Systemic Intravenous Lidocaine for the Treatment of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: A Case Report and Literature Review.

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) was described in 1864 by Mitchell et al as a condition characterized by many unique symptoms. Although symptoms may differ from patient to patient, the most common complaints are painful swelling in upper or lower extremities or changes in the skin. CRPS has been given many different names since it was first mentioned in the literature in 1851. The most common alternative names include causalgia, aglodystrophy, and sympathetic dystrophy syndrome. This condition is generally diagnosed in older adults because of trauma, nerve damage, and coronary artery disease; however, there are cases of CRPS affecting the pediatric and young adult population. The fourth edition of the diagnostic and treatment guidelines of CRPS published by Harden et al in 2013 suggest many different pharmacologic treatment options for these patients. Intravenous lidocaine is used to block the sodium channels in neuronal membranes, thus stopping initiation and conduction of impulses associated with neuropathic and inflammatory pain. The use of regional intravenous lidocaine (by applying a tourniquet on the affected extremity) has been well-documented in the literature with a successful decrease in pain symptoms. A unique case of the use of systemic intravenous lidocaine will be presented.

Frequency of Adverse Event Monitoring in Ambulatory Patients on Amiodarone or Dofetilide.

BACKGROUND: Published studies state that adherence to regular laboratory assessments for anti-arrhythmic drugs is as low as 20%. Monitoring adherence is important as other studies have shown that up to 93% of patients on amiodarone experience an adverse drug event leading to a potentially lethal event. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patients prescribed amiodarone or dofetilide are being monitored according to package labeling and guideline recommendations for adverse events. METHODS: Patients prescribed amiodarone or dofetilide from a 2-year period were eligible for inclusion. Patients with ventricular arrhythmias, prescribed more than 1 anti-arrhythmic agent, or received anti-arrhythmic monitoring outside the health-care system were excluded. Adherence to monitoring parameters was assessed according to labeled recommendations and published guidelines. The primary objective was to determine the frequency of baseline and follow-up monitoring recommendations for patients receiving amiodarone or dofetilide. The secondary objective was to determine rates of adverse drug events. RESULTS: One hundred patients were evaluated (amiodarone n = 50, dofetilide n = 50). Average rates of baseline and follow-up amiodarone monitoring parameters were 55% and 57%, respectively. Average rates of baseline and follow-up dofetilide monitoring were 99.6% and 85%, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference in abnormally elevated thyroid-stimulating hormone levels (8%-30%, P ≤ .005) after patients were prescribed amiodarone. Twelve percent of patients taking dofetilide had an increase in QTc interval by >15%. CONCLUSIONS: Amiodarone adverse event monitoring was lower than dofetilide in this cohort. Improving the monitoring of these agents may decrease morbidity risk in this population.