Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T02:42:53.062Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Use of lidocaine and fentanyl premedication for neuroprotective rapid sequence intubation in the emergency department

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2015

Nick Kuzak ,
David W. Harrison  and
Peter J. Zed
Nick Kuzak
Affiliation:
R5 Emergency Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC
David W. Harrison
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Vancouver General Hospital, Vancouver General Hospital Hyperbaric Unit, Division of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Introduction:

Autoregulation is dysfunctional in the injured brain. Increases in intracranial and arterial pressure may therefore result in extension of the primary injury. Rapid sequence intubation (RSI) is a well-known cause of surges in both arterial pressure and intracranial pressure. Neuroprotective agents, namely lidocaine and fentanyl, have the potential to minimize the pressure surges implicated in secondary brain injury. The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency with which neuroprotective agents were used for neuroprotective RSI in the emergency department.

Methods:

We conducted a retrospective chart review of all 139 patients intubated in the emergency department of Vancouver General Hospital between March and October 2003. Patients were eligible if there was an indication for neuroprotective agents defined as presumed intracranial pathology and a mean arterial pressure (MAP) > 85 mm Hg. Contraindications to fentanyl included MAP < 85 mm Hg or allergy to fentanyl.

Results:

Seventy-seven patients were intubated for primary neurological indications. Indication for intubation included non-traumatic causes (n = 37) (including cerebrovascular accident or intracranial hemorrhage) and closed head injury (n = 40). The mean age (± standard deviation) was 52.3 ± 20.4 years, and 31.4% were female. Fifty-seven (74.0%) patients had indications for neuroprotective agents, without contraindications. When neuroprotective agents were indicated, lidocaine was used in 84.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 72.6%–91.5%) of patients while fentanyl was used in 33.3% (95%CI 22.4%–46.3%) of patients. Eleven percent of the intubations were performed with a fentanyl dose of Δ 2 mcg/kg, which is the lower limit considered effective.

Conclusions:

Despite the potential benefit of using lidocaine and fentanyl in appropriate patients undergoing neuroprotective RSI in the emergency department, our study identified a significant underutilization of optimal premedication. The identification of barriers to use and the implementation of strategies to optimize use are necessary.

Keywords

intubationneuroprotectionlidocainefentanyl
Type
Original Research • Recherche originale
Information
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , March 2006 , pp. 80 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2006

References

1.Forbes, AM, Dally, FG.Acute hypertension during induction of anaesthesia and endotracheal intubation in normotensive man. Br J Anaesth 1970;42:618–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Prys-Roberts, C, Greene, L, Meloche, R, et al. Studies of anesthesia in relation to hypertension II: haemodynamic consequences of induction and endotracheal intubation. Br J Anaesth 1971;43:531–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Wadbrook, PS.Pharmacologic advances in emergency medicine. Emerg Med Clin North Am 2000;18:4–767–88.Google Scholar
4.Chraemmer-Jorgensen, B, Hoilund-Carlsen, PF, Marving, J, et al. Left ventricular ejection fraction during anaesthetic induction: comparison of rapid sequence and elective induction. Can Anaesth Soc J 1986;33:754–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Becker, DP, Miller, JD, Ward, JD, et al. Outcome from severe head injury with early diagnosis and intensive management. J Neurosurg 1977;47:491–502.Google Scholar
6.Meyer, JS, Bauer, RB.Medical treatment of spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage by use of hypotensive drugs. Neurology 1962;12:36–47.Google Scholar
7.Dandapani, BK, Suzuki, S, Kelley, RE, et al. Relation between blood pressure and outcome in intracerebral hemorrhage. Stroke 1995;26:21–4.Google Scholar
8.Brott, T, Broderick, J, Kothari, R, et al. Early hemorrhage growth in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage. Stroke 1997;28:1–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Donegan, MF.Intravenously administered lidocaine prevents intracranial hypertension during endotracheal suctioning. Anesthesiology 1980;52:516–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Bedford, RF, Winn, HR, Tyson, G.Lidocaine prevents increased ICP after endotracheal intubation. In: Shulman, K, Mamorou, , Miller, JD, editors. Intracranial pressure IV. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 1980. p. 595–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Lev, R, Rosen, P.Prophylactic lidocaine use preintubation: a review. J Emerg Med 1994;12:499–506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Tam, S, Chung, F, Campbell, M.Intravenous lidocaine: optimum time of injection before tracheal intubation. Anesth Analg 1987;66:1036–8.Google Scholar
13.Ebert, TJ, Bernstein, JS, Stowe, DF, et al. Attenuation of hemodynamic responses to rapid sequence induction and intubation in healthy patients with a single bolus of esmolol. J Clin Anesth 1990;2:343–52.Google Scholar
14.Feng, CK, Chan, KH, Liu, KN, et al. A comparison of lidocaine, fentanyl, and esmolol for attenuation of cardiovascular response to laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation [published erratum appears in Acta Anaesthesiol Sin 1996;34(3):172]. Acta Anaesthesiol Sin 1996;34(2):61–7.Google Scholar
15.Helfman, SM, Gold, MI, Delisser, EA, et al. Which drug prevents tachycardia and hypertension associated with tracheal intubation: lidocaine, fentanyl, or esmolol? Anesth Analg 1991;72:482–6.Google Scholar
16.Walls, RM.Rapid sequence intubation in head trauma. Ann Emerg Med 1993;22:1008–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Chung, KS, Sinatra, RS, Halevy, JD, et al. A Comparison of fentanyl, esmolol, and their combination for blunting the hemody-namic responses during rapid sequence induction. Can J Anaesth 1992;39:774–9.Google Scholar
18.Weiss-Bloom, LJ, Reich, DL.Haemodynamic responses to tracheal intubation following etomidate and fentanyl for anaesthetic induction. Can J Anaesth 1992;39:780–5.Google Scholar
19.Walls, RM, Murphy, MF.Increased intracranial pressure. In: Walls, RM, editor. Manual of emergency airway management. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2000. p.158–63.Google Scholar