全身利多卡因与直立肌脊柱平面阻滞在改善腹腔镜胆囊切除术后恢复质量方面的比较:随机对照试验

IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Zhiwei Lin , Chanjuan Chen , Shengyuan Xie , Lei Chen , Yusheng Yao , Bin Qian
{"title":"全身利多卡因与直立肌脊柱平面阻滞在改善腹腔镜胆囊切除术后恢复质量方面的比较:随机对照试验","authors":"Zhiwei Lin ,&nbsp;Chanjuan Chen ,&nbsp;Shengyuan Xie ,&nbsp;Lei Chen ,&nbsp;Yusheng Yao ,&nbsp;Bin Qian","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111528","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Study objective</h3><p>To compare intravenous lidocaine, ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block (ESPB), and placebo on the quality of recovery and analgesia after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>A prospective, triple-arm, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled non-inferiority trial.</p></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><p>A single tertiary academic medical center.</p></div><div><h3>Patients</h3><p>126 adults aged 18–65 years undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.</p></div><div><h3>Interventions</h3><p>Patients were randomly allocated to one of three groups: intravenous lidocaine infusion (1.5 mg/kg bolus followed by 2 mg/kg/h) plus bilateral ESPB with saline (25 mL per side); bilateral ESPB with 0.25% ropivacaine (25 ml per side) plus placebo infusion; or bilateral ESPB with saline (25 ml per side) plus placebo infusion.</p></div><div><h3>Measurements</h3><p>The primary outcome was the 24-h postoperative Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) score. The non-inferiority of lidocaine versus ESPB was assessed with a margin of −6 points and 97.5% confidence interval (CI). Secondary outcomes included 24-h area under the curve (AUC) for pain scores, morphine consumption, and adverse events.</p></div><div><h3>Main results</h3><p>124 patients completed the study. Median (IQR) 24-h QoR-15 scores were 123 (117–127) for lidocaine, 124 (119–126) for ESPB, and 112 (108–117) for placebo. Lidocaine was non-inferior to ESPB (median difference  –1, 97.5% CI: −4 to ∞). Both lidocaine (median difference 9, 95% CI: 6–12, <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001) and ESPB (median difference 10, 95% CI: 7–13, <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001) were superior to placebo. AUC for pain scores and morphine use were lower with lidocaine and ESPB versus placebo (<em>P</em> &lt; 0.001 for all), with no significant differences between lidocaine and ESPB. One ESPB patient reported a transient metallic taste; no other block-related complications occurred.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>For patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy, intravenous lidocaine provides a non-inferior quality of recovery compared to ESPB without requiring specialized regional anesthesia procedures. Lidocaine may offer a practical and accessible alternative within multimodal analgesia pathways.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":15506,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Anesthesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systemic lidocaine versus erector spinae plane block for improving quality of recovery after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A randomized controlled trial\",\"authors\":\"Zhiwei Lin ,&nbsp;Chanjuan Chen ,&nbsp;Shengyuan Xie ,&nbsp;Lei Chen ,&nbsp;Yusheng Yao ,&nbsp;Bin Qian\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111528\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Study objective</h3><p>To compare intravenous lidocaine, ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block (ESPB), and placebo on the quality of recovery and analgesia after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>A prospective, triple-arm, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled non-inferiority trial.</p></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><p>A single tertiary academic medical center.</p></div><div><h3>Patients</h3><p>126 adults aged 18–65 years undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.</p></div><div><h3>Interventions</h3><p>Patients were randomly allocated to one of three groups: intravenous lidocaine infusion (1.5 mg/kg bolus followed by 2 mg/kg/h) plus bilateral ESPB with saline (25 mL per side); bilateral ESPB with 0.25% ropivacaine (25 ml per side) plus placebo infusion; or bilateral ESPB with saline (25 ml per side) plus placebo infusion.</p></div><div><h3>Measurements</h3><p>The primary outcome was the 24-h postoperative Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) score. The non-inferiority of lidocaine versus ESPB was assessed with a margin of −6 points and 97.5% confidence interval (CI). Secondary outcomes included 24-h area under the curve (AUC) for pain scores, morphine consumption, and adverse events.</p></div><div><h3>Main results</h3><p>124 patients completed the study. Median (IQR) 24-h QoR-15 scores were 123 (117–127) for lidocaine, 124 (119–126) for ESPB, and 112 (108–117) for placebo. Lidocaine was non-inferior to ESPB (median difference  –1, 97.5% CI: −4 to ∞). Both lidocaine (median difference 9, 95% CI: 6–12, <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001) and ESPB (median difference 10, 95% CI: 7–13, <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001) were superior to placebo. AUC for pain scores and morphine use were lower with lidocaine and ESPB versus placebo (<em>P</em> &lt; 0.001 for all), with no significant differences between lidocaine and ESPB. One ESPB patient reported a transient metallic taste; no other block-related complications occurred.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>For patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy, intravenous lidocaine provides a non-inferior quality of recovery compared to ESPB without requiring specialized regional anesthesia procedures. Lidocaine may offer a practical and accessible alternative within multimodal analgesia pathways.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15506,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Anesthesia\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Anesthesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0952818024001570\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Anesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0952818024001570","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的比较静脉注射利多卡因、超声引导下直立肌脊柱平面阻滞(ESPB)和安慰剂对腹腔镜胆囊切除术后恢复质量和镇痛效果的影响.设计前瞻性、三臂、双盲、随机、安慰剂对照的非劣效性试验.设置一个三级学术医疗中心.患者126名年龄在18-65岁之间、接受择期腹腔镜胆囊切除术的成人.干预措施患者被随机分配到三组中的一组:利多卡因静脉注射(1.5 mg/kg 栓注,随后2 mg/kg/h)加双侧ESPB加生理盐水(每侧25 mL);双侧ESPB加0.25%罗哌卡因(每侧25 ml)加安慰剂输注;或双侧ESPB加生理盐水(每侧25 ml)加安慰剂输注。利多卡因与ESPB的非劣效性评估差值为-6分,置信区间(CI)为97.5%。次要结果包括 24 小时疼痛评分曲线下面积(AUC)、吗啡消耗量和不良事件。利多卡因24小时QoR-15评分的中位数(IQR)为123(117-127),ESPB为124(119-126),安慰剂为112(108-117)。利多卡因的疗效不劣于 ESPB(中位数差异-1,97.5% CI:-4 至 ∞)。利多卡因(中位数差异 9,95% CI:6-12,P < 0.001)和 ESPB(中位数差异 10,95% CI:7-13,P < 0.001)均优于安慰剂。利多卡因和ESPB与安慰剂相比,疼痛评分和吗啡用量的AUC较低(P均为0.001),利多卡因和ESPB之间无显著差异。结论对于接受腹腔镜胆囊切除术的患者来说,静脉注射利多卡因的恢复质量并不比ESPB差,而且不需要专门的区域麻醉程序。在多模式镇痛途径中,利多卡因可提供一种实用、方便的替代方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Systemic lidocaine versus erector spinae plane block for improving quality of recovery after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A randomized controlled trial

