Pretreatment with ketorolac and venous occlusion to reduce pain on injection of propofol

We performed a randomised, double-blind, prospective trial to discover whether intravenous ketorolac 10 mg made up to 2 ml with saline, with or without venous occlusion for 2 min, reduces the pain on injection of propofol. In 90 patients, pain scores were obtained during injection of propofol following pretreatment of the vein with saline, ketorolac or ketorolac with venous occlusion. Pain on injection of ketorolac was more common than with saline (p = 0.02). The incidence of severe pain following propofol was reduced by ketorolac with venous occlusion (p = 0.019) compared with saline or ketorolac without venous occlusion. There was no difference in venous sequelae at 7 days postoperatively between the groups. Our results suggest that pain on injection of propofol may be related to release of local kininogens and that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs may have a role in reducing that pain.     

Comparison of diphenhydramine and lidocaine for prevention of pain after injection of propofol: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Pain on injection is still a problem with propofol. The purpose of the study was to compare the effectiveness of diphenhydramine and lidocaine on pain caused by propofol at the site of injection. METHODS: One hundred and eighty ASA I-II adults undergoing elective surgery were randomly assigned into three groups of 60 each. Group I (placebo) received 2 mL normal saline, Group II received 2 mL (40 mg) 2% lidocaine and Group III received 2 mL (20 mg) diphenhydramine intravenously (i.v.) during a 1-min venous occlusion, followed by propofol into a cephalic forearm vein of the antecubital fossa. Pain assessment was made immediately after propofol injection. RESULTS: In the placebo group 25 (41.7%) patients experienced pain during propofol injection as compared to 2 (3.3%) and 3 (5.0%) in the lidocaine and diphenhydramine groups, respectively. The prevalence of pain and pain score were significantly less in both the lidocaine and diphenhydramine groups than in the placebo group (P = 0.00). No difference was found between the diphenhydramine and lidocaine groups (P = 0.60). CONCLUSION: Previous injection of diphenhydramine with venous occlusion can be considered as an alternative to lidocaine for reducing the prevalence of pain caused by injection of propofol into peripheral veins.     

Efficacy of intravenous acetaminophen and lidocaine on propofol injection pain

BACKGROUND: Different methods and propofol formulations have been used to decrease propofol injection pain, but it remains an unresolved problem. We aimed to investigate the effect of i.v. acetaminophen pretreatment on the propofol injection pain. METHODS: One hundred and fifty ASA I-II patients undergoing general anaesthesia were randomly allocated into three groups. A 20-gauge catheter was inserted into a superficial radial vein of the left hand, and after the occlusion of venous drainage, Groups I, II, and III were pretreated with 40 mg of lidocaine in saline, 50 mg of i.v. acetaminophen, and 5 ml of saline, respectively. The occlusion was released after 2 min and one-fourth of the total propofol dose was injected into the vein over a period of 5 s. During the injection of both pretreatment solution and propofol, patients' pain was assessed and recorded as 0-3, corresponding to no, mild, moderate or severe pain, respectively. Chi2 and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for the statistical analysis. For all analyses, differences were considered to be significant at P<0.05. RESULTS: Patient characteristics were similar among the groups. Incidence of pain on injection of propofol in control, i.v. acetaminophen, and lidocaine groups was 64%, 22% and 8%, respectively (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Pretreatment with i.v. acetaminophen seems to be effective in attenuating pain during i.v. injection of propofol.     

Intravenous ketamine attenuates injection pain and arterial pressure changes during the induction of anesthesia with propofol: a comparison with lidocaine

Objective: To compare the effects of lidocaine and ketamine pretreatment on injection pain and hypotension due to propofol induction. Design: Double blinded randomized controlled clinical trial. Place and Duration of the Study: Department of Anesthesiology, Surgical Intensive Care Unit and Pain Management, Dow University of Health Sciences and Civil Hospital, Karachi from February 2005 to December 2005. Patients and Methods: One hundred patients, age 20-60 years, of either gender, ASA I and II scheduled for elective gynaecological, urological, orthopedic or general surgical procedures under general anesthesia were randomly allocated into two groups i.e. group A to receive ketamine 0.5 mg/kg in volume of 2 ml with venous occlusion and group B to receive 2 ml of 1% lidocaine with venous occlusion as pretreatment before propofol induction. Venous occlusion was performed using rubber tourniquet after elevating the arm for 30 seconds, which was released 60 seconds after giving the pretreatment bolus and anesthesia was induced with propofol (2 mg/ml). Fifteen seconds after injection of 25%, the calculated dose of propofol and severity of injection pain was evaluated. Heart rate (HR) and noninvasive blood pressure were recorded pre-operatively, just before propofol induction, after propofol induction, immediately after intubation and 3 minutes after intubation. Results: Comparing the lidocaine group, the intensity and incidence of pain after propofol injection was lower in ketamine group but remained statistically insignificant. Systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were significantly higher in ketamine group after induction with propofol. The maximum fall in SBP from baseline in ketamine group was 16% and 29.1% in lidocaine group, while maximum decrease in DBP in ketamine group was found to be12.66% vs. 26.47% in lidocaine group. There was no significant change in heart rate from baseline in either group. Conclusion: Ketamine pre-treatment with venous occlusion is an effective method in reducing pain and providing hemodynamic stability after propofol induction.     

