Continuous intravenous perioperative lidocaine infusion for postoperative pain and recovery in adults.
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
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.
10.1002/14651858.CD009642.pub3
Intravenous Lidocaine Does Not Improve Neurologic Outcomes after Cardiac Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Klinger Rebecca Y,Cooter Mary,Bisanar Tiffany,Terrando Niccolò,Berger Miles,Podgoreanu Mihai V,Stafford-Smith Mark,Newman Mark F,Mathew Joseph P,
Anesthesiology
BACKGROUND:Cognitive decline after cardiac surgery occurs frequently and persists in a significant proportion of patients. Preclinical studies and human trials suggest that intravenous lidocaine may confer protection in the setting of neurologic injury. It was hypothesized that lidocaine administration would reduce cognitive decline after cardiac surgery compared to placebo. METHODS:After institutional review board approval, 478 patients undergoing cardiac surgery were enrolled into this multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel group trial. Subjects were randomized to lidocaine 1 mg/kg bolus after the induction of anesthesia followed by a continuous infusion (48 μg · kg · min for the first hour, 24 μg · kg · min for the second hour, and 10 μg · kg · min for the next 46 h) or saline with identical volume and rate changes to preserve blinding. Cognitive function was assessed preoperatively and at 6 weeks and 1 yr postoperatively using a standard neurocognitive test battery. The primary outcome was change in cognitive function between baseline and 6 weeks postoperatively, adjusting for age, years of education, baseline cognition, race, and procedure type. RESULTS:Among the 420 allocated subjects who returned for 6-week follow-up (lidocaine: N = 211; placebo: N = 209), there was no difference in the continuous cognitive score change (adjusted mean difference [95% CI], 0.02 (-0.05, 0.08); P = 0.626). Cognitive deficit (greater than 1 SD decline in at least one cognitive domain) at 6 weeks occurred in 41% (87 of 211) in the lidocaine group versus 40% (83 of 209) in the placebo group (adjusted odds ratio [95% CI], 0.94 [0.63, 1.41]; P = 0.766). There were no differences in any quality of life outcomes between treatment groups. At the 1-yr follow-up, there continued to be no difference in cognitive score change, cognitive deficit, or quality of life. CONCLUSIONS:Intravenous lidocaine administered during and after cardiac surgery did not reduce postoperative cognitive decline at 6 weeks.
10.1097/ALN.0000000000002668
Quadratus Lumborum Block Versus Perioperative Intravenous Lidocaine for Postoperative Pain Control in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Colorectal Surgery: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind Controlled Clinical Trial.
Dewinter Geertrui,Coppens Steve,Van de Velde Marc,D'Hoore André,Wolthuis Albert,Cuypers Eva,Rex Steffen
Annals of surgery
OBJECTIVE:To investigate the comparative analgesic efficacy of systemic lidocaine and quadratus lumborum (QL) block in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. BACKGROUND:Although epidural analgesia is the standard to control pain in patients undergoing open colorectal surgery, optimal analgesic management in laparoscopic surgery is less well-defined. There is need for effective and efficient alternatives to epidural analgesia for pain management in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery. METHODS:A total of 125 patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery were included in this randomized, double-blind controlled clinical trial. Patients randomly received an intravenous infusion with placebo plus a QL-block with placebo, a QL-block with ropivacaine 0.25% plus intravenous placebo, or intravenous lidocaine plus a QL-block with placebo. Postoperatively, all patients received patient-controlled intravenous anesthesia (PCIA) with morphine. Primary outcome parameter was the opioid consumption during the first 24 hours postoperatively. Secondary endpoints included severity of postoperative pain, time to return of intestinal function, incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS:The QL-block was not superior to systemic lidocaine for the reduction of morphine requirements in the first 24 hours postoperatively {QL-group: 37.5 (28.4) mg [mean (standard deviation)] vs lidocaine group: 40.2 (25) mg, P = 0.15}. For the majority of secondary outcome parameters, no significant differences were found between the groups. Morphine consumption in the postanesthesia care unit, the number of PCIA-boli demanded by the patient, and the number of PCIA-boli delivered by the PCIA-pump during the first 24 hours postoperatively were lower in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS:In our trial, the QL-block did not provide superior postoperative analgesia when compared to systemic lidocaine in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Eudra CT: 2014-001499-73; 31/7/2014.
10.1097/SLA.0000000000002888
Efficacy and safety of intravenous lidocaine in propofol-based sedation for ERCP procedures: a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, controlled trial.
