Lidocaine Inhibits Rat Prostate Cancer Cell Invasiveness and Voltage-Gated Sodium Channel Expression in Plasma Membrane.

There is increasing evidence, mostly from breast cancer, that use of local anaesthetics during surgery can inhibit disease recurrence by suppressing the motility of the cancer cells dependent on inherent voltage-gated sodium channels (VGSCs). Here, the possibility that lidocaine could affect cellular behaviours associated with metastasis was tested using the Dunning cell model of rat prostate cancer. Mostly, the strongly metastatic (VGSC-expressing) Mat-LyLu cells were used under both normoxic and hypoxic conditions. The weakly metastatic AT-2 cells served for comparison in some experiments. Lidocaine (1-500 µM) had no effect on cell viability or growth but suppressed Matrigel invasion dose dependently in both normoxia and hypoxia. Used as a control, tetrodotoxin produced similar effects. Exposure to hypoxia increased Nav1.7 mRNA expression but VGSCα protein level in plasma membrane was reduced. Lidocaine under both normoxia and hypoxia had no effect on Nav1.7 mRNA expression. VGSCα protein expression was suppressed by lidocaine under normoxia but no effect was seen in hypoxia. It is concluded that lidocaine can suppress prostate cancer invasiveness without effecting cellular growth or viability. Extended to the clinic, the results would suggest that use of lidocaine, and possibly other local anaesthetics, during surgery can suppress any tendency for post-operative progression of prostate cancer.

Dexmedetomidine mitigates lidocaine-induced spinal cord injury by repressing ferritinophagy-mediated ferroptosis by increasing CISD2 expression in rat models.

Dexmedetomidine (DEX) has been confirmed to exert neuroprotective effects in various nerve injury models by regulating ferroptosis, including spinal cord injury (SCI). Although it has been established that CDGSH iron sulfur domain 2 (CISD2) can regulate ferroptosis, whether DEX can regulate ferroptosis by CISD2 in SCI remains unclear. Lidocaine was used to induce PC12 cells and stimulate rats to establish SCI models in vitro and in vivo. MTT assays were performed to analyze cell viability. Ferroptosis was assessed by determining the levels of cellular reactive axygen species (ROS), malondialdehyde (MDA), glutathione (GSH), and Fe2+. Ferritinophagy was analyzed by LysoTracker staining, FerroOrange staining, and immunofluorescence. Western blotting was carried out to quantify the levels of several proteins. Fluorescence microscopy was also used to observe cell autophagy. The morphology of mitochondria within the tissue was observed under transmission electron microscopy (TEM). DEX treatment weakened lidocaine-induced elevation of ROS, Fe2+, and MDA and reduced GSH in PC12 cells, indicating that DEX treatment weakened lidocaine-induced ferroptosis in PC12 cells. Similarly, lidocaine promoted autophagy, Fe2+, and microtubule-associated protein 1 light chain 3 (LC3) in PC12 cells and suppressed ferritin and p62 protein levels, indicating that DEX could weaken lidocaine-induced ferritinophagy in PC12 cells. DEX treatment improved the BBB score, reduced tissue damage, increased the number of neurons, and alleviated mitochondrial damage by inhibiting ferroptosis and ferritinophagy in lidocaine-induced SCI rat models. The decreased CISD2, ferritin heavy chain 1 (FTH1), solute carrier family 7-member 11-glutathione (SLC7A11), and glutathione peroxidase 4 (GPX4) protein levels and the elevated nuclear receptor coactivator 4 (NCOA4) protein levels in rat models in the lidocaine group were weakened by DEX treatment. Moreover, CISD2 inhibition reversed the inhibitory effects of DEX treatment on lidocaine-induced ferroptosis and ferritinophagy in PC12 cells significantly. Taken together, DEX treatment could impair lidocaine-induced SCI by inhibiting ferroptosis and ferritinophagy by upregulating CISD2 in rat models.

Fabrication of lidocaine-loaded polymer dissolving microneedles for rapid and prolonged local anesthesia.