Vein pretreatment with magnesium sulfate to prevent pain on injection of propofol is not justified

PURPOSE: Propofol produces anesthesia with rapid recovery. However, it causes pain or discomfort on injection. A number of techniques have been tried for minimizing propofol-induced pain with variable results. We have compared the efficacy of magnesium and lidocaine for the prevention of propofol induced pain. METHODS: Three hundred ASA I and II adults undergoing elective surgery were randomly assigned into three groups of 100 each. Group I received magnesium sulfate 1 g, Group II received lidocaine 2% (40 mg) and Group III received normal saline, all in a volume of 2 mL and accompanied by venous occlusion for one minute. Induction with propofol 2.5 mg.kg(-1) was accomplished following the release of venous occlusion. Pain was assessed on a four-point scale: 0 = no pain, 1 = mild pain, 2 = moderate pain, and 3 = severe pain at the time of pretreatment and propofol injection. Results were analyzed by 'Z' test. A P value of < 0.05 was considered as significant. RESULTS: Pain during i.v. pretreatment with magnesium was 31% as compared to 2% for both the lidocaine and control groups (P < 0.05). Seventy-six percent of patients in the control group had pain during i.v. propofol as compared to 32% and 42% in the magnesium and the lidocaine groups respectively (P < 0.05). Lidocaine and magnesium pretreatment were equally effective in attenuating pain during the propofol injection (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous magnesium and lidocaine pretreatment are equally effective in attenuating propofol-induced pain. However, magnesium pretreatment itself causes pain. Therefore, there is no justification in the use of magnesium pretreatment for attenuating pain associated with i.v. propofol.     

Sustained intravascular exposure to propofol does not prolong pain at the site of injection

BACKGROUND: Pain at the site of intravenous injection of propofol is a common clinical finding. This double-blind, randomized cross-over study was designed to evaluate whether venous occlusion applied during injection of a low dose of propofol reduces the intensity of pain at the site of injection compared with no occlusion. METHODS: Bilateral 0.5-ml injections of an emulsion containing 10 mg/ml of propofol were given over 30 s in 75 adult surgical patients. Each patient was given one injection with and one without 60-s occlusion of the cannulated vein with a 10-min interval, and asked to score the maximal pain intensity on a visual analogue scale (VAS). RESULTS: The maximal pain intensity [median (25th percentile; 75th percentile), range] at the site of injection was 0.5 (0; 3.5), 0-8.0 VAS units with venous occlusion and 0.5 (0; 1.4), 0-6.0 VAS units without occlusion (P= 0.042). Pain was first reported within 20 s regardless of the study regimen and was not prolonged by local venous occlusion. CONCLUSION: Venous occlusion augments pain intensity at the site of propofol injection without prolonging pain, implying that propofol-induced pain is determined more by the blood concentration than by the duration of intravascular exposure. The low intensity of pain induced by low-dose propofol and the fading of pain despite sustained exposure suggest that initial low-dose administration of propofol should be evaluated for the attenuation of local pain induced by higher intravenous doses of propofol.     

Effect of metoclopramide on pain on injection of propofol

We undertook a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study to examine the efficacy of metoclopramide at three different doses (2.5 mg, 5 mg, 10 mg) for reducing pain on injection of propofol in 100 patients scheduled for elective surgery. Patients received intravenously the study drug, with venous occlusion for one minute, followed by propofol 2 mg/kg into a dorsal hand vein. The incidence of pain was significantly less in patients receiving metoclopramide 5 mg (32%) or 10 mg (28%) than in patients receiving placebo (80%) (P<0.01). No difference between metoclopramide 2.5 mg and the placebo groups was found. We conclude that pretreatment of a dorsal hand vein with metoclopramide in a dose of 5 or 10 mg, with venous occlusion for one minute, effectively decreases the incidence of pain caused by propofol injection.     

