Therapeutic efficacy of intravenous lidocaine infusion compared with thoracic epidural analgesia in major abdominal surgery: a noninferiority randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Open major abdominal surgery is one of the most risky surgical procedures for acute postoperative pain. Thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) has been considered the standard analgesic approach. In different reports, lidocaine i.v. has been shown to have an analgesic efficacy comparable with TEA. We compared the analgesic efficacy of i.v. lidocaine with thoracic epidural analgesia using bupivacaine in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery.

METHODS

In this noninferiority clinical trial, 210 patients were randomised to thoracic epidural bupivacaine with morphine or i.v. lidocaine. Dynamic pain at 24 h after surgery was measured using a numerical pain rating scale (NPR), and morphine consumption was also measured. A difference in i.v. the lidocaine-epidural bupivacaine NPR of ≤1 for dynamic pain was considered a noninferiority margin.

RESULTS

The NPR for dynamic pain in the lidocaine group at 24 h was between 5.7 (1.8) and 5.2 (1.9) in the epidural group, with a difference of 0.53 (95% confidence interval 0.0-1.0). In the first 24 h, the average difference in morphine consumption was 1.8 mg between the i.v. lidocaine and epidural groups (95% confidence interval 1-3 mg). No differences were found in adverse events or complications associated with the procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous lidocaine is noninferior to thoracic epidural analgesia for acute postoperative pain control in major abdomial surgery at 24 h postoperatively.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT04017013.

A single infusion of intravenous lidocaine for primary headaches and trigeminal neuralgia: a retrospective analysis

Introduction

Intravenous (IV) lidocaine has been used as a transitional treatment in headache and facial pain conditions, typically as an inpatient infusion over several days, which is costly and may increase the risk of adverse effects. Here we report on our experience using a single one-hour IV lidocaine infusion in an outpatient day-case setting for the management of refractory primary headache disorders with facial pain and trigeminal neuralgia.

Methods

This is a retrospective, single-center analysis on patients with medically refractory headache with facial pain and trigeminal neuralgia who were treated with IV lidocaine between March 2018 and July 2022. Lidocaine 5 mg.kg-1 in 60 mL saline was administered over 1 h, followed by an observation period of 30 min. Patients were considered responders if they reported reduction in pain intensity and/or headache frequency of 50% or greater. Duration of response was defined as short-term (< 2 weeks), medium-term (2-4 weeks) and long-term (> 4 weeks).

Results

Forty infusions were administered to 15 patients with trigeminal autonomic cephalalgias (n = 9), chronic migraine (n = 3) and trigeminal neuralgia (n = 3). Twelve patients were considered responders (80%), eight of whom were complete responders (100% pain freedom). The average duration of the treatment effect for each participant was 9.5 weeks (range 1-22 weeks). Six out of 15 patients reported mild and self-limiting side effects (40%).

Conclusion

A single infusion of IV lidocaine might be an effective and safe transitional treatment in refractory headache conditions with facial pain and trigeminal neuralgia. The sustained effect of repeated treatment cycles in some patients may suggest a role as long-term preventive therapy in some patients.

A protocol for a pilot study to assess the feasibility of a randomised clinical trial of perioperative intravenous lidocaine on colorectal cancer outcome after surgery (FLICOR trial)

Background

Cancer recurrence after curative cancer surgery significantly impacts patients and healthcare services. Before surgery, a small number of clinically undetectable circulating tumour cells are often present. The surgical stress response promotes the distribution and proliferation of circulating tumour cells leading to cancer recurrence and metastasis. Preclinical evidence suggests that lidocaine may exert 'anti-cancer' effects and alleviate pro-metastatic environments. The Feasibility Study of Lidocaine Infusion During Bowel Cancer Surgery for Cancer Outcome (FLICOR) will assess the feasibility of conducting a clinical trial on perioperative intravenous lidocaine infusion for postoperative colorectal cancer outcomes.

Methods

The study is a double-blinded, randomised, controlled pilot study for a full trial comparing intravenous lidocaine administration at 1.5 mg kg^-1 bolus followed by 1.5 mg kg^-1 h^-1 infusion for 24 h with placebo in patients undergoing minimally invasive (laparoscopy or robotic) colorectal cancer surgery. The feasibility of data collection instruments will be measured, including those for future economic evaluation and clinical and patient-reported outcomes. For the exploratory outcomes, blood samples will be collected before and after surgery on days 0, 1, and 3. Recruitment is planned for two NHS Trusts over 6 months with a 12-month follow-up. Patients and clinicians will be asked for their feedback on the study process.

