Effect Of Intravenous Lidocaine Research Articles

Perioperative intravenous lidocaine infusion improves postoperative analgesia after hysterectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

The effectiveness of intravenous lidocaine in reducing acute pain after hysterectomy remains uncertain. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to investigate the impact of intravenous lidocaine on post-hysterectomy recovery. This study was completed based on the PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL), and Embase up to July 27, 2023. We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving hysterectomy patients comparing lidocaine to a placebo. Outcome measures included postoperative pain scores at rest and during movement, opioid consumption, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), improvements in functional gastrointestinal recovery, and Quality of Recovery (QoR) scores. Nine RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, comprising 352 patients who received intravenous lidocaine and 354 controls. The analysis revealed that intravenous lidocaine significantly reduced postoperative pain scores at rest at 2, 6, 8, and 24 hours following hysterectomy, as well as postoperative opioid consumption within 24 hours and PONV rates. Furthermore, no observed benefit was noted in shortening the time to first flatus with intravenous lidocaine administration post-hysterectomy. Intravenous lidocaine administration effectively reduces acute postoperative pain, opioid consumption, and PONV rates following hysterectomy. Lidocaine serves as an opioid-sparing agent, reducing the morphine equivalent dose while maintaining a similar degree of postoperative pain.

Perioperative intravenous lidocaine infusion improves postoperative analgesia after hysterectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

The effectiveness of intravenous lidocaine in reducing acute pain after hysterectomy remains uncertain. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to investigate the impact of intravenous lidocaine on post-hysterectomy recovery. This study was completed based on the PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. A systematic search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL), and Embase up to July 27, 2023. We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving hysterectomy patients comparing lidocaine to a placebo. Outcome measures included postoperative pain scores at rest and during movement, opioid consumption, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), improvements in functional gastrointestinal recovery, and Quality of Recovery (QoR) scores. Nine RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, comprising 352 patients who received intravenous lidocaine and 354 controls. The analysis revealed that intravenous lidocaine significantly reduced postoperative pain scores at rest at 2, 6, 8, and 24 hours following hysterectomy, as well as postoperative opioid consumption within 24 hours and PONV rates. Furthermore, no observed benefit was noted in shortening the time to first flatus with intravenous lidocaine administration post-hysterectomy. Intravenous lidocaine administration effectively reduces acute postoperative pain, opioid consumption, and PONV rates following hysterectomy. Lidocaine serves as an opioid-sparing agent, reducing the morphine equivalent dose while maintaining a similar degree of postoperative pain.

Effects of intravenous lidocaine on postoperative pain and gastrointestinal function recovery following gastrointestinal surgery: a meta-analysis.

The full extent of intravenous lidocaine's effectiveness in alleviating postoperative pain and enhancing gastrointestinal function recovery remains uncertain. We conducted an exhaustive search of databases to identify randomized controlled trials that compared intravenous lidocaine infusion's efficacy to that of a placebo or routine care in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. The primary outcome measure was resting pain scores 24 h postoperatively. We utilized a random-effects model based on the intention-to-treat principle for the overall results. This study included twenty-four trials with 1533 patients. Intravenous lidocaine significantly reduced resting pain scores 24 h after gastrointestinal surgery (twenty trials, SMD -0.67, 95% CI -1.09 to -0.24, P=0.002, I2 = 90%). This finding was consistent in subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses. The benefit was also observed at other resting and moving time points (1, 2, 4, and 12 h) postoperatively. Intravenous lidocaine significantly decreased opioid consumption within 24 h after surgery (eleven trials, SMD: -1.19; 95% CI: -1.99 to -0.39; P=0.003). Intravenous lidocaine also shortened the time to bowel sound (MD: -8.51; 95% CI: -14.59 to -2.44; P=0.006), time to first flatus (MD: -6.00; 95% CI: -9.87 to -2.13; P=0.002), and time to first defecation (MD: -9.77; 95% CI: -17.19 to -2.36; P=0.01). Perioperative intravenous lidocaine can alleviate acute pain and expedite gastrointestinal function recovery in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. However, the results should be interpreted with caution due to substantial heterogeneity. Further large-scale studies are necessary to validate these findings.

