American Society for Pain Management Nursing Guidelines on Monitoring for Opioid-Induced Advancing Sedation and Respiratory Depression: Revisions.

OBJECTIVES: This report presents up-to-date evidence and expert consensus-based revisions to the ASPMN 2011 guidelines that inform interprofessional clinical decision-making for hospitalized adults receiving opioid analgesics. DESIGN: Systematic review of the literature. METHODS: A 14-member expert panel was charged with reviewing and grading the strength of scientific evidence published in peer reviewed journals and revising the ASPMN 2011 existing guidelines. Panel members formulated recommendations based on the strength of evidence and reached consensus through discussion, reappraisal of evidence, and voting by majority when necessary. The American Society of Anesthesiologists evidence categories for grading and classifying the strength of the evidence were used. Recommendations were subjected to a critical review by ASPMN members as well as external reviews. RESULTS: The 2011 guidelines were found to still be relevant to clinical practice, but new evidence substantiated refinement and more specific recommendations for electronic monitoring. The revised guidelines present risk factors divided into three categories: patient-specific, treatment-related, and environment of care. Specific recommendations for the use of electronic monitoring are delineated. CONCLUSIONS: All hospitalized patients that are administered opioids for acute pain are at risk of opioid induced advancing sedation and respiratory depression, but some patients are at high risk and require extra vigilance to prevent adverse events. All patients must be assessed for level of risk. Adaptations to the plan of care and monitoring strategies should be driven by iterative re-assessments according to level of risk. NURSING PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Opioid medications continue to be a major component in the management of acute pain. Clinicians have the primary responsibility for safe and effective pain management. Evidence based monitoring strategies can improve patient safety with opioids.

Hydromorphone vs fentanyl for epidural analgesia and anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Epidural analgesia/anesthesia is used during surgery because it dramatically relieves pain and attenuates the stress response. Because limited data exist regarding the relative merits of hydromorphone (HM) and fentanyl (FENT), the objective was to determine which was more safe and effective. METHODS: Prospective case-matched, observational study evaluated elective surgery patients: 30 HM and 60 FENT. Variables were measured perioperatively. RESULTS: Of the 90 patients, mean age was 52 years; simplified acute physiology score was 26 ± 10; and American Society of Anesthesiologists score was 2.4 HM vs 2.7 FENT, P = .03. HM patients were more apt to be excessively sedated (16% HM vs 1% FENT, P = .007) and have poor mental unresponsiveness (6% HM vs 0% FENT, P = .04). The incidence of hypotension was not different, 76% HM vs 80% FENT, not significant. CONCLUSIONS: In a closely case-matched population, FENT caused less excessive sedation and unresponsiveness. FENT patients had better intraoperative urine output and tended to have less repeated episodes of hypotension.