Cargando…
Pain and efficacy of local anesthetics for central venous access
PURPOSE: To compare pain during injection and efficacy of analgesia of local anesthetics during central venous line placement. METHODS: Sixty-two patients were studied in a randomized, double-blinded prospective fashion. Patients received 1% lidocaine (L), buffered 1% lidocaine (LB), or 2% chloropro...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Dove Medical Press
2008
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3417938/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22915859 |
Sumario: | PURPOSE: To compare pain during injection and efficacy of analgesia of local anesthetics during central venous line placement. METHODS: Sixty-two patients were studied in a randomized, double-blinded prospective fashion. Patients received 1% lidocaine (L), buffered 1% lidocaine (LB), or 2% chloroprocaine (CP) injected around the internal jugular vein for procedural analgesia for central venous access. Patients reported pain via a standard linear visual analog scale, with 0 representing no pain and 10 being the worst pain imaginable. RESULTS: Overall patient perception of pain was better with CP and L than LB with mean scores of CP 2.4, L 2.6, LB 4.2. Pain with injection mean scores were CP 2.1, L 2.5, LB 3.2. Pain with catheter placement scores were CP 2.5, L 1.7, LB 3.4. Operator assessment of overall pain values were CP 1.9, L 2.2, LB 3.4. LB consistently scored the worst, though compared with CP, this only reached statistical significance in overall patient pain and pain at catheter insertion compared with L. CONCLUSION: Though chloroprocaine scored better than lidocaine in 3 of 4 parameters, this trend did not achieve statistical significance. Adding sodium bicarbonate to lidocaine isn’t justified in routine practice, nor is routine replacement of lidocaine with chloroprocaine. |
---|