Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 445
Filter
Add more filters

Publication year range
1.
Pain Manag Nurs ; 25(4): 377-388, 2024 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38702259

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the effectiveness of virtual reality (VR) in alleviating pain and improving the experience of burn patients during wound care and physical therapy. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Database, and the Web of Science. REVIEW/ANALYSIS METHODS: We searched four electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from the earliest available date up to March 1, 2022. The primary outcome was worst pain intensity, while secondary outcomes encompassed pain unpleasantness intensity, time spent thinking about pain, and fun experience intensity. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. RESULTS: This study included 21 trials. The combined data revealed that the VR group experienced a significant reduction in worst pain intensity, pain unpleasantness intensity, and time spent thinking about pain compared to the control group. Moreover, VR treatment was associated with a significant increase in the fun experience intensity. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Virtual reality has the potential value of auxiliary analgesia in burn care, and exploring a more perfect scheme of VR-assisted analgesia is worthwhile. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this meta-analysis indicate that VR can effectively reduce worst pain intensity, pain unpleasantness intensity, and time spent thinking about pain during wound care and physical therapy for burn patients. Additionally, it enhances fun experience intensity of the treatment period. Therefore, VR shows promise as a valuable complementary pain management intervention for burn patients.


Subject(s)
Burns , Pain Management , Virtual Reality , Humans , Burns/therapy , Burns/complications , Burns/psychology , Pain Management/methods , Pain Management/standards , Physical Therapy Modalities/standards , Analgesia/methods , Analgesia/standards , Pain Measurement/methods
2.
J Emerg Med ; 67(3): e259-e267, 2024 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39030089

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Parenteral ketorolac and intravenous (IV) acetaminophen have been used for prehospital analgesia, yet limited data exist on their comparative effectiveness. STUDY OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of IV acetaminophen and parenteral ketorolac for analgesia in the prehospital setting. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional evaluation of patients receiving IV acetaminophen or parenteral ketorolac for pain management in a large suburban EMS system between 1/1/2019 and 11/30/2021. The primary outcome was change in first to last pain score. Subgroup analysis was performed on patients with traumatic pain. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and propensity score matching (PSM) to estimate the treatment effect of acetaminophen versus ketorolac among all patients and the subgroup of those with traumatic pain. RESULTS: Of 2178 patients included, 856 (39.3%) received IV acetaminophen and 1322 (60.7%) received parenteral ketorolac. The unadjusted mean change in pain score was -1.9 (SD 2.4) for acetaminophen group and -2.4 (SD 2.4) for ketorolac. In the propensity score analyses, there was no statistically significant difference in pain score change for the acetaminophen group versus ketorolac among all patients (mean difference, IPTW: 0.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.16, 0.37; PSM: 0.15, 95% CI -0.13, 0.43) and among those with traumatic pain (unadjusted: 0.18, 95% CI -0.35, 0.72; IPTW: 0.23, 95% CI -0.25, 0.71; PSM: -0.03, 95% CI -0.61, 0.54). CONCLUSIONS: We found no statistically significant difference in mean pain reduction of IV acetaminophen and parenteral ketorolac for management of acute pain.


Subject(s)
Acetaminophen , Emergency Medical Services , Ketorolac , Pain Measurement , Humans , Ketorolac/therapeutic use , Ketorolac/administration & dosage , Acetaminophen/therapeutic use , Acetaminophen/administration & dosage , Retrospective Studies , Female , Male , Middle Aged , Adult , Cross-Sectional Studies , Emergency Medical Services/methods , Emergency Medical Services/statistics & numerical data , Pain Measurement/methods , Administration, Intravenous , Propensity Score , Pain Management/methods , Pain Management/standards , Pain Management/statistics & numerical data , Analgesics, Non-Narcotic/administration & dosage , Analgesics, Non-Narcotic/therapeutic use , Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal/therapeutic use , Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal/administration & dosage , Aged , Analgesia/methods , Analgesia/statistics & numerical data , Analgesia/standards
3.
Emerg Med J ; 38(11): 830-833, 2021 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33500266

