A survey of perioperative intravenous lidocaine use by anaesthetists in Australia and New Zealand
Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, ISSN: 1448-0271, Vol: 48, Issue: 1, Page: 53-58
2020
- 9Citations
- 13Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations9
- Citation Indexes9
- CrossRef9
- Captures13
- Readers13
- 13
Article Description
Perioperative intravenous lidocaine administration by anaesthetists is purported to confer a variety of benefits across a range of surgical procedures. It remains unclear whether the available evidence regarding efficacy and safety is sufficient to influence Australasian practice broadly, and whether significant barriers to uptake exist. We therefore conducted a survey of Fellows of the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists to evaluate patterns of lidocaine use, and perceptions relating to benefit and safety. Of 979 survey invitations, 295 (30.1%) responded. Of these, 51.9% of anaesthetists incorporate lidocaine administration into their practice. Amongst users, the most common indication is open abdominal or pelvic surgery (88.9%), with the principal intent of reducing acute pain and opioid use (both 92.2%). Only 51% perceive lidocaine to have a role in the prevention of chronic post-surgical pain, and less than a third administer it for operations strongly linked to this condition. Nearly all (91%) users deliver the drug by intraoperative bolus and infusion, with the majority using doses between 1.0 and 1.5 mg/kg for both the bolus and the hourly infusion rate. When parallel local anaesthetic techniques are employed, 44.4% restrict the dose, 37.3% turn the lidocaine infusion off first and 15.7% make no modifications. Most respondents terminate infusions by the end of surgery (52.3%) or in the post-anaesthesia care unit (26.8%). Few deliver postoperative infusions without electrocardiographic monitoring (5.9%). There were no reports of life-threatening events. The dichotomy in Australasian use of perioperative lidocaine revealed by this survey confirms that large multicentre trials are now required to guide practice accurately.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85078288567&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0310057x19889367; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31937116; http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0310057X19889367; https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0310057x19889367; https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0310057X19889367
SAGE Publications
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know