Dissemination plan

Study data will be disseminated to trial participants, the public, and academic communities. The work will be presented at national and international conferences to stimulate interest and enthusiasm for centres to participate in the future definitive trial. This research will also be published in peer-reviewed open-access journals.

Clinical trial registration

ISRCTN29594895 (ISRCTN), NCT05250791 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Protocol version number and date

3.0, February 8, 2023.

Efficacy of prolonged intravenous lidocaine infusion for postoperative movement-evoked pain following hepatectomy: a double-blinded, randomised, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The analgesic effect of intravenous lidocaine varies with the duration of lidocaine infusion and surgery type. We tested the hypothesis that prolonged lidocaine infusion alleviates postoperative pain in patients recovering from hepatectomy over the first 3 postoperative days.

METHODS

Patients undergoing elective hepatectomy were randomly assigned to receive prolonged i.v. lidocaine treatment or placebo. The primary outcome was incidence of moderate-to-severe movement-evoked pain at 24 h postoperatively. The secondary outcomes included incidence of moderate-to-severe pain during movement and at rest throughout the first 3 postoperative days, postoperative opioid consumption, and pulmonary complications. Plasma lidocaine concentration was also monitored.

RESULTS

We enrolled 260 subjects. Intravenous lidocaine lowered the incidence of moderate-to-severe movement-evoked pain at 24 h and 48 h postoperatively (47.7% vs 67.7%, P=0.001; 38.5% vs 58.5%, P=0.001) and reduced movement-evoked pain scores (3.7 [1.7] vs 4.2 [1.6]; mean difference 0.5 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.1-0.9]; P=0.018) and morphine equivalent consumption (47.2 [16.7] mg vs 52.6 [19.2] mg; mean difference 5.4 mg [95% CI: 1.0-9.8]; P=0.016) at 24 h postoperatively. Lidocaine also lowered the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications (23.1% vs 38.5%; P=0.007). Median plasma lidocaine concentrations were 1.5, 1.9, and 1.1 μg ml^-1 (inter-quartile ranges: 1.1-2.1, 1.4-2.6, and 0.8-1.6, respectively) after bolus injection, at the end of the surgery, and 24 h postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

Prolonged intravenous lidocaine infusion reduced the incidence of moderate-to-severe movement-evoked pain for 48 h after hepatectomy. However, the reduction in pain scores and opioid consumption by lidocaine was below the minimal clinically important difference.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04295330.

Evaluation of continuous intravenous lidocaine on brain relaxation, intraoperative opioid consumption, and surgeon's satisfaction in adult patients undergoing craniotomy tumor surgery: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

In craniotomy tumor removal, brain relaxation after dura opening is essential. Lidocaine is known to have analgesic and antiinflammatory effects. It is excellent in decreasing cerebral metabolic rate of oxygen, cerebral blood flow, and cerebral blood volume; and can potentially reduce intracranial pressure, resulting in exceptional brain relaxation after dura opening. However, no study has examined continuous intravenous lidocaine infusion on brain relaxation, intraoperative opioid consumption and surgeon's satisfaction in adult patients undergoing craniotomy tumor removal.

METHODS

A total of 60 subjects scheduled for craniotomy tumor removal were enrolled in a double-blind, randomized controlled trial with consecutive sampling. Patients received either an intravenous bolus of lidocaine (2%) 1.5 mg/kg before induction followed by 2 mg/kg/h continuous infusion up to skin closure (lidocaine group) or placebo with similar volume (NaCl 0.9%). Neurosurgeons evaluated brain relaxation and surgeon's satisfaction with a 4-point scale, total intraoperative opioid consumption was recorded in μg and μg/kg/min.

RESULTS

All sixty subjects were included in the study. Lidocaine group showed better brain relaxation after dura opening (96.7% vs 70%; lidocaine vs placebo, P < .006), less intraoperative fentanyl consumption (369.2 μg vs 773.0 μg; P < .001, .0107 vs .0241 μg/kg/min; lidocaine vs placebo, P < .001). Higher surgeon's satisfaction was found in lidocaine group (96.7% vs 70%, P = .006). No side effects were observed during this study.