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Acute pain is a common reason for emergency department (ED) attendance. Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM) pain management audits have shown national variation and room for improvement. Previous evidence suggests that children receive less satisfactory pain management than adults. METHODS: Prescription of analgesia in emergency medicine is a cross-sectional observational study of consecutive patients presenting to 12 National Health Service EDs with an isolated long bone fracture and/or dislocation, and was carried out between 2015 and 2017. Using the recommendations in the RCEM Best Practice Guidelines, pain management in ED was assessed for differences of age (adults vs children) and hospital type (children's vs all patients). RESULTS: From the total 8346 patients, 38% were children (median age 8 years). There was better adherence to the RCEM guidance for children than adults (24% (766/3196) vs 11% (579/5123)) for the combined outcome of timely assessment, pain score and appropriate analgesia. In addition, children were significantly more likely than adults to receive analgesia appropriate to the pain score (of those with a recorded pain score 67% (1168/1744) vs 52% (1238/2361)). Children's hospitals performed much better across all reported outcomes compared with general hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to previous studies, children with a limb fracture/dislocation are more likely than adults to have a pain score documented and to receive appropriate analgesia. Unexpectedly, children's EDs performed better than general EDs in relation to timely and appropriate analgesia but the reasons for this are not apparent from the present study.


Subject(s)
Analgesia/standards , Extremities/injuries , Fractures, Bone/drug therapy , Pain Management/methods , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Analgesia/methods , Analgesia/statistics & numerical data , Analgesics/therapeutic use , Cross-Sectional Studies , Emergency Service, Hospital/organization & administration , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pain Management/statistics & numerical data , Pain Measurement/methods , State Medicine
4.
Crit Care ; 24(1): 315, 2020 06 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32513237

ABSTRACT

Practice guidelines provide clear evidence-based recommendations for the use of drug therapy to manage pain, agitation, and delirium associated with critical illness. Dosing recommendations however are often based on strategies used in patients with normal body habitus. Recommendations specific to critically ill patients with extreme obesity are lacking. Nonetheless, clinicians must craft dosing regimens for this population. This paper is intended to help clinicians design initial dosing regimens for medications commonly used in the management of pain, agitation, and delirium in critically ill patients with extreme obesity. A detailed literature search was conducted with an emphasis on obesity, pharmacokinetics, and dosing. Relevant manuscripts were reviewed and strategies for dosing are provided.


Subject(s)
Analgesia/standards , Deep Sedation/standards , Delirium/etiology , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Obesity/physiopathology , Analgesia/methods , Analgesia/statistics & numerical data , Analgesics, Non-Narcotic/administration & dosage , Analgesics, Non-Narcotic/therapeutic use , Analgesics, Opioid/administration & dosage , Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic use , Benzodiazepines/administration & dosage , Benzodiazepines/therapeutic use , Critical Illness/therapy , Deep Sedation/methods , Deep Sedation/statistics & numerical data , Dexmedetomidine/administration & dosage , Dexmedetomidine/therapeutic use , Etomidate/administration & dosage , Etomidate/therapeutic use , Haloperidol/administration & dosage , Haloperidol/therapeutic use , Humans , Ketamine/administration & dosage , Ketamine/therapeutic use , Obesity/drug therapy , Pain Management/methods , Quetiapine Fumarate/administration & dosage , Quetiapine Fumarate/therapeutic use
5.
Eur J Anaesthesiol ; 37(7): 521-610, 2020 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32487963

