Comparison of Fentanyl, Ketamine, and Lidocaine Combined with Propofol Anesthesia in Patients with Crohn Disease Undergoing Colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND Colonoscopy is the predominant invasive procedure for Crohn disease (CD) patients. Opioids and propofol carry risks of respiratory and cardiovascular complications. This study aimed to evaluate whether substituting fentanyl with ketamine or lidocaine could diminish propofol usage and minimize adverse events. MATERIAL AND METHODS In total, 146 patients with CD scheduled for elective colonoscopy were assigned to anesthesia with fentanyl (n=47), ketamine (n=47), or lidocaine (n=55). Propofol was administered to achieve sufficient anesthesia. Measured outcomes in each group included propofol consumption, hypotension and desaturation incidents, adverse event types, consciousness recovery time, abdominal pain intensity, Aldrete scale, and Post Anaesthetic Discharge Scoring System (PADSS). RESULTS Patients administered fentanyl needed significantly more propofol (P=0.017) than those on ketamine, with lidocaine showing no notable difference (P=0.28). Desaturation was significantly less common in the ketamine and lidocaine groups than fentanyl group (P<0.001). The ketamine group experienced milder reductions in mean arterial (P=0.018) and systolic blood pressure (P<0.001). Recovery metrics (Aldrete and PADSS scores) were lower for fentanyl (P<0.001), although satisfaction and pain levels were consistent across all groups (P=0.797). Dizziness occurred less frequently with lidocaine than fentanyl (17.2%, P=0.018) and ketamine (15.1%, P=0.019), while metallic taste incidents were more prevalent in the lidocaine group (13.5%, P=0.04) than fentanyl group. CONCLUSIONS Using ketamine or lidocaine instead of fentanyl in anesthesia for colonoscopy in patients with CD significantly lowers propofol use, reduces desaturation events, maintains blood pressure more effectively, without increasing hypotension risk, and accelerates recovery, without negatively impacting adverse events or patient satisfaction.

Prevention of persistent pain with lidocaine infusions in breast cancer surgery (PLAN): study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Persistent pain is a common yet debilitating complication after breast cancer surgery. Given the pervasive effects of this pain disorder on the patient and healthcare system, post-mastectomy pain syndrome (PMPS) is becoming a larger population health problem, especially as the prognosis and survivorship of breast cancer increases. Interventions that prevent persistent pain after breast surgery are needed to improve the quality of life of breast cancer survivors. An intraoperative intravenous lidocaine infusion has emerged as a potential intervention to decrease the incidence of PMPS. We aim to determine the definitive effects of this intervention in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery. METHODS: PLAN will be a multicenter, parallel-group, blinded, 1:1 randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 1,602 patients undergoing breast cancer surgery. Adult patients scheduled for a lumpectomy or mastectomy will be randomized to receive an intravenous 2% lidocaine bolus of 1.5 mg/kg with induction of anesthesia, followed by a 2.0 mg/kg/h infusion until the end of surgery, or placebo solution (normal saline) at the same volume. The primary outcome will be the incidence of persistent pain at 3 months. Secondary outcomes include the incidence of pain and opioid consumption at 1 h, 1-3 days, and 12 months after surgery, as well as emotional, physical, and functional parameters, and cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: This trial aims to provide definitive evidence on an intervention that could potentially prevent persistent pain after breast cancer surgery. If this trial is successful, lidocaine infusion would be integrated as standard of care in breast cancer management. This inexpensive, widely available, and easily administered intervention has the potential to reduce pain and suffering in an already afflicted patient population, decrease the substantial costs of chronic pain management, potentially decrease opioid use, and improve the quality of life in patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial has been registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04874038, Dr. James Khan. Date of registration: May 5, 2021).

Balanced opioid-free anesthesia with lidocaine and esketamine versus balanced anesthesia with sufentanil for gynecological endoscopic surgery: a randomized controlled trial.

In this randomized controlled trial, 74 patients scheduled for gynecological laparoscopic surgery (American Society of Anesthesiologists grade I/II) were enrolled and randomly divided into two study groups: (i) Group C (control), received sufentanil (0.3 µg/kg) and saline, followed by sufentanil (0.1 µg/kg∙h) and saline; and (ii) Group F (OFA), received esketamine (0.15 mg/kg) and lidocaine (2 mg/kg), followed by esketamine (0.1 mg/kg∙h) and lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg∙h). The primary outcome was the 48-h time-weighted average (TWA) of postoperative pain scores. Secondary outcomes included time to extubation, adverse effects, and postoperative sedation score, pain scores at different time points, analgesic consumption at 48 h, and gastrointestinal functional recovery. The 48-h TWAs of pain scores were 1.32 (0.78) (95% CI 1.06-1.58) and 1.09 (0.70) (95% CI 0.87-1.33) for Groups F and C, respectively. The estimated difference between Groups F and C was - 0.23 (95% CI - 0.58 - 0.12; P = 0.195). No differences were found in any of the secondary outcomes and no severe adverse effects were observed in either group. Balanced OFA with lidocaine and esketamine achieved similar effects to balanced anesthesia with sufentanil in patients undergoing elective gynecological laparoscopic surgery, without severe adverse effects.Clinical Trial Registration: ChiCTR2300067951, www.chictr.org.cn 01 February, 2023.

