Impact of lidocaine on hemodynamic and respiratory parameters during laparoscopic appendectomy in children

Maciej Kaszyński, Barbara Stankiewicz, Krzysztof Jakub Pałko, Marek Darowski, Izabela Pągowska-Klimek, Maciej Kaszyński, Barbara Stankiewicz, Krzysztof Jakub Pałko, Marek Darowski, Izabela Pągowska-Klimek

Abstract

We assessed the influence of systemic lidocaine administration on ventilatory and circulatory parameters, and the pneumoperitoneum impact on the cardiopulmonary system during a laparoscopic appendectomy in children. A single-center parallel single-masked randomized controlled study was carried out with 58 patients (3-17 years). Intravenous lidocaine bolus of 1.5 mg/kg over 5 min before induction of anesthesia followed by lidocaine infusion at 1.5 mg/kg/h intraoperatively. Respiratory system compliance (C, C/kg), Ppeak-PEEP and Pulse rate (Pulse), systolic, diastolic and mean blood pressure (NBPs, NBPd, NBPm), assessed in the Lidocaine and Control group, at the: beginning (P1), minimum lung compliance (P2) and at the end of surgery (P3) were compared. The respiratory/hemodynamic parameters did not differ between the groups at any stage of operation. Blood Pressure and Ppeak-PEEP were significantly higher at the P2 compared to P1 and P3 stages (P < 0.001, 1 - β ≥ 0.895) that correlated with lung compliance changes: C/kg vs. NBPs and Ppeak-PEEP (- 0.42, - 0.84; P < 0.001); C vs. Pulse and Ppeak-PEEP (- 0.48, - 0.46; P < 0.001). Although an increase in intraabdominal pressure up to 12(15) mmHg causes significant changes in hemodynamic/respiratory parameters, there appears to be no risk of fatal reactions in 1E, 2E ASA patients. Systemic lidocaine administration doesn't alleviate circulatory/respiratory alterations during pneumoperitoneum. No lidocaine related episode of anaphylaxis, systemic toxicity, circulatory disturbances or neurological impairment occurred.ClinicalTrials.gov: 22/03/2019.Trial registration number: NCT03886896.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart of patients included in the study. Of the 74 patients enrolled, 58 were qualified for this study: 29 patients from the Lido group and 29 from the Control group. Hemodynamic parameters and lung compliance were available for 58 patients. However, Ppeak and PEEP were registered in 38 patients (21 from the Lido group and 17 from the Control group).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Study diagram showing key points of the operation: P1, P2, P3. The hemodynamic and respiratory parameters observed at these points were analyzed. Time data are expressed as the median and the range between the first and third quartile: Me (Q1–Q3).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Compliance of respiratory system C, compliance of respiratory system per kg of body mass C/kg at the beginning (P1–baseline), during (P2) and at the end of surgery (P3) in the Lido and Control group. The differences between patients’ groups are insignificant (NS), (a, b). The differences between the P1, P2 and P3 stages are significant (c, d); *P < 0.001 (1 − β  = 0.99 for α = 0.001). The difference between Lido and Control group at the P1, P2 and P3 level is insignificant (NS), (e, f).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Peak pressure (Ppeak) and the peak pressure minus positive end-expiratory pressure (Ppeak-PEEP) in the patient-ventilator system at the beginning (P1−baseline), during (P2) and at the end of surgery (P3) in the Lido and Control group. The differences between patients’ groups are insignificant (NS), (a, b). The differences between the P1, P2 and P3 stages are significant (c, d); *P < 0.001 (1− β = 0.99 for α = 0.001). The difference between Lido and Control group at the P1, P2 and P3 level is insignificant (NS), (e, f).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Systolic and diastolic blood pressure (NBPs, NBPd) at the beginning (P1−baseline), during (P2), and at the end of surgery (P3) in the Lido and Control group. The differences between patients’ groups are insignificant (NS), (a, b). The differences between the P1, P2 and P3 stages are significant (c, d); *P < 0.001 (1 − β = 0.99 and 1 − β = 0.98 for c and d respectively, at α = 0.001). The difference between Lido and Control group at the P1, P2 and P3 level is insignificant (NS), (e, f). #P < 0.05.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Mean blood pressure (NBPm) and pulse rate (Pulse) from SpO2, at the beginning (P1−baseline), during (P2), and at the end of surgery (P3) in the Lido and Control group. The differences between patients’ groups are insignificant (NS), (a, b). The differences between the P1, P2 and P3 stages are significant (c, d). *P < 0.001; 1 − β = 0.97 at α = 0.001 (c); 1 − β = 0.95 at α = 0.05 (d). The difference between Lido and Control group at the P1, P2 and P3 level is insignificant (NS), (e, f). +P < 0.005, #P < 0.05.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Correlation between peak pressure (Ppeak) and respiratory system compliance (C) (a), Ppeak and the respiratory system compliance per kilogram of body mass (C/kg) (b), and between Ppeak-PEEP vs. C (c), and Ppeak-PEEP vs. C/kg (d). Rs—Spearman correlation coefficient, R2—coefficient of determination. *P < 0.001.