ABSTRACT

: Patient safety is an activity to mitigate preventable patient harm that may occur during the delivery of medical care. The European Board of Anaesthesiology (EBA)/European Union of Medical Specialists had previously published safety recommendations on minimal monitoring and postanaesthesia care, but with the growing public and professional interest it was decided to produce a much more encompassing document. The EBA and the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA) published a consensus on what needs to be done/achieved for improvement of peri-operative patient safety. During the Euroanaesthesia meeting in Helsinki/Finland in 2010, this vision was presented to anaesthesiologists, patients, industry and others involved in health care as the 'Helsinki Declaration on Patient Safety in Anaesthesiology'. In May/June 2020, ESA and EBA are celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Helsinki Declaration on Patient Safety in Anaesthesiology; a good opportunity to look back and forward evaluating what was achieved in the recent 10 years, and what needs to be done in the upcoming years. The Patient Safety and Quality Committee (PSQC) of ESA invited experts in their fields to contribute, and these experts addressed their topic in different ways; there are classical, narrative reviews, more systematic reviews, political statements, personal opinions and also original data presentation. With this publication we hope to further stimulate implementation of the Helsinki Declaration on Patient Safety in Anaesthesiology, as well as initiating relevant research in the future.


Subject(s)
Analgesia/standards , Anesthesia/standards , Anesthesiology/standards , Clinical Competence/standards , Medical Errors/prevention & control , Patient Safety/standards , Perioperative Care/statistics & numerical data , Quality of Health Care/standards , Analgesia/adverse effects , Anesthesia/adverse effects , Expert Testimony , Helsinki Declaration , Humans , Perioperative Period , Practice Guidelines as Topic
6.
Medicina (Kaunas) ; 56(4)2020 Mar 27.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32230895

ABSTRACT

Background and Objectives: The effect of supra-inguinal fascia iliaca compartment block (SI-FICB) in hip arthroscopy is not apparent. It is also controversial whether SI-FICB can block the obturator nerve, which may affect postoperative analgesia after hip arthroscopy. We compared analgesic effects before and after the implementation of obturator nerve block into SI-FICB for hip arthroscopy. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of 90 consecutive patients who underwent hip arthroscopy from January 2017 to August 2019. Since August 2018, the analgesic protocol was changed from SI-FICB to SI-FICB with obturator nerve block. According to the analgesic regimen, patients were categorized as group N (no blockade), group F (SI-FICB only), and group FO (SI-FICB with obturator nerve block). Primary outcome was the cumulative opioid consumption at 24 hours after surgery. Additionally, cumulative opioid consumption at 6 and 12 hours after surgery, pain score, additional analgesic requests, intraoperative opioid consumption and hemodynamic stability, and postoperative nausea and vomiting were assessed. Results: Among 87 patients, there were 47 patients in group N, 21 in group F, and 19 in group FO. The cumulative opioid (fentanyl) consumption at 24 hours after surgery was significantly lower in the group FO compared with the group N (N: 678.5 (444.0-890.0) µg; FO: 482.8 (305.8-635.0) µg; p = 0.014), whereas the group F did not show a significant difference (F: 636.0 (426.8-803.0) µg). Conclusion: Our findings suggest that implementing obturator nerve block into SI-FICB can reduce postoperative opioid consumption in hip arthroscopy.


Subject(s)
Analgesia/standards , Arthroscopy/instrumentation , Adult , Analgesia/instrumentation , Analgesia/methods , Analysis of Variance , Arthroscopy/methods , Arthroscopy/trends , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Nerve Block/methods , Nerve Block/standards , Obturator Nerve/drug effects , Pain Management/methods , Pain Management/standards , Pain Measurement/methods , Retrospective Studies
7.
Anesthesiology ; 131(6): 1316-1326, 2019 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31490292