Effects of Intravenous Lidocaine on Quality of Recovery After Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the effects of pre and intraoperativelidocaine infusion on short-term recovery qualityafter laparoscopic bariatric surgeries. In the search across MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases, we consideredrandomized controlled trials comparing intravenous lidocaine vs placebo(saline) for patients with obesity undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Seven studies (640 patients) were included. The lidocaine group had a significantly higher recovery quality score, a lower morphine consumption, and a notably reduced rate of nausea and vomiting compared with the placebo group. Additionally,Lidocaine infusion was associated with a shorter hospital stay, while no significant difference was observed in thetime to bowel function recovery between both groups. In conclusion, lidocaine infusion before and during laparoscopic bariatricsurgery contributes to an enhanced quality of recovery.

Effects of Intravenous Lidocaine as an Analgesic Adjuvant in Oncological Pain

Objectives: To verify that intravenous lidocaine is effective as an adjuvant analgesic in pain for hospitalized cancer patients at the National Institute of Cancerology, Mexico. Methods: Clinical records of patients hospitalized at the National Institute of Cancerology who received intravenous lidocaine infusion as an adjuvant to pain during the 4-year period from November 1, 2019, to October 31, 2023, were reviewed. Patients who met inclusion and exclusion criteria were included. A statistically significant measure was defined as a decrease equal to or greater than 4 points in the NRS value after lidocaine administration.
 Results: A total of 179 patients were included; 46.4% were men, and 53.6% were women. The most common painful syndrome was somatic (54%). Patients with neuropathic pain received a higher lidocaine dose (mg/kg/hr) of 1.9 ± 0.79. Regarding adverse effects, 1.7% of patients experienced them. It was established that a reduction of 4 points with respect to the previous value on the numeric rating scale (NRS) would be considered statistically significant. A statistically significant association was found between patients under 38 years old and a higher risk of not achieving the objective (p 0.05, CI 0.95–1 OR 0.9). Patients who received lidocaine infusions for less than 4.63 days also had a risk of not reaching the goal (p 0.02, CI 0.7–0.9, OR 0.8).
 Conclusions: This study demonstrated that the analgesic adjuvant use of intravenous lidocaine infusion is an effective and well-tolerated analgesic intervention for oncology patients.
 Keywords: lidocaine, Neuropathic Pain, Somatic Pain, Visceral Pain, numeric rating scale.

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

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. 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. 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 = - 0.95min; 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). 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.

The effect of intravenous lidocaine on postoperative cognitive dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundPostoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) has been reported as a significant complication in elderly patients. Various methods have been proposed for reducing the incidence and severity of POCD. Intravenous lidocaine administration has been reported in the literature to reduce POCD, but the effect of lidocaine remains controversial.MethodsWe screened Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (up to April 2022) databases following a search strategy for intravenous lidocaine on POCD. We also screened related bibliographies on lidocaine for POCD. Ten articles comprising 1517 patients were selected and analyzed. We divided the postoperative follow-up period as follows: short term (<30 days), medium term (30–90 days), and long term (>90 days).OutcomesWe found that lidocaine could attenuate the overall incidence of POCD, especially in the short term. There were no differences between lidocaine and placebo on the overall severity of POCD.ConclusionLidocaine administered intravenously could attenuate the overall incidence of POCD and its severity in the short term.

The Effectiveness of Intravenous lidocaine in Burn Pain Relief: A Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Trial