There is an urgent need for research into effective interventions for pain management to improve patients' life quality. Traditional needle and syringe injection were used to administer the local anesthesia. However, it causes various discomforts, ranging from brief stings to trypanophobia and denial of medical operations. In this study, a dissolving microneedles (MNs) system made of composite matrix materials of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), and sodium hyaluronate (HA) was successfully developed for the loading of lidocaine hydrochloride (LidH). The morphology, size and mechanical properties of the MNs were also investigated. After the insertion of MNs into the skin, the matrix at the tip of the MNs was swelled and dissolved by absorption of interstitial fluid, leading to a rapid release of loaded LidH from MNs' tips. And the LidH in the back patching was diffused into deeper skin tissue through microchannels created by MNs insertion, forming a prolonged anesthesia effect. In addition, the back patching of MNs could be acted as a drug reservoir to form a prolonged local anesthesia effect. The results showed that LidH MNs provided a superior analgesia up to 8 h, exhibiting a rapid and long-lasting analgesic effects. Additionally, tissue sectioning and in vitro cytotoxicity tests indicated that the MNs patch we developed had a favorable biosafety profile.

SUNCT, SUNA and short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks: Debates and an update.

BACKGROUND: Short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks (SUNHA) have the features of both short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform pain, such as trigeminal neuralgia or stabbing headache, and associated trigeminal autonomic symptoms, such as paroxysmal hemicrania or cluster headache. Recognizing and adequately treating SUNHA is essential but current treatment methods are ineffective in treating SUNHA. METHODS: We reviewed the changes in the concept of short-lasting unilateral neuralgiform headache attacks and provide a narrative review of the current medical and surgical treatment options, from the first choice of treatment for patients to treatments for selective intractable cases. RESULTS: Unlike the initial impression of an intractable primary headache disorder affecting older men, SUNHA affects both sexes throughout their lifespan. One striking feature of SUNHA is that the attacks are triggered by cutaneous or intraoral stimulation. The efficacy of conventional treatments is disappointing and challenging, and preventive therapy is the mainstay of treatment because of highly frequent attacks of a very brief duration. Amongst them, lamotrigine is effective in approximately two-third of the patients with SUNHA, and intravenous lidocaine is essential for the management of acute exacerbation of intractable pain. Topiramate, oxcarbazepine and gabapentin are considered good secondary options for SUNHA, and botulinum toxin can be used in selective cases. Neurovascular compression is commonly observed in SUNHA, and surgical approaches, such as neurovascular compression, have been reported to be effective for intractable cases. CONCLUSIONS: Recent advances in the understanding of SUNHA have improved the recognition and treatment approaches for this unique condition.

Topical Lidocaine for Pessary Removal and Reinsertion Pain Reduction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Vaginal pessaries are an inexpensive non-surgical treatment for pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. Pessary maintenance includes periodic removal, cleaning, and reinsertion, which can be painful. Lidocaine-prilocaine cream has been shown to significantly reduce pain during pessary maintenance exams. In some practices, Lidocaine HCl 2% jelly may be more readily available and serve as an alternative to lidocaine-prilocaine cream. However, the effect of Lidocaine HCl 2% jelly use during pessary maintenance exams has not been tested. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of Lidocaine HCl 2% jelly versus lubricating jelly on pain at the time of office pessary removal and reinsertion. STUDY DESIGN: This study is a single-blind, randomized clinical trial among patients presenting to a urogynecology office at a tertiary care center. Participants were randomized to the application of 5cc of Lidocaine HCl 2% jelly or a water-based lubricating jelly five minutes before pessary removal. Visual analog scale pain scores were collected from the participants at baseline, at pessary removal, and at pessary reinsertion. The primary outcome was the visual analog scale pain score at the time of pessary removal. A sample size of 33 per group (n=66) was planned to estimate an absolute mean difference in visual analog pain scale of 2.05 cm at the time of pessary removal. RESULTS: Between September 2022 and June 2023, 192 women were screened, and 66 were enrolled. Thirty-three participants were randomized into the lubricating jelly group and 33 participants were randomized into the Lidocaine HCl 2% jelly group. The two groups were similar in baseline characteristics. Most participants were postmenopausal, using vaginal estrogen, wearing a 70 mm ring pessary with support for pelvic organ prolapse, and reported being very satisfied with the pessary. Other pessaries worn included ring without support, incontinence rings with and without support, Gellhorn, and donut. The pessary sizes ranged from 51 mm to 96 mm. There was no significant difference in pessary type and size between groups. Visual analog scale pain scores at pessary removal were low in both groups: 3.23±3.00 cm in the lubricating group and 2.66±2.77 cm in the lidocaine group. After adjusting for baseline pain, there was no significant difference in pain at pessary removal between the lidocaine jelly and the lubricating jelly groups (mean difference=-0.56 cm, 95% CI: -1.97 to 0.85; p=0.44). Despite no significant difference in visual analog scale pain scores, 71.2% of participants reported a desire for numbing jelly at future pessary examinations. CONCLUSION: Pain during pessary removal and reinsertion is low. Compared to lubricating jelly, lidocaine jelly did not further reduce pain during pessary examinations.