Liu Jing,Liu Xiaoping,Peng Li-Ping,Ji Rui,Liu Chao,Li Yan-Qing
Gastrointestinal endoscopy
BACKGROUND AND AIMS:Propofol-based sedation is widely used in ERCP procedures, but adverse respiratory or cardiovascular events commonly occur. Intravenous injection of lidocaine has an analgesic effect and can reduce the requirements of fentanyl and propofol during abdominal surgery. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of intravenous lidocaine on propofol requirements during ERCP procedures. METHODS:Forty-eight patients scheduled for ERCP were randomly divided into 2 groups, the lidocaine group and the control group. All patients received .02 mg/kg midazolam and .1 μg/kg sufentanil intravenously as premedication. A bolus of propofol was applied for induction of sedation, and perfusion of propofol was applied for maintenance. Patients in the lidocaine group received a bolus of 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine intravenously followed by continuous infusion of 2 mg/kg/h, whereas the control group received the same volumes of saline solution. The primary outcome was the propofol requirement during ERCP. RESULTS:Compared with the control group, propofol requirements were reduced by 33.8% in the lidocaine group (212.0 ± 118.2 mg vs 320.0 ± 189.6 mg, P = .023). Involuntary movement was less common in the lidocaine group than in the control group (12.5% vs 41.7%, P = .049). In the lidocaine group, postprocedure pain and fatigue, as measured by the visual analog scale, were significantly reduced (0 [range, 0-4] vs 3 [range, 0-5], P = .005; 2 [range, 0-4] vs 5 [range, 2-8], P < .001).The incidence of oxygen desaturation, hypotension, and bradycardia tended to be lower in the lidocaine group. CONCLUSIONS:Intravenous lidocaine can significantly decrease propofol requirements during ERCP, with higher sedation quality and endoscopist satisfaction. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03996577.).
10.1016/j.gie.2020.02.050
Intravenous lidocaine to prevent postoperative airway complications in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Yang Stephen S,Wang Ning-Nan,Postonogova Tatyana,Yang Grace J,McGillion Michael,Beique Francois,Schricker Thomas
British journal of anaesthesia
BACKGROUND:In surgical patients undergoing general anaesthesia, coughing at the time of extubation is common and can result in potentially dangerous complications. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of i.v. lidocaine administration during the perioperative period to prevent cough and other airway complications. METHODS:We searched Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System, Excerpta Medica database, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for RCTs comparing the perioperative use of i.v. lidocaine with a control group in adult patients undergoing surgery under general anaesthesia. The RCTs were assessed using risk-of-bias assessment, and the quality of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE). RESULTS:In 16 trials (n=1516), the administration of i.v. lidocaine compared with placebo or no treatment led to large reductions in post-extubation cough (risk ratio [RR]: 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48-0.86) and in postoperative sore throat at 1 h (RR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.32-0.67). There was no difference in incidence of laryngospasm (risk difference [RD]: 0.02; 95% CI: -0.07 to 0.03) or incidence of adverse events related to the use of lidocaine. CONCLUSIONS:The use of i.v. lidocaine perioperatively decreased airway complications, including coughing and sore throat. There was no associated increased risk of harm.
10.1016/j.bja.2019.11.033
Effect of intra-operative intravenous lidocaine on opioid consumption after bariatric surgery: a prospective, randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled study.
Plass F,Nicolle C,Zamparini M,Al Issa G,Fiant A L,Le Roux Y,Gérard J L,Fischer M O,Alvès A,Hanouz J-L
Anaesthesia
Peri-operative lidocaine infusion warrants investigation in bariatric surgery because obese patients present different physiological and pharmacological risks. This single-centre, prospective, randomised double-blind placebo-controlled study enrolled obese patients scheduled for laparoscopic bariatric surgery using an enhanced recovery protocol. Patients received either lidocaine (bolus of 1.5 mg.kg , then a continuous infusion of 2 mg.kg .h until the end of the surgery, then 1 mg.kg .h for 1 h in the recovery area) or identical volumes and rates of 0.9% saline. The primary outcome was the consumption of the equivalent of oxycodone consumption over the first 3 postoperative days. Secondary outcomes were: postoperative pain; incidence of nausea and vomiting; bowel function recovery; and lengths of stay in the recovery area and in hospital. Plasma concentrations of lidocaine were measured. On the 178 patients recruited, data were analysed from 176. The median (IQR [range]) equivalent intravenous oxycodone consumption was 3.3 mg (0.0-6.0 [0.0-14.5]) and 5.0 mg (3.3-7.0 [3.3-20.0]) in the lidocaine and saline groups, respectively (difference between medians (95%CI): 1.7 (0.6-3.4) mg; p = 0.004). Length of stay in the recovery area, postoperative pain, nausea and vomiting, day of recovery of bowel function, and length of stay in hospital were not different between groups. Mean (SD) lidocaine plasma concentrations were 2.44 (0.70) µg.ml and 1.77 (0.51) µg.ml at the end of surgery and 1 hour after the end of infusion, respectively. Lidocaine infusion during bariatric surgery resulted in a clinically non-relevant difference in postoperative oxycodone consumption.
10.1111/anae.15150
Neutrophil extracellular trapping and angiogenesis biomarkers after intravenous or inhalation anaesthesia with or without intravenous lidocaine for breast cancer surgery: a prospective, randomised trial.
