The analgesic efficacy of intravenous lidocaine infusion after laparoscopic fundoplication: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Population Pharmacokinetics of Intravenous Lidocaine in Adults: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The establishment of optimal dosing regimens for intravenous (IV) lidocaine in the perioperative setting, aiming to balance effective pain relief with minimisation of potential side effects, is a topic of ongoing debate. This discussion stems from the significant variability in lidocaine's pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters and its relatively narrow safety margin. Population pharmacokinetic (popPK) modelling has emerged as a valuable tool for understanding the factors contributing to this observed variability in drug kinetics.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review compiles the existing knowledge on lidocaine's PK properties and published popPK models, with a focus on significant covariates.

METHODS

A systematic search on Cochrane CENTRAL, Medline, and EMBASE was performed from inception to June 2023. Original clinical studies that administered IV lidocaine to adults and performed PK analyses using a nonlinear mixed effects modelling approach were included. The quality of the included studies was assessed by compliance with the Clinical Pharmacokinetics (ClinPK) statement checklist.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included, which involved a diverse adult population, including both volunteers and patients with various comorbidities. Lidocaine PK was primarily characterised by a two- or three-compartment model. The volume of distribution at steady state ranged from 66 to 194 L, and the total clearance ranged from 22 to 49 L/h. Despite adjusting for significant covariates like heart failure status, alpha-1-acid glycoprotein, duration of lidocaine infusion, and body weight, each study revealed substantial variability in PK parameters. The potential impact of hepatic or renal function biomarkers on these PK parameters calls for further investigation. Incomplete reporting of key aspects of developed models may hinder the models' reliability and clinical application.

CONCLUSION

The findings emphasise the importance of tailoring drug dosage to ensure the safe and effective use of intravenous lidocaine. Optimal design methodologies may be incorporated for a more efficient identification of important covariates. Utilising contemporary model evaluation methods like visual predictive checks and bootstrapping would enhance the robustness of popPK models and the reliability of their predictions. This comprehensive review advances our understanding of lidocaine's pharmacokinetics and lays the groundwork for further research in this critical area of perioperative pain management. Review protocol registered on 25 August 2023 in PROSPERO (CRD42023441113). This work was supported by the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme, the Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia (FRGS/1/2020/SKK01/UM/02/2).

Comparison of the Effects of Dexmedetomidine and Lidocaine on Stress Response and Postoperative Delirium of Older Patients Undergoing Thoracoscopic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Purpose

We investigated the effects of intraoperative intravenous lidocaine or dexmedetomidine infusion on inflammatory factors and cognitive function in patients undergoing thoracoscopic surgery.

Patients and Methods

Patients aged >65 years undergoing elective thoracoscopic lobectomy or segmentectomy were randomly grouped as dexmedetomidine group (group D), lidocaine group (group L), and control group (group C). The plasma cortisol, interleukin-6, and tumor necrosis factor-α concentrations were measured before anesthesia (T0) and immediately (T1), 24 h (T2), and 48 h postoperatively (T3). Postoperative delirium (POD) was assessed by 3D-CAM on days 2 and 7.

Results

The cortisol concentrations decreased for all groups at T1 from T0 although they were significantly higher at T2. Group L had significantly lower interleukin-6 concentrations at T1 and T2 than the other groups (P<0.05). The interleukin-6 concentrations were significantly higher at T1, T2, and T3 than at T0 for all the groups, significantly lower for groups D and L than for group C at T1 and T2 (P<0.05), and significantly lower for group L than for group D at T2 (P<0.05). The tumor necrosis factor-α concentrations were significantly higher at T1, T2, and T3 than at T0 for all the groups and significantly lower for groups D and L than for group C at T1 and T2 (P<0.05), although they were not statistically significantly different for groups D and L. There were no statistically significant differences in the postoperative incidence of POD between the three groups on days 2 and day 7.