Local Anesthetic Systemic Toxicity in Cardiac Surgery Patient with Erector Spinae Plane Catheter: A Case Report.

Regional anesthesia nerve blocks are increasingly used for patients undergoing cardiac surgery as part of multimodal pain management. Though rare, local anesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST) is a severe complication that requires vigilant monitoring. We present a case of a postcardiac surgery patient who developed LAST multiple days after surgery from lidocaine via an erector spinae plane catheter. This episode was determined to be a result of impaired lidocaine metabolism from liver shock caused by worsening pulmonary hypertension. Even under continuous monitoring, patients with cardiac or liver dysfunction are at increased risk of complications from local anesthetics.

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).

Local anesthetics allergy in children: Evaluation of diagnostic tests with Real-Life data.

BACKGROUND: Local anesthetic (LA) drugs are commonly used in clinical practice to provide effective analgesia, including in dentistry and minor surgical procedures. The perception of a high risk of allergy in daily applications leads to the referral of atopic patients and those with other drug allergies to allergy clinics for the evaluation of allergic reactions to LA. The aim of this study was to determine who should be referred to the allergy clinic for LA allergy testing, assess the frequency of LA allergy in pediatric patients, and identify the negative predictive value of skin tests in diagnosis. METHODS: January 2017-July 2023, the clinical and laboratory data, as well as the results of drug allergy tests, of patients referred to our pediatric allergy clinic by dentists and physicians performing minor surgical procedures with suspected LA allergy were retrospectively evaluated. RESULTS: Our study included a total of 153 patients, comprising 84 girls (54.9%) and 69 boys (45.1%), with a mean age of 8.9 (±3.3) years. The most common reason for referral was a history of non-LA drug allergies (n = 66, 43.2%), followed by asthma (n = 25, 16.3%). Hypersensitivity reactions (HRs) with LA were most commonly associated with articaine (n = 7, 4.8%), followed by lidocaine (n = 6, 4.1%). When intradermal tests were evaluated, 17 patients (11.1%) had a positive test result. The positivity for lidocaine was 70.6% (n = 12), and prilocaine was 29.4% (n = 5). Subcutaneous provocation was administered to 109 patients (71.2%), and one patient exhibited local erythema and swelling with prilocaine. CONCLUSION: Although LA allergy is a rare occurrence, consultations of this nature are frequently requested from allergy clinics in real life. Considering the negative predictive value of skin tests performed with LA drugs, the reaction rate appears to be low in patients with atopy or other drug allergies. It is crucial for all relevant healthcare professionals to be knowledgeable about the appropriate approach to suspected LA allergies to avoid unnecessary tests. To the best of our knowledge, our study is the most comprehensive work in the literature that evaluates the results of diagnostic tests in children referred with a suspicion of LA allergy.

Efficacy and safety of epidural block with lidocaine for refractory severe plaque psoriasis: An open-label pilot study in real world setting.

Epidural block using lidocaine, a non-selective blocker of voltage-gated sodium channels (Nav), has demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of severe plaque psoriasis in a limited number of cases. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of epidural lidocaine block in adult patients with severe, treatment-resistant plaque psoriasis. This was an open-label pilot study. Patients with severe plaque-type psoriasis unresponsive to at least one systemic treatment were enrolled for a 1-week epidural lidocaine block and followed up for 48 weeks. Thirty-six patients participated, with 32 completing the study. At the 12-week mark, there was a remarkable 59% improvement in the mean Psoriasis Area Severity Index (PASI) score (P < 0.001). By week 48, 28 out of 32 patients (87%) achieved PASI 75, while 18 out of 32 (56%) reached PASI 90. Within 7 days, 20 out of 21 patients (95%) reported a reduction in itch, with a mean itch reduction of 82% at day 1 and 94% at day 7. Notably, no severe side effects were observed. Epidural lidocaine block proved to be an effective and safe long-term treatment option for individuals with refractory severe plaque psoriasis.