The peripheral analgesic effect of tramadol in reducing propofol injection pain: a comparison with lidocaine.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Tramadol and metoclopramide have a local anesthetic effect similar to lidocaine following intradermal injection. When metoclopramide was retained in the venous system for 1 minute, it was found to be as effective as lidocaine in reducing propofol injection pain. Using this metoclopramide model, the effects of tramadol in reducing pain on propofol injection was investigated. METHODS: One hundred five patients were randomly allocated to receive 50 mg tramadol (group T), 60 mg lidocaine (group L), or normal saline (group NS) as pretreatment to reduce pain on propofol injection. Following venous occlusion with a tourniquet (70 mm Hg), one of the drugs was intravenously administered. Venous retention of the drug was maintained for 1 minute. Immediately after the tourniquet release, intravenous injection of 100 mg propofol (10 mL) at a rate of 0.5 mL/s followed. Pain assessment was made after each injection. RESULTS: Transient minor injection pain and local skin reactions were significantly greater with tramadol than with lidocaine (P < .05). Both tramadol and lidocaine significantly reduced the incidence and intensity of propofol injection pain when compared with normal saline (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Using -minute retention in veins, both tramadol and lidocaine significantly reduced propofol injection pain. A local anesthetic activity is postulated.     

Pain on injection of propofol Methods of alleviation

A controlled randomised double-blind design was used to study the effect of lignocaine on the pain produced by intravenous injection of propofol. Patients received a 2-ml pretreatment solution with temporary venous occlusion, followed by an induction solution. One hundred and three patients were assigned to one of five groups: saline pretreatment, followed by induction with propofol plus saline 2 ml; lignocaine 20 mg pretreatment, followed by induction with propofol plus saline 2 ml; lignocaine 40 mg pretreatment, followed by induction with propofol plus saline 2 ml; saline pretreatment, followed by induction with propofol plus lignocaine 20 mg; or saline pretreatment, followed by induction with propofol plus lignocaine 40 mg. Pain was reduced significantly in all groups in which lignocaine was used and a dose of 40 mg was more effective than 20 mg. There were no significant differences in the incidence of pain among the groups which received lignocaine as pretreatment and the groups which received lignocaine mixed with propofol. Sixty-eight percent of patients who experienced pain or discomfort recalled it in the postoperative period.     

Pretreatment with thiopental for prevention of pain associated with propofol injection

Propofol causes pain on IV injection in 28%-90% of patients. A number of techniques have been tried to minimize propofol-induced pain, with variable results. We compared the efficacy of pretreatment with thiopental 0.25 mg/kg and 0.5 mg/kg and lidocaine 40 mg after venous occlusion for prevention of propofol-induced pain. One-hundred-twenty-four adult patients, ASA physical status I-II, undergoing elective surgery were randomly assigned into 4 groups of 31 each. Group I received normal saline, group II received lidocaine 2% (40 mg), and groups III and IV received thiopental 0.25 mg/kg and 0.5 mg/kg, respectively. All pretreatment drugs were made in 2 mL and were accompanied by manual venous occlusion for 1 min. Propofol was administered after release of venous occlusion. Pain was assessed with a four-point scale: 0 = no pain, 1 = mild pain, 2 = moderate pain, and 3 = severe pain at the time of propofol injection. Twenty-four patients (77%) complained of pain in the group pretreated with normal saline as compared with 12 (39%), 10 (32%), and 1 (3%) in the groups pretreated with lidocaine 40 mg, thiopental 0.25 mg/kg, and thiopental 0.5 mg/kg, respectively (P < 0.05). Thiopental 0.5 mg/kg was the most effective treatment. We therefore suggest routine pretreatment with thiopental 0.5 mg/kg along with venous occlusion for 1 min for prevention of pain associated with propofol injection. IMPLICATIONS: Pain associated with IV injection of propofol is seen in 28%-90% patients. Pretreatment with thiopental 0.25 mg/kg and 0.5 mg/kg after manual venous occlusion for 1 min effectively attenuated pain associated with propofol injection. Thiopental 0.5 mg/kg was the most effective in prevention of propofol pain and can be used routinely.     

