Effectiveness of intravenous lidocaine in preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in pediatric patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background Intravenous lidocaine in adults undergoing general anesthesia has been shown to reduce the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). However, the anti-postoperative vomiting (POV) effect of lidocaine in pediatric patients remains unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis to evaluate the effect of intravenous lidocaine on prevention of POV/PONV. Methods Six databases including trial registration sites were searched. Randomized clinical trials evaluating the incidence of POV/PONV after intravenous lidocaine compared with control were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of POV within 24 hours after general anesthesia. The incidence of POV was combined as a risk ratio with 95% confidence interval using a random-effect model. We used the I2 to assess heterogeneity. We evaluated the quality of trials using the Cochrane methodology, and we assessed quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We also assessed adverse events. Results and discussion Six trials with 849 patients were included, of whom 433 received intravenous lidocaine. Three trials evaluated the incidence of POV, and 3 evaluated the incidence of PONV. The overall incidence of POV within 24 hours after anesthesia was 45.9% in the lidocaine group and 63.4% in the control group (risk ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-1.00; I2 = 32%; p = 0.05). The incidence of PONV within 24 hours after anesthesia was 3.73% in the lidocaine group and 4.87% in the control group (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.36-1.59; I2 = 0%; p = 0.47). The quality of evidence was downgraded to "very low" due to the study designs, inconsistency, imprecision, and possible publication bias. Conclusion Our meta-analysis suggests that intravenous lidocaine infusion may reduce the incidence of POV, however, the evidence quality was "very low." Further trials with a low risk of bias are necessary.