The effect of intravenous dexamethasone and lidocaine on propofol-induced vascular pain: a randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled trial

Comparison of Intravenous Ondansetron and Dexamethasone for Preventing Propofol-Induced Pain During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Double-Blind, Randomized Study

Background Propofol is the most common induction agent used in current anesthesia practice. Patients receiving propofol injections commonly experience varying degrees of pain, creating an unpleasant anesthesia experience. Methods Seventy-two patients, aged between 18 and 70, scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy under general anesthesia were randomized into two groups. Group D received 8 mg of dexamethasone, and Group O received 8 mg of ondansetron intravenously before induction. After five seconds, mid-arm venous occlusion was applied for one minute using a tourniquet. Propofol (0.5 mg/kg) was administered intravenously over five seconds, and patients rated the injection pain over the next 15 seconds. The primary outcome was pain intensity using the Verbal Rating Scale during propofol injection. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative hemodynamic changes and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Normally distributed variables were compared using the Student's t-test, non-normally distributed variables using the Mann-Whitney U-test, and qualitative data using the chi-square or Fisher's exact test. Statistical significance for the study was set at p < 0.05. Results In Group D, 30 out of 36 patients (83.3%) experienced no pain, while four patients (11.1%) reported mild pain, two patients (5.6%) reported moderate pain, and no patients (0.0%) reported severe pain. In contrast, in Group O, only 15 out of 36 patients (41.6%) experienced no pain, with 12 patients (33.3%) experiencing mild pain, seven patients (19.4%) experiencing moderate pain, and two patients (5.6%) experiencing severe pain. Overall, six out of 36 patients in Group D (16.7%) experienced some level of pain, compared to 21 out of 36 patients in Group O (58.3%), a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05). Regarding postoperative nausea, 16 out of 36 patients in Group Dexamethasone (44.44%) experienced nausea, whereas 23 out of 36 patients in Group Ondansetron (63.88%) reported this symptom, with the difference being statistically significant (p = 0.0372). Additionally, postoperative vomiting occurred in nine out of 36 patients in Group Dexamethasone (25%), compared to 18 out of 36 patients in Group Ondansetron (50%), with this difference also reaching statistical significance (p= 0.026). Conclusions Intravenous dexamethasone before propofol administration reduces injection pain and PONV in laparoscopic cholecystectomy more effectively as compared to ondansetron.

Prevention of pain on injection of propofol using ice gel pack versus pre-treatment with lignocaine: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Regardless of the positive attributes of propofol, it is frequently associated with pain on injection. We compared the efficacy of topical cold thermotherapy using an ice gel pack with intravenous lignocaine pre-treatment for reducing pain on propofol injection.

METHODS

This single-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted in 200 American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I, II, and III patients scheduled for elective/emergency surgery under general anesthesia. The patients were randomized into two groups: the Thermotherapy group- receiving an ice gel pack proximal to the intravenous cannula for 1 min, or the Lignocaine group-receiving 0.5 mg/kg of lignocaine administered intravenously, with occlusion proximal to the site of the intravenous cannula for 30 s. The primary objective was to compare the overall incidence of pain after propofol injection. The secondary objectives included the incidence of discomfort on the application of an ice gel pack, comparison of dose of propofol needed for induction, and hemodynamic changes at induction, between the two groups.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients in the lignocaine group and 15 patients in the thermotherapy group reported pain. The incidence of pain and the distribution of pain scores were comparable among groups (p = 1.00). Patients of the lignocaine group required significantly less amount of propofol for induction as compared to the thermotherapy group (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Topical thermotherapy using an ice gel pack was not found superior to lignocaine pre-treatment in alleviating pain on injection of propofol injection. However, topical cold therapy using an ice pack remains a non-pharmacological technique that is easily available, reproducible, and cost-effective. Further studies are required to prove its equivalence to lignocaine pre-treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CTRI (CTRI/2021/04/032950).

Drug Interaction between Dexamethasone and Ketoprofen with Thiopental in Male Dogs: Effect on the Recovery from Anesthesia and Pharmacokinetics Parameters

Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) are an important part of clinical veterinary pharmacology. Forty-two healthy mixed breed male dogs were randomly divided into three groups. The control group (C) received normal saline (1 mg/kg) 5 minutes before intravenous administration of thiopental (17 mg/kg), the T1 group received ketoprofen (2.2 mg/kg), and the T2 group received dexamethasone (0.2 mg/kg) 5 minutes before thiopental, respectively. Clinical parameters of anesthesia, heart rate, respiration rate, and electrocardiography were measured. Serum samples were also used to assay thiopental concentration using the high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method, and then, thiopental pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated. Changes in the heart rate and respiration were significant intragroup differences 5 and 10 minutes after anesthesia, respectively. Recovery time parameters showed a significant increase between T1 and control groups (P < 0.05). Elimination rate and half-life of thiopental in the T1 group compared to the control and T2 groups showed a significant decrease and increase, respectively. In addition, the distribution of thiopental in T1 showed a significant increase compared to other groups. However, thiopental clearance in T1 and T2 groups had no significant difference with control (P > 0.05). It can be concluded that drug interaction between ketoprofen and thiopental causes to change in the pharmacokinetics parameters and recovery time from anesthesia in comparison with dexamethasone.

