Emergency. 2018; 6 (1): e35 OR I G I N A L RE S E A RC H Performance of Local Anesthesia with Lidocaine among Opium Addicts and Non-Addicts; a Case Control Study Alireza Majidi1, Tala Shahhosseini2∗, Sadrolla Mahmoudi3 1. Emergency Department, Shohadaye Tajrish Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 2. Emergency Department, Shohadaye Pakdasht Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 3. Emergency Department, Baqiyatallah Hospital, Baqiyatallah University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Received: May 2018; Accepted: June 2018; Published online: 5 June 2018 Abstract: Introduction:Compared to ordinary people, addicts usually have a lower pain threshold. The current work at- tempts to compare the performance of local analgesia with lidocaine among opium addicts and non-addicts. Methods:In this case-control study, opium addicts and healthy patients with skin laceration referring to emer- gency departments of two educational hospitals were compared regarding the response to local anesthesia with lidocaine, as well as side effects. Results: 197 cases with the mean age of 43.44 ± 20.12 years were studied (72.1% male). 98 (49.8%) cases were addicts and 99 (50.2%) were healthy people. Two groups were similar regarding age (p = 0.281), sex (p = 0.666), and wound size (p = 0.272). The amount of pain reduction 5 (df =1.5, F=0.38, p = 0.88) and 10 (df =1.5, F=0.58, p = 0.72) minutes after lidocaine injection was not different between the groups. Subgroup analysis based on sex and age of patient did not show any differences between the groups (p > 0.1 for all analysis). The mean duration of analgesia was 16.4 ± 5.37 minutes in addicts and 16.95±1.79 in control group (p = 0.334). Conclusion: Lidocaine, as a commonly used local anesthetic agents, does not show different effects in addicts and non-addicts in repairing skin laceration. Keywords: Lidocaine; opium dependence; anesthetics, local; case-control studies; pain management © Copyright (2018) Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences Cite this article as: Majidi A, Shahhosseini T, Mahmoudi S. Performance of Local Anesthesia with Lidocaine among Opium Addicts and Non- Addicts; a Case Control Study. Emergency. 2018; 6(1): e35. 1. Introduction F or decades, a new field of worry has been raised in surgery, which is about people who have drug depen- dence, especially in cases of intravenous drug use (1, 2). Acute pain would be partially relieved or not relieved at all among drug users (3). Compared to ordinary people, addicts usually have a lower pain threshold. Opium addicts have changes in function, sensitivity, reduction, and/or decreased number of opioid receptors systematically (4). This is why addicts are more resistant to analgesia and narcotics used (5-7). Studies have shown the fact that addicted people ex- perience shorter anesthesia or sedation duration and depth when compared to non-addicts (7, 8). This fact has encour- aged researchers to try to provide routes to use supplemen- ∗Corresponding Author: Tala Shahhosseini; Emergency Department, Shoha- daye Pakdasht Hospital, Pakdasht, Tehran, Iran. Email: talashahhos- seini@gmail.com Tel: 00989122361012 tary drugs in order to alleviate patients’ pain throughout the procedures (4).The prevalence of addiction to narcotics was 2.26% in 2011, according to reports by the United Nations Of- fice on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). Furthermore, Iran is in the second place of narcotic consumption, worldwide (avail- able on: http://www.unodc.org). The current work attempts to compare the performance of local analgesia with lidocaine among opium addicts and non-addicts regarding the rate of pain reduction and side ef- fects. 2. Methods 2.1. Study design and setting In this case-control study, patients with skin laceration who were referred to emergency departments of two hospitals af- filiated to Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences (Imam Hossein and Shohadaye Tajrish Hospitals) were en- rolled. Addicted patients were compared with non-addicts in This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: www.jemerg.com A. Majidi et al. 2 Table 1: Baseline characteristics of studied patients Variables Case (n=98) Control (n= 99) P Sex Male 72 (73.5%) 70 (70.7%) 0.666 Female 26 (26.5%) 29 (29.3%) Age Mean ± SD 44.95±20.52 41.84±19.87 0.281 Wound size Mean ± SD 5.81±0.90 5.86±1.01 0.272 Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) Baseline 125.30±11.51 118.87±13.70 <0.001 30 min 122.86±9.82 118.74±8.20 <0.001 Diastolic blood pressure (mmHg) Baseline 80.46±5.52 87.08±72.40 0.863 30 minute 79.66±2.83 79.85±1.12 0.420 Pulse rate Baseline 81.45±8.49 79.70±5.40 0.321 30 minute 81.53±9.44 79.71±5.95 0.344 O2 saturation Baseline 95.94±1.69 96.94±1.02 <0.001 30 minute 95.04±9.73 103.11±60.41 <0.001 Pain score Baseline 6.1±1.4 5.4±1.0 <0.001 5 minute 4.04±1.76 3.00±1.26 <0.001 10 minute 2.00±2.12 1.43±0.72 0.034 Duration of anesthesia Mean ± SD 16.40±5.38 16.96±1.80 0.003 Median (IQR) 16 (14-18) 17 (16-18) SD: standard deviation, IQR: Inter-quartile range. terms of response to anesthesia with local lidocaine, as well as side effects. The participants gave their informed consents verbally and all the cases and included data were kept by the principal investigator to maintain patients’ privacy. People were free to decide to stay in the study or leave in any step with no penalty. 