Examination of the Rate and Extent of Drug Released from Commercial Topical Delivery Systems During Wear: An Example with Lidocaine Topical Systems.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the extent and rate of lidocaine released in vivo from two bioequivalent topical delivery systems (TDS) by using complementary assessments: pharmacokinetic analysis in healthy human volunteers, and residual lidocaine in TDS following 12 h of wear. The goal was to explore a potentially more clinically meaningful strength presentation than percent active pharmaceutical ingredient loaded in topical systems. METHODS: A three-arm, open-label, crossover clinical study was conducted in 23 human subjects, with 5% lidocaine topical systems from two manufacturers, and intravenous lidocaine administration. Residual drug and LC-MS/MS analyses were performed on worn TDS and serum samples. The rate and extent of drug released from the TDS during wear were determined through (1) calculations of consumed lidocaine via analysis of residual drug in worn TDS, and (2) a pharmacokinetic approach via derivation of the absolute clearance and serum lidocaine concentration at steady state. RESULTS: Overall the pharmacokinetic approach underestimated the amount transferred to the subject and exhibited greater variability, which may relate to natural inter-subject variability in pharmacokinetic parameters. Further, lidocaine TDS are intended for localized, not systemic, delivery and this may also explain some of the variability seen in the systemic serum concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: The residual drug and pharmacokinetic approaches align well for transdermal formulations, but the differences in administration route (topical versus transdermal) all but eliminates the potential use of the pharmacokinetic approach unless additional compartmental modeling is explored.

The PATCH trial: 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster for trigeminal neuralgia-Results of a multicentric, enriched enrollment, randomized withdrawal, double-blind, vehicle-controlled, parallel-group study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the efficacy and safety of 5% lidocaine-medicated plaster (LMP) in patients with trigeminal neuralgia (TN). BACKGROUND: TN is an excruciatingly painful type of neuropathic facial pain. Anti-epileptics are the first-line treatment for TN; however, these oral drugs alone sometimes fail to achieve satisfactory analgesic effects. Two retrospective studies have shown that LMP can be an effective and safe treatment option for some patients with TN. No other high-quality clinical studies have explored the effect and safety of LMP in patients with TN. METHODS: The PATCH trial is an enriched enrollment with randomized withdrawal, double-blind, vehicle-controlled, parallel-group trial performed at five study centers. Eligible patients with TN received LMP during a 3-week initial open-label phase. Patients who met the response criteria entered the double-blind treatment phase and were randomly assigned for treatment with either LMP (LMP group) or vehicle patches (control group) at a 1:1 ratio. Patients who met the criteria for treatment failure were withdrawn from the double-blind treatment phase, and treatment was continued in the remaining patients for up to 28 days. The primary outcome was the number of treatment failures. The secondary endpoints were the time to loss of therapeutic response (LTR) in the double-blind phase and the weekly mean pain severity in both the open-label phase and the double-blind phase of the study. RESULTS: The first patient was enrolled in this study on May 1, 2021, and the enrollment of the last patient was completed on August 26, 2022. A total of 307 patients were initially screened, 226 (74.0%) of whom entered the open-label phase. Of the 226 respondents, 124 (55.0%) were randomized to the double-blind phase. In the double-blind phase, 62 patients were assigned to the LMP group, and 62 were assigned to the control group. For the primary endpoint, 16 (26.0%) patients with LMP and 36 (58.0%) patients with vehicle patches met the treatment failure criteria during the double-blind phase (relative risk, 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31 to 0.75; p < 0.001). The survival curve of the LTR showed that the LTR of LMP was significantly longer than that of the vehicle patches (hazard ratio, 0.275; 95% CI, 0.15 to 0.50; log-rank p < 0.001). LMP also significantly reduced the weekly mean pain severity in the double-blind phase of the study (p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: LMP produced partial relief of pain symptoms in some patients with TN. For responders, LMP may be used as an add-on therapy in a multidrug treatment protocol.

