofol plus oxycodone (RR = 0.09), and dexmedetomidine plus fentanyl (RR = 0.2) exhibited lower rates of adverse events compared to propofol.

CONCLUSION

This study provides comprehensive evidence to guide clinical decision-making and optimize anesthetic management for ERCP procedures.

INTRODUCTION

This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of various anesthetic and sedative regimens for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published until March 2024. Primary outcomes included procedure time, patient satisfaction, oxygen saturation (SpO2), incidence of SpO2 below 90%, and adverse events. The analysis was performed using R software, analyzing continuous outcomes with mean differences and dichotomous outcomes with risk ratios.

RESULTS

42 RCTs were included. Combination therapies such as remifentanil plus tramadol and propofol plus midazolam plus pethidine demonstrated significantly shorter procedure times. Propofol plus oxycodone yielded higher patient satisfaction. Oxygenation results indicated that propofol plus fentanyl, oxycodone, and ketamine improved SpO2. Propofol plus oxycodone (RR <0.01), dexmedetomidine plus fentanyl (RR <0.01), propofol plus nalbuphine (RR = 0.01), Mg sulfate plus propofol (RR = 0.01), and propofol plus fentanyl (RR = 0.02) showed a significant lower rate of patients with SpO2 below 90% compared to propofol. Midazolam plus pethidine plus dexmedetomidine (RR = 0.01), propofol plus oxycodone (RR = 0.09), and dexmedetomidine plus fentanyl (RR = 0.2) exhibited lower rates of adverse events compared to propofol.

CONCLUSION

This study provides comprehensive evidence to guide clinical decision-making and optimize anesthetic management for ERCP procedures.

Supraglottic jet oxygenation and ventilation improves oxygenation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a randomized controlled clinical trial

PURPOSE

Hypoxia is one of the most frequent adverse events under deep sedation in the semiprone position. We hypothesized that supraglottic jet oxygenation and ventilation (SJOV) via Wei nasal jet tube (WNJ) can reduce the incidence of hypoxia in patients under deep sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

METHODS

A total of 171 patients were divided into three groups: N group, supplementary oxygen via a nasopharyngeal airway (4-6 L/min); W group, supplementary oxygen via WNJ (4-6 L/min); WS group, SJOV via WNJ. The primary outcome was the incidence of adverse events, including sedation-related adverse events [SRAEs, hypoxemia (SpO2 = 75-89% lasted less than 60 s); severe hypoxemia (SpO2 < 75% at any time or SpO2 < 90% lasted more than 60 s] and subclinical respiratory depression (SpO2 = 90-95%). Other intraoperative and post-operative adverse events were also recorded as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Compared with the N group, the incidence of hypoxemia and subclinical respiratory depression in the WS group was significantly lower (21% vs. 4%, P = 0.005; 27% vs. 6%, P = 0.002). Compared with Group W, the incidence of hypoxemia and subclinical respiratory depression in Group WS was also significantly less frequent (20% vs. 4%, P = 0.009; 21% vs. 6%, P = 0.014). No severe hypoxia occurred in the group WS, while four and one instances were observed in the group N and group W respectively. There were no significant differences in other adverse events among the three groups.

CONCLUSION

SJOV can effectively improve oxygenation during ERCP in deeply sedated semiprone patients.

Effect of intravenous lidocaine on outcomes in patients receiving propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures (GEPs) are frequently employed for the diagnosis and treatment of various gastrointestinal ailments. While propofol sedation is widely used during these procedures, there is a concern regarding its potential negative effects. Intravenous (IV) lidocaine has been suggested as an add-on to propofol sedation for GEPs, but current evidence on its efficiency and safety is limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the impact of IV lidocaine on outcomes in patients receiving propofol during GEPs.

METHODS

Electronic databases were screened for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), published up to 31 March 2023, investigating the effectiveness of intravenous lidocaine addition to propofol sedation during GEPs.