Conclusion

Intraoperative continuous intravenous lidocaine or dexmedetomidine infusion reduced surgical stress and inflammatory responses. The inhibitory effect of lidocaine on surgical stress remained significant for up to 24 h postoperatively without affecting patient awakening. However, the administration of either drug failed to prevent postoperative POD.

Analgesic efficacy of systemic lidocaine using lean body mass based dosing regime versus placebo in bariatric surgery: a prospective, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, single centre study

BACKGROUND

Intravenous lidocaine is used as an adjuvant analgesic agent in perioperative settings. It has been investigated in various patient populations and surgical interventions, but there are limited data on its efficacy, particularly for patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Obese patients are at high risk of postoperative respiratory complications and can be expected to benefit from anaesthetic techniques that minimise opioid administration.

METHODS

We studied administration of lidocaine hydrochloride 1% i.v. to general anaesthesia at a dose of 1.5 mg kg^-1 (lean body mass×1.28) or placebo in patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Subjects randomly assigned to each group were surveyed for 48 h after surgery for experienced pain (primary outcome), and administered opioids, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), resumption of bowel function, and length of hospital stay (secondary outcomes).

RESULTS

We recruited and randomised 140 subjects to either the lidocaine or placebo group; 137 completed the study. Subjects with pain numeric rating scale (NRS) >3 within the first 4 h postoperatively were similar in both groups (proportion of any NRS >3 within first 4 h lidocaine group: 47/68 (69%) vs placebo group: 44/69 (63%), P=0.507; within first h P=0.177, within second h P=0.513, within third h P=0.145, within fourth h P=0.510). There was no difference in maximal pain score, opioid consumption, recovery of bowel function, incidence of PONV, or length of hospital stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Lidocaine does not improve postoperative pain scores, analgesia, or any secondary outcomes in patients undergoing bariatric surgery.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03667001.

The Use of Intravenous Lidocaine in Perioperative Medicine: Anaesthetic, Analgesic and Immune-Modulatory Aspects

This narrative review provides an update on the applied pharmacology of lidocaine, its clinical scope in anaesthesia, novel concepts of analgesic and immune-modulatory effects as well as the current controversy around its use in perioperative opioid-sparing multi-modal strategies. Potential benefits of intravenous lidocaine in the context of cancer, inflammation and chronic pain are discussed against concerns of safety, toxicity and medico-legal constraints.

Intravenous Lidocaine Infusion Reduce Post-operative Pain and Length of Hospital in Elderly Patients Undergoing Surgery: Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective. It is debated wheter intravenous (IV) lidocaine improves post-operative pain and has other potential benefits in elderly patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to estimate the effect of perioperative continuous IV lidocaine in elderly patients undergoing surgery. Method. PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Embase, and CENTRAL databases (through OVID SP) were searched independently until October 10, 2020 by two authors. We included all randomized controlled trials that compared the effect of continuous IV lidocaine and any placebo or no treatment in elderly patients after surgery. Primary outcomes were length of hospital stay and post-operative pain score. Results. Eighteen studies (988 patients) were included. Meta-analysis suggested that IV lidocaine reduced the post-operative pain scores 2 hours (standardized mean difference [SMD]: −1.58, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −2.03 to −1.13), 4 hours (SMD:−1.20, 95% CI: −2.02 to −.39), 8 hours (SMD:−.82, 95% CI: −1.51 to −.13), 12 hours (SMD:−.66, 95% CI: −1.28 to −.04), and 24 hours (SMD:−.42, 95% CI: −.72 to −.12) post-operatively. Moreover, those patients given IV lidocaine had a shorter length of hospital stay (MD: −.24, 95% CI: −.71 to −.23) and required fewer opioid drugs (SMD: −.31, 95% CI: −.31 to −.01). Conclusion. The evidence suggested that IV lidocaine significantly reduced post-operative pain intensity and opioid consumption and shortened the length of hospital stay in elderly patients. IV lidocaine decreased the incidence of post-operative nausea while it could not reduce the incidence of post-operative vomiting and accelerate the recovery of gastrointestinal function.