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

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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 = - 0.95 min; 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). CONCLUSION: 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 analgesic effectiveness of perioperative lidocaine infusions for acute and chronic persistent postsurgical pain in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women and tumour resection carries a high prevalence of chronic persistent postsurgical pain (CPSP). Perioperative i.v. lidocaine infusion has been proposed as protective against CPSP; however, evidence of its benefits is conflicting. This review evaluates the effectiveness of perioperative lidocaine infusions for breast cancer surgery. METHODS: Randomised trials comparing perioperative lidocaine infusions with parenteral analgesia in breast cancer surgery patients were sought. The two co-primary outcomes were the odds of CPSP at 3 and 6 months after operation. Secondary outcomes included rest pain at 1, 6, 12, and 24 h; analgesic consumption at 0-24 and 25-48 h; quality of recovery; opioid-related side-effects; and lidocaine infusion side-effects. Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman (HKSJ) random effects modelling was used. RESULTS: Thirteen trials (1039 patients; lidocaine: 518, control: 521) were included. Compared with control, perioperative lidocaine infusion did not decrease the odds of developing CPSP at 3 and 6 months. Lidocaine infusion improved postoperative pain at 1 h by a mean difference (95% confidence interval) of -0.65 cm (-0.73 to -0.57 cm) (P<0.0001); however, this difference was not clinically important (1.1 cm threshold). Similarly, lidocaine infusion reduced oral morphine consumption by 7.06 mg (-13.19 to -0.93) (P=0.029) over the first 24 h only; however, this difference was not clinically important (30 mg threshold). The groups were not different for any of the remaining outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide moderate-quality evidence that perioperative lidocaine infusion does not reduce CPSP in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery. Routine use of lidocaine infusions for perioperative analgesia and CPSP prevention is not supported in this population. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO CRD42023420888.

Noninferiority trials in acute pain research: a valid approach or a slippery slope?

The conduct and reporting of studies with a noninferiority hypothesis is challenging because of the complexity involved in their design and interpretation. However, studies with a noninferiority design have increased in popularity. A recently published trial reported on the noninferiority of lidocaine infusion to epidural analgesia in major abdominal surgeries. Apart from needing a critical appraisal, this draws attention to improve our understanding of noninferiority study framework and its unique features. Given the increasing focus on using various analgesic adjuncts and multiple approaches to fascial plane blocks to avoid more definitive and standard approaches, it is imperative that particular attention is paid to appropriate execution and reporting of noninferiority studies.

Analgesic Effects of Intraperitoneal Lidocaine in Adults Undergoing Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The administration of local anaesthesia in intraperitoneal space as part of the multi-modal analgesic regimen has shown to be effective in reducing postoperative pain. Recent studies demonstrated that intraperitoneal lidocaine may provide analgesic effects. Primary objective was to determine the impact of intraperitoneal lidocaine on postoperative pain scores at rest. DESIGN: We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). METHODS: Databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched from their inception date until May 2023. Randomized clinical trials (RCT) comparing intraperitoneal lidocaine and placebo in adults undergoing surgery were included. RESULTS: Our systematic review included 24 RCTs (n = 1,824). The intraperitoneal lidocaine group was significantly associated with lower postoperative pain scores at rest (MD: -0.87, 95% CI: -1.04 to -0.69) and at movement (MD: -0.50, 95% Cl: -0.93 to -0.08) among adult patients after surgery. Its administration also significantly decreased morphine consumption (MD: -6.42 mg, 95% Cl: -11.56 to -1.27), lowered the incidence of needing analgesia (OR: 0.22, 95% Cl: 0.14 to 0.35). Intraperitoneal lidocaine statistically reduced time to resume regular diet (MD: 0.16 days; 95% Cl: -0.31 to -0.01), and lowered postoperative incidence of nausea and vomiting (OR: 0.54, 95% Cl: 0.39 to 0.75). CONCLUSIONS: In this review, our findings should be interpreted with caution. Future studies are warranted to determine the optimal dose of administering intraperitoneal lidocaine among adult patients undergoing surgery.

