Home Telemonitoring Improved Pain Registration in Patients With Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: For adequate pain treatment in patients with cancer, it is important to monitor and evaluate pain regularly. Although the numeric rating scale (NRS) is implemented in hospitals in the Netherlands, pain is still not systematically registered during outpatient consultations. The aim of this study was to assess whether home telemonitoring increases pain registration in medical records of outpatients with cancer. METHODS: Patients with cancer were included in the intervention group (IG) when they visited the outpatient clinic. They received a short message service and an interactive voice response on their mobile phones 3 times a week, asking them to provide their pain score (NRS). When the reported NRS pain score was ≥5, a specialized oncology nurse adapted the pain treatment when necessary. Outcomes were compared to a control group (CG) without home telemonitoring. In both groups, medical records were analyzed and data on pain and analgesics were collected. RESULTS: In each group, the medical records of 54 patients were analyzed on 3 consecutive outpatient visits. In the CG, pain registration or its absence was described in 60 visits (37.0%). In the IG, pain registration or its absence was reported in 83 visits (51.2%). Patients in the IG received a prescription for analgesics significantly more often (36/54 patients [66.6%]) than did patients in the CG (18/54 patients [33.3%]), P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Home telemonitoring for patients with cancer significantly increases registration of pain and prescriptions of analgesics in outpatient medical records. Home telemonitoring helps to increase the awareness of pain and its management.

23. Pain in patients with cancer.

Pain in patients with cancer can be refractory to pharmacological treatment or intolerable side effects of pharmacological treatment may seriously disturb patients' quality of life. Specific interventional pain management techniques can be an effective alternative for those patients. The appropriate application of these interventional techniques provides better pain control, allows the reduction of analgesics and hence improves quality of life. Until recently, the majority of these techniques are considered to be a fourth consecutive step following the World Health Organization's pain treatment ladder. However, in cancer patients, earlier application of interventional pain management techniques can be recommended even before considering the use of strong opioids. Epidural and intrathecal medication administration allow the reduction of the daily oral or transdermal opioid dose, while maintaining or even improving the pain relief and reducing the side effects. Cervical cordotomy may be considered for patients suffering with unilateral pain at the level below the dermatome C5. This technique should only be applied in patients with a life expectancy of less than 1 year. Plexus coeliacus block or nervus splanchnicus block are recommended for the management of upper abdominal pain due to cancer. Pelvic pain due to cancer can be managed with plexus hypogastricus block and the saddle or lower end block may be a last resort for patients suffering with perineal pain. Back pain due to vertebral compression fractures with or without pathological tumor invasion may be managed with percutaneous vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty. All these interventional techniques should be a part of multidisciplinary patient program.

Epidural anesthesia is no longer the standard of care in abdominal surgery with ERAS. What are the alternatives?

Epidural anesthesia has been considered the gold standard for perioperative analgesia, but the implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols and a shift from open to laparoscopic surgery have diminished the advantage of epidural anesthesia. The authors summarize data from two newer meta-analyses and discuss the consequences for the role of epidural anesthesia (EA) in the perioperative setting. These meta-analyses enabled to distinguish between pre- and post-ERAS outcomes. Endpoints related to open and laparoscopic abdominal surgery were retrieved. General data, also applicable on abdominal surgery, were included. Data on other types of surgery were ignored. Two meta-analyses met the subject and inclusion criteria of the search. They demonstrate no difference between epidural analgesia and the control for most investigated endpoints. Analgesia employing epidural techniques is often not clinically superior to its alternatives; is associated with a small but relevant number of serious complications; and has a relatively high failure rate. Data show that the distinction between pre-ERAS and ERAS is essential for understanding the role of EA in intestinal surgery. Since ERAS was introduced, the advantages of epidural anesthesia vanished while the incidence of serious neurological complications is higher than previously thought. The authors conclude that epidural anesthesia in abdominal surgery has become less preferred and is limited to patients and types of surgery known to be accompanied with difficult pain management. This requires the use of other methods for analgesia, such as intravenous ketamine, peripheral nerve blocks, continuous wound infiltration, intrathecal morphine, and intravenous, and non-invasive PCA.

Sublingual sufentanil for postoperative pain relief: first clinical experiences.

BACKGROUND: The sublingual sufentanil tablet system (SSTS) is a novel hand-held patient-controlled analgesia device developed for treatment of moderate-to-severe postoperative pain. Here we present the first results of its clinical use. METHODS: Adult patients undergoing major surgery in five hospitals in the Netherlands received the SSTS for postoperative pain relief as part of multimodal pain management that further included paracetamol and a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID). The following variables were collected: postoperative pain scores using the 11-point numerical rating score (NRS) at rest, number of tablets used, occurrence of nausea, and patient satisfaction scores. RESULTS: We included 280 patients in the study; the majority underwent laparoscopic abdominal (49%) or orthopedic (knee replacement) surgery (34%). The median NRS was 3.5 (interquartile range 2.3-4.0) on the day of surgery, 3.3 (2.3-4.0) on the first postoperative day, and 2.8 (2.0-4.0) on the second postoperative day; pain scores did not differ between surgery types. Mean number of tablets used was 19 (range 0-86). Nausea occurred in 34% of patients, more often in women (45% vs 19%). Overall satisfaction was high in 73% of patients. Satisfaction was correlated with pain relief (p<0.001) and inversely correlated with occurrence of nausea (p=0.01). DISCUSSION: In this data set obtained under real-life conditions we show that the SSTS effectively managed postoperative pain in abdominal and orthopedic surgeries. Future studies should determine patient populations that benefit most from the SSTS, assess the added values versus intravenous patient-controlled analgesia, and determine the pharmacoeconomics of the system.

