BACKGROUND:Pain is a major issue for patients with severe burn. High dose intravenous opioids form the mainstay of procedural burns pain management; however it was suggested that intravenous lidocaine assists with minimising the pain experience. This study aimed to evaluate whether intravenous lidocaine improved analgesic efficacy and decreased opioid consumption during a burn wound care procedure. METHODS: A prospective double-blind randomized crossover study compared intravenous lidocaine versus placebo alongside patient controlled analgesia (PCA) in 45 patients with severe burn undergoing wound care procedures (i.e. dressing change±debridement) on two consecutive days. Subjects were randomised to either the intervention or control condition on the first dressing day, and received the alternate condition on the second dressing day. During the intervention condition, subjects received lidocaine of 1.5 mg/kg/body weight followed by two boluses of 0.5 mg/kg at 5-min intervals followed by a continuous infusion. During the control condition, 0.9% sodium chloride was administered at an equivalent volume, dose and rate to that of lidocaine. Primary end points included pain intensity as measured by verbal rating scale (VRS), time to rescue analgesia, opioid requests and consumption and overall anxiety and level of satisfaction. RESULTS: Changes in the VRS score was significantly lower for lidocaine [difference (95% CI)=0.36 (0.17-0.55)] as compared to placebo. However, there were no significant clinical or statistical differences regarding the effects of lidocaine and placebo on opioid requests and consumption, anxiety or level of satisfaction during the first and second dressing procedures. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the clinical benefit of intravenous lidocaine for pain relief during burn wound dressing changes in terms of overall pain scores and opioid consumption was unremarkable. Further investigations using different lidocaine regimes for the management of procedural burn pain are warranted.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Pain is a major issue for patients with severe burn. High dose intravenous opioids form the mainstay of procedural burns pain management; however it was suggested that intravenous lidocaine assists with minimising the pain experience. This study aimed to evaluate whether intravenous lidocaine improved analgesic efficacy and decreased opioid consumption during a burn wound care procedure. METHODS: A prospective double-blind randomized crossover study compared intravenous lidocaine versus placebo alongside patient controlled analgesia (PCA) in 45 patients with severe burn undergoing wound care procedures (i.e. dressing change±debridement) on two consecutive days. Subjects were randomised to either the intervention or control condition on the first dressing day, and received the alternate condition on the second dressing day. During the intervention condition, subjects received lidocaine of 1.5 mg/kg/body weight followed by two boluses of 0.5 mg/kg at 5-min intervals followed by a continuous infusion. During the control condition, 0.9% sodium chloride was administered at an equivalent volume, dose and rate to that of lidocaine. Primary end points included pain intensity as measured by verbal rating scale (VRS), time to rescue analgesia, opioid requests and consumption and overall anxiety and level of satisfaction. RESULTS: Changes in the VRS score was significantly lower for lidocaine [difference (95% CI)=0.36 (0.17-0.55)] as compared to placebo. However, there were no significant clinical or statistical differences regarding the effects of lidocaine and placebo on opioid requests and consumption, anxiety or level of satisfaction during the first and second dressing procedures. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the clinical benefit of intravenous lidocaine for pain relief during burn wound dressing changes in terms of overall pain scores and opioid consumption was unremarkable. Further investigations using different lidocaine regimes for the management of procedural burn pain are warranted.
Authors: Kathleen S Romanowski; Joshua Carson; Kate Pape; Eileen Bernal; Sam Sharar; Shelley Wiechman; Damien Carter; Yuk Ming Liu; Stephanie Nitzschke; Paul Bhalla; Jeffrey Litt; Rene Przkora; Bruce Friedman; Stephanie Popiak; James Jeng; Colleen M Ryan; Victor Joe Journal: J Burn Care Res Date: 2020-11-30 Impact factor: 1.845
Authors: Jason Wasiak; Patrick D Mahar; Eldho Paul; Hana Menezes; Anneliese B Spinks; Heather Cleland Journal: Int Wound J Date: 2012-08-27 Impact factor: 3.315
Authors: Jason Wasiak; Patrick D Mahar; Siobhan K McGuinness; Anneliese Spinks; Stefan Danilla; Heather Cleland; Hannah B Tan Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2014-10-16
Authors: Agnieszka Markiewicz-Gospodarek; Małgorzata Kozioł; Maciej Tobiasz; Jacek Baj; Elżbieta Radzikowska-Büchner; Agata Przekora Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-25 Impact factor: 3.390