Objectives: Poor pain control in burn patients as a great public health problem disrupts the healing and rehabilitation process and results in several adverse outcomes. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of intravenous lidocaine in reducing the pain of burn injuries. Materials and Methods: From August 2014 to March 2015, 66 eligible burn patients participated in the study and were randomly divided into two groups of lidocaine (L) and placebo (P). In group L, lidocaine 2% was injected at a bolus dose of 1.5 mg/kg followed by infusion at the dosage of 1.5 mg/kg/h, and in group P, saline was administrated. Pain severity was measured during 24 hours at baseline and 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24 hours after intervention based on Numerical Rating Scale (NRS-11). Morphine consumption, Ramsay score, and side effects were also documented. Results: Finally the data from 60 patients were analyzed. Comparing baseline with 24 hours after intervention, NRS-11 scores decreased from 7.12±1.42 to 3.33±0.76 (P&lt;0.001) in group P and from 6.45±1.02 to 2.50±0.72 (P&lt;0.001) in group L. Moreover, the mean of NRS scores during 24 hours in the lidocaine group was significantly lower compared to the placebo group, 3.93±0.72 vs 4.73 ±1.14, (P=0.03). The mean amounts of morphine consumption in group L were significantly lower compared to group P, 14.41 ± 4.86 vs 21.07±6.86, (P=0.001). The mean of Ramsay score in group L was significantly lower compared to group P, 1.38±0.59 vs 1.45±0.6, (P=0.014). Conclusions: This study revealed that intravenous lidocaine was an effective and safe drug for pain reduction in burn patients.

The Effect of Intravenous Lidocaine, Ketamine, and Lidocaine-Ketamine Combination in Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Colorectal resections are associated with a pronounced inflammatory response, severe postoperative pain, and postoperative ileus. The aim of this study was to evaluate the main effects of lidocaine and ketamine, and their interaction in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients after open surgery. The interaction could be additive if the effect of 2 drugs given in combination equals the sum of their individual effects, or multiplicative if their combined effect exceeds the sum of their individual effects. We hypothesized that the combination of lidocaine and ketamine might reduce the inflammatory response additively or synergistically. Eighty-two patients undergoing elective open colorectal resection were randomized to receive either lidocaine or placebo and either ketamine or placebo in a 2 × 2 factorial design. After induction of general anesthesia, all subjects received an intravenous bolus (lidocaine 1.5 mg/kg and/or ketamine 0.5 mg/kg and/or a matched saline volume) followed by a continuous infusion (lidocaine 2 mg·kg-1·h-1 and/or ketamine 0.2 mg·kg-1·h-1 and/or a matched saline volume) until the end of surgery. Primary outcomes were serum levels of white blood cell (WBC) count, interleukins (IL-6, IL-8), and C-reactive protein (CRP) measured at 2 time points: 12 and 36 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative opioid consumption; visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores at 2, 4, 12, 24, 36, and 48 hours postoperatively; cumulative analgesic consumption within 48 hours after surgery; and time to first bowel movement. We assessed the main effects of each of lidocaine and ketamine and their interaction on the primary outcomes using linear regression analyses. A Bonferroni-adjusted significance level was set at .05/8 = .00625 for primary analyses. No statistically significant differences were observed with either lidocaine or ketamine intervention in any of the measured inflammatory markers. No multiplicative interaction between the 2 treatments was confirmed at 12 or 36 hours after surgery: WBC count, P = .870 and P = .393, respectively; IL-6, P = .892 and P = .343, respectively; IL-8, P = .999 and P = .996, respectively; and CRP, P = .014 and P = .445, respectively. With regard to inflammatory parameters, no evidence of additive interactions was found. Lidocaine and ketamine, either together or alone, significantly reduced intraoperative opioid consumption versus placebo, and, except for lidocaine alone, improved pain scores. Neither intervention significantly influenced gut motility. Our study results do not support the use of an intraoperative combination of lidocaine and ketamine in patients undergoing open surgery for CRC.

Effects of intravenous lidocaine or topical lidocaine applied before upper gastrointestinal endoscopy on hemodynamics and throat pain

Effects of intravenous lidocaine or topical lidocaine applied before upper gastrointestinal endoscopy on hemodynamics and throat pain

Effect of intravenous lidocaine on the ED50 of propofol for inserting gastroscope without body movement in adult patients: a randomized, controlled study

