Cisatracurium pretreatment with tourniquet reduces propofol injection pain: a double-blind randomized controlled trial

Median Effective Dose of Lidocaine for the Prevention of Pain Caused by the Injection of Propofol Formulated with Medium- and Long-Chain Triglycerides Based on Lean Body Weight

OBJECTIVE

To determine the median effective dose (ED50) of prophylactic intravenous lidocaine for the prevention of propofol medium-chain triglyceride/long-chain triglyceride (MCT/LCT) emulsion injection pain.

DESIGN

Prospective trial, Dixon up-and-down sequential method.

SETTING

Operating room of a single hospital.

PATIENTS

Thirty patients aged 18-65 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status I or II who were scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia (GA) were included.

INTERVENTIONS

The initial dose of prophylactic lidocaine before propofol MCT/LCT emulsion injection was set at 0.5 mg/kg lean body weight (LBW). The lidocaine dose was adjusted according to the degree of patients' injection pain using the Dixon up-and-down sequential method.

MEASUREMENTS

The ED50 and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of lidocaine were calculated using the Dixon-Massey formula. Vital signs and adverse effects were recorded. In the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), patients were asked if they recalled feeling any injection pain with visual analog scale (VAS) evaluation.

RESULTS

The ED50 of lidocaine for the prevention of propofol MCT/LCT emulsion injection pain was 0.306 mg/kg LBW (95% CI, 0.262-0.357 mg/kg LBW). No adverse reactions to lidocaine occurred. In the PACU, 90.9% of patients who experienced injection pain recalled this pain (VAS score, 2.8±1.8).

CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic intravenous lidocaine (0.306 mg/kg LBW) effectively prevented propofol MCT/LCT emulsion injection pain in 50% of patients scheduled for elective surgery under GA with no adverse reaction occurring.

Pharmacological control of pain during propofol injection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

A research was performed to review the effect of pharmacological interventions to control the propofol injection pain.

METHODS

A search of databases was performed. Randomized clinical trials comparing pharmacological interventions with placebo or active compound to reduce of propofol injection pain were selected. The outcome was the frequency of pain. Data were analyzed in three subgroups according to type of control. Random effect model was used to calculate relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Fifty-two articles with 105 studies on 7315 adults were included. The incidence of pain in intervention and control group was 40.91% and 66.27%. Combination therapy with two drugs (RR = 0.29 95% CI = (0.11, 0.75)), opioids (RR = 0.39 95% CI = (0.28, 0.54)) and 5 HT3 antagonists (RR = 0.39 95% CI = (0.30, 0.50)) were the most effective interventions compared to placebo. Combination therapy was the most effective intervention compared to lidocaine as control (RR = 0.51 95% CI = (0.46, 0.55)). Opioids were the most effective intervention compared to long chain triglyceride propofol as control (RR = 0.27 95% CI = (0.15, 0.49)).

CONCLUSION

Pretreatment with two different drugs, opioids and surprisingly 5 HT3 antagonists were the most effective interventions compared to placebo. Combination therapy was the most effective versus lidocaine as control.

Onset and duration of cis-atracurium neuromuscular block during fentanyl and lidocaine infusions in isoflurane-anaesthetised dogs

BACKGROUND

This retrospective study assessed the onset and duration of the neuromuscular block (NMB) induced by cis-atracurium 0.15 mg/kg intravenously with and without fentanyl or lidocaine infusions in 45 isoflurane-anaesthetised dogs.

METHODS

Dogs with neuromuscular function assessed by a calibrated train-of-four (TOF) monitor with stimulation (every 13 s) of the peroneal nerve were included. The onset and duration of the NMB were defined as the time from cis-atracurium administration until TOF=0 and the time during TOF=0 display, respectively.

RESULTS

The NMB onset was shorter during fentanyl (mean±sd) (1.9±0.7 minutes; P=0.0042) and lidocaine (2.0±0.7 minutes; P=0.0154) compared with control (2.9±0.8 minutes). The NMB duration was shorter in the fentanyl (27.5±7.3 minutes; P=0.0491), but not in the lidocaine group (32.3±6.9 minutes; P=0.0790), compared with control (33.7±9.1 minutes). The NMB onset was poorly but significantly correlated with the dose of fentanyl and lidocaine administered before cis-atracurium (r=-0.3396; P=0.0225). The fentanyl and lidocaine groups received more crystalloid and colloid boluses than the control.

CONCLUSIONS

Fentanyl and lidocaine shortened the NMB onset and the former decreased the NMB duration. Further prospective studies are required to clarify whether this was associated with an indirect decrease in blood pressure or a direct interaction between cis-atracurium and fentanyl and lidocaine.

Intravenous Lidocaine Alleviates the Pain of Propofol Injection by Local Anesthetic and Central Analgesic Effects

Objective

Lidocaine alleviates propofol injection pain. However, whether lidocaine works through a local anesthetic effect at the site of intravenous injection or through a systemic effect on the central nervous system remains unknown. This study aimed to determine the pain-alleviating mechanism of lidocaine.

Design

A randomized controlled study.

Setting

A gastroscopy facility.

Methods

The study was divided into two parts. Part 1 involved 717 patients who were randomly assigned into five groups. Groups PR, RL20, and RL40 received normal saline or saline containing 20 or 40 mg of lidocaine, injected via the vein on the right hand. Groups LL20 and LL40 received 20 or 40 mg of lidocaine, injected via the vein on the left hand. Part 2 involved 378 patients who were randomly assigned into five groups. Groups RL40, RL1.2, and RL1.5 received 40 mg, 1.2 mg/kg, and 1.5 mg/kg of lidocaine, injected via the vein on the right hand. Groups LL1.2 and LL1.5 received 1.2 or 1.5 mg/kg of lidocaine, injected via the vein on the left hand. All received 2 mg/kg of propofol via the vein on the right hand two minutes later. Injection pain and patient satisfaction were recorded.

Results

The incidence of pain of group RL40 was lower than that of group PR. The incidence of pain of group LL1.2 was higher than that of other groups.

Conclusions

A dosage of 40 mg lidocaine is an appropriate dosage to alleviate propofol injection pain within the same vein. Lidocaine reduces propofol injection pain through both a local anesthetic effect and a central analgesic effect when the dosage reaches 1.5 mg/kg.

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.

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.

Multiple comparisons with two controls for ordered categorical responses

In clinical studies, ordered categorical responses are common. To compare the efficacy of several treatments with a control for ordinal responses, the normal latent variable model has recently been proposed. This approach conceptualizes the responses as manifestations of an underlying continuous normal variable. In this article, we extend this idea to develop the multiple comparison method for use when there are two controls in the clinical trial. The proposed method is constructed such that the familywise type I error rate is controlled at a prespecified level. In addition, for a given level of test power, the procedure to evaluate the required sample size is provided. The proposed testing procedure is also illustrated by an example from a clinical study.