Updates in our understanding of local anaesthetic systemic toxicity: a narrative review.

Despite advances in clinical practice, local anaesthetic systemic toxicity continues to occur with the therapeutic use of local anaesthesia. Patterns of presentation have evolved over recent years due in part to the increasing use of ultrasound which has been demonstrated to reduce risk. Onset of toxicity is increasingly delayed, a greater proportion of clinical reports are secondary to fascial plane blocks, and cases are increasing where non-anaesthetist providers are involved. The evolving clinical context presents a challenge for diagnosis and requires education of all physicians, nurses and allied health professionals about these changing patterns and risks. This review discusses: mechanisms; prevention; diagnosis; and treatment of local anaesthetic systemic toxicity. The local anaesthetic and dose used, site of injection and block conduct and technique are all important determinants of local anaesthetic systemic toxicity, as are various patient factors. Risk mitigation is discussed including the care of at-risk groups, such as: those at the extremes of age; patients with cardiac, hepatic and specific metabolic diseases; and those who are pregnant. Advances in the changing clinical landscape with novel applications and settings for the use of local anaesthesia are also described. Finally, we signpost future directions to potentially improve the management of local anaesthetic systemic toxicity. The utility of local anaesthetics remains unquestionable in clinical practice, and thus maximising the safe and appropriate use of these drugs should translate to improvements in patient care.

The use of intravenous lidocaine for postoperative pain and recovery: international consensus statement on efficacy and safety.

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-1 , 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-1 .h-1 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.

Does regional anaesthesia improve outcome after total hip arthroplasty? A systematic review.

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is amenable to a variety of regional anaesthesia (RA) techniques that may improve patient outcome. We sought to answer whether RA decreased mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), blood loss, duration of surgery, pain, opioid-related adverse effects, cognitive defects, and length of stay. We also questioned whether RA improved rehabilitation. To do so, we performed a systematic review of the contemporary literature to compare general anaesthesia (GA) and RA and also systemic and regional analgesia for THA. To reflect contemporary surgical and anaesthetic practice, only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from 1990 onward were included. We identified 18 studies involving 1239 patients. Only two of the 18 trials were of Level I quality. There is insufficient evidence from RCTs alone to conclude if anaesthetic technique influenced mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, or the incidence of DVT and PE when using thromboprophylaxis. Blood loss may be reduced in patients receiving RA rather than GA for THA. Our review suggests that there is no difference in duration of surgery in patients who receive GA or RA. Compared with systemic analgesia, regional analgesia can reduce postoperative pain, morphine consumption, and nausea and vomiting. Length of stay is not reduced and rehabilitation does not appear to be facilitated by RA or analgesia for THA.

Caesarean section using total intravenous anaesthesia in a patient with Ebstein's anomaly complicated by supraventricular tachycardia.

Ebstein's anomaly is a rare congenital cardiac defect associated with both displacement and incompetence of the tricuspid valve. The condition is commonly complicated by supraventricular tachycardias. We describe the management of a patient with this condition undergoing caesarean section. Propofol and remifentanil total intravenous anaesthesia resulted in haemodynamic stability and delivery of a healthy baby who breathed spontaneously after two minutes.