BackgroundCirculatory and respiratory depression are common problems that occur in propofol alone sedation during gastroscopy. As a widely used analgesic adjuvant, intravenous lidocaine can reduce the consumption of propofol during Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or colonoscopy. However, it is still unknown the median effective dose (ED50) of propofol when combined with lidocaine intravenously. This study aimed to compare the ED50 of propofol with or without intravenous lidocaine for inserting gastrointestinal endoscope successfully.MethodsFifty nine patients undergoing gastroscopy or gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy were randomly divided into control group (Group C, normal saline + propofol) or lidocaine group (Group L, lidocaine + propofol). Patients were initially injected a bolus of 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine in Group L, whereas equivalent volume of 0.9% saline in Group C. Anaesthesia was then induced with a single bolus of propofol in all subjects. The induction dose of propofol was determined by the modified Dixon’s up-and-down method, and the initial dose was 1.5 mg/kg in both groups. The primary outcome was the ED50 of propofol induction dose with or without intravenous lidocaine. The secondary outcomes were the induction time, the first propofol bolus time (FPBT: from MOAA/S score ≤ 1 to first rescue bolus propofol), and adverse events (AEs: hypoxemia, bradycardia, hypotension, and body movements).ResultsTotally, 59 patients were enrolled and completed this study. The ED50 of propofol combined with lidocaine was 1.68 ± 0.11 mg/kg, significantly reduced compared with the normal saline group, 1.88 ± 0.13 mg/kg (P = 0.002). There was no statistical difference in induction time (P = 0.115) and the FPBT (P = 0.655) between the two groups. There was no significantly difference about the AEs between the two groups.ConclusionThe ED50 of propofol combined with intravenous lidocaine for successful endoscope insertion in adult patients, was 1.68 ± 0.11 mg/kg significantly reduced compared with the control group.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry, No: ChiCTR2200059450. Registered on 29 April 2022. Prospective registration. http://www.chictr.org.cn.

Effects of intravenous lidocaine on hypoxemia induced by propofol-based sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures: study protocol for a prospective, randomized, controlled trial

BackgroundOxygen-desaturation episodes, blood pressure drops, and involuntary body movement are common problems that occur in propofol-based sedation in the procedure of painless gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. As a widely used analgesic adjuvant, intravenous lidocaine can reduce the consumption of propofol during ERCP or colonoscopy. However, it is still unknown how lidocaine affects the incidence of oxygen-desaturation episodes and cardiovascular events, and involuntary movement during painless GI endoscopy. Therefore, we aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of intravenous lidocaine in propofol-based sedation for GI endoscopy.MethodsWe will conduct a single-center, prospective, randomized, double-blind, saline-controlled trial. A total number of 300 patients undergoing painless GI procedures will be enrolled and randomly divided into the lidocaine group (Group L) and the control group (Group C). After midazolam and sufentanil intravenous injection, a bolus of 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine was immediately injected and followed by a continuous infusion of 4 mg/kg/h in the lidocaine group, whereas the same volumes of saline solution in the control group. Then, propofol was titrated to produce unconsciousness during the procedure. The primary outcome will be the incidence of oxygen-desaturation episodes. Secondary outcomes will be the incidence of involuntary body movement, discomfort symptoms, propofol consumption, endoscopist, and patient satisfaction.DiscussionPropofol-based deep sedation without intubation is widely used in painless GI endoscopy. However, adverse events such as hypoxemia often occur clinically. We expect to assess the effect of lidocaine on reducing the incidence of oxygen-desaturation episodes, cardiovascular events, and involuntary body movement. We believe that the results of this trial will provide an effective and safe method for painless GI endoscopy.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2100053818. Registered on 30 November 2021.

The effect of intravenous lidocaine on propofol dosage in painless bronchoscopy of patients with COPD.

BackgroundWe tested the hypothesis that intravenous (IV) lidocaine reduces propofol requirements in painless bronchoscopy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).MethodsA total of 93 patients who underwent bronchoscopy were included in this randomized placebo-controlled study. The patients were randomly divided into two groups. After the IV doses of nalbuphine, patients were given a bolus of propofol, which was titrated if necessary until loss of consciousness. Then patients were given IV lidocaine (2 mg/kg then 4 mg/kg/h) or the same volume of saline. The primary endpoint was the propofol requirements. Secondary endpoints were the incidence of hypoxemia, the incidence of cough during glottis examination, the systolic blood pressure (SBP) and heart rate (HR) during bronchoscopy procedures, the bronchoscopist's comforts, and the time for wakefulness before recovery.ResultsLidocaine infusion resulted in a significant reduction in propofol requirements (p < .0001), and the incidence of hypoxemia (p = .001) and cough (p = .003) during examination decreased significantly in the lidocaine group. During the examination, the fluctuation of SBP and HR was significantly lower than that in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (p < .05). Bronchoscopist's comforts were higher in the lidocaine group (p < .001), and time for wakefulness (p < .001) were significantly lower in the lidocaine group.ConclusionIn painless bronchoscopy in patients with COPD, IV infusion of lidocaine resulted in a reduction in propofol dose requirements and reduce the incidence of adverse events.

