ObjectivesTo systematically review the efficacy of lidocaine injected prior to tracheal extubation in preventing hemodynamic responses to tracheal extubation in general anesthesia.MethodsPubMed, Ovid, Web of Science, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data databases were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy of lidocaine administrated prior to extubation in preventing hemodynamic responses to tracheal extubation in patients undergoing general anesthesia from inception to October, 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 and Stata 13.0 software.ResultsA total of 10 RCTs involving 525 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that: compared with control group, lidocaine could reduce mean arterial pressure in 5 min after extubation (MD=–5.10, 95%CI –9.41 to –0.79, P=0.02), weaken the increase in systolic blood pressure caused by extubation from the moment before extubation to 5 minutes after extubation (before extubation: MD=–7.22, 95%CI –10.34 to –4.11, P<0.000 01; at extubation: MD=–14.02, 95%CI –19.42 to –8.62, P<0.000 01; 1 minutes after extubation: MD=–15.82, 95%CI –22.20 to –9.45, P<0.000 01; 3 minutes after extubation: MD=–12.55, 95%CI –20.36 to –4.74, P=0.002; and 5 minutes after extubation: MD=–12.05, 95%CI –20.35 to –3.74, P=0.004), and weakened extubation-induced increase in diastolic blood pressure at extubation (MD=–9.71, 95%CI –16.57 to –2.86, P=0.005). In addition, lidocaine inhibited heart rate in all time points except the moment of before and at 10 minutes after extubation.ConclusionsCurrent evidence shows that lidocaine can inhibit the increase in blood pressure and heart rate caused by extubation at certain times. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high-quality studies are needed to verify above conclusions.
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.
目的 观察不同浓度肾上腺素与利多卡因混合液头皮浸润注射对开颅术患者血流动力学的影响。方法 选取2010年5月－10月80例颅内肿瘤患者，随机分成4组，行1%利多卡因溶液混合不同浓度的肾上腺素16 mL头皮浸润注射。肾上腺素浓度：A组2.5 μg/mL、B组5.0 μg/mL、C组7.5 μg/mL、D组10.0 μg/mL。记录注射前（T0）、注射后5 min内（T1-10）心率（HR）、平均动脉压（MAP）、收缩压（SBP）、舒张压（DBP），根据各时段的MAP最低值和最高值，计算MAP的降低率和升高率，计数各组MAP下降10%以内、10%～20%和20%以上的例数。 结果 C组的MAP下降例数最多且MAP下降率最高，与其他组间比较差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。组内比较，C组MAP、SBP在1.5、2.0、2.5 min时、DBP在2 min时和D组MAP和DBP在1.5、2.0 min时下降差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。4组血压下降的同时伴HR增快，但HR组间差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。 结论 低浓度的肾上腺素与10%利多卡因混合液用于开颅术患者头皮浸润注射时可导致血压下降。
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.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of intranasal lidocaine spray before nasogastric tube insertion. MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, WanFang Data, VIP, CBM and CNKI databases concerning randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the efficacy and safety of intranasal lidocaine spray before nasogastric tube insertion from their inception to January 2014. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality of included studies. Meta-analysis was then conducted using RevMan 5.2 software. ResultsSix RCTs involving 384 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that there were no significant differences between the lidocaine group and the saline group in pain and discomfort scores (MD=-25.35, 95%CI -30.37 to -24.33) and first successful insertion rate (RR=1.38, 95%CI 1.21 to 1.57). ConclusionIntranasal lidocaine spray before nasogastric tube insertion could reduce patient pain and discomforts related to the procedure, and improve the first successful insertion rate.
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.
目的 探究静脉利多卡因联合异丙酚在无痛胃镜麻醉应用中的可行性、安全性和有效性。 方法 纳入2012年4月－5月行无痛胃镜检查的患者102例，随机分为两组：利多卡因组（L组）和生理盐水组（S组）。L组于麻醉诱导前缓慢静注2%利多卡因2 mg/kg，S组给予相同容量的生理盐水。比较两组间的异丙酚诱导剂量、追加剂量和总量，以及检查中呛咳反应、体动的发生率，麻醉时间，不良事件和不良反应发生率，麻醉医生和患者满意度是否有差异。 结果 L组较S组异丙酚诱导剂量减少约0.17 mg/kg，差异有统计学意义（P=0.03）；余指标差异均无统计学意义。 结论 将静脉利多卡因用于无痛胃镜麻醉，虽能减少异丙酚诱导剂量，但减少程度并不明显；不能改善诱导前后血流动力学的剧烈波动，也未能缩短总的麻醉时间；在抑制术中呛咳反应、体动方面也未见明显优势。无论是从安全性还是经济学方面考虑，我们都不推荐将静脉利多卡因联合异丙酚麻醉的方案用于无痛胃镜检查。
Injury of dorsal root ganglia (DRG) may cause sensory and motor dysfunction. In order to investigate the changes of somato-sensory evoked potential (SEP) and histological characteristics of DRG in different causes and different periods of injury, fifty-two rabbits were chosed to build the models. The rabbits were divided into 4 groups: Control group (n = 4); mechanical compressing group (n = 16); inflammatory injury group (n = 16); and treatment group (2% lidocaine with hydroprednisone was administered locally, n = 16). After one to eight weeks, SEP was determined and samples of DRG were obtained to observe the histological and ultrastructural changes every week. The result showed that the gap junction of microvascular endothelium in DRG had been destroyed by the mechanical compression was the major cause of the vessel permeability increasing. The increasing of endothelial pinocytic vesicles transportation and widening of endothelial gap junction were the main causes of inflammatory irritation of DRG. The local infiltration with 2% lidocaine and hydroprednisone could obviously ameliorate inflammatory injury in DRG.
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.