Evaluating the Safety of Continuous Infusion Lidocaine for Postoperative Pain

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to evaluate the safety of intravenous lidocaine for postoperative pain and the impact on opioid requirements and pain scores.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective, single-arm analysis of adult patients who received intravenous lidocaine for postoperative pain from January 2016 to December 2019. Patients were excluded if they received lidocaine for any indication other than pain or if lidocaine was only given intraoperatively. The primary outcome of this analysis was to determine the incidence of adverse effects (AEs) and the reason for discontinuation of lidocaine. Secondary outcomes included median daily pain scores (visual analog scale and Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool) and opioid consumption (daily morphine milligram equivalents) 24 hours before infusion and during day 1.

RESULTS

A total of 452 patients were evaluated of which 298 (65.9%) patients met inclusion criteria. Of the 154 patients excluded, 153 did not receive lidocaine postoperatively. The median duration of infusion was 34 [20:48] hours with a median initial and maintenance rate of 1 mg/kg/h dosed on ideal body weight. In our analysis, 174 (58.4%) patients had a documented AE during infusion and 38 (12.8%) had lidocaine discontinued because of an AE. The most common AE was nausea in 62 (20.8%) patients and the most common reason for discontinuation was confusion in 8 (2.7%) patients. Daily morphine milligram equivalents (P<0.001) and visual analog scale (P<0.001) significantly decreased when comparing 24 hours before infusion and day 1.

CONCLUSION

Although a majority of patients receiving lidocaine for postoperative pain experienced an AE, this did not result in discontinuation in most patients.

Intravenous Lignocaine-Fentanyl Versus Epidural Ropivacaine-Fentanyl for Postoperative Analgesia After Major Abdominal Oncosurgery: A Pilot Prospective Randomised Study

OBJECTIVE

Epidural injection of local anaesthetics and intravenous opioid injection are two common analgesic strategies following major abdominal oncosurgery. However, epidural local anaesthetics may cause haemodynamic instability while opioid injection is associated with sedation and postoperative ileus. Intravenous lignocaine is also used for postoperative analgesia, and combined use of opioids plus lignocaine can reduce the doses and adverse effects of the individual drugs. This study therefore compared the analgesic efficacy of intravenous lignocaine-fentanyl (IV) to epidural ropivacaine-fentanyl (EPI) after major abdominal oncosurgery.

METHODS

Sixty patients were randomised to IV and EPI groups. Patients in the IV group received preoperative intravenous bolus injections of lignocaine 1.5 mg kg^-1 and fentanyl 0.5 μg kg^-1, intraoperative infusions of lignocaine 1 mg kg^-1 h^-1 and fentanyl 0.5 μg kg^-1 h^-1, and postoperative infusions of lignocaine 0.5 mg kg^-1 h^-1 and fentanyl 0.25 μg kg^-1 h^-1. In the EPI group, patients received a 6-ml epidural bolus injection of ropivacaine 0.2% plus fentanyl 2 μg mL^-1, intraoperative infusion of 5 mL·h^-1 fentanyl and postoperative ropivacaine 0.1% plus fentanyl 1 μg mL^-1 infusion at 5 mL h^-1. All patients also received postoperative patient-controlled IV fentanyl as rescue analgesia. Patient-controlled fentanyl consumption was documented as the primary outcome for postoperative analgesic efficacy. Results were compared by Mann-Whitney U-test and Student's t-test using Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) software.

RESULTS

Median (min-max) rescue fentanyl requirement in the first 24 h postsurgery was comparable between IV and EPI groups [780 (340-2520) μg vs. 820 (140-2260) μg; p=0.6], as was postoperative pain score (p>0.05). The incidence of intraoperative hypotension requiring bolus mephenteramine injection was significantly higher in the EPI group than the IV group (36% vs. 17%; p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Intravenous lignocaine-fentanyl and epidural ropivacaine-fentanyl have comparable postoperative analgesic efficacies after major open abdominal oncosurgery.

