Dataset Information

Intravenous lidocaine for the treatment of background or procedural burn pain.

ABSTRACT:

Background

This is an update of the review on "Lidocaine for pain relief in burn injured patients" first published in Issue 3, 2007, and first updated in 2012. Pain is a major issue for people with many different types of wounds, in particular those people with burn injuries. Prompt, aggressive use of opioid analgesics such as morphine has been suggested as critical to avert the cycle of pain and anxiety, but adverse effects are encountered. It has been proposed that newer agents such as lidocaine could be effective in reducing pain and alleviating the escalating opioid dosage requirements in people with burn injury.

Objectives

To assess the safety and effectiveness of intravenous lidocaine as a means of pain relief versus no therapy, placebo, other drugs, or a combination of these therapies in people with burn injury.

Search methods

For this third update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 11, 2013), and Ovid MEDLINE, MEDLINE in Process and Ovid EMBASE (up to December 2013).

Selection criteria

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs), published and unpublished, which assessed the efficacy of intravenous lidocaine in varying doses as a single-agent therapy with no therapy, placebo, other analgesics (such as opioids), lidocaine plus another drug, or a combination of these therapies as a means of pain relief in people with burn injury.

Data collection and analysis

Two review authors independently abstracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the studies identified.

Main results

In this 2014 update, we found no new studies. The one small randomised double-blind placebo-controlled cross-over trial found in 2012, which included only 45 participants and compared intravenous lidocaine against placebo as a means of pain relief in people with burns still remains central to this review. We assessed this study as being at a high risk of bias due to its small size (fewer than 50 participants per treatment arm). Subjective pain ratings, as measured by the verbal rating scale, increased during procedures for both treatment arms; however, the increase was less in the lidocaine treatment group. There were no significant clinical or statistical differences regarding the effects of lidocaine and placebo on opioid requests and consumption, anxiety or level of satisfaction during a wound care procedure, but the small included study provided insufficient data to draw any conclusions.

Authors' conclusions

As current clinical evidence is based on only one RCT as well as case series and reports, intravenous lidocaine must be considered a pharmacological agent under investigation in burns care, the effectiveness of which is yet to be determined with further well-designed and conducted clinical trials.

SUBMITTER: Wasiak J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6508369 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:In the perioperative period, intravenous lidocaine has been used as an opioid-sparing systemic analgesic with additional anti-inflammatory and anti-hyperalgesic properties. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this retrospective study was to review the utilization, efficacy, and safety of intravenous lidocaine on our Acute Pain Service (APS) and identify surgical and patient populations where this intervention was found to be useful. PATIENTS AND METHODS:This retrospective study was designed to assess acute pain management in patients who received an intravenous lidocaine infusion between February 2013 and December 2017. Data collected included demographics, surgery type, infusion duration, pain scores, analgesic consumption, and adverse effects. Pain scores included rest and active pain scores and were analyzed by surgical model and subgroups. Clinically important differences (CIDs) in pain were determined by changes in pain score difference of???2 (11-point scale) or???30% reduction in pain intensity. A patient was considered to have a true CID if a CID was observed with rest and/or active pain scores at both first to second (4-24 h) and first to final time point (4 h to infusion end) comparisons. RESULTS:In total, 544 patients received intravenous lidocaine during this period, and 394 were included in the final analysis. The average (±?standard deviation) duration of infusion was 68.60?±?49.52 h. Surgical specialties included gastrointestinal surgery (41%), orthopedics (28%), neurosurgery (15%), vascular surgery (10%), and others (6%). Overall, 56.1% of the study population experienced a CID, with reduced pain scores at rest and/or with activity. CIDs were also observed in patients with chronic pain (53.5%) and when intravenous lidocaine was used as a rescue technique (69.6%). Within the rescue cohort, opioid-dependent and opioid-naïve patients experienced 23.0% and 45.6% reductions, respectively, in their 8-h intravenous opioid consumption. In total, 37 patients in the study experienced transient signs of mild local anesthetic toxicity, which resolved with infusion titration (conservative) management. One serious adverse event required intervention, and the patient was successfully resuscitated. CONCLUSIONS:This retrospective study at a single institution with an APS policy for intravenous lidocaine in the postoperative period identifies benefits of intravenous lidocaine in certain surgical and patient populations. The findings need to be confirmed with further research.