Galoș Elena V,Tat Tiberiu-Florin,Popa Răzvan,Efrimescu Catalin-Iulian,Finnerty Dylan,Buggy Donal J,Ionescu Daniela C,Mihu Carmen M
British journal of anaesthesia
BACKGROUND:Experimental and, retrospective, clinical data indicate that anaesthetic technique might influence the risk of metastasis after cancer surgery. Neutrophil extracellular trapping (NETosis) is an immunological mechanism strongly linked with increased metastatic risk. Similarly, vascular endothelial growth factor A is linked to angiogenesis implicated in recurrence. Therefore, we investigated the effect of four anaesthetic techniques on NETosis and angiogenic factors expression in women undergoing breast cancer resection. METHODS:Women (n=120) undergoing primary breast tumour resection were randomly assigned to receive one of four anaesthetics: sevoflurane (S), sevoflurane plus i.v. lidocaine (SL), propofol (P), and propofol plus i.v. lidocaine (PL). Venous blood was collected before induction and 20-28 h after operation. Neutrophil myeloperoxidase and citrullinated histone H3, biomarkers of NETosis, and biomarkers of angiogenesis were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. RESULTS:Patient characteristic data and perioperative management did not differ between study groups. The anaesthetic technique including lidocaine decreased expression of citrullinated histone H3 compared with no lidocaine (109 [23] vs 125 [22] ng ml, P=0.01 for SL and S and 98 [14] vs 130 [32] mg ml, P=0.007, for PL and P, respectively). Similarly, myeloperoxidase was decreased by lidocaine (8.5 [3.4] vs 10.8 [1.8] ng ml, P=0.03 for SL and S and 8.6 [3.1] vs 11.6 [2.5] ng ml, P=0.01 for PL and P, respectively). Lidocaine also decreased expression of matrix metalloproteinase 3 (MMP3) but not MMP9, whichever anaesthetic was used. Vascular endothelial growth factor A concentrations were not significantly influenced by the anaesthetic technique. CONCLUSIONS:I.V. perioperative lidocaine decreased postoperative expression of NETosis and MMP3, regardless of general anaesthetic technique. This supports the hypothesis that i.v. lidocaine during cancer surgery of curative intent might reduce recurrence. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT02839668.
10.1016/j.bja.2020.05.003
The effects of intravenous lidocaine on wound pain and gastrointestinal function recovery after laparoscopic colorectal surgery.
Wei Shi,Yu-Han Zhang,Wei-Wei Jing,Hai Yu
International wound journal
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.
10.1111/iwj.13279
Association between intraoperative intravenous lidocaine infusion and survival in patients undergoing pancreatectomy for pancreatic cancer: a retrospective study.
Zhang Hao,Yang Li,Zhu Xuqin,Zhu Minmin,Sun Zhirong,Cata Juan P,Chen Wankun,Miao Changhong
British journal of anaesthesia
BACKGROUND:Intravenous lidocaine has been shown to reduce opioid consumption and is associated with favourable outcomes after surgery. In this study, we explored whether intraoperative lidocaine reduces intraoperative opioid use and length of stay (LOS) and improves long-term survival after pancreatic cancer surgery. METHODS:This retrospective study included 2239 patients who underwent pancreatectomy from January 2014 to December 2017. The patients were divided into non-lidocaine and lidocaine (bolus injection of 1.5 mg kg at the induction of anaesthesia followed by a continuous infusion of 2 mg kg h intraoperatively) groups. The overall use of postoperative rescue analgesia and LOS were recorded. Propensity score matching was used to minimise bias, and disease-free survival and overall survival were compared between the two groups. RESULTS:After propensity score matching, patient characteristics were not significantly different between groups. Intraoperative sufentanil consumption and use of postoperative rescue analgesia in the lidocaine group were significantly lower than those in the non-lidocaine group. The LOS was similar between groups. There was no significant difference in disease-free survival between groups (hazard ratio [HR]=0.913; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.821-1.612; P=0.316). The overall survival rates at 1 and 3 yr were significantly higher in the lidocaine group than in the non-lidocaine group (68.0% vs 62.6%, P<0.001; 34.1% vs 27.2%, P=0.011). The multivariable analysis indicated that intraoperative lidocaine infusion was associated with a prolonged overall survival (HR=0.616; 95% CI, 0.290-0.783; P=0.013). CONCLUSION:Intraoperative intravenous lidocaine infusion was associated with improved overall survival in patients undergoing pancreatectomy.
10.1016/j.bja.2020.03.034
The use of intravenous lidocaine for postoperative pain and recovery: international consensus statement on efficacy and safety.
Foo I,Macfarlane A J R,Srivastava D,Bhaskar A,Barker H,Knaggs R,Eipe N,Smith A F
Anaesthesia
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 , 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 .h 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.
10.1111/anae.15270