Using part of the initial analgesic dose as the epidural test dose did not delay the onset of labor analgesia: a randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Epidural test dose for labor analgesia is controversial and varies widely in clinical practice. It is currently unclear whether using a portion of the initial dose for analgesia as the test dose delays the onset time of analgesia, compared to the traditional test dose. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-six parturients who chose epidural analgesia during labor were randomly assigned to two groups. The first dose in group L was 3 ml 1.5% lidocaine, and in the RF group was 10 ml 0.1% ropivacaine combined with 2 µg/ml fentanyl. After 3 min of observation, both groups received 8 ml 0.1% ropivacaine combined with 2 µg/ml fentanyl. The onset time of analgesia, motor and sensory blockade level, numerical pain rating scale, patient satisfaction score, and side effects were recorded. RESULTS: The onset time of analgesia in group RF was similar to that in group L (group RF vs group L, 7.0 [5.0-9.0] minutes vs 8.0 [5.0-11.0] minutes, p = 0.197). The incidence of foot numbness (group RF vs group L, 34.9% vs 57.1%, p = 0.020) and foot warming (group RF vs group L, 15.9% vs 47.6%, p < 0.001) in group RF was significantly lower than that in group L. There was no difference between the two groups on other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with 1.5% lidocaine 3 ml, 0.1% ropivacaine 10 ml combined with 2 µg/ml fentanyl as an epidural test dose did not delay the onset of labor analgesia, and the side effects were slightly reduced. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2100043071).

Lidocaine spray vs mepivacaine local infiltration for suturing 1st/2nd grade perineal lacerations: a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Perineal lacerations are a very common complication of post-partum. Usually, the repair of 1st and 2nd-grade lacerations is performed after the administration of local anesthesia. Despite the great relevance of the problem, there are only a few studies about the best choice of local anesthetic to use during suturing. We performed a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the use of a local anesthetic spray during the suturing of perineal lacerations in the post-partum. METHODS: We compared the spray with the standard technique, which involves the infiltration of lacerated tissues, using the NRS scale. 136 eligible women who had given birth at University Hospital of Udine were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive nebulization of Lidocaine hydrochloride 10% spray (experimental group) or subcutaneous/submucosal infiltration of mepivacaine hydrochloride (control group) during suturing of perineal laceration. RESULTS: The lacerations included 84 1st-grade perineal traumas (61.7%) and 52 2nd-grade perineal traumas (38.2%). All the procedures were successfully completed without severe complications or serious adverse reactions. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of blood losses or total procedure time. Moreover, there were no statistically significant differences in terms of NRS to none of the intervals considered. Regarding the application of the spray in the B group, in 36 cases (52.9%) it was necessary to improve the number of puffs previously supposed to be sufficient (5 puffs). Just in 3 cases, an additional injection was necessary (4.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that lidocaine spray alone can be used as a first line of local anesthetic during the closure of I-II-grade perineal lacerations, as it has comparable efficacy to mepivacaine infiltration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was recorded on https://clinicaltrials.gov . Identification number: NCT05201313. First registration date: 21/01/2022. Unique Protocol ID: 0042698/P/GEN/ARCS.

Adjuvant Analgesics in Acute Pain - Evaluation of Efficacy.

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: Acute postoperative pain impacts a significant number of patients and is associated with various complications, such as a higher occurrence of chronic postsurgical pain as well as increased morbidity and mortality. RECENT FINDINGS: Opioids are often used to manage severe pain, but they come with serious adverse effects, such as sedation, respiratory depression, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and impaired bowel function. Therefore, most enhanced recovery after surgery protocols promote multimodal analgesia, which includes adjuvant analgesics, to provide optimal pain control. In this article, we aim to offer a comprehensive review of the contemporary literature on adjuvant analgesics in the management of acute pain, especially in the perioperative setting. Adjuvant analgesics have proven efficacy in treating postoperative pain and reducing need for opioids. While ketamine is an established option for opioid-dependent patients, magnesium and α2-agonists have, in addition to their analgetic effect, the potential to attenuate hemodynamic responses, which make them especially useful in painful laparoscopic procedures. Furthermore, α2-agonists and dexamethasone can extend the analgesic effect of regional anesthesia techniques. However, findings for lidocaine remain inconclusive.

