STUDY OBJECTIVES: The purpose of our study was to determine the morbidity and mortality in initially stable patients presenting to paramedics with chest pain; to examine possible beneficial effects of its use, including reduction of sudden death syndrome in the prehospital and emergency department setting; and to determine if prophylactic lidocaine is associated with adverse effects in this patient population. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a randomized, prospective study using prophylactic lidocaine in patients complaining of chest pain who presented to our paramedic system between January 1984 and January 1988. TYPE OF PARTICIPANTS: All patients aged 18 years or older with chest pain of suspected cardiac origin who presented to paramedics during the study period were included. Excluded were patients presenting with warning arrhythmias, second- or third-degree heart block, bradycardias of less than 50, hypotension of less than 90 mm Hg systolic, or known allergy to lidocaine. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized into two groups, the lidocaine-treated group and the control group. An initial bolus of 1 mg/kg IV lidocaine was administered to the lidocaine-treated group. A simultaneous 2 mg/min IV drip was established. Ten minutes after the first dose of lidocaine, a second bolus of 0.5 mg/kg was administered. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: During the study period, 1,427 patients were entered; 704 receivedlidocaine, and 723 did not. Discharge diagnoses included acute myocardial infarction (31%), unstable angina (33%), other cardiac problems (7%), and noncardiac problems (29%); overall mortality rate was 7.4%. There was an equal distribution of deaths between the lidocaine-treated group (57) and the control group (48). Six patients had a cardiac arrest in the prehospital setting, and 15 had a cardiac arrest in the ED. Malignant ventricular arrhythmias as the precipitating arrest rhythm in patients with acute myocardial infarctions were similar for the lidocaine-treated and control groups. The incidence of adverse effects, including hypotension, bradycardias, second- or third-degree heart blocks, tinnitus, and altered mental status, was similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: There are no benefits from the administration of prehospital prophylactic lidocaine in stable patients with chest pain; therefore, routine use in this setting appears unwarranted.
RCT Entities:
STUDY OBJECTIVES: The purpose of our study was to determine the morbidity and mortality in initially stable patients presenting to paramedics with chest pain; to examine possible beneficial effects of its use, including reduction of sudden death syndrome in the prehospital and emergency department setting; and to determine if prophylactic lidocaine is associated with adverse effects in this patient population. DESIGN AND SETTING: This was a randomized, prospective study using prophylactic lidocaine in patients complaining of chest pain who presented to our paramedic system between January 1984 and January 1988. TYPE OF PARTICIPANTS: All patients aged 18 years or older with chest pain of suspected cardiac origin who presented to paramedics during the study period were included. Excluded were patients presenting with warning arrhythmias, second- or third-degree heart block, bradycardias of less than 50, hypotension of less than 90 mm Hg systolic, or known allergy to lidocaine. INTERVENTIONS:Patients were randomized into two groups, the lidocaine-treated group and the control group. An initial bolus of 1 mg/kg IV lidocaine was administered to the lidocaine-treated group. A simultaneous 2 mg/min IV drip was established. Ten minutes after the first dose of lidocaine, a second bolus of 0.5 mg/kg was administered. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: During the study period, 1,427 patients were entered; 704 received lidocaine, and 723 did not. Discharge diagnoses included acute myocardial infarction (31%), unstable angina (33%), other cardiac problems (7%), and noncardiac problems (29%); overall mortality rate was 7.4%. There was an equal distribution of deaths between the lidocaine-treated group (57) and the control group (48). Six patients had a cardiac arrest in the prehospital setting, and 15 had a cardiac arrest in the ED. Malignant ventricular arrhythmias as the precipitating arrest rhythm in patients with acute myocardial infarctions were similar for the lidocaine-treated and control groups. The incidence of adverse effects, including hypotension, bradycardias, second- or third-degree heart blocks, tinnitus, and altered mental status, was similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: There are no benefits from the administration of prehospital prophylactic lidocaine in stable patients with chest pain; therefore, routine use in this setting appears unwarranted.