Effect of intravenous lidocaine on pain after head and neck cancer surgery (ELICO trial): A randomised controlled trial.

Treatment of postoperative pain after ear, nose and throat (ENT) cancer surgery is mainly morphine administration. Additional systemic lidocaine has shown promising results in some surgical procedures. The main objective was to evaluate morphine consumption in the first 48 postoperative hours after intra-operative lidocaine infusion during major ENT cancer surgery. A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Bicentric study including a university hospital and a major cancer centre, conducted from December 2016 to December 2019. A total of 144 patients undergoing major ENT cancer surgery were included. The patients were randomly assigned to receive intravenous lidocaine or placebo during surgery and in the recovery room. Endpoints were postoperative morphine consumption in the first 24 and 48 h postoperatively, intra-operative remifentanil consumption, adverse events occurrence and assessment 3 to 6 months after surgery with the McGill pain questionnaire. A total of 118 patients were included (lidocaine n = 57; placebo n = 61, 26 patients were excluded). There was no significant difference in morphine consumption during the first 48 postoperative hours in the lidocaine group compared with the placebo group with a median [IQR] of 0.60 [0.30 to 1.03] mg kg -1 vs. 0.57 [0.37 to 0.96] mg kg -1 , total dose 44 [21 to 73.3] mg vs. 38 [23.3 to 56.5] mg, P = 0.92.There was no significant difference between the two groups in any of the other endpoints, including at follow up 3 to 6 months after surgery. Intravenous lidocaine in ENT cancer surgery did not show any additional analgesic or morphine-sparing effect 48 h after surgery. Three to six months after surgery, there was no significant difference in pain scores or consumption of analgesics. Patients treated pre-operatively with opioids were not evaluated in the study. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02894710 and EUDRACT number 2015-005799-90.

Effect of intravenous lidocaine on chronic postoperative pain in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery: a prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

BackgroundChronic postoperative pain (CPSP) is one of the common complications of breast cancer patients, which can seriously affect the quality of life and long-term prognosis of patients. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether perioperative intravenous lidocaine infusion could reduce the incidence of CPSP in patients with breast cancer.MethodsFemale patients undergoing radical breast cancer surgery were randomly assigned to the 2% lidocaine group (L) and the control group (S). group L received an intravenous infusion of 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine 10 minutes prior to induction, followed by a continuous infusion of 2 mg/kg/h until the end of surgery. The control group received an equal amount of saline. The primary outcome was the incidence of CPSP at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included VAS pain scores and frequency of remedial analgesia within 24 hours postoperatively; incidence of CPSP at 1 and 6 months; and scores on the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), Simplified McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), and Neuropathic Pain Score (DN-4) at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively.ResultsEighty-two patients participated in this study. A total of 78 patients completed the 3-month postoperative follow-up (39 in group S and 39 in group L). At 3 months, the incidence of CPSP was significantly lower in the L group than in the S group (33.3% in the S group and 12.8% in the L group, P=0.032). Pain scores at rest and during exercise were significantly lower in the L group than in the S group at different time points (P≤0.001 and P<0.001). The need for remedial analgesia at 24 hours postoperatively also differed significantly between the two groups (P=0.036). At 6 months, the incidence of CPSP was also lower in the L group than in the S group (29.7% in the S group and 10.5% in the L group, P=0.038). The differences in SF-MPQ scores were statistically significant at both 3 and 6 months postoperatively (P=0.022, P=0.037).ConclusionsIntravenous infusion of lidocaine reduces the incidence of CPSP in breast cancer patients at 3 and 6 months and is effective in relieving acute postoperative pain.Trial RegistrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR2100050445.