2.2. Participants Patients 15 years of age or older with laceration size of more than 5cm, were divided into two groups of addicts and non- addicts. People with any sensory or mental disorder who have limitations to reliably express their pain severity as well as cases with tendon injury or positive history of allergic re- action to lidocaine or cardiac problems were excluded. Participants were defined as addict when they had used opi- oids daily for the last 6 months, and had shown withdrawal symptoms. 2.3. Data gathering A checklist consisting of demographic data (age, sex), vital signs (blood pressure, respiratory rate, O2 saturation) before and 30 minutes after local anesthesia, pain score at 0, 5, and 10 minutes after local anesthesia, as well as duration of anes- thesia was filled for all case (addicts) and control (healthy) group members by a senior emergency medicine resident. 2.4. Procedure Wounds underwent complete sterilization using sterile med- ical equipment and detergents. Local anesthesia was applied by injecting subcutaneous lidocaine 2% solution (maximum dose of 5 mg/kg) at the laceration site after asking the partic- ipants about their relevant medical background like any al- lergy to the medication or any cardiologic problems. Using numeric rating scale (NRS), the pain severity of pa- tients was recorded before and 5 and 10 minutes after injec- tion of local lidocaine (the maximum dose of 5 mg/kg). NRS ranges between 0 and 10, where the former shows no pain, while a score of 10 shows the highest level of pain, which was not experienced by the patients. 2.5. Statistical Analysis The data were entered to SPSS11 for windows, while quan- titative variables were shown by mean ± standard deviation and qualitative ones were reported using frequency. Inde- pendent t-test was used to compare quantitative data, while Chi-square test was used for qualitative ones. Since systolic blood pressure (SBP), arterial O2 saturation and pain score differed between the groups before lidocaine administration; This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: www.jemerg.com 3 Emergency. 2018; 6 (1): e35 Figure 1: Comparing the trend of pain reduction 5 (p = 0.88) and 10 (p = 0.72) minutes after lidocaine injection between case and control groups. analysis of covariance was used to compare the findings after intervention. Effects of age and sex on lidocaine efficacy were investigated via two-way ANOVA. P value <0.05 was consid- ered as significance level. 3. Results 3.1. Baseline characteristics 197 cases with the mean age of 43.44 ± 20.12 (16-90) years were studied (72.1% male). 98 (49.8%) cases were addicts (case group) and 99 (50.2%) were healthy people (control group). Table 1 compares the baseline characteristics of stud- ied groups. The two groups were similar regarding age (p = 0.281), sex (p = 0.666), and wound size (p = 0.272). Pain score at the time of admission was 6.1 ± 1.4 in addicts and 5.4 ± 1.0 in control group (P<0.001, clinically not important). 3.2. Pain management Figure 1 compares the trend of pain reduction between the groups, 5 and 10 minutes after lidocaine injection. The rate of pain reduction 5 (df =1.5, F=0.38, p = 0.88) and 10 (df =1.5, F=0.58, p = 0.72) minutes after lidocaine injection was not different between groups. Subgroup analysis based on sex and age of patients did not show any differences between the groups regarding the trend of pain reduction after 5 and 10 minutes (p > 0.1 for all analyses). The mean duration of analgesia was 16.4 ± 5.37 minutes in addicts and 16.95±1.79 minutes in control group (p = 0.334). Although differences of vital signs between groups 30 min- utes after lidocaine injection were statistically significant, they were clinically important (table 1). 4. Discussion The current study disclosed no difference in pain reduction rate among addict and non-addict participants after using li- docaine as an anesthetic agent for skin laceration. The dura- tion of action was similar in case and control groups. Through a study in Iran, which was done between 2010 and 2011, investigators found that in people with fractured lower limb, duration of anesthesia was shorter among opium ad- dicts compared to non-addicts when spinal anesthesia was tried (4). They also believed that use of multiple medications or higher doses of anesthetics was required in drug users, mainly because of their absolute tolerance to the medication. Narcotics can influence numerous receptors in central and peripheral parts of nervous system (6, 9). These receptors would interrupt local anesthesia due to being interfered by opioids (10, 11). The current study tried to match age and sex between case and control groups. However, previous studies have pointed out that age and body characteristics like