Comparison of the effects of esketamine, sufentanil, or lidocaine combined with propofol on tussis reflection during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: study protocol for a randomised, two centre, three-blind, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Tussis, which increases the incidence of airway spasm, aspiration, nausea, and vomiting, is a common complication faced during upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. However, sedatives and analgesics exhibit inhibitory actions against airway reflexes to different degrees. Our assumption is a combination of propofol and small doses of sufentanil, esketamine, or lidocaine, especially the combination of propofol and esketamine, might reduce tussis incidence. METHOD: The study will be performed as a randomised controlled three-blind, two-centre trial. Patients undergoing upper GI endoscopy, ≥ 18 years old, with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification I-III will be randomised to four groups: P group (single administration of propofol), P + S group (administration of propofol and sufentanil in combination), P + K group (administration of propofol and esketamine in combination), and P + L group (administration of propofol and lidocaine in combination) (N = 100 per group). The primary endpoints include the frequency of tussis, nausea and vomiting, and/or body movements observed at the insertion of the endoscope into the pharyngeal cavity or within 5 min of endoscope insertion. Secondary outcomes are recovery assessment, patients' and endoscopists' satisfaction with the procedure, MMSE scores, MET scores, sleep condition, and the number of sedation-related events. Data on sedation-related events are collected by recording of vital signs. Satisfaction parameters and mental states are collected by means of questionnaires and evaluation scales before and after the procedure and on different following days. DISCUSSION: Esketamine can reduce tussis occurrence with good tolerability and relax the bronchus and also provides high clearance rates and low possibility of adverse reactions. We aim to demonstrate that the combination of esketamine with propofol for sedation in patients subjected to upper GI procedure is nevertheless superior to only administration of propofol or a combination of propofol with other anaesthetics, such as opioids or lidocaine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT05497492 , Registered 09 August 2022.

Postoperative use and early discontinuation of intravenous lidocaine in spine patients.

PURPOSE: Our institution employs a multimodal approach to manage postoperative pain after spine surgery. It involves continuous intravenous (IV) lidocaine until the morning of postoperative day two. This study aimed to determine the rate and reasons for early discontinuation of IV lidocaine in our spine patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review and included pediatric patients who underwent ≥ 3-level spine surgery and received postoperative IV lidocaine from November 2019 to September 2022. For each case, we recorded the side effects of IV lidocaine, adverse events, time to discontinuation, and discontinuation rate. Subsequently, we used the same methodology to generate an adult cohort for comparison. RESULTS: We included 52 pediatric (18M:34F) and 50 (21M:29F) adult patients. The pediatric cohort's mean age was 14 years (8-18), and BMI 23.9 kg/m2 (13.0-42.8). The adult cohort's mean age was 61 years (29-82), and BMI 28.8 kg/m2 (17.2-44.1). IV lidocaine was discontinued prematurely in 21/52 (40.4%) of the pediatric cases and 26/50 (52.0%) of the adult cases (RR = 0.78, p = 0.2428). The side effects noted in the pediatric cases vary, including numbness, visual disturbance, and obtundation, but no seizures. The most common adverse events were fever and motor dysfunction. CONCLUSION: The early discontinuation rate of IV lidocaine use after spine surgery for children in our institution does not differ significantly from that of adults. The nature of the side effects and the reasons for discontinuation between the groups were similar. Thus, the safety profile of IV lidocaine for pediatric spine patients is comparable to adults.

Long-term Performance and Safety of Princess VOLUME PLUS Lidocaine for Midface Augmentation: The PRIMAvera Clinical Study.

BACKGROUND: Hyaluronic acid-based dermal fillers are the most applied medical devices for midface augmentation. OBJECTIVES: This postmarket investigation evaluated the long-term performance and safety of and patient satisfaction with Princess VOLUME PLUS Lidocaine (PVPL; now Saypha VOLUME PLUS Lidocaine) for the correction of midface volume deficit (MVD). METHODS: This was an open-label, prospective, interventional, multicenter, noncomparative, postapproval study of 91 patients with moderate or severe MVD (grade 2 or 3 on the 5-point Midface Volume Deficit Severity Scale, or MVDSS). At Day 0 (Visit 1), patients were treated with PVPL; they returned for follow-up assessments at weeks 2, 4, 12, 24, 36, and 52 and had long-term follow-up until 36 months. A touch-up treatment could be done at week 2. The performance was assessed with the MVDSS, Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS), and a subject satisfaction scale. Adverse events were collected to assess safety throughout the study. RESULTS: Four weeks after treatment, 100% of injected patients improved by ≥1 grade on the MVDSS compared to baseline, with improvements still visible in 77% of patients 52 weeks after treatment. Based on the GAIS and post hoc survival analysis, the treatment effect was maintained for a median of 386 days, and in severe cases the effect lasted longer, which seemed to be independent of the volume injected at baseline. No serious side effects were reported. Results were substantiated by high patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Princess VOLUME PLUS Lidocaine was perceived as safe and effective by patients and investigators, with long-term aesthetic improvement in moderate and severe cases.