CONCLUSIONS

Continuous lidocaine intravenous infusion improves brain relaxation after dura opening, and decreases intraoperative opioid consumption, with good surgeon satisfaction in adult patients undergoing craniotomy tumor removal.

Efficacy of Perioperative Continuous Intravenous Lidocaine Infusion for 72 Hours on Postoperative Pain and Recovery in Patients Undergoing Hepatectomy: Study Protocol for a Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Purpose

Many patients develop severe and persistent pain after hepatectomy delaying postoperative rehabilitation. Studies have suggested that intravenous lidocaine infusion relieved postoperative pain and improved overall postoperative outcomes. However, its efficacy on hepatectomy is still masked, due to the postoperative metabolic change of lidocaine by the liver. We hypothesized that intravenous lidocaine infusion in the perioperative period would lead to postoperative pain reduction and improve the overall patient experience.

Study Design and Methods

In this prospective double-blind, randomized controlled design trial, 260 adults scheduled for hepatectomy will be allocated to the lidocaine and the placebo groups. The lidocaine group will be administered lidocaine intravenously during intraoperative period and 72 postoperative hours; the placebo group will be administered normal saline at the same volume, infusion rate, and timing. The primary outcome is the incidence of moderate-severe pain (numeric rating scale ≥4) during movement at 24 hours after surgery. The secondary outcomes include the incidence of moderate-severe pain at 24 hours after surgery at rest, the incidence of moderate-severe pain at 48 and 72 hours after surgery at rest and during movement, the cumulative morphine consumption at 24, 48 and 72 hours postoperatively, bowel function recovery, the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications, the length of hospital stay, levels of inflammatory factors and patient satisfaction scores.

Discussion

This is the first prospective trial to shed light on the efficacy of intraoperative period and 72 postoperative hours intravenous lidocaine on postoperative pain and recovery after hepatectomy. The findings will provide a new strategy of perioperative pain management for hepatectomy.

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 for Rib Fractures: Effect on Pain Control and Outcome

BACKGROUND

Multimodal analgesia in rib fractures (RFs) is designed to maximize pain control while minimizing narcotics. Prior research with intravenous lidocaine (IVL) efficacy produced conflicting results. We hypothesized IVL infusion reduces opioid utilization and pain scores.

METHODS

A retrospective review of RF patients at an ACS-verified Level I trauma center from April 2018 to 2/2020 was conducted. Patients (pts) stratified as receiving IVL vs no IVL. Initial lidocaine dose: 1 mg/kg/hr with a maximum of 3 mg/kg/hr. Duration of infusion: 48 h. Pain quantified by the Stanford Pain Score system (PS). Bivariate and multivariate analyses of variables were performed on SPSS, version 21 (IBM Corp).

RESULTS

414 pts met inclusion criteria: 254 males and 160 females. The average age for the non-IVL = 67.4 ± 15.2 years vs IVL = 58.3 ± 17.1 years (P < .001). There were no statistically significant differences between groups for ISS, PS for initial 48 h, and ICU length of stay (LOS). There was a difference in morphine equivalents per hour: non-IVL = 1.25 vs IVL = 1.72 (P = .004) and LOS non-IVL = 10.2+/-7.6 vs IVL = 7.82+/-4.94. By analyzing IVL pts in a crossover comparison before and after IVL, there was reduction in opiates: 3.01 vs 1.72 (P < .001) and PS: 7.0 vs 4.9 (P < .001). Stanford Pain Score system reduction in the IVL = 48.3 ± 23.9%, but less effective in narcotic dependency (27 ± 22.9%, P = .035); IVL pts had hospital cost reduction: $82,927 vs $118,202 (P < .01).

DISCUSSION

In a crossover analysis, IVL is effective for reduction of PS and opiate use and reduces hospital LOS and costs. Patient age may confound interpretation of results. Our data support IVL use in multimodal pain regimens. Future prospective study is warranted.

Effect of perioperative intravenous lidocaine for patients undergoing spine surgery: A meta-analysis and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Perioperative intravenous lidocaine has been reported to have analgesic and opioid-sparing effects in many kinds of surgery. Several studies have evaluated its use in the settings of spine surgery. The aim of the study is to examine the effect of intravenous lidocaine in patients undergoing spine surgery.