Systemic lidocaine versus erector spinae plane block for improving quality of recovery after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: A randomized controlled trial

Study objective

To compare intravenous lidocaine, ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block (ESPB), and placebo on the quality of recovery and analgesia after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Design

A prospective, triple-arm, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled non-inferiority trial.

Setting

A single tertiary academic medical center.

Patients

126 adults aged 18–65 years undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Interventions

Patients were randomly allocated to one of three groups: intravenous lidocaine infusion (1.5 mg/kg bolus followed by 2 mg/kg/h) plus bilateral ESPB with saline (25 mL per side); bilateral ESPB with 0.25% ropivacaine (25 ml per side) plus placebo infusion; or bilateral ESPB with saline (25 ml per side) plus placebo infusion.

Measurements

The primary outcome was the 24-h postoperative Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) score. The non-inferiority of lidocaine versus ESPB was assessed with a margin of −6 points and 97.5% confidence interval (CI). Secondary outcomes included 24-h area under the curve (AUC) for pain scores, morphine consumption, and adverse events.

Main results

124 patients completed the study. Median (IQR) 24-h QoR-15 scores were 123 (117–127) for lidocaine, 124 (119–126) for ESPB, and 112 (108–117) for placebo. Lidocaine was non-inferior to ESPB (median difference  –1, 97.5% CI: −4 to ∞). Both lidocaine (median difference 9, 95% CI: 6–12, P < 0.001) and ESPB (median difference 10, 95% CI: 7–13, P < 0.001) were superior to placebo. AUC for pain scores and morphine use were lower with lidocaine and ESPB versus placebo (P < 0.001 for all), with no significant differences between lidocaine and ESPB. One ESPB patient reported a transient metallic taste; no other block-related complications occurred.

Conclusions

For patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy, intravenous lidocaine provides a non-inferior quality of recovery compared to ESPB without requiring specialized regional anesthesia procedures. Lidocaine may offer a practical and accessible alternative within multimodal analgesia pathways.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
4.50%
发文量
346
审稿时长
23 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Anesthesia (JCA) addresses all aspects of anesthesia practice, including anesthetic administration, pharmacokinetics, preoperative and postoperative considerations, coexisting disease and other complicating factors, cost issues, and similar concerns anesthesiologists contend with daily. Exceptionally high standards of presentation and accuracy are maintained. The core of the journal is original contributions on subjects relevant to clinical practice, and rigorously peer-reviewed. Highly respected international experts have joined together to form the Editorial Board, sharing their years of experience and clinical expertise. Specialized section editors cover the various subspecialties within the field. To keep your practical clinical skills current, the journal bridges the gap between the laboratory and the clinical practice of anesthesiology and critical care to clarify how new insights can improve daily practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信