Effect of intravenous lidocaine on propofol consumption in elderly patients undergoing colonoscopy: a double-blinded, randomized, controlled trial

BackgroundElderly patients undergoing colonoscopy with propofol as sedation are prone to respiratory or cardiovascular complications. Intravenous lidocaine has analgesic efficacy and reduces propofol consumption during surgery. Here, the effect of intravenous lidocaine on propofol consumption was evaluated in elderly patients undergoing colonoscopy.MethodsPatients were randomly allocated to receive intravenous lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg bolus dose, followed by a 2 mg/kg/h continuous infusion during the procedure; Group L) or a placebo (saline; Group N). During the procedure, sedation was achieved by propofol. The following outcomes were recorded: total propofol consumption; time to loss of consciousness; number of airway modifications; time to the first airway intervention; incidence of sedation-related events; pain score after awakening; endoscopists’ and patients’ satisfaction scores; memory level of the procedure; and adverse events within 24 h postoperatively.ResultsCompared with Group N, propofol consumption was reduced by 13.2% in Group L (100.30 ± 25.29 mg vs. 115.58 ± 27.52 mg, respectively, p = 0.008). Kaplan–Meier curves showed that the median time to the loss of consciousness episode was shorter in Group L than in Group N (40 s vs. 55 s, respectively, log rank p < 0.0001). The number of airway modifications, time to the first airway intervention, incidence of sedation-related events, time to awakening, pain score after awakening, endoscopists’ and patients’ satisfaction scores, memory level of the procedure and adverse events within 24 h postoperatively did not differ between the two groups (p > 0.05).ConclusionsIntravenous lidocaine can reduce propofol consumption in elderly patients undergoing colonoscopy, with quicker time to loss of consciousness.Trial registrationThe clinical trial was registered at (12/01/2021, ChiCTR2100042001).

Effects of intravenous lidocaine on alfentanil consumption during procedural sedation for colonoscopy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: a randomized controlled trial

Background: Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) is used during colonoscopy to facilitate the procedure and relieve patient’s discomfort. The foremost risk of PSA is respiratory depression. Lidocaine could be a promising additional analgesic in IBD patients to minimise side effects of PSA. Objective: Our primary objective was to investigate whether i.v. lidocaine reduces the amount of alfentanil used during PSA in IBD patients. Additionally, we investigated whether lidocaine reduces cardiorespiratory incidents and the amount of propofol required during the procedure. Design: A randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled study. Setting: Single-center study from November 2016 to December 2018. Methods: Seventy-six patients with IBD, ASA 1 or 2, between 18 and 65 years, scheduled for colonoscopy with PSA were included. Exclusion criteria were: pregnancy, emergency colonoscopy, allergies for study medication, rhythm disorders, cardiomyopathy, BMI &lt; 18 kg m -2 , BMI &gt; 35 kg m -2 , obstructive sleep apnea syndrome and uncontrolled hypertension. Patients received lidocaine 1.5 mg kg -1 followed by a continuous infusion of 2 mg kg -1 h -1 (intervention group, n=38) or 0.9% saline in equivalent volumes (control group, n=38) during colonoscopy. Main outcome measures: Amount of alfentanil and propofol used during the interventional procedure. Cardiorespiratory events as defined in methods during the colonoscopy. Results: There was a not statistically significant reduction in the use of alfentanil [327 µg (95%CI=-31-505, p=0.082)] and propofol [39 mg (95%CI=-5-83, p=0.083)] in the lidocaine group compared with the control group. Ten patients (26%) in the control group and 8 patients in the lidocaine group (21%) experienced a period of hypoxia (p=0.788). In both groups, no periods of hypotension were noted. Conclusion: Our investigation has shown a trend for reduced alfentanil and propofol consumption in patients receiving lidocaine during colonoscopy under sedation. The differences were not statistically significant. Lidocaine did not reduce the incidence of cardiorespiratory events.