Pharmacological interventions for reducing the incidence of myoclonus in patients receiving etomidate for induction of general anesthesia: an umbrella review.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this umbrella review was to examine various pharmacologic interventions for their potential to reduce etomidate-induced myoclonus. A secondary objective was to compare the relative effectiveness of those medications in reducing the incidence of myoclonus when etomidate is utilized for the induction of general anesthesia. INTRODUCTION: Etomidate is the drug of choice when inducing general anesthesia in hemodynamically unstable patients. However, its use is limited among the general surgical population due to its ability to cause adrenal suppression, vomiting, and myoclonus. Myoclonus can lead to damage of muscle fibers, myalgias, and patient discomfort, and can also be detrimental in patients with low cardiac reserve. Several systematic reviews have reported on the effectiveness of various intravenous medications in reducing mild, moderate, and severe myoclonus; however, a more thorough examination of their influence was lacking. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review included systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials involving the use of pharmacologic interventions to reduce etomidate-induced myoclonus. Reviews in English and conducted after 1965 were considered for inclusion. METHODS: A comprehensive search of 11 databases was conducted to identify published and unpublished reviews up to March 2022. Critical appraisal was conducted by 2 independent reviewers using the standardized JBI appraisal tool. Quantitative findings were summarized according to the dose, timing of administration, and relative risk using a data matrix, and were synthesized in tabular format with supporting narrative text. Results were organized by severity of myoclonus (overall, mild, moderate, and severe) and by type of intervention. RESULTS: Eight systematic reviews were included in this umbrella review, which included 48 relevant studies, after removal of duplicates (3909 participants included in the primary studies). Five of the systematic reviews examined the effectiveness of various types of opioids in the prevention of myoclonus, and 3 systematic reviews examined the effectiveness of non-opioid interventions, such as lidocaine, midazolam, and dexmedetomidine. Seven reviews searched at least 4 databases for pertinent studies and specifically indicated that blinded reviewers appraised the articles. All reviews used a published and validated appraisal instrument. The overall quality of all included reviews was judged to be moderate to high. The absolute risk reduction indicating the effectiveness of the prophylactic medications ranged from 47% to 81% for mild, 52% to 92% for moderate, and 61% to 96% for severe myoclonus. Opioids demonstrated the most consistent and substantial effect on the reduction in myoclonus. CONCLUSIONS: All pharmacologic interventions identified in this review demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of myoclonus. Future studies and reviews should focus on elucidating the particular dose range and timing that is most effective. Anesthesia providers should consider a pre-treatment dose of one of the medications described in this umbrella review as a means to reduce myoclonus and the untoward effects of that condition.

Opioid-free Anesthesia Protocol on the Early Quality of Recovery after Major Surgery (SOFA Trial): A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Opioid-free anesthesia is increasingly being adopted to reduce opioid consumption, but its impact on early postoperative recovery after major surgery has not been evaluated in comparative trials. The hypothesis was that an opioid-free anesthesia protocol would enhance the early quality of recovery for patients undergoing scheduled major surgery under general anesthesia. METHODS: The SOFA study was a monocentric, randomized, controlled, assessor- and patient-blinded clinical trial conducted from July 10, 2021, to February 12, 2022. The eligible population included male and female patients undergoing scheduled major surgery, excluding bone procedures, that typically require opioids for postoperative pain management. Patients in the intervention group received a combination of at least two drugs among ketamine, lidocaine, clonidine, and magnesium sulfate, without opioids for anesthesia. The standard group received opioids. The primary outcome was early postoperative quality of recovery, assessed by Quality of Recovery-15 score at 24 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes were Quality of Recovery-15 at 48 and 72 h after surgery, incidence of chronic pain, and quality of life at 3 months. RESULTS: Of the 136 randomized patients, 135 were included in the primary analysis (mean age, 45.9 ± 15.7 yr; 116 females [87.2%]; 85 underwent major plastic surgery [63.9%]), with 67 patients in the opioid-free anesthesia group and 68 in the standard group. The mean Quality of Recovery-15 at 24 h was 114.9 ± 15.2 in the opioid-free anesthesia group versus 108.7 ± 18.1 in the standard group (difference, 6.2; 95% CI, 0.4 to 12.0; P = 0.026). Quality of Recovery-15 scores also differed significantly at 48 h (difference, 8.7; 95% CI, 2.9 to 14.5; P = 0.004) and at 72 h (difference, 7.3; 95% CI, 1.6 to 13.0; P = 0.013). There were no differences in other secondary outcomes. No major adverse events were noticed. CONCLUSIONS: The opioid-free anesthesia protocol improved quality of recovery after major elective surgery in a statistically but not clinically significant manner when compared to standard anesthesia.