Nicorandil reduces incidence and severity of pain on propofol injection

BACKGROUND: Propofol is commonly used for induction and maintenance of anesthesia, but the pain during injection of propofol remains a clinical problem. We studied whether nicorandil prevents the pain on propofol injection. METHODS: The study was conducted in 120 adult patients scheduled for elective surgery. The patients were assigned to two groups; Group C (n = 60) received bolus injection of propofol alone; Group N (n = 60) received bolus injection of 2 mg of nicrorandil 3 minutes before propofol injection, and followed by continuous nicorandil infusion at a rate of 6 mg.h-1. The pain on injection was assessed as, none, mild, moderate, or severe at 15-second intervals. RESULTS: The incidence of propofol-induced pain was significantly higher in Group C (77%) than in Group N (30%) (P < 0.05). The severity of pain was significantly higher in Group C than in Group N (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Nicorandil reduces the incidence and severity of pain on propofol injection.     

EFFECT OF DILUTING PROPOFOL ON THE INCIDENCE OF PAIN ON INJECTION AND VENOUS SEQUELAE

The effect of diluting propofol in 5% dextrose on the incidenceof i.v. injection pain was studied in 100 adult patients. Severeinjection pain occurred in 32% (16 patients) who received undilutedpropofol, compared with 10% (five patients) who received dilutepropofol. We concluded that the dilution of propofol significantlyreduced the incidence of severe pain during injection withoutincreasing postoperative venous sequelae.     

Painless injection of propofol: pretreatment with ketamine vs thiopental, meperidine, and lidocaine

Propofol, a commonly used anesthetic, often causes pain on injection. Several methods have been described to reduce this pain, however, complete inhibition has not been achieved. Our randomized, placebo controlled, double blind study has been conducted to compare the analgesic efficacy of iv pretreatment of ketamine, meperidine, thiopental, lidocaine to minimize the injection pain of propofol. 125 patients ASA I and II were randomly allocated into 5 groups and received. Group K, ketamine 0.4 mg/kg; Group T, thiopental 0.5 mg/kg; Group M, meperidine 0.5 [corrected] mg/kg; Group L, lidocaine 1 mg/kg; Group S, saline 3 ml. All pretreatment drugs were made into 4 ml solutions and were accompanied by manual venous occlusion for 1 min, followed by tourniquet release and slowly IV administration of propofol. Pain was assessed with a four point scale. All treatment groups had a significantly lower incidence of pain than placebo group (p <0.05). However, it has been observed that pretreatment with ketamine was the most effective in attenuating pain associated with propofol injection (p <0.05). For painless injection of propofol, routine pretreatment with ketamine 0.4 mg/kg along with venous occlusion is recommended.     

Comparison of etoricoxib vs. ketorolac in postoperative pain relief

Background: COX‐2 inhibitors have been claimed to have equal analgesic efficacy as non‐selective nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs, but this has been disputed in animal experiments. Methods: One hundred thirty‐three women scheduled for ambulatory, laparoscopic gynaecological surgery were included in this randomised, double‐blind study. Group E received 120 mg etoricoxib orally as premedication. Group K received 30 mg ketorolac i.v. after induction of anaesthesia. General anaesthesia was induced and maintained with propofol and remifentanil. Fentanyl 0.5 μg/kg i.v. and local wound anaesthesia was administered at the end of surgery. Postoperatively, the patients received fentanyl 0.5 μg/kg i.v. if visual analogue scale (VAS) ≥30 mm. Before discharge, Group K received 30 mg ketorolac i.v. Twenty‐four hours postoperatively, Group E received 120 mg etoricoxib. Results: The first 4 h postoperatively, Group K required 83±65 μg and Group E required 123±91 μg fentanyl [mean (SD), P=0.004]. After 30 min VAS in Group K was 31.3±19.7 mm and 43.8±16.9 mm in Group E [mean (SD), P<0.001]. Discharge readiness was significantly shorter in Group K (222±40 min) compared with Group E (244±47 min) [mean (SD), P=0.004]. There were no differences in pain scores or rescue pain medication at 24 or 48 h postoperatively. Less nausea was observed in the 4–24‐h period in Group E. Conclusions: Thirty milligram ketorolac i.v. after induction of anaesthesia resulted in significantly less immediate pain and opioid consumption during the first 4 h postoperatively compared with 120 mg etoricoxib preoperatively.     