The use of intravenous lidocaine for postoperative pain and recovery: international consensus statement on efficacy and safety

Intravenous lidocaine is used widely for its effect on postoperative pain and recovery but it can be, and has been, fatal when used inappropriately and incorrectly. The risk-benefit ratio of i.v. lidocaine varies with type of surgery and with patient factors such as comorbidity (including pre-existing chronic pain). This consensus statement aims to address three questions. First, does i.v. lidocaine effectively reduce postoperative pain and facilitate recovery? Second, is i.v. lidocaine safe? Third, does the fact that i.v. lidocaine is not licensed for this indication affect its use? We suggest that i.v. lidocaine should be regarded as a 'high-risk' medicine. Individual anaesthetists may feel that, in selected patients, i.v. lidocaine may be beneficial as part of a multimodal peri-operative pain management strategy. This approach should be approved by hospital medication governance systems, and the individual clinical decision should be made with properly informed consent from the patient concerned. If i.v. lidocaine is used, we recommend an initial dose of no more than 1.5 mg.kg^-1 , calculated using the patient's ideal body weight and given as an infusion over 10 min. Thereafter, an infusion of no more than 1.5 mg.kg^-1 .h^-1 for no longer than 24 h is recommended, subject to review and re-assessment. Intravenous lidocaine should not be used at the same time as, or within the period of action of, other local anaesthetic interventions. This includes not starting i.v. lidocaine within 4 h after any nerve block, and not performing any nerve block until 4 h after discontinuing an i.v. lidocaine infusion.

Comparison of antinociceptive effects of plain lidocaine versus lidocaine complexed with hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin in animal models of acute and persistent orofacial pain

Herein, it was investigated whether a complex of lidocaine with 2-hydroxypropyl-β-cyclodextrin (HP-β-CD) would present a better antinociceptive profile in vivo when compared with plain lidocaine in models of orofacial pain. Plain lidocaine (LDC) and complexed lidocaine (LDC:HP-β-CD) were initially evaluated in vitro to determine the release rate of the two formulations. Subsequently, the effect of both formulations was evaluated in independent groups of rats submitted to the orofacial formalin test, induction of facial heat hyperalgesia by capsaicin and carrageenan, and induction of facial heat and mechanical hyperalgesia by constriction of the infraorbital nerve. LDC:HP-β-CD led to a reduction in the lidocaine release assessed in the in vitro release assay compared to plain LDC. Both formulations presented an antinociceptive effect in all models, but LDC:HP-β-CD showed a better effect in the second phase of the formalin response, in carrageenan-induced heat hyperalgesia, and in the heat hyperalgesia associated to infraorbital nerve constriction. Our results show that complexation improved in vivo antinociceptive effects of LDC, but further studies are necessary to elucidate what properties contribute to the better effect of the complexed formulation on this models and/or what characteristics of the pain model facilitate the action of the complexed formulation.

Continuous intravenous perioperative lidocaine infusion for postoperative pain and recovery in adults