Project description:STUDY OBJECTIVE:We compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous lidocaine with that of hydromorphone for the treatment of acute abdominal pain in the emergency department (ED). METHODS:This was a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial conducted in 2 EDs in the Bronx, NY. Adults weighing 60 to 120 kg were randomized to receive 120 mg of intravenous lidocaine or 1 mg of intravenous hydromorphone. Thirty minutes after administration of the first dose of the study drug, participants were asked whether they needed a second dose of the investigational medication to which they were randomized. Patients were also stratified according to clinical suspicion of nephrolithiasis. The primary outcome was improvement in pain scores of 0 to 10 between baseline and 90 minutes. An important secondary outcome was need for "off-protocol" parenteral analgesics, including opioids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. RESULTS:We enrolled 154 patients, of whom 77 received lidocaine and 77 received hydromorphone. By 90 minutes, patients randomized to lidocaine improved by a mean of 3.8 points on the 0-to-10 scale, whereas those randomized to hydromorphone improved by a mean of 5.0 points (mean difference 1.2; 95% confidence interval 0.3 to 2.2). Need for off-protocol "rescue" analgesics occurred for 39 of 77 lidocaine patients (51%) and 20 of 77 hydromorphone patients (26%) (difference 25%; 95% confidence interval 10% to 40%). Adverse events were comparable between groups. Among the subset of 22 patients with nephrolithiasis, lidocaine patients reported a mean improvement of 3.4 points on the pain scale, whereas hydromorphone patients reported a mean improvement of 6.4 points (mean difference 3.0; 95% confidence interval 0.5 to 5.5). CONCLUSION:Intravenous hydromorphone was superior to intravenous lidocaine both for general abdominal pain and a subset of patients with nephrolithiasis. A majority of patients randomly allocated to lidocaine required additional analgesics.

Project description:Intravenous lidocaine, a potent local anesthetic with analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties, has been shown to be an effective adjunct that reduces intra- and postoperative opioid consumption and facilitates pain management in adults. While it shows promise for use in the pediatric population, limited evidence is available.ObjectivesTo determine if general anesthesia with intraoperative intravenous lidocaine infusion versus general anesthesia without intravenous lidocaine infusion in children undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy decreased opioid requirements intra- and postoperatively.DesignA single-center parallel single-masked randomized controlled study. A computer-generated blocked randomization list was used to allocate participants. The study was conducted between March 2019 and January 2020.SettingPediatric teaching hospital in Poland.ParticipantsSeventy-four patients aged between 18?months and 18?years undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy. Seventy-one patients fulfilled the study requirements.InterventionIntravenous lidocaine bolus of 1.5?mg/kg over 5?min before induction of anesthesia followed by lidocaine infusion at 1.5?mg/kg/h intraoperatively. The infusion was discontinued before the patients' transfer to the postanesthesia care unit (PACU).Primary outcome measureThe primary outcome measure was total nalbuphine requirement in milligrams during the first 24?h after surgery.Secondary outcome measuresThe secondary outcome measures were intraoperative fentanyl consumption, intraoperative sevoflurane consumption, time to the first rescue analgesic request, incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting during the first 24?h after surgery, frequency of side effects of lidocaine.ResultsChildren (n?=?74) aged 5-17 randomly allocated to receive intraoperative lidocaine infusion (n?=?37) or no intervention (n?=?37). Seventy-one were included in the analysis (35 in the study group and 36 in the control group). There was no difference in the cumulative dose of nalbuphine in the first 24?h after removal of the endotracheal tube between groups [median of 0.1061 (IQR: 0.0962-0.2222) mg/kg in the lidocaine group, compared to the control group median of 0.1325 (IQR: 0.0899-0.22020) mg/kg, p?=?0.63]. Intraoperative fentanyl consumption was lower in the lidocaine group [median of 5.091 (IQR: 4.848-5.714) ?g/kg] than in the control group [median of 5.969 (IQR: 5.000-6.748), p?=?0.03]. Taking into account the additional doses administered based on clinical indications, the reduction in the requirement for fentanyl in the lidocaine group was even greater [median of 0.0 (IQR: 0.0-0.952) vs 0.99 (IQR: 0.0-1.809) ?g/kg, p?=?0.01]. No difference was observed in the sevoflurane consumption between the two groups [median of 32.5?ml (IQR 25.0-43.0) in the lidocaine group vs median of 35.0?ml (IQR: 23.5-46.0) in the control group, p?=?0.56]. The time to first analgesic request in the lidocaine group was prolonged [median of 55 (IQR: 40-110) min in the lidocaine group vs median of 40.5 (IQR: 28-65) min in the control group, p?=?0.05]. There was no difference in the frequency of PONV between the two groups (48.57% in the lidocaine group vs 61.11% in the control group, p?=?0.29). No lidocaine related incidence of anaphylaxis, systemic toxicity, circulatory disturbances or neurological impairment was reported, during anesthesia or postoperative period.ConclusionsIntraoperative systemic lidocaine administration reduced the intraoperative requirement for opioids in children undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy. This effect was time limited, and hence did not affect opioid consumption in the first 24?h following discontinuation of lidocaine infusion.Trial registrationNCT03886896 .