Bilateral intravenous regional anesthesia: a new method to test additives to local anesthetic solutions

BACKGROUND: Ketorolac, when added to lidocaine, has been shown to reduce early tourniquet pain during intravenous regional anesthesia (i.v.RA) in patients. Although the effectiveness of ropivacaine 0.2% for i.v.RA is equal to that of lidocaine 0.5% but significantly reduces central nervous system side effects after release of the tourniquet, it provides no advantage with regard to tourniquet tolerance times. Simultaneous bilateral i.v.RA with ropivacaine 0.2% was used to test the hypothesis that ketorolac modifies tourniquet tolerance and to test whether drug combinations can be evaluated in one study session. METHODS: Ten healthy, unsedated volunteers received 30 ml of ropivacaine 0.2% in each upper arm with 2 ml of normal saline in one arm and 30 mg of ketorolac in the contralateral arm for i.v.RA. Both proximal tourniquets remained inflated for 30 min, followed by inflation of the distal tourniquets and release of the proximal ones. Verbal numeric scores for tourniquet pain were recorded for both extremities. Central nervous system side effects were graded after release of each distal tourniquet. RESULTS: There was no difference between the two upper extremities with regard to surgical anesthesia and tourniquet tolerance. Total tourniquet tolerance was a median of 58.5 min (range, 45-90 min) and 60.5 min (39-79 min) in the normal saline and ketorolac groups, respectively. After release of the distal tourniquets, 5 of 10 volunteers experienced mild dizziness. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of ketorolac to ropivacaine does not improve tourniquet tolerance. Minimal central nervous system side effects after tourniquet release suggest that a total of 60 ml ropivacaine 0.2% for bilateral i.v.RA is a useful model for comparison of i.v.RA drug combinations.     

Prevention of pain on injection with propofol: a quantitative systematic review

The best intervention to prevent pain on injection with propofol is unknown. We conducted a systematic literature search (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, bibliographies, hand searching, any language, up to September 1999) for full reports of randomized comparisons of analgesic interventions with placebo to prevent that pain. We analyzed data from 6264 patients (mostly adults) of 56 reports. On average, 70% of the patients reported pain on injection. Fifteen drugs, 12 physical measurements, and combinations were tested. With IV lidocaine 40 mg, given with a tourniquet 30 to 120 s before the injection of propofol, the number of patients needed to be treated (NNT) to prevent pain in one who would have had pain had they received placebo was 1.6. The closest to this came meperidine 40 mg with tourniquet (NNT 1.9) and metoclopramide 10 mg with tourniquet (NNT 2.2). With lidocaine mixed with propofol, the best NNT was 2.4; with IV alfentanil or fentanyl, it was 3 to 4. IV lidocaine before the injection of propofol was less analgesic. Temperature had no significant effect. There was a lack of data for all other interventions to allow meaningful conclusions. The diameter of venous catheters and speed of injection had no impact on pain. Implications: IV lidocaine (0.5 mg/kg) should be given with a rubber tourniquet on the forearm, 30 to 120 s before the injection of propofol; lidocaine will prevent pain in approximately 60% of the patients treated in this manner.     

Propofol infusion rate does not affect local pain on injection

Background: Local pain at the site of an i.v. injection of propofol is a well‐known problem, particularly in infants. This randomised investigator‐blinded crossover study was designed to assess the effect of the i.v. bolus infusion rate on propofol‐induced pain at the site of injection. Methods: Thirty unpremedicated patients scheduled for ear‐nose‐throat or plastic surgery at Malmö University Hospital, Sweden, were given two consecutive 2.0 ml injections of propofol 10 mg/ml (Diprivan^®, AstraZeneca, Sweden/UK), at different infusion rates (0.2 or 1.0 ml/s), immediately before induction of general anesthesia. Half of the patients (n=15) received the first bolus of propofol over 2 s and the second bolus over 10 s, and the other half (n=15) had their injections in reversed order. After each injection, the patient was asked by an investigator to indicate pain intensity on a visual analog scale (VAS) and to report the times of the appearance, maximum point and disappearance of pain. The injections were given approximately 2 min apart. The investigators scoring pain intensity, as indicated by the patients on a 10‐point numerical rate scale, were blinded to the order in which the injections were given, as were the patients themselves. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in the incidence (both 86%) of intensity (median; 25th; 75th percentiles, in VAS units: 3.1; 1.0; 5.3 and 3.3; 1.4; 5.0, respectively) or duration (66±31 and 73±26 s, respectively) of pain between the faster (1.0 ml/s) and slower (0.2 ml/s) bolus infusion rates of propofol studied. Conclusions: We conclude that the i.v. bolus infusion rate of propofol does not influence drug‐induced local pain on injection, at least not within the infusion rate interval studied. Therefore, adjusting i.v. injection speed does not seem to be a clinically useful tool for reducing the intensity or duration of propofol‐induced pain at the site of administration.     