weight and height usually have no impact on anesthesia onset and duration (4). Regarding the changes in vital signs and O2 saturation, there was not any clinically significant difference between the groups. Most adverse side effects of anesthetic medications are known to manifest in heart and nervous system. The first report of tonic effects of long-acting local anesthetics on heart and brain was provided by Albright (12). In terms of cardiac adverse effects, plasma concentration of lidocaine with less than 5mg/ml dose has no toxicity on hu- man heart. In higher serum levels, hypotension would be a cause of worry. Cardiac toxicity mainly results from car- diac sodium channel blockage and calcium and potassium ion channels are also affected, particularly in high doses of lidocaine and other similar drugs (13). Bradycardia in addi- tion to hypotension, would lead the patient to hypoxia and hypercarbia, resulting in acidosis. Acidosis, in turn, could re- sult in more toxicity by decreasing plasma protein binding of lidocaine (14, 15). These were the main events checked in the current study. Maximum dose for local injection of lidocaine to be safe is 500-600 mg, which is equal to 7-8 mg/kg. In this study, we used 5mg/kg of the drug for both cases and controls to pre- vent any serious or permanent side effects. This study evaluated the consequences of lidocaine admin- istration, and it seems useful to carry out future researches, with a bigger sample size from different races, to achieve re- liable findings in this regard. 5. Conclusion It could be concluded that lidocaine, as a commonly used lo- cal anesthetic agent, does not show different effects in ad- dicts and non-addicts in repairing the skin laceration. This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: www.jemerg.com A. Majidi et al. 4 6. Appendix 6.1. Acknowledgements None. 6.2. Author contribution All authors pass the four criteria for authorship contribution based on the International Committee of Medical Journal Ed- itors (ICMJE) recommendations. 6.3. Funding/Support None. 6.4. Conflict of interest None. References 1. Karbasy SH, Derakhshan P. Effects of opium addiction on level of sensory block in spinal anesthesia with bupivacaine for lower abdomen and limb surgery: a case-control study. Anesthesiology and pain medicine. 2014;4(5). 2. Zirak N, Soltani G, Javdani N, Shamloo AS, Bameshki A, Peyvandi A. Effect of fentanyl in spinal anesthesia with bupivacaine in opium abusers. Razavi International Jour- nal of Medicine. 2014;2(1). 3. Vosoughian M, Dabbagh A, Rajaei S, Maftuh H. The du- ration of spinal anesthesia with 5% lidocaine in chronic opium abusers compared with nonabusers. Anesthesia & Analgesia. 2007;105(2):531-3. 4. Mansourian A, Askarzadeh M, Shabani M, Divsalar K. Comparison of duration of spinal anesthesia with lido- caine or lidocaine plus epinephrine between addicts and non-addicts. Addiction & health. 2012;4(3-4):95-101. 5. Bovill J. Mechanisms of actions of opioids and non- steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. European Journal of Anaesthesiology (EJA). 1997;14:9-15. 6. Christie M. Cellular neuroadaptations to chronic opioids: tolerance, withdrawal and addiction. British journal of pharmacology. 2008;154(2):384-96. 7. Wu H-E, Thompson J, Sun H-S, Leitermann RJ, Fuji- moto JM, Tseng LF. Nonopioidergic mechanism mediat- ing morphine-induced antianalgesia in the mouse spinal cord. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Thera- peutics. 2004;310(1):240-6. 8. Szeto HH, Soong Y, Wu D, Qian X, Zhao G-M. Endoge- nous opioid peptides contribute to antinociceptive po- tency of intrathecal [Dmt1] DALDA. Journal of Pharma- cology and Experimental Therapeutics. 2003;305(2):696- 702. 9. Kokki H. Spinal blocks. Pediatric Anesthesia. 2012;22(1):56-64. 10. Marchand F, Ardid D, Chapuy E, Alloui A, Jourdan D, Es- chalier A. Evidence for an involvement of supraspinal delta- and spinal mu-opioid receptors in the antihyper- algesic effect of chronically administered clomipramine in mononeuropathic rats. The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics. 2003;307(1):268-74. 11. Hurley RW, Banfor P, Hammond DL. Spinal pharmacol- ogy of antinociception produced by microinjection of mu or delta opioid receptor agonists in the ventromedial medulla of the rat. Neuroscience. 2003;118(3):789-96. 12. Cox B, Durieux ME, Marcus MA. Toxicity of local anaes- thetics. Best practice & research Clinical anaesthesiology. 2003;17(1):111-36. 13. Butterworth J, James RL, Grimes J. Structure-affinity re- lationships and stereospecificity of several homologous series of local anesthetics for the beta2-adrenergic recep- tor. Anesthesia and analgesia. 1997;85(2):336-42. 14. Horlocker TT. Clinical Pharmacology of Local Anesthet- ics. Anesthesia & Analgesia. 2000;90(6):1464-5. 15. Burney R, DiFazio C, Foster J. Effects of pH on pro- tein binding of lidocaine. Anesthesia and analgesia. 1978;57(4):478-80. This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Downloaded from: www.jemerg.com Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusion Appendix References