Microgrid Control and Optimization (530)
HVDC Systems and Fault Protection (284)
Wind Turbine Control Systems (276)
Smart Grid Energy Management (232)
Multilevel Inverters and Converters (203)
Zhang YX, Ma L, Yiliaikebaier M, Zhang W, Li RX , et al.
Neurological research •
This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of intraoperative intravenous lidocaine administration in the management of sepsis-associated encephalopathy (SAE). This retrospective cohort analysis included 165 patients diagnosed with SAE, who were categorized into two groups: the lidocaine group ( = 55) and the control group ( = 110). The lidocaine group received an intravenous injection of lidocaine at 1.5 mg/kg following anesthesia induction, and then received a continuous infusion at 1.5 mg/kg/h until the completion of surgery. The control group did not receive lidocaine during surgery. Data collected included patient demographics, medical history, infection site, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, laboratory results, anesthetic agents used, surgery duration, and length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU). The primary outcome was the in-hospital prognosis of SAE. Patients in the lidocaine group had a significantly shorter ICU stay and a significantly higher rate of favorable prognosis compared with the control group ( < 0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified age and surgery duration as risk factors for SAE prognosis, whereas intraoperative intravenous lidocaine, GCS score, and intravenous dexmedetomidine emerged as protective factors. Intraoperative intravenous administration of lidocaine significantly enhanced the prognosis of SAE patients.
Surgery is one of the most frequent and effective intervention strategies for lumbar spinal stenosis, however, one-third of patients are not satisfied with postoperative outcomes. It is not clear whether perioperative systemic lidocaine could accelerate the early postoperative quality of recovery in patients undergoing lumbar spinal stenosis surgery. 66 patients were enrolled in this trial. Lidocaine or placebo was administered at a loading dose of 1.5 mg/kg for 10 min and then infused at 2.0 mg/kg/hour till the end of surgery. Continued infusion by postoperative patient-controlled intravenous analgesia with a dose of 40 mg/hour. The primary outcome was the quality of recovery. Secondary outcomes included the time of the patient's first flatus, catheter removal time, underground time from the end of the surgery, pain score, levels of inflammatory factors (IL-6, IL-10, TNF-α), postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), sufentanil rescues, patients' satisfaction scores, and complications of lidocaine. Eventually, 56 patients were in the final analysis with similar age, Body Mass Index (BMI), duration of surgery and anesthesia, and median QoR-15 score (a development and Psychometric Evaluation of a Postoperative Quality of Recovery Score). The difference in median QoR-15 score in placebo versus lidocaine patients was statistically significant (IQR, 106 (104-108) versus 114 (108.25-119.25), P < 0.001). The Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) score at the 12th hour, median sufentanil rescue consumption, IL-6, tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) of patients treatment with lidocaine were lower. Nevertheless, patients given lidocaine had high satisfaction scores. Suggesting that lidocaine enhanced the postoperative quality of recovery, met early postoperative gastrointestinal function recovery, provided superior pain relief, lessened inflammatory cytokines, etc., indicating it may be a useful intervention to aid recovery following lumbar spinal stenosis surgery.