Search

Background: Intravenous lidocaine is used as an adjuvant analgesic agent in perioperative settings. It has been investigated in various patient populations and surgical interventions, but there are limited data on its efficacy, particularly for patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Obese patients are at high risk of postoperative respiratory complications and can be expected to benefit from anaesthetic techniques that minimise opioid administration., Methods: We studied administration of lidocaine hydrochloride 1% i.v. to general anaesthesia at a dose of 1.5 mg kg -1 (lean body mass×1.28) or placebo in patients undergoing bariatric surgery. Subjects randomly assigned to each group were surveyed for 48 h after surgery for experienced pain (primary outcome), and administered opioids, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), resumption of bowel function, and length of hospital stay (secondary outcomes)., Results: We recruited and randomised 140 subjects to either the lidocaine or placebo group; 137 completed the study. Subjects with pain numeric rating scale (NRS) >3 within the first 4 h postoperatively were similar in both groups (proportion of any NRS >3 within first 4 h lidocaine group: 47/68 (69%) vs placebo group: 44/69 (63%), P=0.507; within first h P=0.177, within second h P=0.513, within third h P=0.145, within fourth h P=0.510). There was no difference in maximal pain score, opioid consumption, recovery of bowel function, incidence of PONV, or length of hospital stay., Conclusions: Lidocaine does not improve postoperative pain scores, analgesia, or any secondary outcomes in patients undergoing bariatric surgery., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03667001., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Perioperative morbidity and mortality remains a substantial problem and is strongly associated with patients' cardiac comorbidities. Guidelines for the cardiovascular assessment and management of patients at risk of cardiac issues while undergoing non-cardiac surgery are traditionally based on the exclusion of active or unstable cardiac conditions, determination of the risk of surgery, the functional capacity of the patient, and the presence of cardiac risk factors. In the last two decades, strong evidence showed an association between cardiac biomarkers and adverse cardiac events, with newer guidelines incorporating this knowledge. This review describes a biomarker-based risk-stratification pathway and discusses potential treatment strategies for patients suffering from postoperative myocardial injury or infarction., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Purpose of Review: Perioperative coagulation management is becoming increasingly frequent in the daily routine of the anesthesiologist and with the plethora of new substances on the market also increasingly complex. The perioperative setting poses unique challenges requiring an individualized evaluation and management of antithrombotic therapy. This review shall summarize the newest developments in this domain., Recent Findings: New data in patients with atrial fibrillation have led to a paradigm change in the perioperative management of antithrombotics. The role of bridging therapy has been downgraded in the guidelines, which only foresee bridging in patients with high thromboembolic risk. Furthermore, direct oral anticoagulants are now a cornerstone in antithrombotic therapy, calling for specific perioperative management. The new reversal agents idarucizumab, and potentially in the future andexanet alfa and ciraparantag, will play an increasingly important role in the treatment of major bleeding in this group of patients., Summary: With the new evidence and treatment options available, perioperative coagulation management is experiencing a Renaissance, opening many interesting new doors, but also presenting the clinician with new challenges.