The efficacy of standard laxative use for the prevention and treatment of opioid induced constipation during oxycodone use: a small Dutch observational pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Dutch clinical guidelines recommend that a standard laxative treatment (SLT) should be prescribed concomitantly when starting opioid treatment to prevent opioid-induced constipation (OIC). METHODS: Clinical evidence for SLT in the treatment of OIC is lacking, therefore an observational pilot study was performed to explore the efficacy and tolerability of SLT on OIC in patients treated with the opioid oxycodone. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients (58% female, median (range) age 65 (39-92)) were included in this pilot study. The analysis showed that 9 out of 21 patients (43%) were non-responders to SLT. When also taking into consideration patients tending to develop diarrhea 75% of patients are non-responsive to SLT. CONCLUSION: This pilot study indicates that optimal laxative therapy (SLT) might not be effective and feasible for the prevention and treatment of OIC.

Intrathecal administration of high-dose morphine solutions decreases the pH of cerebrospinal fluid.

Terminally ill patients suffering from intractable cancer pain are treated in our hospital on an outpatient basis with a percutaneous intrathecal (i.t.) catheter and a portable pump delivering morphine continuously. In a patient showing an increased demand of morphine the dose was raised from 1.5 to 2 mg/h, but pain intensity did not decrease. Subsequently a 1.5 ml dose of 5% lidocaine was administered; however, no motor or sensory block was observed. After controlling the catheter position and passage through the catheter, a sample of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) was taken and the pH was measured. It was found to be outside the physiological range of 7.19 (normal range: 7.27-7.37), possibly explaining the decreased activity of the local anesthetic. The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of morphine, with or without sodium metabisulfite, on pH in vitro, using artificial CSF (ACSF) and on pH in vivo during i.t. administration of morphine. An in vitro model was used to measure pH changes by adding a morphine solution (concentrations of 0.5, 2, 5 and 10 mg/ml) with and without sodium metabisulfite to ACSF solutions (Elliott B). Fourteen patients were consecutively selected for continuous administration of morphine. An i.t. catheter was inserted, tunnelled and connected with an external pump (Provider 5500, Abbott, Chicago, IL). CSF was aspirated and pH was measured with a blood-gas system (Ciba-Corning 288, Medfield, USA). In vitro, morphine solutions with or without sodium metabisulfite added to an Elliott B solution (pH = 7.47, 37 degrees C) caused a concentration-related decrease in pH.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Fixed ratio (2:1) prolonged-release oxycodone/naloxone combination improves bowel function in patients with moderate-to-severe pain and opioid-induced constipation refractory to at least two classes of laxatives.

OBJECTIVE: The effects of combined oxycodone/naloxone prolonged release tablets (OXN PR) were investigated in patients with moderate-to-severe chronic cancer-related or non-cancer pain. All patients had opioid-induced constipation (OIC) which persisted despite substantial laxative therapy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This pooled analysis included 75 patients with OIC at study entry that was refractory to at least two laxatives with different modes of action. Patients completed randomized, double-blind treatment with OXN PR 20-120 mg/day for either 12 weeks (OXN 9001: non-cancer pain study) or 4 weeks (OXN 2001: cancer-related pain study). Analgesia and bowel function were assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory Short Form and Bowel Function Index (BFI), respectively. Use of laxative medication and safety were assessed throughout the studies. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00513656, EudraCT 2005-002398-57, EudraCT 2005-003510-15. RESULTS: Statistically and clinically significant improvements in bowel function were observed following double-blind treatment with OXN PR. Mean (SD) reduction in BFI score was 21.2 (28.8) and comparable in patients with cancer-related (19.0 [28.9]) and non-cancer pain (23.3.[29.0]; P ≤ 0.0002). Furthermore, the proportion of patients with a BFI score within normal range (≤28.8) increased from 9.5% at screening to 43.1% at Day 15 of OXN PR. While all patients used ≥2 laxatives of different classes at screening, during study treatment 36% stopped using laxatives (P < 0.001). OXN PR provided effective analgesia, evidenced by stable pain scores during study treatment, and there were no unanticipated adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: OXN PR significantly improved bowel function and reduced the use of laxatives in patients with OIC, previously unresponsive to at least two different classes of laxatives. OXN also provided effective analgesia for patients with moderate-to-severe cancer-related pain and non-cancer-related pain.