BACKGROUND

The management of postoperative pain and recovery is still unsatisfactory in a number of cases in clinical practice. Opioids used for postoperative analgesia are frequently associated with adverse effects, including nausea and constipation, preventing smooth postoperative recovery. Not all patients are suitable for, and benefit from, epidural analgesia that is used to improve postoperative recovery. The non-opioid, lidocaine, was investigated in several studies for its use in multimodal management strategies to reduce postoperative pain and enhance recovery. This review was published in 2015 and updated in January 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (benefits and risks) of perioperative intravenous (IV) lidocaine infusion compared to placebo/no treatment or compared to epidural analgesia on postoperative pain and recovery in adults undergoing various surgical procedures.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and reference lists of articles in January 2017. We searched one trial registry contacted researchers in the field, and handsearched journals and congress proceedings. We updated this search in February 2018, but have not yet incorporated these results into the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of continuous perioperative IV lidocaine infusion either with placebo, or no treatment, or with thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) in adults undergoing elective or urgent surgery under general anaesthesia. The IV lidocaine infusion must have been started intraoperatively, prior to incision, and continued at least until the end of surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used Cochrane's standard methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were: pain score at rest; gastrointestinal recovery and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included: postoperative nausea and postoperative opioid consumption. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 new trials in the update. In total, the review included 68 trials (4525 randomized participants). Two trials compared IV lidocaine with TEA. In all remaining trials, placebo or no treatment was used as a comparator. Trials involved participants undergoing open abdominal (22), laparoscopic abdominal (20), or various other surgical procedures (26). The application scheme of systemic lidocaine strongly varies between the studies related to both dose (1 mg/kg/h to 5 mg/kg/h) and termination of the infusion (from the end of surgery until several days after).The risk of bias was low with respect to selection bias (random sequence generation), performance bias, attrition bias, and detection bias in more than 50% of the included studies. For allocation concealment and selective reporting, the quality assessment yielded low risk of bias for only approximately 20% of the included studies.IV Lidocaine compared to placebo or no treatment We are uncertain whether IV lidocaine improves postoperative pain compared to placebo or no treatment at early time points (1 to 4 hours) (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.72 to -0.28; 29 studies, 1656 participants; very low-quality evidence) after surgery. Due to variation in the standard deviation (SD) in the studies, this would equate to an average pain reduction of between 0.37 cm and 2.48 cm on a 0 to 10 cm visual analogue scale . Assuming approximately 1 cm on a 0 to 10 cm pain scale is clinically meaningful, we ruled out a clinically relevant reduction in pain with lidocaine at intermediate (24 hours) (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.04; 33 studies, 1847 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and at late time points (48 hours) (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.04; 24 studies, 1404 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Due to variation in the SD in the studies, this would equate to an average pain reduction of between 0.10 cm to 0.48 cm at 24 hours and 0.08 cm to 0.42 cm at 48 hours. In contrast to the original review in 2015, we did not find any significant subgroup differences for different surgical procedures.We are uncertain whether lidocaine reduces the risk of ileus (risk ratio (RR) 0.37, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.87; 4 studies, 273 participants), time to first defaecation/bowel movement (mean difference (MD) -7.92 hours, 95% CI -12.71 to -3.13; 12 studies, 684 participants), risk of postoperative nausea (overall, i.e. 0 up to 72 hours) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.91; 35 studies, 1903 participants), and opioid consumption (overall) (MD -4.52 mg morphine equivalents , 95% CI -6.25 to -2.79; 40 studies, 2201 participants); quality of evidence was very low for all these outcomes.The effect of IV lidocaine on adverse effects compared to placebo treatment is uncertain, as only a small number of studies systematically analysed the occurrence of adverse effects (very low-quality evidence).IV Lidocaine compared to TEAThe effects of IV lidocaine compared with TEA are unclear (pain at 24 hours (MD 1.51, 95% CI -0.29 to 3.32; 2 studies, 102 participants), pain at 48 hours (MD 0.98, 95% CI -1.19 to 3.16; 2 studies, 102 participants), time to first bowel movement (MD -1.66, 95% CI -10.88 to 7.56; 2 studies, 102 participants); all very low-quality evidence). The risk for ileus and for postoperative nausea (overall) is also unclear, as only one small trial assessed these outcomes (very low-quality evidence). No trial assessed the outcomes, 'pain at early time points' and 'opioid consumption (overall)'. The effect of IV lidocaine on adverse effects compared to TEA is uncertain (very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain whether IV perioperative lidocaine, when compared to placebo or no treatment, has a beneficial impact on pain scores in the early postoperative phase, and on gastrointestinal recovery, postoperative nausea, and opioid consumption. The quality of evidence was limited due to inconsistency, imprecision, and study quality. Lidocaine probably has no clinically relevant effect on pain scores later than 24 hours. Few studies have systematically assessed the incidence of adverse effects. There is a lack of evidence about the effects of IV lidocaine compared with epidural anaesthesia in terms of the optimal dose and timing (including the duration) of the administration. We identified three ongoing studies, and 18 studies are awaiting classification; the results of the review may change when these studies are published and included in the review.