Effects of Intravenous Lidocaine in Total Knee Joint Arthroplasty: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Effects of Intravenous Lidocaine in Total Knee Joint Arthroplasty: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Effect of intravenous lidocaine on short-term pain after hysteroscopy: a randomized clinical trial

BackgroundThe role of intravenous lidocaine infusion in endoscopic surgery has been previously evaluated for pain relief and recovery. Recently, it has been shown to reduce postoperative pain and opioid in patients undergoing endoscopic submucosal dissection. Similar to endoscopic submucosal dissection, operative hysteroscopy is also an endoscopic surgical procedure within natural lumens. The present study was a randomized clinical trial in which we evaluated whether intravenous lidocaine infusion would reduce postoperative pain in patients undergoing hysteroscopic surgery. ObjectiveTo evaluate whether intravenous lidocaine infusion could reduce postoperative pain in patients undergoing operative hysteroscopy. MethodsEighty-five patients scheduled to undergo elective hysteroscopy were randomized to receive either an intravenous bolus of lidocaine 1.5 mg.kg-1 over 3 minutes, followed by continuous infusion at a rate of 2 mg.kg-1. h-1 during surgery, or 0.9% normal saline solution at the same rate. The primary outcome was to evaluate postoperative pain by Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes included remifentanil and propofol consumption. ResultsIn the lidocaine group, the VAS was significantly lower at 0.5 hour (p = 0.008) and 4 hours (p = 0.020). Patients in the lidocaine group required less remifentanil than patients in the control group (p < 0.001). However, there was no difference between the two groups in the propofol consumption. The incidence of throat pain was significantly lower in the lidocaine group (p = 0.019). No adverse events associated with lidocaine infusion were discovered. ConclusionIntravenous lidocaine infusion as an adjuvant reduces short-term postoperative pain in patients undergoing operative hysteroscopy.

Effects of intravenous lidocaine, dexmedetomidine, and their combination on IL-1, IL-6 and TNF-\u03b1 in patients undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy: a prospective, randomized controlled trial

BackgroundSurgical-related inflammatory responses have negative effects on postoperative recovery. Intravenous (IV) lidocaine and dexmedetomidine inhibits the inflammatory response. We investigated whether the co-administration of lidocaine and dexmedetomidine could further alleviate inflammatory responses compared with lidocaine or dexmedetomidine alone during laparoscopic hysterectomy.MethodsA total of 160 patients were randomly allocated into four groups following laparoscopic hysterectomy: the control group (group C) received normal saline, the lidocaine group (group L) received lidocaine (bolus infusion of 1.5 mg/kg over 10 min, 1.5 mg/kg/h continuous infusion), the dexmedetomidine group (group D) received dexmedetomidine (bolus infusion of 0.5 μg/kg over 10 min, 0.4 μg/kg/h continuous infusion), and the lidocaine plus dexmedetomidine group (group LD) received a combination of lidocaine (bolus infusion of 1.5 mg/kg over 10 min, 1.5 mg/kg/h continuous infusion) and dexmedetomidine (bolus infusion of 0.5 μg/kg over 10 min, 0.4 μg/kg/h continuous infusion). The levels of plasma interleukin-1 (IL-1), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) at different time points were the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic variables, postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, time to first flatus, and incidence of nausea and vomiting after surgery.ResultsThe levels of plasma IL-1, IL-6, and TNF-α were lower in groups D and LD than in group C and were lowest in group LD at the end of the procedure and 2 h after the operation (P < 0.05). The VAS scores were decreased in groups D and LD compared with group C (P < 0.05). The heart rate (HR) was decreased at the end of the procedure and 2 h after the operation in groups D and LD compared to groups C and L (P < 0.001). The mean blood pressure (MBP) was lower at 2 h after the operation in groups L, D, and LD than in group C (P < 0.001). There was a lower incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in group LD than in group C (P < 0.05).ConclusionsThe combination of lidocaine and dexmedetomidine significantly alleviated the inflammatory responses, decreased postoperative pain, and led to fewer PONV in patients undergoing laparoscopic hysterectomy.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03276533), registered on August 23, 2017.