Dataset Information

Efficacy of Intravenous Lidocaine for Pain Relief in the Emergency Department: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare the efficacy of intravenous (IV) lidocaine with standard analgesics (NSAIDS, opioids) for pain control due to any cause in the emergency department.

Methods

The electronic databases of PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar were explored from 1st January 2000 to 30th March 2021 and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IV lidocaine with a control group of standard analgesics were included.

Results

Twelve RCTs including 1,351 patients were included. The cause of pain included abdominal pain, renal or biliary colic, traumatic pain, radicular low back pain, critical limb ischemia, migraine, tension-type headache, and pain of unknown origin. On pooled analysis, we found no statistically significant difference in pain scores between IV lidocaine and control group at 15 min (MD: −0.24 95% CI: −1.08, 0.61 I2 = 81% p = 0.59), 30 min (MD: −0.24 95% CI: −1.03, 0.55 I2 = 86% p = 0.55), 45 min (MD: 0.31 95% CI: −0.66, 1.29 I2 = 66% p = 0.53), and 60 min (MD: 0.59 95% CI: −0.26, 1.44 I2 = 75% p = 0.18). There was no statistically significant difference in the need for rescue analgesics between the two groups (OR: 1.45 95% CI: 0.82, 2.56 I2 = 41% p = 0.20), but on subgroup analysis, the need for rescue analgesics was significantly higher with IV lidocaine in studies on abdominal pain but not for musculoskeletal pain. On meta-analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of side-effects between the two study groups (OR: 1.09 95% CI: 0.59, 2.02 I2 = 48% p = 0.78).

Conclusion

IV lidocaine can be considered as an alternative analgesic for pain control in the ED. However, its efficacy may not be higher than standard analgesics. Further RCTs with a large sample size are needed to corroborate the current conclusions.

SUBMITTER: Zhong J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8801430 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study objectiveWe compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous lidocaine with that of hydromorphone for the treatment of acute abdominal pain in the emergency department (ED).MethodsThis 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.ResultsWe 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).ConclusionIntravenous 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:IntroductionOrthopedic procedures have been associated with increased pain, making perioperative analgesia a major clinical concern. We assessed the efficacy and safety of intravenous parecoxib administration during the perioperative period for postoperative pain relief after orthopedic surgery in adults.MethodsPubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and clinicaltrial.gov were searched from inception to 23 August 2021 without language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials comparing intravenous parecoxib with placebo or another active treatment for acute postoperative pain in adults after orthopedic surgery were included. The primary outcomes were the pain scores and cumulative morphine consumption. The secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients requiring rescue analgesics and the incidence of adverse events. The meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines and was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews Registration (PROSPERO).ResultsTwenty-seven trials (n = 2840) from more than 20 countries involving six types of orthopedic surgery met the inclusion criteria. Compared with placebo, intravenous parecoxib administration led to reductions in postoperative resting pain scores at 6, 12, 24, and 48 h [mean difference (MD) -0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.71 to -0.03; MD -0.86, 95% CI -1.26 to -0.46; MD -0.57, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.31; MD -0.40, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.11, respectively], postoperative movement pain scores at 24 and 48 h (MD -0.66, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.19; MD -0.78, 95% CI -1.16 to -0.39, respectively), cumulative morphine consumption (MD -11.30 mg, 95% CI -14.79 to -7.81 mg), and the proportion of patients requiring rescue analgesia (relative risk 0.83, 95% CI 0.77-0.89). There was no difference in the incidence of adverse events between groups.ConclusionLow to moderate evidence indicates that parecoxib might be an effective and safe analgesic in perioperative orthopedic settings. It relieves postoperative orthopedic pain while sparing opioid analgesic consumption without increasing the incidence of adverse events.Prospero registrationCRD42021274939.

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) μg/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) μg/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 .

Project description:ObjectiveAnterior shoulder dislocations are commonly treated in the emergency department (ED). Analgesia for reduction is provided by intra-articular lidocaine (IAL) injection or intravenous sedation (IV sedation). The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare IAL versus IV sedation for closed reduction of acute anterior shoulder dislocation in the ED.MethodsElectronic searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE (1946-September 2021) were completed and reference lists were hand-searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IAL and IV sedation for reduction of acute anterior shoulder dislocations among patients ≥ 15 years old in the ED were included. Outcomes of interest included a successful reduction, adverse events, ED length of stay, pain scores, procedure time, ease of reduction, patient satisfaction, and cost. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts, assessed study quality and extracted data. Data were pooled using random-effects models and reported as mean differences and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).Results12 RCTs were included with a total of 630 patients (IAL = 327; IV sedation = 303). There was no difference in reduction success between IAL and IV sedation (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.86-1.01, I2 = 69%), significantly lower adverse events with IAL (RR 0.16; 95% CI 0.07-0.33, I2 = 0%), shorter ED length of stay with IAL (mean difference - 1.48; 95% CI - 2.48 to - 0.47, I2 = 93%), no difference in pain scores post-analgesia and no difference in ease of reduction.ConclusionsIntra-articular lidocaine may have similar effectiveness as IV sedation in the successful reduction of anterior shoulder dislocations in the ED with fewer adverse events, shorter ED length of stay, and no difference in pain scores or ease of reduction. Intra-articular lidocaine may be an effective alternative to IV sedation for reducing anterior shoulder dislocations, particularly when IV sedation is contraindicated or not feasible.

