MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131863361 · doi:10.1089/jpm.2014.0279

Intravenous Lidocaine for Cancer Pain without Electrocardiographic Monitoring: A Retrospective Review

2014· review· en· W2131863361 on OpenAlexaff
Renata D’Alpino Peixoto, Pippa Hawley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Palliative Medicine · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLidocaineAnesthesiaAdverse effectNauseaCancer painPalliative careRandomized controlled trialBlood pressureRetrospective cohort studyCancerSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Intravenous lidocaine infusion has been clearly demonstrated as effective for pain in randomized controlled trials, but the belief that cardiac monitoring is required for safe administration is a barrier to access in the palliative care setting. There are also multiple infusion protocols reported in the literature. We have been administering lidocaine infusions for severe cancer pain at the BC Cancer Agency (BCCA) since 2003, without electrocardiographic (ECG) monitoring. Our simple protocol is for 5 mg/kg to be infused over 1 hour, with the option for subsequent doses to be increased if necessary, up to a maximum of 10 mg/kg. Our aim with this study is to share 11 years of our experience with this protocol. METHODS: This is a retrospective case series. Records of patients who received at least one lidocaine infusion for pain between 2003 and 2013 at the BCCA were reviewed. The primary end points were the documentation of clinical benefit and adverse effects. RESULTS: A total of 122 lidocaine infusions were administered in 51 individual patients. Twenty-five (49%) had a major response, 12 (23.5%) had a minor response, and 14 (27.5%) were considered nonresponders. Twenty-two (43.1%) patients were noted to have some adverse effect during at least one of the infusions, but only 1 (1.9%) patient had the infusion permanently discontinued. The most common side effects were drowsiness (30.7%), perioral numbness (13.4%), nausea (5.7%), and minor fluctuations of blood pressure (3.8%). CONCLUSIONS: This case series demonstrates that our protocol of infusional lidocaine can be beneficial to patients with cancer with severe opioid-refractory pain, and can safely be administered with close observation and vital sign monitoring, without ECG monitoring. Lidocaine infusion is a useful option to consider when other pain treatments have not been successful. Although only approximately half of patients will respond well, there is little harm to be expected from a trial of lidocaine infusion and responders can be repeatedly treated. This treatment could be delivered in palliative care units, hospices, or even patients' homes, providing suitable nursing supervision can be provided.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.737
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.359 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations55
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Palliative MedicineSame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207