Efficacy of combination intravenous lidocaine and dexamethasone on propofol injection pain: A randomized, double-blind, prospective study in adult Korean surgical patients

被引:22
作者
Kwak, Kyung-Hwa [1 ]
Ha, Jaehyun [1 ]
Kim, Youngsoo [1 ]
Jeon, Younghoon [1 ]
机构
[1] Kyungpook Natl Univ, Sch Med, Dept Anesthesiol & Pain Med, Taegu 700721, South Korea
关键词
intravenous anesthetics; propofol; pain; lidocaine; dexamethasone; venous occlusion;
D O I
10.1016/j.clinthera.2008.05.019
中图分类号
R9 [药学];
学科分类号
1007 ;
摘要
Background: Pain on injection is a common adverse effect with propofol used for general anesthesia. Objectives: The alms of this study were to evaluate the analgesic effect of dexamethasone during propofol injection and investigate whether a combination of dexamethasone and lidocaine produced additional analgesic efficacy compared with either treatment alone. Methods: In a double-blind, prospective trial, patients scheduled to undergo elective plastic surgery were randomized to receive lidocaine 20 mg, dexamethasone 6 mg, combination lidocaine 20 mg and dexamethasone 6 mg, or normal saline with venous occlusion for 1 minute, followed by administration of 25% of the total calculated dose of propofol (2.5 mg/kg) into a dorsal hand vein. Pain intensity and incidence were evaluated during a 10-second pause before the induction of anesthesia, using a 4-point verbal rating scale (0 = none, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe); a score of 1 to 3 was counted as pain. Patients were monitored hourly for 24 hours postsurgery by a blinded investigator for adverse effects at the injection site (eg, pain, edema, wheal, flare response). Results: A total of 140 (35 per group) Korean patients (91 women, 49 men; mean [SD] age, 47 [14] years; mean [SD] height, 162 [8] cm; and mean [SD] body weight, 60 [8] kg) completed the study. Demographic variables were similar among groups. With respect to pain intensity, mean pain score was significantly less in the combination group than in the lidocaine or dexamethasone groups (P < 0.01, respectively), although the median pain scores for all groups were 0. The incidence of pain associated with propofol injection was reduced significantly in the combination group compared with the lidocaine or dexamethasone group (0% vs 34.3% and 37.1%, respectively; both, P < 0.01). One patient (in the combination group) complained of perineal itching immediately following injection; however, this subsided within a few seconds and did not require any intervention. No other adverse effects at the injection site were observed in any patient in the 24 hours postsurgery. Conclusion: Combination lidocaine 20 mg and dexamethasone 6 mg, with venous occlusion for 1 minute, was more effective than lidocaine 20 mg or dexamethasone 6 mg alone for pain control during propofol injection in these Korean patients.
引用
收藏
页码:1113 / 1119
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Preventive effect of a vapocoolant spray on propofol-induced pain: a prospective, double-blind, randomized study
    Moon, Young Eun
    Lee, Michael Y.
    Kim, Dong Hyun
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ANESTHESIA, 2017, 31 (05) : 703 - 708
  • [22] Intravenous lidocaine reduces cough but not propofol dose during gastroscopy: a prospective, radomised contolled double-blind study
    Assam, O.
    Jaubert, L.
    Dutanteau, O.
    Gilbeau, A.
    Lalmand, M.
    Natis, N.
    Tuna, T.
    Boudart, C.
    [J]. ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA BELGICA, 2024, 75 (04) : 279 - 286
  • [23] Effectiveness of intravenous Dexamethasone versus Propofol for pain relief in the migraine headache: A prospective double blind randomized clinical trial
    Soleimanpour, Hassan
    Ghafouri, Rouzbeh Rajaei
    Taheraghdam, Aliakbar
    Aghamohammadi, Dawood
    Negargar, Sohrab
    Golzari, Samad E. J.
    Abbasnezhad, Mohsen
    [J]. BMC NEUROLOGY, 2012, 12
  • [24] Effectiveness of intravenous Dexamethasone versus Propofol for pain relief in the migraine headache: A prospective double blind randomized clinical trial
    Hassan Soleimanpour
    Rouzbeh Rajaei Ghafouri
    Aliakbar Taheraghdam
    Dawood Aghamohammadi
    Sohrab Negargar
    Samad EJ Golzari
    Mohsen Abbasnezhad
    [J]. BMC Neurology, 12
  • [25] Comparison of the effects of lidocaine pre-administration and local warming of the intravenous access site on propofol injection pain: Randomized, double-blind controlled trial
    Jeong, Meejeong
    Yoon, Haesang
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF NURSING STUDIES, 2016, 61 : 209 - 218
  • [26] Intravenous Lidocaine for Effective Pain Relief After a Laparoscopic Colectomy: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study
    Ahn, EunJin
    Kang, Hyun
    Choi, Geun Joo
    Park, Yong Hee
    Yang, So Young
    Kim, Beom Gyu
    Choi, Seung Won
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL SURGERY, 2015, 100 (03) : 394 - 401
  • [27] Efficacy of a Buffered 4% Lidocaine Formulation for Incision and Drainage: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind Study
    Harreld, Taryn Kratz
    Fowler, Sara
    Drum, Melissa
    Reader, Al
    Nusstein, John
    Beck, Mike
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS, 2015, 41 (10) : 1583 - 1588
  • [28] Pre-procedure intravenous lidocaine administration on propofol consumption for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study
    Ates, Irem
    Aydin, Muhammed Enes
    Albayrak, Bulent
    Disci, Esra
    Ahiskalioglu, Elif Oral
    Celik, Erkan Cem
    Baran, Onur
    Ahiskalioglu, Ali
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY, 2021, 36 (05) : 1286 - 1290
  • [29] A RANDOMIZED DOUBLE-BLIND CROSSOVER TRIAL OF INTRAVENOUS LIDOCAINE IN THE TREATMENT OF NEUROPATHIC CANCER PAIN
    BRUERA, E
    RIPAMONTI, C
    BRENNEIS, C
    MACMILLAN, K
    HANSON, J
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, 1992, 7 (03) : 138 - 140
  • [30] RETRACTED: Flurbiprofen axetil preceded by venous occlusion in the prevention of pain on propofol injection in the hand: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled, dose-finding study in Japanese adult surgical patients (Retracted Article)
    Fujii, Y
    Shiga, Y
    [J]. CLINICAL THERAPEUTICS, 2005, 27 (05) : 588 - 593