Lidocaine 100mg/20ml (0.5%) / Adrenaline (base) 100micrograms/20ml (1 in 200,000) solution for injection vials
Official documents, adverse reaction reporting, and safety monitoring
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Official medicine documents
Safety monitoring data
Yellow Card reports
The MHRA Yellow Card scheme collects reports of suspected side effects from healthcare professionals and patients. View the Drug Analysis Profile (iDAP) for real-world adverse reaction data.
View Drug Analysis Profile
Browse all Drug Analysis Profiles A–Z
Browse all iDAP reports
Interactive Drug Analysis Profiles for all medicines
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Data from the MHRA Yellow Card scheme. A reported reaction does not necessarily mean the medicine caused it. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
EudraVigilance
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) collects suspected adverse reaction reports from across the EU/EEA through the EudraVigilance system. Search for safety data on this medicine.
Search EudraVigilance database
Browse substances A–Z in the European adverse reaction database
About EudraVigilance
Learn about EU pharmacovigilance and safety monitoring
EudraVigilance data is published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). A suspected adverse reaction is not necessarily caused by the medicine.
1 branded products available
MHRA licensed products
View all licensed products for Lidocaine + Adrenaline on the MHRA register
Xylocaine 0.5% with Adrenaline 100micrograms/20ml (1 in 200,000) solution for injection vials
Therapeutically similar medicines
Similarity is based on WHO Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification and on a factual NHS dm+d therapeutic-grouping code prefix. Source data: NHS dm+d via TRUD (OGL v3.0), WHO ATC/DDD Index.
NHS prescribing volume and spending trends
Check stock at pharmacies and supply information
Pharmacy stock checkers
Search for this medicine at major UK pharmacy chains. These links open the retailer's own website — results depend on their current online catalogue.
Supply & safety information
Official UK regulator monitoring and safety alerts
Pharmacy links redirect to the retailer's own search and do not represent real-time stock levels. Shortage and safety information sourced from MHRA drug safety updates (gov.uk, Crown Copyright under OGL v3.0).
Codes for healthcare professionals and prescribing systems
These codes are used by healthcare IT systems and prescribers to identify this medicine.
NHS UK identifiers
Browse tools
SNOMED CT and dm+d codes from NHS TRUD (Technology Reference data Update Distribution), licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. BNF code shown is the factual mapping value distributed by NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA) in the dm+d supplementary file under OGL v3.0; it is not affiliated with, nor licensed from, the publishers of the British National Formulary. ATC codes from the WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology (whocc.no).
Active and completed clinical studies from ClinicalTrials.gov
Source: ClinicalTrials.gov, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH). Data accessed via ClinicalTrials.gov API v2. Trial information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Academic studies and reviews for this medicine's active substance
Showing the 50 most relevant studies.
Reviews & meta-analyses: 10 · Randomised trials: 34 · 1965–2026
Showing the 50 most relevant studies, sorted by most relevant.
Li X, Chen X, Wang Q, et al.
2025
ObjectiveThis meta-analysis assessed the efficacy of various anesthetic protocols for symptomatic irreversible pulpitis, comparing techniques and agents to identify the optimal anesthesia approach.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase databases up to July 10, 2025, identifying relevant studies based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The primary outcome was the success rate of anesthesia. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed using a pre-designed form and the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. A fixed-effect model was used for meta-analysis when heterogeneity was low (I 2 ≤ 50%, p ≥ 0.1); otherwise, a random-effects model was adopted. Additionally, another model was employed for validation, and the results from both models were compared to derive more reasonable conclusions. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and the Egger test.ResultsFourteen RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed that modified anesthetic protocols for SIP were 3.62 times more successful than conventional inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) using standard 2% lidocaine with epinephrine (OR = 3.34; 95% CI: 2.49-4.48). Studies conducted in Iran had the highest success rate (OR = 4.31; 95% CI: 3.59-5.17, p p p ConclusionThis meta-analysis assessed the efficacy of various anesthetic protocols for SIP, comparing techniques and agents to identify the optimal anesthesia approach.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/recorddashboard, PROSPERO database CRD42025638427.
Abstract licence: CC BY
Zagalioti SC, Gkarmiri S, Karagiannidis E, et al.
2025
Background: Cardiac arrest is a time-critical medical emergency during which prompt and effective drug delivery plays a key role in patient outcomes. Current resuscitation guidelines recommend intravenous (IV) access as the first-line route, with intraosseous (IO) access recommended as an alternative when IV access is delayed or not feasible. Although the endotracheal (ET) route was previously included in resuscitation protocols, it is no longer recommended. This study aims to evaluate the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) effects of resuscitation drugs administered through different injection sites and under varying hemodynamic conditions in in vivo animal models. Methods: PubMed, CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up to August 2025 for studies comparing different injection sites for the same drug (adrenaline/epinephrine, amiodarone, lidocaine and vasopressin) during CPR. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessments were performed independently by two reviewers. Frequentist random-effects models were used to calculate mean differences and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Fourteen prospective experimental studies (sample sizes ranging from 15 to 49 animals) conducted on swine were included. For epinephrine under normovolemia, humeral IO (HIO) access achieved significantly higher maximum concentrations (Cmax; p = 0.0238) and a shorter time to the maximum concentration (Tmax; p p = 0.0681). Under hypovolemia, IV access proved superiority over IO for epinephrine administration (MD = +382.80 ng/mL; p = 0.0022). The time to ROSC was significantly shorter with sternal IO (SIO) compared to tibial IO (TIO) (p = 0.0109). For amiodarone and vasopressin, no consistent or statistically significant differences were observed between administration routes, and in several cases, the findings were based on a single study. Conclusions: The injection site significantly influences the PK and PD of epinephrine during cardiac arrest. Proximal IO routes may offer advantages under normovolemic conditions, while IV access appears superior in cases of hypovolemic shock. Further research is needed to guide optimal drug delivery in varying hemodynamic conditions during cardiac arrest.
Abstract licence: CC BY
Saghafi F, Dehghani MH, Erami S, et al.
2026
- Heart Arrest
- Epinephrine
- Steroids
Gong H, Wu Q, Wu Q, et al.
2026
Gavin D. Perkins, Claire Kenna, Chen Ji, et al.
Intensive Care Medicine, 2020
- Emergency Medical Services
- Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation
- Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest
J. Allam, S. Malhotra, C. Hemingway, et al.
Anaesthesia, 2008
- Cesarean Section
- Lidocaine
- Levobupivacaine
R Sripriya, T Sivashanmugam, Daniel Rajadurai, et al.
Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine, 2023
- Bupivacaine
- Brachial Plexus Block
- Anesthetics, Local
Naichuan Su, Yan Liu, Xianrui Yang, et al.
International Dental Journal, 2014
- Anesthesia, Dental
- Anesthetics, Local
- Epinephrine
Aguilera G, Tabilo C, Jara Á, et al.
2025
- Brachial Plexus
- Lidocaine
- Bupivacaine
Yousef S, Steensbæk MT, Bahuet AR, et al.
2025
- Lidocaine
- Anesthetics, Local
- Ultrasonography, Interventional
Sources: aggregated from Europe PMC (EMBL-EBI), OpenAlex, Crossref, PubMed and other open scholarly databases. Retracted articles are excluded. Study information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Scientific data (pharmacology, interactions, ADME) is not yet available for this medicine. Clinical sections are sourced from the NHS dm+d database.