Effect and safety profile of topical lidocaine on post-surgical neuropathic pain and quality of life: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Post-surgical chronic pain with a neuropathic component is usually more severe and leads to worse quality of life. We conducted this systematic review to examine the evidence of topical lidocaine for post-surgical neuropathic pain. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. SETTING: Published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing topical lidocaine with placebo or no topical lidocaine for post-surgical neuropathic pain. PATIENTS: Seven RCTs including 585 patients. INTERVENTIONS: We systematically searched databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effect and safety outcomes of topical lidocaine compared with placebo or no intervention. MEASUREMENTS: We conducted meta-analyses to evaluate the effect of topical lidocaine on pain intensity, adverse events, and quality of life. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and relative risk (RR) with 95% CIs were effect measures for continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. We assessed the risk of bias of included trials and the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: Our review included 7 studies with 585 participants. There is moderate certainty evidence that topical lidocaine may increase the likelihood of global pain relief, with a relative risk (RR) of 1.98 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.04, 3.76; I2 = 70%, P = 0.04). Low certainty evidence suggested topical lidocaine may lead to more reduction in pain intensity (SMD: -0.70; 95% confidence interval: -1.46, 0.06; I2 = 93%, P = 0.07). High certainty evidence showed that topical lidocaine did not increase the adverse event risk (RR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.93, 1.16; I2 = 0%, P = 0.51). CONCLUSIONS: Topical lidocaine may lead to pain relief and is safe to use for patient with post-surgical pain, though its impact on quality of life is unclear. This review supports the use of topical lidocaine for patients with post-surgical pain, and reveals the evidence gap in topical lidocaine use. (Registration: PROSPERO CRD42021294100).

Adverse effects of articaine versus lidocaine in pediatric dentistry: a meta-analysis.

Over the last few years, numerous reports have lauded the efficacy of articaine hydrochloride as a local anesthetic (LA) in dental procedures. Numerous studies have shown that articaine outperforms lidocaine in various aspects of dental treatment, leading to its widespread adoption in both adults and children. Despite the publications of comparative studies, there remains a dearth of systematic reviews examining the adverse effects of articaine versus lidocaine in randomized controlled trials. The aim was to assess the available research on the adverse effects of articaine and lidocaine in pediatric dentistry. A comprehensive search was conducted on Cochrane Library, Pubmed, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), Embase, Web of Science and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). Randomized controlled trials (RCT) that compared articaine with lidocaine in pediatric dentistry were included. Methodological quality assessment and risk of bias were determined for each of the included studies. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was used to assess the strength of evidence for every research. A total of 333 studies were identified through electronic searches. After conducting primary and secondary assessments, eight studies were included for the final qualitative analysis. We found no difference in the probability of adverse reactions between articaine and lidocaine after treatment in pediatric patients (risk ratio (RR) = 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.54-2.15), p = 0.83). However, a high heterogeneity was reported among the outcomes in the investigated studies (I2 = 57%), and the strength of the evidence was classified as "moderate" based on the GRADE approach. Besides, we found no significant difference in the probability of postoperative pain, postoperative soft tissue injury and edema between articaine and lidocaine in pediatric patients following treatment. There was moderate quality evidence suggesting no difference in the occurrence of adverse events between articaine and lidocaine when used for pediatric dental procedures.

Lidocaine as an anti-arrhythmic drug: Are there any indications left?

Lidocaine is classified as a class Ib anti-arrhythmic that blocks voltage- and pH-dependent sodium channels. It exhibits well investigated anti-arrhythmic effects and has been the anti-arrhythmic of choice for the treatment of ventricular arrhythmias for several decades. Lidocaine binds primarily to inactivated sodium channels, decreases the action potential duration, and increases the refractory period. It increases the ventricular fibrillatory threshold and can interrupt life-threatening tachycardias caused by re-entrant mechanisms, especially in ischemic tissue. Its use was pushed into the background in the era of amiodarone and modern electric device therapy. Recently, lidocaine has come back into focus for the treatment of acute sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias. In this brief overview, we review the clinical pharmacology including possible side effects, the historical course, possible indications, and current Guideline recommendations for the use of lidocaine.