METHODS

We performed a quantitative systematic review. Databases of PubMed, Medline, Embase database and Cochrane library were investigated for eligible literatures from their establishments to June, 2019. Articles of randomized controlled trials that compared intravenous lidocaine to a control group in patients undergoing spine surgery were included. The primary outcome was postoperative pain intensity. Secondary outcomes included postoperative opioid consumption and the length of hospital stay.

RESULT

Four randomized controlled trials with 275 patients were included in the study. postoperative pain compared with control was reduced at 6 hours after surgery (WMD -0.50, 95%CI, -0.76 to -0.25, P < .001), at 24 hours after surgery (WMD -0.50, 95%CI, -0.70 to -0.29, P < .001) and at 48 hours after surgery (WMD -0.57, 95%CI, -0.96 to -0.17, P = .005). The effect of intravenous lidocaine on postoperative opioid consumption compared with control revealed a significant effect (WMD -15.36, 95%CI, -21.40 to -9.33 mg intravenous morphine equivalents, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

This quantitative analysis of randomized controlled trials demonstrated that the perioperative intravenous lidocaine was effective for reducing postoperative opioid consumption and pain in patients undergoing spine surgery. The intravenous lidocaine should be considered as an effective adjunct to improve analgesic outcomes in patients undergoing spine surgery. However, the quantity of the studies was very low, more research is needed.

The use of multimodal low-opioid anesthesia for coronary artery bypass grafting surgery in conditions of artificial blood circulation

Introduction

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are the main cause of death worldwide, and according to experts, they will continue to dominate the structure of global mortality.

Aim

The effectiveness of the multimodal low-opioid anesthesia technique in performing coronary artery bypass graft operations with artificial blood circulation.

Material and methods

Ninety-six patients aged 61.8 ±10.4 years underwent coronary artery bypass grafting under artificial blood circulation. Group I: propofol, sevoflurane, fentanyl, pipecuronium bromide (standard doses). Group II: dexketoprofen trometamol (50 mg), intravenous lidocaine (1% – 1 mg/kg bolus) and continuous lidocaine infusion (1.5–2 mg/kg/h), propofol, ketamine (0.5 mg/kg), magnesia sulfate, minimal doses of fentanyl.

Results

Average duration of anesthesia – 257.4 ±19.1 min; assisted blood circulation – 55 ±10 min. Mean dose of fentanyl in group I – 4.66 ±1.58 µg/kg/h, in group II – 1.29 ±0.32 µg/kg/h.Standard lab values and stress hormonal changes were within the normal range (mean cortisol: 479.3 ±26.4 nmol/l, lactate 1.61 ±0.2 mmol/l, glucose 6.42 ±0.9 mmol/l). Changes in heart rate within group I had a significant amplitude of dynamics, while in group II, these values were relatively at the same level throughout the entire anesthetic provision. Mean arterial pressure changes in group I were characterized by a significant reduction at the stage of induction, support and sternum reduction, whereas in group II it was relatively at the same level during the entire anesthetic management and significantly differed from baseline only at the stage of induction.

Conclusions

Multimodal low-opioid anesthesia during coronary artery bypass surgery with artificial blood circulation allows one to ensure adequate analgesia and avoid the intraoperative usage of routine doses of fentanyl, as indicated by the absence of hemodynamic and endocrine-metabolic changes.

The effects of intravenous lidocaine on wound pain and gastrointestinal function recovery after laparoscopic colorectal surgery

To evaluate the efficacy of intravenous lidocaine in relieving postoperative pain and promoting rehabilitation in laparoscopic colorectal surgery, we conducted this meta-analysis. The systematic search strategy was performed on PubMed, EMBASE, Chinese databases, and Cochrane Library before September 2019. As a result, 10 randomised clinical trials were included in this meta-analysis (n = 527 patients). Intravenous lidocaine significantly reduced pain scores at 2, 4, 12, 24, and 48 hours on movement and 2, 4, and 12 hours on resting-state and reduced opioid requirement in first 24 hours postoperatively (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -5.02 [-9.34, -0.70]; P = .02). It also decreased the first flatus time (WMD: -10.15 [-11.20, -9.10]; P < .00001), first defecation time (WMD: -10.27 [-17.62, -2.92]; P = .006), length of hospital stay (WMD: -1.05 [-1.89, -0.21]; P = .01), and reduced the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (risk ratio: 0.53 [0.30, 0.93]; P = .03) when compared with control group. However, it had no effect on pain scores at 24 and 48 hours at rest, the normal dietary time, and the level of serum C-reactive protein. In summary, perioperative intravenous lidocaine could alleviate acute pain, reduce postoperative analgesic requirements, and accelerate recovery of gastrointestinal function in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