RESULTS

A total of 12 RCTs involving 712 patients that received IV lidocaine and propofol for GEF and 719 patients that received propofol were analyzed. Adding IV lidocaine to propofol sedation led to significant reduction in pain after the procedure (standardized mean difference (SMD) =  - 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI]; - 1.51 to - 0.32), decreased propofol usage (SMD =  - 0.89; 95% CI, - 1.31 to - 0.48), lower recovery time (SMD =  - 0.95 min; 95% CI, - 1.48 to - 0.43), and decreased pain score (SMD =  - 0.91; 95% CI, - 1.51 to - 0.32). The overall rate of adverse events was markedly less in the lidocaine group than in the control group (RR = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.99).

CONCLUSION

Our results show that IV lidocaine improves patient outcomes by reducing post-procedural pain, decreasing propofol usage, shortening recovery time, and lowering pain scores. This study provides compelling evidence supporting the use of intravenous lidocaine as an adjunct to propofol sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. However, further research is necessary to optimize the use of lidocaine and fully understand its long-term effects.

ED50 and ED95 of Propofol Combined with Different Doses of Intravenous Lidocaine for First-Trimester Uterine Aspiration: A Prospective Dose-Finding Study Using Up-and-Down Sequential Allocation Method

Purpose

This study aimed to test the effect of different doses of intravenous lidocaine on the median effective dose (ED50) and 95% effective dose (ED95) of propofol-induction dose and identify the optimal dose.

Patients and Methods

Patients undergoing first-trimester uterine aspiration were screened and randomly enrolled into the following groups: saline (L₀), 0.5 mg/kg lidocaine (L_0.5), 1.0 mg/kg lidocaine (L_1.0), and 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine (L_1.5). Anesthesia was induced with 1.0 µg/kg fentanyl. Prepared lidocaine or saline solution was injected later according to allocation, followed by propofol. The dose of propofol for each patient was determined using the up-and-down sequential study design. The primary end point was the ED50 and ED95 of the propofol-induction dose. The total propofol doses, awakening time, and adverse events were recorded.

Results

The ED50 (95% confidence interval) of propofol was significantly lower in groups L_1.0 and L_1.5 than group L₀ (1.6 [1.5–1.7] mg/kg and 1.8 [1.6–1.9] mg/kg, versus 2.4 [2.3–2.5] mg/kg, respectively; p<0.001). There was no significant difference in ED50 between groups L_1.0 and L_1.5 (p>0.05). However, surprisingly, the ED50 was significantly higher in group L_0.5 than L₀ (2.8 [2.6–3.0] mg/kg vs 2.4 [2.3–2.5] mg/kg; p<0.05). The total doses of propofol in groups L_1.0 and L_1.5 were lower than those in groups L₀ and L_0.5 (p<0.05). The systolic blood pressure (SBP) decline after anesthesia induction in group L_0.5 was greater than that in group L₀ (p<0.01). The incidence of respiratory depression in group L_0.5 was greater than that in groups L₀ and L_1.0 (p<0.05).

Conclusion

In patients who underwent first-trimester uterine aspiration, intravenous lidocaine 1.0 mg/kg prior to propofol injection significantly reduced the ED50 of propofol induction dose without severe side effects, equivalent to the effect of 1.5 mg/kg dose. We recommend 1.0 mg/kg as the optimal dose.

Use of intravenous lidocaine for dose reduction of propofol in paediatric colonoscopy patients: a randomised placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND

Propofol, a widely used sedative in endoscopic procedures, sometimes causes cardiopulmonary complications. Intravenous lidocaine can diminish visceral pain and decrease the dose of propofol. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous lidocaine in reducing propofol dosage during paediatric colonoscopy.

METHODS

Forty children who underwent colonoscopy were divided into two groups. Lidocaine hydrochloride (1.5 mg/kg induction and 2 mg/kg/h maintenance) was given intravenously to the lidocaine group, and the same amount of saline was given to the control group after they received lidocaine induction. Propofol initial plasma concentration of 5 μg/mL was targeted, and the procedure was performed after the bispectral index value reached 55. The primary outcome was propofol requirement.

