Objective To evaluate the effects of midazolam intravenous drip combined with lidocaine via nebulization on patients during mechanical ventilation in intensive care unit ( ICU) . Methods 60 thoracic patients required postoperative mechanical ventilation in ICUwere randomized into 2 groups. The patients in therapeutic group received lidocaine 1 mg/kg via nebulization and midazolam intravenous drip 0. 1 mg·kg- 1·h- 1 . The patients in control group received 0. 9% NaCl 1 mg/kg via nebulization andmidazolam0. 1 mg·kg- 1 ·h- 1 . According to the scale of Ramsay, the additional midazolam and fentanyl were injected to maintain sedation and inhibit cough in both groups. During ventilation, calm score, the number and the severity of cough, the mean arterial pressure ( MAP) , heart rate ( HR) , and the consumption of midazolam and fentanyl were record. Results The number and severity of cough, the scale of MAP and HR in the therapeutic group were all significant lower than those in the control group ( P lt; 0. 05) . Theconsumption of midazolam and fentanyl in the therapeutic group were also significantly lower than that in the control group ( P lt; 0. 05) .Conclusion Midazolam intravenous drip combined with lidocaine via nebulization can reduce the side effects and requirement of sedative and opioids drug in ICU patients undergoing mechanical ventilation.
Objective To investigate the applied significance of adjustable low-concentration of mixed oxygenand nitrous oxide inhalation sedation combined with lidocaine local anesthesia in anorectal surgery. Methods Three hundreds patients underwent anorectal surgery in our hospital were divided into control group （n=154） and observation group （n=146）. Patients of control group underwent pure lidocaine local anesthesia， and patients of observation group underwent mixed oxygen and nitrous oxide sedation analgesia combined with lidocaine local anesthesia. Vital signs before and after operation as well as results of sedation and analgesia were compared between the 2 groups. Results Anorectal surgeries of all patients were performed successfully. There were no significant differences on change of heart rate， blood pressure， and oxygen saturation between the 2 groups before and after operation （P＞0.05）. The operation time between the control group 〔（36.3±6.8） min〕 and observation group 〔（35.4±6.5） min〕 had no statistically significant difference（t=-0.607， P=0.544）. The analgesic effects （Z=-6.859， P=0.000） and sedative effects （Z=-5.275， P=0.000） of obser-vation group were both better than those of control group. Conclusions Low-concentration of mixed oxygen and nitrous oxide inhalation sedation combined with lidocaine local anesthesia can relieve the discomfort of fear and pain， no side-impacts on vital sign before and after operation were observed，and it has better effects of sedation and analgesia， therefore it can be recommended to clinical application.
Objective To assess the anesthetic efficacy of articaine versus lidocaine for irreversible pulpitis. Methods We electronically searched PubMed, EMbase, Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2009), CNKI, VIP and CBM. The search was updated to December 2009. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs were indentified about articaine and lidocaine for irreversible pulpitis. Study selection and meta-analysis were conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews. And RevMan5.0 was applied for statistical analysis in success rate. Results Nine trials involving 985 pulpitis patients were included. Meta-analysis indicated that, both the anesthetic success rate (RR=1.33, 95%CI 1.23 to1.44) and maxillary anesthetic success rate (RR=1.65, 95%CI 1.38 to 1.98) of articaine were superior to that of lidocaine, but there was no statistical significance in mandibular anesthetic success rate between two groups (RR=1.28, 95%CI 0.97 to 1.69). Conclusion The current evidence shows that articaine is superior to lidocaine in anesthetic efficacy, and is good at maxillary anesthesia.
Objective To evaluate the analgesic effect of intra-articular ropivacaine with lidocaine. Methods A double-blind randomized controlled trial was conducted. Ninety patients receiving selective knee arthroscopy were randomized into three groups of 30 patients. At the end of the operation, before the release of the tourniquet, an intra-articular injection was administered to each patient through arthroscope, in accordance with their random allocation: 0.9% normal saline (normal saline group); 100 mg ropivacaine (ropivacaine alone group) and 100 mg ropivacaine and 100 mg 2% lidocaine (ropivacaine with lidocaine group). Pain intensity was assessed after the operation using the 100-mm visual-analog scale (VAS), and the amount of supplemental analgesics used within the following 24 hours were recorded. Results The VAS scores of 2 hours postoperatively at rest, and 1, 2, 4, and 8 hours postoperatively at motion, were significantly higher in the normal saline group than in ropivacaine alone group (Plt;0.05). The VAS scores 0.5, 1 and 2 hours postoperatively at rest, and at the awaking moment, 0.5, 1, 4, 8, and 24 hours postoperatively at motion, were significantly higher in the normal saline group than in ropivacaine with lidocaine group (Plt;0.05). Conclusion Intra-articular ropivacaine can reduce a patient’s pain after operation. The combination of lidocaine with intra-articular ropivacaine can reduce the patient’s pain severity immediately after the operation and achieve an early analgesic effect.
