[Anaesthesia for patients with obstructive airway diseases].

Obstructive lung diseases like asthma or chronic obstructive lung diseases have a high prevalence and are one of the four most frequent causes of death. Obstructive lung diseases can be significantly influenced by the choice of anesthetic techniques and anesthetic agents. Basically, the severity of the COPD and the degree of bronchial hyperreactivity will determine the perioperative anesthetic risk. This risk has to be assessed by a thorough preoperative evaluation and will give the rationale on which to decide for the adequate anaesthetic technique. In particular, airway instrumentation can cause severe reflex bronchoconstriction. The use of regional anaesthesia alone or in combination with general anaesthesia can help to avoid airway irritation and leads to reduced postoperative complications. Prophylactic antiobstructive treatment, volatile anesthetics, propofol, opioids, and an adequate choice of muscle relaxants minimize the anesthetic risk, when general anesthesia is required In case, despite all precautions intra-operative bronchospasm occurs, deepening of anaesthesia, repeated administration of beta2-adrenergic agents and parasympatholytics, and a single systemic dose of corticosteroids represent the main treatment options.

Airway anesthesia alone does not explain attenuation of histamine-induced bronchospasm by local anesthetics: a comparison of lidocaine, ropivacaine, and dyclonine.

BACKGROUND: Lidocaine inhalation attenuates histamine-induced bronchospasm while evoking airway anesthesia. Because this occurs at plasma concentrations much lower than those required for intravenous lidocaine to attenuate bronchial reactivity, this effect is likely related to topical airway anesthesia and presumably independent of the specific local anesthetic used. Therefore, the authors tested the effect of dyclonine, lidocaine, and ropivacaine inhalation on histamine-induced bronchospasm in 15 volunteers with bronchial hyperreactivity. METHODS: Bronchial hyperreactivity was verified by an inhalational histamine challenge. Histamine challenge was repeated after inhalation of dyclonine, lidocaine, ropivacaine, or placebo on 4 different days in a randomized, double-blind fashion. Lung function, bronchial hyperreactivity to histamine, duration of local anesthesia, and lidocaine and ropivacaine plasma concentrations were measured. Statistical analyses were performed with the Friedman and Wilcoxon rank tests. Data are presented as mean +/- SD. RESULTS: The inhaled histamine concentration necessary for a 20% decrease of forced expiratory volume in 1 s (PC20) was 7.0 +/- 5.0 mg/ml at the screening evaluation. Lidocaine and ropivacaine inhalation increased PC20 significantly to 16.1 +/- 12.9 and 16.5 +/- 13.6 mg/ml (P = 0.007), whereas inhalation of dyclonine and saline did not (9.1 +/- 8.4 and 6.1 +/- 5.0 mg/ml, P = 0.7268). Furthermore, in contrast to saline and lidocaine, inhalation of both ropivacaine and dyclonine significantly decreased forced expiratory volume in 1 s from baseline (P = 0.0016 and 0.0018, respectively). The longest lasting and most intense anesthesia developed after dyclonine inhalation (48 +/- 13 vs. 28 +/- 8 [lidocaine] and 25 +/- 4 min [ropivacaine]). CONCLUSION: Both lidocaine and the new amide local anesthetic ropivacaine significantly attenuate histamine-induced bronchospasm. In contrast, dyclonine, despite its longer lasting and more intense local anesthesia, does not alter histamine-evoked bronchoconstriction and irritates the airways. Thus, airway anesthesia alone does not necessarily attenuate bronchial hyperreactivity. Other properties of inhaled local anesthetics may be responsible for attenuation of bronchial hyperreactivity.

Lidocaine inhalation for local anaesthesia and attenuation of bronchial hyper-reactivity with least airway irritation. Effect of three different dose regimens.

The inhalation of lidocaine attenuates bronchial hyper-reactivity but also causes airway irritation. However, how lidocaine dose and plasma concentration influence relationships are unknown. Accordingly, we evaluated the effects of three concentrations of lidocaine (1, 4, and 10%, total dose of 0.5, 2.0, and 5.0 mg kg-1, respectively) vs. placebo in 15 mild asthmatic patients, selected by their response to a histamine challenge (decrease in FEV1 > 20% to less than 18 mg mL-1 of histamine [PC20]). Baseline lung function, histamine-induced bronchoconstriction, topical anaesthesia, and lidocaine plasma concentrations were obtained. FEV1 following lidocaine inhalation showed the greatest decrease for the highest dose (from 3.79 +/- 0.15-3.60 +/- 0.15; P = 0.0012). Lidocaine inhalation increased baseline PC20 (6.1 +/- 1.3 mg mL-1) significantly (to 11.8 +/- 3.1, 16.1 +/- 3.3, and 18.3 +/- 4.5 mg mL-1, respectively) with no difference between the two highest doses. The duration of local anaesthesia was not significantly different between lidocaine concentrations of 4% and 10%. Thus, lidocaine inhalation, with increasing concentrations of the aerosolized solution, increases initial bronchoconstriction while significant attenuation of bronchial hyper-reactivity is not further enhanced with increasing concentrations from 4 to 10%. Plasma concentrations of lidocaine were always far below the toxic threshold. In conclusion, when local anaesthesia of the airways is required a lidocaine dose of 2.0 mg kg-1 as a 4% solution can be recommended for local anaesthesia and attenuation of bronchial hyper-reactivity with the least airway irritation.

Combined lidocaine and salbutamol inhalation for airway anesthesia markedly protects against reflex bronchoconstriction.