References

    1. Kaszyński M, Lewandowska D, Sawicki P, Wojcieszak P, Pągowska-Klimek I. Efficacy of intravenous lidocaine infusions for pain relief in children undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy: A randomized controlled trial. BMC Anesthesiol. 2021;21:2. doi: 10.1186/s12871-020-01218-0.
    1. Dunn LK, Durieux ME. Perioperative use of intravenous lidocaine. Anesthesiology. 2017;126:729–737. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000001527.
    1. El-Deeb A, El-Morsy GZ, Ghanem AAA, Elsharkawy AA, Elmetwally AS. The effects of intravenous lidocaine infusion on hospital stay after major abdominal pediatric surgery. A randomized double-blinded study. Egypt. J. Anaesth. 2013;29(3):225–230. doi: 10.1016/j.egja.2013.02.005.
    1. Both CP, Thomas J, Bühler PK, Schmitz A, Weiss M, Piegeler T. Factors associated with intravenous lidocaine in pediatric patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy—a retrospective, single-centre experience. BMC Anesthesiol. 2018;18:88. doi: 10.1186/s12871-018-0545-1.
    1. Lee HM, Choi KW, Byon HJ, Lee JM, Lee JR. Systemic lidocaine infusion for post-operative analgesia in children undergoing laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: A randomized double-blind controlled trial. J. Clin. Med. 2019;8(11):2014. doi: 10.3390/jcm8112014.
    1. Song X, Sun Y, Zhang X, Li T, Yang B. Effect of perioperative intravenous lidocaine infusion on postoperative recovery following laparoscopic cholecystectomy—a randomized controlled trial. Int. J. Surg. 2017;45:8–13. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.07.042.
    1. Echevarria GC, et al. Intra-operative lidocaine in the prevention of vomiting after elective tonsillectomy in children: A randomised controlled trial. Eur. J. Anesthesiol. 2018;35:343–348. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000807.
    1. Batko I, Kościelniak-Merak B, Tomasik PJ, Kobylarz K, Wordliczek J. Lidocaine as an element of multimodal analgesic therapy in major spine surgical procedures in children: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study. Pharmacol. Rep. 2020;72(3):744–755. doi: 10.1007/s43440-020-00100-7.
    1. Batko I, Kościelniak-Merak B, Tomasik PJ, Kobylarz K. Lidocaine reduces sevoflurane consumption and imProves recovery profile in children undergoing major spine surgery. Med. Sci. Monit. 2020;26:e919971. doi: 10.12659/MSM.919971.
    1. Hayden P, Cowman S. Anaesthesia for laparoscopic surgery. Contin. Educ. Anaesthesia Crit. Care Pain. 2011;11(5):177–180. doi: 10.1093/bjaceaccp/mkr027.
    1. Gerges FJ, Kanazi GE, Jabbour-Khoury SI. Anesthesia for laparoscopy: A review. J. Clin. Anesth. 2006;18(1):67–78. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2005.01.013.
    1. Chou R, et al. Management of postoperative pain: A clinical Practice guideline from the American Pain Society, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists’ Committee on Regional Anesthesia, Executive Committee, and Administrative Council. J. Pain. 2016;17:131–157. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2015.12.008.
    1. Misiołek H, et al. Postoperative pain management—2018 consensus statement of the Section of Regional Anaesthesia and Pain Therapy of the Polish Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, the Polish Society of Regional Anaesthesia and Pain Therapy, the Polish Association for the Study of Pain and the National Consultant in Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy. Anaesthesiol. Intensive Ther. 2018;50(3):173–199. doi: 10.5603/AIT.2018.0026.
    1. Vittinghoff M, et al. Postoperative pain management in children: guidance from the Pain Committee of the European Society for Paediatric Anaesthesiology (ESPA Pain Management Ladder Initiative) Paediatr. Anaesth. 2018;28(6):493–506. doi: 10.1111/pan.13373.
    1. Association of Paediatric Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland. Good Practice in postoperative and procedural pain management, 2nd edition. Paediatr. Anaesth.22 (Suppl 1), 1–79 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2012.03838.x (2012).
    1. Perugini, R.A., Callery, M.P. Complications of laparoscopic surgery. In Surgical Treatment: Evidence-Based and Problem-Oriented (eds Holzheimer, R.G., Mannick, J.A.) (Zuckschwerdt, Munich, 2001). .
    1. Beaussier M, Delbos A, Maurice-Szamburski A, Ecoffey C, Mercadal L. Perioperative use of intravenous lidocaine. Drugs. 2018;78:1229–1246. doi: 10.1007/s40265-018-0955-x.
    1. Amato MB, et al. Driving Pressure and survival in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015;372(8):747–755. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1410639.
    1. Gutt, C. N. et al. (2004). Circulatory and respiratory complications of carbon dioxide insufflation. Dig. Surg. 21 (2), 95–105 .
    1. Mascolo A, Scavone C, Rafaniello C, et al. The role of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in the heart and lung: Focus on COVID-19. Front. Pharmacol. 2021;12:667254. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2021.667254.

Source: PubMed

3
Tilaa