ObjectiveTo explore the clinical effect of lidocaine mucilage diluent and simethicone emulsion in gastroscopy examination, in order to provide effective drugs for gastroscopy. MethodsWe selected 201 outpatients and the inpatients who underwent gastroscopic examination between August and October 2014 as the research subjects. Based on the kind of drug, the patients were randomly divided into research group (n=100) and control group (n=101). Patients in the research group accepted lidocaine mucilage diluent, while those in the control group received simethicone emulsion. Then we observed and compared the definition of gastroscopy, adverse drug reactions, examination time and drug price between the two groups. ResultsThe frequencies of high, medium, and low definition of gastroscopy were respectively 63.00%, 34.00% and 3.00% among the patients in the research group, and 69.31%, 26.73% and 3.96% among patients in the control group; there was no significant differences between the two groups (Z=-0.854, P=0.393). The adverse reaction rates, testing time, and drug prices for the two groups were 0.99% vs.1.00% (P>0.05), (6.5±2.1) minutes vs.(6.6±2.0) minutes (t=0.458, P>0.05), and RMB (9.0±1.2) yuan vs.(42.8±2.8) yuan (t=227.644, P<0.05), respectively. ConclusionLidocaine mucilage diluent and simethicone emulsion both have good effect for gastroscopic examination, which can raise the gastroscopic definition, promote endoscopic operation and observation by doctors, shorten examination time, and reduce adverse drug reactions. Both are of great value in clinical application, and lidocaine hydrochloride mucilage diluent is cheaper, which can be widely used and promoted clinically.
Objective To systematically review the effects of lidocaine for preventing pain on injection of propofol. Methods Databases including The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2012), PubMed, MEDLINE, Ovid, HighWire, EMbase, CBM and CNKI were searched electronically to collect literature published from January, 1985 to December, 2012. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were indentified about lidocaine for preventing injection pain of propofol. References of the included studies were also retrieved. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and assess the quality of the included studies. Then meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1 software. Results Fifteen trials involved 1 332 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis indicated that, adding lidocaine into propofol lowered the incidence of pain on injection compared with blank control, with a significant difference (RR=0.36, 95%CI 0.30 to 0.44, Plt;0.000 01); using different doses of lidocaine before injection lowered the incidence of pain on injection compared with blank control, with a significant difference (RR=0.59, 95%CI 0.47 to 0.75, Plt;0.000 1); using different doses of lidocaine after venous occlusion lowered the incidence of pain on injection compared with blank control, with a significant difference (RR=0.44, 95%CI 0.37 to 0.52, Plt;0.000 01). Conclusion Lidocaine could reduce the pain on injection of propofol. Using lidocaine 40 mg after venous occlusion is a relatively effective method to lower the incidence of pain on injection which is more suitable for outpatient who receive intravenous anesthesia without preoperation medication.
ObjectivesTo systematically review the prophylactic efficacy of lidocaine administrated intravenously in advance on rocuronium associated injection pain/withdrawal movement in patients under general anesthesia.MethodsPubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMbase, CNKI, WanFang Data and VIP databases were electronically searched to collect relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on pretreatment with lidocaine intravenously to prevent injection pain /withdraw movement from rocuronium from inception to September 30th, 2018. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies; then, meta-analysis was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 30 RCTs involving 2 518 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that, compared to the control group, pretreating with intravenous lidocaine could significantly reduced the occurrence of total pain/withdrawal movement associated with rocuronium injection (RR=0.43, 95%CI 0.36 to 0.51, P<0.000 01), and whether with (RR=0.39, 95%CI 0.29 to 0.52, P<0.000 01) or without (RR=0.45, 95%CI 0.36 to 0.57, P<0.000 01) occluding the vein, intravenous lidocaine could prevent pain/withdrawal movement associated with rocuronium injection. In addition, the incidence of lidocaine group igniting moderate (RR=0.38, 95%CI 0.31 to 0.46, P<0.000 01) or severe (RR=0.23, 95%CI 0.18 to 0.30, P<0.000 01) pain/ withdrawal movement were less likely to occur. However, there was no difference between the lidocaine and control group in the incidence of mild injection pain/withdrawal movement induced by rocuronium (RR=0.89, 95%CI 0.75 to 1.06, P=0.19).ConclusionsCurrent evidence shows that pre-intravenous lidocaine can reduce the occurrence of injection pain/withdrawal movement associated with rocuronium injection patients, especially in the prevention of moderate and severe injection pain/withdrawal movement.
Objective To investigate the effectiveness of pretreatment with mixture of lidocaine and flurbiprofen axetil in reducing injection pain of propofol. Methods One hundred and sixty ASI I–II patients undergoing general anaesthesia were randomly allocated into four groups (40 cases in each group): the control group, the lidocaine (Lc) group, the flurbiprofen axetil (FA) group and the mixture of lidocaine and flurbiprofen axetil (hereafter termed as “mixture”) group. After the occlusion of venous drainage, patients were pretreated with 7 mL of 0.9% saline in the control group, 5 mL (50 mg) of flurbiprofen axetil and 2 mL of 0.9% saline in the FA group, 2 mL (40 mg) of 2% lidocaine and 5 mL of 0.9% saline in the Lc group, and 5 mL (50 mg) of flurbiprofen axetil and 2 mL (40 mg) of 2% lidocaine in the mixture group, respectively. The occlusion was released 2 min later and then 0.5 mg/kg propofol was injected into the vein within 5 s. During injecting propofol, the patients were asked by another anesthetist to assess and record their pain through using VSR. Results No significant differences in the demographic characteristics were found among the four groups. In comparison with the control group, the incidence rates of propofol injection pain were obviously lower in the mixture group, the FA group and the Lc group (Plt;0.05); there was a significant reduction in the incidence rate of pain in the mixture group compared with the other three groups. The median pain score was significantly lower in the mixture group and the Lc group than that in the control group. During the 24 hour follow-up after operation, neither the adverse events such as red-swelling in injection site, phlebitis or drug eruption, nor the gastrointestinal stimulating signs were found. Conclusion The mixture of flurbiprofen axetil and lidocaine is found to be more effective in reducing injection pain of propofol.