4.3 Article

The 5% Lidocaine Patch for Decreasing Postoperative Pain and Rescue Opioid Use in Sternotomy: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind Trial

Journal

CLINICAL THERAPEUTICS
Volume 42, Issue 12, Pages 2311-2320

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2020.10.011

Keywords

analgesics; lidocaine; opioid; pain; postoperative; sternotomy

Funding

  1. Seoul National University Bundang Hospital [11-2009-015]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Poststernotomy pain (PSP), a primary concern after sternotomy, can negatively affect patients' satisfaction with surgery and quality of life. Many clinical trials have been conducted to examine the usefulness of lidocaine patches (LPs) for postoperative pain control for multiple types of surgery; however, the results of these trials are inconsistent. In addition, little is known about the use of LPs after cardiac procedures that require sternotomy. This prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial aimed to determine the efficacy of the 5% LP application at the sternotomy site for reducing PSP and rescue opioid consumption. Methods: The patients were randomly assigned to receive either the 5% LP or the placebo patch on each side of the incision site immediately after the surgery. The intensity of pain at 6, 12, 24, and 48 h after the patch application; the total dose of rescue opioids; incidence of nausea, vomiting, and sleep disturbance; and use of antiemetics were compared between the 2 groups. Findings: Fifty-seven (31 in the LP group and 26 in the placebo group) patients were included. The pain intensity was significantly lower in the LP group at each time point (66%-68% pain reduction, P < 0.001, interaction of time x treatment P = 0.69). In addition, the total dose of rescue opioids used for 48 h was significantly lower in the L group (27.2% reduction, P = 0.008). No significant differences were found in other outcome variables between the 2 groups. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available