Comparison between intravenous lidocaine and dexamethasone in reducing postoperative sore throat after endotracheal extubation at Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Post-operative sore throat is the common complaint and uncomfortable side effect in patients receiving general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation. Drugs with analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties, like steroids and local anesthetics, are the best options for postoperative sore throat prophylaxis. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the effects of intravenous lidocaine and dexamethasone in reducing postoperative sore throat following endotracheal extubation at Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, from January 1 to March 30, 2023 G.C. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was carried out at Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital. Data from 50 patients in the lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg), 50 in the dexamethasone (8 mg), and 49 in the control groups were analyzed. The data were collected using observation based on structured questionnaires. A systematic random sampling technique was applied to select respondents. The data were entered into EpiData version 4.6.0.6 and transferred to STATA version 17 statistical software for analysis. A comparison of continuous data among the groups were performed using a one-way ANOVA test for parametric data. The Kruskal-Wallis rank test was used for non-parametric data. Associations between variables were tested using chi-squared test, Fisher's exact test, and binary logistic regression. Bivariable and multivariable logistic regression was used to determine degree of association. RESULTS: The incidence of POST was 40%, 32%, and 57.1% in the lidocaine, dexamethasone, and control groups, respectively (P = .0356). Dexamethasone reduced the incidence of POST during the first 24 h (AOR: 0.374, 95% CI: 0.149-0.939). However, no difference was observed in the severity of POST at 3 h (p = 0.130), 6 h (p = 0.096), 12 h (p = 0.313), and 24 h (p = 0.525) of the post-extubation period among the three groups. IV lidocaine did not effectively reduce the incidence and severity of postoperative sore throat at different time intervals. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Intravenous dexamethasone is more effective than intravenous lidocaine in reducing the incidence of postoperative sore throat among the groups. Based on these findings, intravenous dexamethasone is recommended to decrease the incidence of postoperative sore throat.

50% efficacy dose of intravenous lidocaine in supressing sufentanil-induced cough in children: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Opioids such as sufentanil are used as anaesthetics due to their rapid action and superior analgesic effect. However, sufentanil induces a huge cough in paediatric patients. In contrast, intravenous (IV) lidocaine suppresses opioid-induced cough in children, but its use is limited due to anaesthetists' concern about its toxicity. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effect of dose-dependent IV lidocaine on sufentanil-induced cough (SIC) in paediatric patients. METHODS: A total of 188 patients aged 3-12 years scheduled for elective tonsillectomy with or without adenoidectomy were enrolled and divided into four groups depending on different dose of lidocaine: A (0 mg.kg-1), B (1 mg.kg-1), C (1.5 mg.kg-1), and D (2 mg.kg-1). The primary outcome was the SIC grade observed during the induction of general anaesthesia. The secondary outcomes were the incidence of SIC, mean arterial pressure, and heart rate at T0, T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5. RESULTS: The SIC grade was significantly different between groups A and D (P = 0.04) and between groups B and D (P = 0.03). Moreover, the incidence of SIC in groups A, B, C, and D was 81%, 87%, 68%, and 64%, respectively, and the difference between groups B and C (P = 0.03) and between groups B and D (P = 0.0083) was statistically significant. No statistical differences were observed in the hemodynamic parameters between the groups. The incidence of severe cough was statistically different between group D and group A (P < 0.0001), between group D and group B (P < 0.0001), and between group D and group C (P < 0.0001) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Lidocaine suppresses SIC in a dose-dependent manner without severe adverse events. IV lidocaine can be used in paediatric patients safely and efficiently, and the median effective dose was 1.75 mg/kg. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Yichang Central People's Hospital (HEC-KYJJ-2020-038-02), The trial was registered at www.chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2100053006).