BACKGROUND: Lidocaine inhalation, in subjects with bronchial hyperreactivity, attenuates evoked bronchoconstriction but also irritates airways. Whether salbutamol pretreatment can mitigate airway irritation and whether combined treatment offers more protection than treatment with either drug alone is unknown. Therefore, we evaluated the effects of the inhalation of lidocaine, salbutamol, lidocaine and salbutamol combined, and placebo on an inhalational histamine challenge. METHODS: Fifteen patients with mild asthma were selected by a screening procedure (ie, a provocative concentration of a substance [histamine aerosol of < 18 mg/mL] causing a 20% fall in FEV(1) [PC(20)]). On 4 different days after pretreatment with the inhalation of lidocaine (5 mg/kg), inhalation of salbutamol (1.5 mg), combined treatment, or placebo, the histamine challenge was repeated. RESULTS: The baseline FEV(1) after lidocaine inhalation but prior to the histamine challenge decreased by > 5% in 7 of 15 volunteers, with a mean (+/- SD) decrease from 3.82 +/- 0.90 to 3.54 +/- 0.86 L (p = 0.0054). The baseline PC(20) for histamine was 6.4 +/- 4.3 mg/mL. Both lidocaine and salbutamol inhalation significantly increased PC(20) more than twofold (14.9 +/- 13.7 and 16.8 +/- 10.9 mg/mL, respectively; p = 0, 0007) at a lidocaine plasma concentration of 0.7 +/- 0.3 microg/mL. Combined treatment quadrupled the PC(20) to 29.7 +/- 20.3 mg/mL (vs lidocaine, p = 0.002; vs salbutamol, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Thus, histamine-evoked bronchoconstriction, as a model of reflex bronchoconstriction, can be significantly attenuated by salbutamol or lidocaine inhalation. However, lidocaine inhalation causes significant initial bronchoconstriction. The combined inhalation of salbutamol and lidocaine prevents the initial bronchoconstriction observed with lidocaine alone and offers even more protection to a histamine challenge than either lidocaine or salbutamol alone. Therefore, the combined inhalation of lidocaine and salbutamol can be recommended to mitigate bronchoconstriction when airway instrumentation is required.

Both intravenous and inhaled lidocaine attenuate reflex bronchoconstriction but at different plasma concentrations.

Intravenous lidocaine can attenuate bronchial hyperreactivity. However, lidocaine inhalation might yield the same or better results at higher airway and lower lidocaine plasma concentrations. Therefore, we tested in awake volunteers with bronchial hyperreactivity the effect of lidocaine on histamine-induced bronchoconstriction administered either intravenously or as an aerosol. After approval of the local ethics committee, 15 volunteers were enrolled in this placebo-controlled, double-blinded, randomized study. Volunteers were selected by showing a decrease in FEV1 greater than 20% of baseline (PC20) in response to histamine inhalation. On three different days the challenge was repeated after pretreatment with either intravenous lidocaine, inhaled lidocaine, or placebo. Blood samples for determination of lidocaine plasma concentration were drawn. Comparisons were made using the Friedman and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Baseline PC20 was 6.4 +/- 1.1 mg. ml-1. Both inhalation of lidocaine and intravenous administration significantly increased PC20 to 14.8 +/- 3.5 mg. ml-1 and 14.2 +/- 2. 5 mg. ml-1, respectively (p = 0.0007). Peak plasma lidocaine concentrations at the end of challenges were 0.7 +/- 0.1 microg. ml-1 (inhaled) and 2.2 +/- 0.1 microg. ml-1 (i.v.). However, 7 of 15 subjects showed an initial decrease of FEV1 greater than 5% following lidocaine inhalation. While both intravenous as well as inhaled lidocaine attenuate reflex bronchoconstriction significantly, lidocaine plasma concentrations are significantly lower after inhalation. However, the high incidence of initial bronchoconstriction to lidocaine inhalation may limit its use in patients with asthma and thus offers therapeutic advantages for intravenous lidocaine.

Combined intravenous lidocaine and inhaled salbutamol protect against bronchial hyperreactivity more effectively than lidocaine or salbutamol alone.

BACKGROUND: Airway instrumentation in persons with asthma is linked to the risk of life-threatening bronchospasm. To attenuate the response to airway irritation, intravenous lidocaine is recommended (based on animal experiments) and mitigates the response to histamine inhalation in asthmatic volunteers. However, the effects of lidocaine have not been compared with standard prophylaxis with beta-sympathomimetic aerosols. Therefore, the effect of lidocaine, salbutamol, combined treatment, and placebo control were tested in awake volunteers with bronchial hyperreactivity. METHODS: After approval from the local ethics committee, 15 persons, who were selected because they showed a decrease in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) more than 20% of baseline in response to inhaled histamine in a concentration less than 18 mg/ml (PC20), were enrolled in a placebo-controlled, double-blind, and randomized study. The challenge was repeated on four different days and the volunteers were pretreated with either intravenous lidocaine, inhalation of salbutamol, inhalation of salbutamol plus intravenous lidocaine, or placebo. Lidocaine plasma concentrations were also measured. Statistical analyses included the Friedman test and Wilcoxon's rank sum. RESULTS: The baseline PC20 was 6.4 +/- 4.3 mg/ml. Intravenous lidocaine and salbutamol aerosol both significantly increased the histamine threshold to 14.2 +/- 9.5 mg/ml and 16.8 +/- 10.9 mg/ml, respectively (mean +/- SD). However, the combination of lidocaine and salbutamol significantly increased the PC20 even further to 30.7 +/- 15.7 mg/ml than did salbutamol or lidocaine alone. CONCLUSIONS: In volunteers with bronchial hyperreactivity, both lidocaine and salbutamol attenuate the response to an inhalational histamine challenge, and their combined administration has much greater effects than does either drug alone. Accordingly, pretreatment of patients with bronchial hyperreactivity with both beta-mimetic aerosol and intravenous lidocaine is recommended before airway irritation.