Propofol injection pain is not alleviated by pretreatment with flurbiprofen axetil, a prodrug of a nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug

Purpose. The effects of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on pain from propofol injection are controversial, partially because NSAIDs themselves cause injection pain. We evaluated the effects of flurbiprofen axetil (LFP), a prodrug of an NSAID, on pain induced by intravenous propofol injection, because LFP produces little pain on injection. Methods. A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial was undertaken in patients who were assigned to one of three groups (n = 50 in each). Patients received either 5 ml of saline followed approximately 10 min later by propofol mixed with 0.4 ml of saline, LFP (50 mg, 5 ml) i.v. followed by propofol mixed with 0.4 ml of saline, or 5 ml of saline followed by propofol mixed with lidocaine (40 mg, 0.4 ml). Verbal rating scores for injection pain were assessed every 10 s during propofol administration at a rate of 0.05 mg·kg⁻¹·s⁻¹. Results. None of the patients complained of pain during injection of LFP or saline. Admixture of lidocaine, but not of LFP, significantly reduced the incidence of pain and the severity of pain scores during propofol injection (P = 0.0017 and P < 0.001, respectively). Conclusion. Lidocaine, but not LFP, is effective for controlling pain induced by propofol injection. This result suggests that NSAIDs have little effect on pain from propofol injection. Received: November 10, 1999 / Accepted: April 3, 2000     

Propofol anaesthesia versus paracervical blockade with alfentanil and midazolam sedation for outpatient abortion

Propofol anaesthesia was compared with paracervical blockade in a prospective, randomized study of 59 abortion patients. All the patients received alfentanil 0.01 mg/kg i.v. at the start of anaesthesia and were randomized into two groups. Group R (regional, 31 patients): midazolam 0.1 mg/kg i.v. and paracervical blockade with 2 x 10 ml of mepivacaine 20 mg/ml + adrenaline 0.005 mg/ml. Group G (general, 28 patients): propofol 2.0 mg/kg i.v. induction and 75% nitrous oxide in oxygen spontaneous respiration. In 10 patients from the R-group venous blood samples were taken regularly for 30 min for serum concentration measurements (gas chromatography) of mepivacaine. Pain during induction of anaesthesia was remembered by 17% in Group G and 4% in Group R, whereas 8% in Group R remembered pain during the procedure compared with none in Group G. Of the patients in Group G, 25% had apnoea compared with none in Group R. In Group R the patients slept for 2.5 +/- 3.8 min (mean +/- s.d.) after induction compared with 12 +/- 4.0 min in Group G. Except for a better p-deletion score 30 min after the procedure in Group G, there was no difference in recovery function between the groups. Of the patients in Group G, 67% experienced postoperative pain compared with 23% in Group R. Maximum serum mepivacaine concentration (Group R) was reached at 15-30 min, range 1.5-5 micrograms/ml.     

A lidocaine/metoclopramide combination decreases pain on injection of propofol

PURPOSE: Injection pain is a well-known adverse effect of propofol which distresses patients. Lidocaine pretreatment is the most popular method for reducing this pain but this drug cannot entirely eliminate the problem. The purpose of this study was to examine the analgesic effect of lidocaine/metoclopramide combination, compared with lidocaine alone, during propofol injection. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 90 patients, 40 males and 50 females, scheduled for elective plastic surgery received either lidocaine 20 mg plus metoclopramide 10 mg iv, lidocaine 20 mg iv, or placebo (saline); (n = 30 in each), with venous occlusion for one minute, followed by administration of propofol 0.5 mg.kg(-1) into a dorsal hand vein. Pain was assessed on a four-point scale (0 = none, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe) during propofol injection. RESULTS: 25 patients (83%) complained of pain in the placebo group, compared with 12 (40%) in the lidocaine group (P < 0.05) and three (10%) in the combination group (P < 0.05). Pain score (median) was less in the lidocaine (0) and combination (0) groups than in the placebo group (2); (P < 0.05). The difference in the incidence of pain between the combination and lidocaine groups was significant (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: A lidocaine/metoclopramide combination is more effective than lidocaine alone for reducing pain on injection of propofol in a peripheral vein.