Comparing intravenous lidocaine and pethidine for pain management in emergency department patients with femoral bone fracture: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous lidocaine has shown promise as an effective analgesic in various clinical settings, but its utility for pain management in emergency departments, especially for bone fractures, remains relatively understudied. OBJECTIVE: This study compared intravenous lidocaine to pethidine for femoral bone fracture pain management. METHODS: This double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial was conducted in the emergency department of AJA University of Medical Sciences affiliated hospitals. Patients aged 18-70 years-old with femoral bone fracture and experiencing severe pain, defined as a numerical rating scale (NRS) of pain ≥ 7, were included in the study. One group received intravenous pethidine (25 mg), while the other group received intravenous lidocaine (3 mg/kg, not exceeding 200 mg), infused with 250 ml saline over 20 min. Pain levels were evaluated before treatment administration (0 min) and at 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, and 60 min after treatment administration using the NRS. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients were enrolled in the study. Demographic characteristics and pain scores were similar between the two groups. The mean pain scores upon arrival for the lidocaine and pethidine groups were 8.50 ± 1 and 8.0 ± 1, respectively; after one hour, they were 4.0 ± 1 and 4.0 ± 1, respectively. While there was a statistically significant reduction in pain in both groups after one hour, there were no clinically or statistically significant differences between the two groups (p = 0.262). Pethidine had a higher incidence of adverse events, though not statistically significant. Additionally, females required more rescue analgesics. CONCLUSION: The administration of intravenous lidocaine is beneficial for managing pain in femoral bone fractures, suggesting that lidocaine could be a potent alternative to opioids. TRIAL REGISTRATION: IRCT20231213060355N1 ( https://irct.behdasht.gov.ir/trial/74624 ) (30/12/2023).

Lidocaine effects on neutrophil extracellular trapping and angiogenesis biomarkers in postoperative breast cancer patients with different anesthesia methods: a prospective, randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Anesthesia techniques and drug selection may influence tumor recurrence and metastasis. Neutrophil extracellular trapping (NETosis), an immunological process, has been linked to an increased susceptibility to metastasis in individuals with tumors. Furthermore, recurrence may be associated with vascular endothelial growth factor A (VEGF-A), a mediator of angiogenesis. This study investigates the impact of lidocaine (combined with sevoflurane or propofol anesthesia ) during breast cancer surgery inhibits the expression of biomarkers associated with metastasis and recurrence (specifically H3Cit, NE, MPO, MMP-9 and VEGF-A). METHODS: We randomly assigned 120 women undergoing primary or invasive breast tumor resection to receive one of four anesthetics: sevoflurane (S), sevoflurane plus i.v. lidocaine (SL), propofol (P), and propofol plus i.v. lidocaine (PL). Blood samples were collected before induction and 3 h after the operation. Biomarkers associated with NETosis (citrullinated histone H3 [H3Cit], myeloperoxidase [MPO], and neutrophil elastase [NE]) and angiogenesis were quantified using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. RESULTS: Patient and breast tumor characteristics, along with perioperative management, did not differ between study groups. In intra-group comparisons, S and P groups demonstrated a statistically significant increase in post-operative MPO (S group: 10.39[6.89-17.22] vs. 14.31[8.55-20.87] ng ml-1, P = 0.032; P group: 9.45[6.73-17.37] vs. 14.34[9.87-19.75] ng ml-1, P = 0.035)and NE(S group: 182.70[85.66-285.85] vs. 226.20[91.85-391.65] ng ml-1, P = 0.045; P group: 154.22[97.31-325.30] vs. 308.66[132.36-483.57] ng ml-1, P = 0.037) concentrations compared to pre-operative measurements, whereas SL and PL groups did not display a similar increase. H3Cit, MMP-9, and VEGF-A concentrations were not significantly influenced by the anesthesia techniques and drugs. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of the specific technique employed for general anesthesia, there was no increase in the postoperative serum concentrations of MPO and NE after perioperative lidocaine infusion compared to preoperative serum concentrations. This supports the hypothesis that intravenous lidocaine during cancer surgery aimed at achieving a cure may potentially decrease the likelihood of recurrence. Further interpretation and discussion of clinical implications are warranted, emphasizing the significance of these findings in the context of cancer surgery and recurrence prevention. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ChiCTR2300068563.