Intravenous Dexmedetomidine Administration Prior Anesthesia Induction With Propofol at 4°C Attenuates Propofol Injection Pain: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Background: Propofol injection pain, despite various interventions, still occurs during the anesthesia induction and causes intense discomfort and anxiety in patients. This study aimed to explore the effect of intravenous dexmedetomidine on propofol injection pain prior to anesthesia induction with propofol at 4°C.

Methods: A total of 251 patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists I–II) who underwent oral and maxillofacial surgery were randomly assigned to a combination group (n = 63), lidocaine group (n = 62), dexmedetomidine group (n = 63), and placebo-control group (n = 63); they received 0.5 ug/kg dexmedetomidine prior to anesthesia induction with propofol at 4°C, 40 mg lidocaine, 0.5 ug/kg dexmedetomidine prior to anesthesia induction, and normal saline, respectively. Incidence of pain, pain intensity, and reaction to the pain stimulus were evaluated by using verbal categorial scoring (VCS), a numerical rating scale (NRS), and the Surgical Pleth Index (SPI), respectively. In addition, hemodynamic parameters such as heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were also measured. The VCS and NRS were evaluated at 5 s after propofol injection. In addition, SPI, HR, and MAP were evaluated at three time points (before anesthesia induction and 5 and 30 s after propofol injection).

Results: The incidence of pain in the combination group (51%) was significantly lower than that in the lidocaine group (71%), dexmedetomidine group (67%), or placebo-control group (94%) (p < 0.001). VCS and NRS scores in the combination group were also lower compared with the other three groups (p < 0.001), with no statistically significant differences between the lidocaine group and dexmedetomidine group (p > 0.05). The SPI of the combination group decreased significantly in comparison with the other three groups at 5 s after propofol injection (F = 96.23, p < 0.001) and 30 s after propofol injection (F = 4.46, p = 0.005). Further comparisons between HR and MAP revealed no significant differences across the groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusion: Because of the sedative nature of dexmedetomidine and analgesic effect of low temperature, this study showed that intravenous dexmedetomidine prior to anesthesia induction with propofol at 4°C is highly effective in attenuating the incidence and severity of pain during injection compared with lidocaine (40 mg), dexmedetomidine 0.5 ug/kg) and placebo. This approach was not associated with any anesthesia complications.

Clinical Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: ChiCTR-2000034663

Comparison the Effect of Granisetron and Dexamethasone on Intravenous Propofol Pain

Background:

The incidence of propofol injection pain during induction of general anesthesia varies from 28% to 90%. This prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluated the effect of dexamethasone and granisetron for reducing the incidence and severity of propofol injection pain.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 227 female subjects received 5 mL of preservative-free saline, 1 mg granisetron (5 ml), or 0.15 mg/kg of dexamethasone (5 ml), intravenously, following exsanguination and occlusion of the veins of the arm. This was followed by a 0.5 mg/kg injection of propofol. Pain scores and intensity of pain recorded immediately following the injection of propofol. Hemodynamic parameters and O₂ sat were recorded 1, 3, 5, and 10 min after propofol injection.

Results:

The incidence pain following the injection of propofol was significantly decreased with both granisetron and dexamethasone (50.7% and 49.4%). Mean pain score in granisetron group was 3.16 ± 1.23, dexamethasone was 2.73 ± 1.03, and in saline group was 4.82 ± 1.73 (P = 0.001). Mean pain intensity in granisetron group was 1.16 ± 0.18, dexamethasone was 1.26 ± 0.14, and in saline group was 2.2 ± 0.99 (P = 0.001). There were no differences in either mean arterial pressure or O₂ Sate at any time point after drugs injection among the groups. There was a significant difference in pulse rate in third minutes between three groups and in the group who received granisetron was lesser (P = 0.04).

Conclusion:

Pretreatment with intravenous granisetron (1 mg) and dexamethasone (0.15 mg/kg) before injection of propofol is effective and safe in reducing the incidence and severity of pain due to propofol injection.

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.

Efficacy of methylprednisolone and lignocaine on propofol injection pain: A randomised, double-blind, prospective study in adult cardiac surgical patients

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Propofol (2, 6-di-isopropylphenol) used for the induction of anaesthesia often causes mild to severe pain or discomfort on injection. We designed this double-blind study to compare the efficacy of methylprednisolone and lignocaine in reducing the pain of propofol injection in patients scheduled for cardiac surgery.

METHODS

A total of 165 adult patients, scheduled for elective cardiac surgery, were divided into three groups: saline (group S, n = 55), lignocaine 20 mg (Group L, n = 55) and methylprednisolone 125 mg diluted into 2 ml of distilled water (Group MP, n = 55). Drugs were administered after tourniquet application and occlusion was released after 1 min and 1/4^th of the total dose of propofol (2 mg/kg) was administered at the rate of 0.5 ml/s. Pain on propofol injection was evaluated by four-point verbal rating scale. Statistical methods used included Student's t-test and Chi-square test/Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

The overall incidence of pain was 70.9% in the saline group, 30.9% in the lignocaine group and 36.4% in the methylprednisolone group. The intensity of pain was significantly less in patients receiving methylprednisolone and lignocaine than those receiving saline (P < 0.012).

CONCLUSION

Pre-treatment with intravenous methylprednisolone was found to be as effective as lignocaine in reducing propofol injection-induced pain.