RESULTS

The propofol requirement in the lidocaine group was decreased by 35.5% (128.6 ± 30.4 mg vs. 199.4 ± 57.6 mg; p < 0.001; 95%CI: - 100.60, - 41.02). The incidence of involuntary body movements was significantly lower in the lidocaine group (p = 0.028; OR = 0.17; 95%CI: 0.03, 0.92). The awakening time (p < 0.001; 95%CI: - 7.67, - 5.13) and recovery times (p < 0.001; 95%CI: - 7.45, - 4.35) were significantly lower in the lidocaine group. Pain was significantly less at 30 min and 60 min after the procedure in the lidocaine group (0 [0-4] vs. 3 [0-5], p < 0. 001; 0 [0-2] vs. 1 [0-3], p = 0.001). There was no difference in the incidence of bradycardia, hypotension, or hypoxia between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

For colonoscopy procedures in paediatric patients, intravenous lidocaine reduces the amount of propofol needed, provides better sedation and postprocedural pain management, as well as a reduction in recovery time.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered on November 6, 2020 at China Clinical Trials Registration Center ( www.chictr.org.cn ) ref.: ChiCTR 2,000,039,706.

Impact of intravenous and topical lidocaine on clinical outcomes in patients receiving propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of i.v. or topical lidocaine as an anaesthesia adjunct in improving clinical outcomes in patients receiving gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures under propofol sedation remains unclear.

METHODS

Electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library) were searched for RCTs comparing the clinical outcomes with or without lidocaine application (i.v. or topical) in patients receiving propofol for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures from inception to 29 March 2021. The primary outcome was propofol dosage, while secondary outcomes included procedure time, recovery time, adverse events (e.g. oxygen desaturation), post-procedural pain, and levels of endoscopist and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Twelve trials (1707 patients) published between 2011 and 2020 demonstrated that addition of i.v. (n=7) or topical (n=5) lidocaine to propofol sedation decreased the level of post-procedural pain (standardised mean difference [SMD]=-0.47, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.8 to -0.14), risks of gag events (risk ratio [RR]=0.51, 95% CI: 0.35-0.75), and involuntary movement (RR=0.4, 95% CI: 0.16-0.96). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that only i.v. lidocaine reduced propofol dosage required for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures (SMD=-0.83, 95% CI: -1.19 to -0.47), increased endoscopist satisfaction (SMD=0.75, 95% CI: 0.21-1.29), and shortened the recovery time (SMD=-0.83, 95% CI: -1.45 to -0.21). Intravenous or topical lidocaine did not affect the incidence of oxygen desaturation (RR=0.72, 95% CI: 0.41-1.24) or arterial hypotension (RR=0.6, 95% CI: 0.22-1.65) and procedure time (SMD=0.21, 95% CI: -0.09 to 0.51).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrated that i.v. or topical lidocaine appears safe to use and may be of benefit for improving propofol sedation in patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. Further large-scale trials are warranted to support our findings.

Intravenous lidocaine vs. NSAIDs for migraine attack in the ED: a prospective, randomized, double-blind study

PURPOSE

Although different forms of lidocaine are used for migraine attack headaches, the effect of intravenous lidocaine is still limited. This study aimed to investigate the effects of intravenous lidocaine infusion for the treatment of migraine attack headaches.

METHODS

A hundred patients with migraine attacks, aged between 18 and 65, were randomly divided into two groups. The lidocaine group (n = 50) received a 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine bolus and a 1 mg/kg infusion (first 30 min), followed by a 0.5 mg/kg infusion for a further 30 min intravenously. The non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) group (n = 50) received 50 mg dexketoprofen trometamol and saline at the same volume as the lidocaine at the same time intervals intravenously. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores, additional analgesia requirement, side effects, and revisits to the emergency department were recorded.

RESULTS

The VAS score was significantly lower in the lidocaine group than in the NSAID group for the first 20th and 30th minutes (p = 0.014 and p = 0.024, respectively). There was no difference between the VAS scores for the remaining evaluation times (p > 0.05). In terms of secondary outcomes, rescue medication requirement was not different between the two groups at both the 60th and 90th minutes (p > 0.05). However, the number of patients revisiting ED within 48-72 h was statistically less in the lidocaine group than in the NSAID group (1/50 vs. 8/50; p = 0.031).

CONCLUSION

Intravenous lidocaine may be an alternative treatment method for patients with migraine attack headaches in the emergency department.