Intravenous Lidocaine for Relief of Chronic Neuropathic Pain

The purpose of this study was to describe the therapeutic effectiveness/pain relief of moderate-dose lidocaine infusions in patients with chronic neuropathic pain. Retrospective reviews of medical records were conducted for 40 patients referred to a midwestern pain clinic for management of intractable neuropathic pain despite use of multiple medications and treatment modalities. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patients' demographic data, lidocaine dosing and infusion rate, daily opioid intake, adjuvant medication use, and medication allergies and intolerances. Paired samples t test was used to determine significance between preinfusion and postinfusion pain scores. A significant decrease in pain levels (P < .001) after infusion was found.

Intravenous lidocaine as adjuvant to general anesthesia in renal surgery

The role of intraoperative intravenous lidocaine infusion has been previously evaluated for pain relief, inflammatory response, and post-operative recovery, particularly in abdominal surgery. The present study is a randomized double-blinded trial in which we evaluated whether IV lidocaine infusion reduces isoflurane requirement, intraoperative remifentanil consumption and time to post-operative recovery in non-laparoscopic renal surgery. Sixty patients scheduled to undergo elective non-laparoscopic renal surgery under general anesthesia were enrolled to receive either systemic lidocaine infusion (group L: bolus 1.5 mg/kg followed by a continuous infusion at the rate of 2 mg/kg/hr until skin closure) or normal saline (0.9% NaCl solution) (Group C). The depth of anesthesia was monitored using the Bispectral Index Scale (BIS), which is based on measurement of the patient’s cerebral electrical activity. Primary outcome of the study was End-tidal of isoflurane concentration (Et-Iso) at BIS values of 40–60. Secondary outcomes include remifentanil consumption during the operation and time to extubation. Et-Iso was significantly lower in group L than in group C (0.63% ± 0.10% vs 0.92% ± 0.11%, p < 10^–3). Mean remifentanil consumption of was significantly lower in group L than in group C (0.13 ± 0.04 µg/kg/min vs 0.18 ± 0.04 µg/kg/min, p < 10^–3). Thus, IV lidocaine infusion permits a reduction of 31% in isoflurane concentration requirement and 27% in the intraoperative remifentanil need. In addition, recovery from anesthesia and extubation time was shorter in group L (5.8 ± 1.8 min vs 7.9 ± 2.0 min, p < 10^–3). By reducing significantly isoflurane and remifentanil requirements during renal surgery, intravenous lidocaine could provide effective strategy to limit volatile agent and intraoperative opioids consumption especially in low and middle income countries.

Continuous Lidocaine Infusion as Adjunctive Analgesia in Intensive Care Unit Patients

Despite a paucity of data, the role of intravenous lidocaine (IVLI) as adjunctive analgesia in the intensive care unit (ICU) seems promising due to a low potential to contribute to respiratory depression. A retrospective chart review was conducted to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of IVLI for the treatment of pain in ICU patients with varying degrees of organ dysfunction from March 2014 to March 2016. The primary outcomes included the time to a ≥20% reduction in pain scores after the initiation of IVLI and the difference in opioid requirements as well as pain scores prior to and during IVLI therapy. Other variables included the presence of IVLI-related adverse events and the dosage and duration of IVLI. A total of 21 ICU patients were included from 2 different hospitals. The mean time to a ≥20% reduction in pain scores from the start of IVLI was 3.3 hours (SD = 2.2). The median morphine dose equivalents required during 6, 12, and 24 hours pre-IVLI were significantly higher compared to the same time periods after IVLI (18.3 vs 10 mg, P = .002; 41.8 vs 18.3 mg, P = .002; 93.5 vs 30.5 mg, P = .037). Neurological adverse effects of lidocaine were noted in 3 patients, but the effects were reversed on IVLI discontinuation. This report suggests that IVLI as an adjunctive agent in the treatment of acute pain may be a potential option in ICU patients who are refractory to opioids or those in whom opioid-induced respiratory depression is a concern.

Is lidocaine patch as effective as intravenous lidocaine in pain and illus reduction after laparoscopic colorectal surgery? A randomized clinical trial

Objective:

To evaluate the efficacy of lidocaine patch applied around wound in laparoscopic colorectal surgery in reduction of postoperative pain and illus compared to intravenous lidocaine infusion and placebo.