Project description:BackgroundEffective pain control is crucial to optimise the success of medical procedures. Immersive virtual reality (VR) technology could offer an effective non-invasive, non-pharmacological option to distract patients and reduce their experience of pain. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of Immersive virtual reality (VR) technology in reducing patient's pain perception during various medical procedures by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and SIGLE until December 2022 for all randomised clinical trials (RCT) evaluating any type of VR in patients undergoing any medical procedure. We conducted a random effect meta-analysis summarising standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We evaluated heterogeneity using I 2 and explored it using subgroup and meta-regression analyses.ResultsIn total, we included 92 RCTs (n = 7133 participants). There was a significant reduction in pain scores with VR across all medical procedures (n = 83, SMD - 0.78, 95% CI - 1.00 to - 0.57, I 2 = 93%, p = < 0.01). Subgroup analysis showed varied reduction in pain scores across trial designs [crossover (n = 13, SMD - 0.86, 95% CI - 1.23 to - 0.49, I 2 = 72%, p = < 0.01) vs parallel RCTs (n = 70, SMD - 0.77, 95% CI - 1.01 to - 0.52, I 2 = 90%, p = < 0.01)]; participant age groups [paediatric (n = 43, SMD - 0.91, 95% CI - 1.26 to - 0.56, I 2 = 87%, p = < 0.01) vs adults (n = 40, SMD - 0.66, 95% CI - 0.94 to - 0.39, I 2 = 89%, p = < 0.01)] or procedures [venepuncture (n = 32, SMD - 0.99, 95% CI - 1.52 to - 0.46, I 2 = 90%, p = < 0.01) vs childbirth (n = 7, SMD - 0.99, 95% CI - 1.59 to - 0.38, I 2 = 88%, p = < 0.01) vs minimally invasive medical procedures (n = 25, SMD - 0.51, 95% CI - 0.79 to - 0.23, I 2 = 85%, p = < 0.01) vs dressing changes in burn patients (n = 19, SMD - 0.8, 95% CI - 1.16 to - 0.45, I 2 = 87%, p = < 0.01)]. We explored heterogeneity using meta-regression which showed no significant impact of different covariates including crossover trials (p = 0.53), minimally invasive procedures (p = 0.37), and among paediatric participants (p = 0.27). Cumulative meta-analysis showed no change in overall effect estimates with the additional RCTs since 2018.ConclusionsImmersive VR technology offers effective pain control across various medical procedures, albeit statistical heterogeneity. Further research is needed to inform the safe adoption of this technology across different medical disciplines.

Project description:BackgroundPain is one of the main reasons to present to emergency departments (EDs). Opioids are indispensable for acute pain management but are associated with side effects, misuse, and dependence. The aim of this study was to test whether a single dose of intravenous (IV) acetaminophen (paracetamol) can reduce the use of morphine for pain relief and/or morphine-related adverse events (AEs).MethodsED patients >18 years with acute pain (i.e., Numeric Rating Scale [NRS] > 4) were screened for eligibility. Patients with analgesia in the past 6 h, chronic pain, or clinical instability were excluded. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either morphine 0.1 mg/kg and 1 g acetaminophen IV or morphine 0.1 mg/kg and placebo IV. The intervention was double-blinded. Additional morphine 0.05 mg/kg IV was administered every 15 minutes until pain relief (defined as NRS < 4) and whether the pain recurred. The primary outcome was the mean morphine dose for pain relief. Secondary outcomes were the total amount of morphine given, time to achieve pain relief, and AEs.ResultsA total of 220 patients were randomized and 202 evaluated for the primary outcome. The mean morphine dose for pain relief was similar in both groups (acetaminophen 0.15 mg ± 0.07 mg/kg, placebo 0.16 ± 0.07 mg/kg). There were no differences in the total amount of morphine given (acetaminophen 0.19 ± 0.09 mg/kg, placebo 0.19 ± 0.1 mg/kg), the time to achieve pain relief (acetaminophen 30 min [95% CI 17-31 min], placebo 30 min [95% CI 30-35 min]), and the frequency of AEs (overall 27.4%). Time to pain recurrence did not differ significantly between the groups (hazard ratio 1.23 [0.76-1.98], p = 0.40).ConclusionsIn ED patients, acetaminophen had no additional effect on pain control or morphine-sparing effect at the time of first morphine administration. Titrated morphine with the algorithm used was highly effective, with 80% of all patients reporting pain relief within 60 min of starting therapy.