Effect of cuff inflation with lidocaine, saline, and air on tracheal tube cuff pressure during laparoscopic resection of colorectal neoplasms: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Tracheal tube cuff pressure will increase after pneumoperitoneum when the cuff is inflated with air, high pressure can cause tracheal mucosal damage. This prospective trial aimed to assess if inflating with normal saline or lidocaine can prevent increase of tracheal tube cuff pressure and tracheal mucosal damage in laparoscopic surgeries with general anesthesia. Whether changes of tracheal tube cuff transverse diameter (CD) can predict changes of tracheal tube cuff pressure. METHODS: Ninety patients scheduled for laparoscopic resection of colorectal neoplasms under general anesthesia were randomly assigned to groups air (A), saline (S) or lidocaine (L). Endotracheal tube cuff was inflated with room-temperature air in group A (n = 30), normal saline in group S (n = 30), 2% lidocaine hydrochloride injection in group L (n = 30). After intubation, tracheal tube cuff pressure was monitored by a calibrated pressure transducers, cuff pressure was adjusted to 25 cmH2O (T0.5). Tracheal tube cuff pressure at 15 min after pneumoperitoneum (T1) and 15 min after exsufflation (T2) were accessed. CD were measured by ultrasound at T0.5 and T1, the ability of ΔCD (T1-0.5) to predict cuff pressure was accessed. Tracheal mucous injury at the end of surgery were also recorded. RESULTS: Tracheal tube cuff pressure had no significant difference among the three groups at T1 and T2. ΔCD had prediction value (AUC: 0.92 [95% CI: 0.81-1.02]; sensitivity: 0.99; specificity: 0.82) for cuff pressure. Tracheal mucous injury at the end of surgery were 0 (0, 1.0) in group A, 0 (0, 1.0) in group S, 0 (0, 0) in group L (p = 0.02, group L was lower than group A and S, p = 0.03 and p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to inflation with air, normal saline and 2% lidocaine cannot ameliorate the increase of tracheal tube cuff pressure during the pneumoperitoneum period under general anesthesia, but lidocaine can decrease postoperative tracheal mucosa injury. ΔCD measured by ultrasound is a predictor for changes of tracheal tube cuff pressure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, identifier: ChiCTR2100054089, Date: 08/12/2021.

Effect of lidocaine on intraoperative blood pressure variability in patients undergoing major vascular surgery.

BACKGROUND: Dynamic fluctuations of arterial blood pressure known as blood pressure variability (BPV) may have short and long-term undesirable consequences. During surgical procedures blood pressure is usually measured in equal intervals allowing to assess its intraoperative variability, which significance for peri and post-operative period is still under debate. Lidocaine has positive cardiovascular effects, which may go beyond its antiarrhythmic activity. The aim of the study was to verify whether the use of intravenous lidocaine may affect intraoperative BPV in patients undergoing major vascular procedures. METHODS: We performed a post-hoc analysis of the data collected during the previous randomized clinical trial by Gajniak et al. In the original study patients undergoing elective abdominal aorta and/or iliac arteries open surgery were randomized into two groups to receive intravenous infusion of 1% lidocaine or placebo at the same infusion rate based on ideal body weight, in concomitance with general anesthesia. We analyzed systolic (SBP), diastolic (DBP) and mean arterial blood (MAP) pressure recorded in 5-minute intervals (from the first measurement before induction of general anaesthesia until the last after emergence from anaesthesia). Blood pressure variability was then calculated for SBP and MAP, and expressed as: standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation (CV), average real variability (ARV) and coefficient of hemodynamic stability (C10%), and compared between both groups. RESULTS: All calculated indexes were comparable between groups. In the lidocaine and placebo groups systolic blood pressure SD, CV, AVR and C10% were 20.17 vs. 19.28, 16.40 vs. 15.64, 14.74 vs. 14.08 and 0.45 vs. 0.45 respectively. No differences were observed regarding type of surgery, operating and anaesthetic time, administration of vasoactive agents and intravenous fluids, including blood products. CONCLUSION: In high-risk vascular surgery performed under general anesthesia, lidocaine infusion had no effect on arterial blood pressure variability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT04691726 post-hoc analysis; date of registration 31/12/2020.