Background:

Postoperative illus and pain after colorectal surgery is a challenging problem associated with increased morbidity and cost. Inflammatory response to surgery plays crucial rule in inducing postoperative illus. Systemic local anesthetics proved to have anti-inflammatory properties that may be beneficial in preventing ileus added to its analgesic actions. The lidocaine patch evaluated in many types of pain with promising results. We try to evaluate the patch in perioperative field as a more simple and safe technique than the intravenous route.

Materials and Methods:

Prospective, randomized, controlled study was conducted, comparing three groups. Group 1 (placebo) received saline infusion, group 2 received i.v. lidocaine infusion after induction of anesthesia, 2 mg/min if body weight >70 kg or 1 mg/min if body weight <70 kg, group 3 received lidocaine patch 5%, three patches each one divided into two equal parts and applied around the three wounds just before induction. Data collected were, pain scores (VAS), morphine consumption, return of bowel function, pro-inflammatory cytokines plasma levels and plasma lidocaine level.

Results:

Pain intensity (VAS) scores at rest and during coughing were significantly lower during the first 72 h postoperative in i.v. lidocaine group and patch group compared to the placebo group. Mean morphine consumption were significantly lower in the i.v. lidocaine group and patch group compared to placebo group. Return of the bowel function was significantly earlier in i.v. lidocaine group in comparison to the other groups. Proinflammatory cytokines (IL6, IL8, and C3a) were significantly lower in i.v. lidocaine group compared to the other two groups.

Conclusion:

The lidocaine patch was equal to i.v. lidocaine infusion in decreasing pain scores and morphine consumption but not in acceleration of bowel function return.

Efficacy of intravenous lidocaine in prevention of post extubation laryngospasm in children undergoing cleft palate surgeries

A one-year randomized placebo-controlled trial was conducted to study the effectiveness of intravenous lidocaine in the prevention of post extubation laryngospasm in children, following cleft palate surgeries. Children of age three months to six years were randomly assigned into two groups. Group P placebo (saline) and Group L (Lidocaine), 1.5 mg/kg. A sample size of 74 with n = 37 in each group was selected. The anaesthetic procedure was standardized. At the end of the procedure, three minutes after reversal, the study drug, that is, intravenous lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg) or placebo (saline) was administered and two minutes later the child was extubated. Following extubation for 10 minutes, the haemodynamic parameters, that is, pulse, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, severity of coughing, and laryngospasm were noted. The total reduction of laryngospasm and coughing was 29.9% and 18.92% with IV lidocaine. Significant alterations in haemodynamics and oxygen saturation were noted for 10 minutes, following extubation. Hence, intravenous lidocaine 1.5 mg/kg was effective in the prevention of post extubation laryngospasm in children undergoing cleft palate surgeries.

Mexiletine therapy for chronic pain: survival analysis identifies factors predicting clinical success

Mexiletine, a sodium channel blocker, treats neuropathic pain but its clinical value has been questioned due to its significant side effects and limited efficacy. We hypothesized that ongoing therapy with mexiletine would have limited patient acceptance, but that an analgesic response to intravenous (IV) lidocaine (a pharmacologically similar drug) would identify patients most likely to choose ongoing therapy with mexiletine. We identified a cohort of 37 patients with neuropathic pain who underwent IV lidocaine infusions at our institution and were subsequently prescribed mexiletine. Time until discontinuation of mexiletine was used as the primary endpoint. Time until discontinuation is a clinically relevant, discrete, objective endpoint gaining acceptance as a metric for assessing clinical performance of drugs with significant side effects and limited efficacy. We used the techniques of survival analysis to determine factors that predicted continued therapy with mexiletine. Median time to discontinuation of mexiletine was only 43 days. A stronger analgesic response to IV lidocaine significantly predicted continued acceptance of mexiletine therapy. Decreasing age and male gender also predicted continued acceptance of mexiletine therapy. Analyzing time to mexiletine discontinuation uncovers important limitations in mexiletine's clinical performance missed by studies with conventional endpoints, such as change in pain score. Despite claims of efficacy, acceptance of mexiletine therapy is poor overall. Test infusions with lidocaine identify patients most likely to continue mexiletine therapy. Further work is needed to confirm these results and evaluate the relative acceptance of mexiletine vs. other treatments of neuropathic pain.