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Interscalene brachial plexus block of the C5-C6 roots provides highly effective postoperative analgesia after shoulder surgery but usually results in hemidiaphragmatic paresis. Injection around the superior trunk of the brachial plexus is an alternative technique that may reduce this risk. The authors hypothesized that the superior trunk block would provide noninferior postoperative analgesia compared with the interscalene block and reduce hemidiaphragmatic paresis. METHODS: Eighty patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery were randomized to receive a preoperative injection of 15 ml of 0.5% ropivacaine and 5 µg · ml epinephrine around either (1) the C5-C6 nerve roots (interscalene block group) or (2) the superior trunk (superior trunk block group). The primary outcome was pain intensity 24 h after surgery measured on an 11-point numerical rating score; the prespecified noninferiority limit was 1. Diaphragmatic function was assessed using both ultrasonographic measurement of excursion and incentive spirometry by a blinded investigator before and 30 min after block completion. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients completed the study. The pain score 24 h postoperatively (means ± SDs) was 1.4 ± 1.0 versus 1.2 ± 1.0 in the superior trunk block (n = 38) and interscalene block (n = 40) groups, respectively. The mean difference in pain scores was 0.1 (95% CI, -0.3 to 0.6), and the upper limit of the 95% CI was lower than the prespecified noninferiority limit. Analgesic requirements and all other pain measurements were similar between groups. Hemidiaphragmatic paresis was observed in 97.5% of the interscalene block group versus 76.3% of the superior trunk block group (P = 0.006); paresis was complete in 72.5% versus 5.3% of the patients, respectively. The decrease in spirometry values from baseline was significantly greater in the interscalene block group. CONCLUSIONS: The superior trunk block provided noninferior analgesia compared with interscalene brachial plexus block for up to 24 h after arthroscopic shoulder surgery and resulted in significantly less hemidiaphragmatic paresis.


Subject(s)
Analgesia/methods , Arthroscopy/methods , Brachial Plexus Block/methods , Shoulder/surgery , Ultrasonography, Interventional/methods , Adult , Analgesia/standards , Arthroscopy/standards , Brachial Plexus Block/standards , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pain Measurement/methods , Shoulder/diagnostic imaging , Ultrasonography, Interventional/standards
8.
Am J Emerg Med ; 37(6): 1025-1032, 2019 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30121157

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: This study attempted to evaluate the efficacy of ultra-low-dose intravenous (IV) naloxone combined with IV morphine, as compared to IV morphine alone, in terms of reducing pain and morphine-induced side effects in patients with renal colic. METHODS: In this double-blind clinical trial, 150 patients aged 34 to 60 years old who presented to the emergency department (ED) with renal colic were randomly allocated to either an intervention group that received ultra-low-dose IV naloxone combined with IV morphine or to a control group that received morphine plus a placebo. The severity of pain, sedation, and nausea were assessed and recorded for all patients at entrance to the ED (T1), then at 20 (T2), 40 (T3), 60 (T4), 120 (T5), and 180 (T6) minutes after starting treatment. The Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) was used for the assessment of pain and nausea intensities, and the Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS) was used to assess sedation. RESULTS: A GEE model revealed that patients in the naloxone group had non-significantly reduced pain scores compared to those in the morphine group (coefficient = -0.68; 95% CI: -1.24 to -0.11, Wald X2 (1) = 5.41, p = 0.02). The sedation outcome demonstrated no statistically significant differences at T1 to T4 among patients with renal colic compared to the ones who only received morphine. At T5 and T6, 1.5% vs. 20% and 1.5% vs. 16.9% of subjects from the naloxone group versus the morphine group obtained RSS scores equal to 3, respectively (p = 0.001 and p = 0.004, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to patients who only received IV morphine, co-treatment of ultra-low-dose naloxone with morphine could not provide better analgesia and sedation/agitation states in renal colic patients.


Subject(s)
Analgesia/standards , Morphine/administration & dosage , Naloxone/administration & dosage , Pain Management/standards , Renal Colic/complications , Adult , Analgesia/methods , Analgesia/statistics & numerical data , Analysis of Variance , Double-Blind Method , Drug Therapy, Combination/methods , Drug Therapy, Combination/standards , Drug Therapy, Combination/statistics & numerical data , Emergency Service, Hospital/organization & administration , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Female , Humans , Iran , Male , Middle Aged , Morphine/standards , Morphine/therapeutic use , Naloxone/standards , Naloxone/therapeutic use , Pain/drug therapy , Pain Management/methods , Pain Management/statistics & numerical data , Pain Measurement/methods , Renal Colic/drug therapy , Statistics, Nonparametric
9.
Emerg Med J ; 36(8): 493-500, 2019 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31230039

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Pain treatment in acute musculoskeletal injuries usually consists of paracetamol, non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or opioids. It would be beneficial to determine whether paracetamol is as effective as other analgesics. The objective of this study was to evaluate available evidence regarding efficacy of paracetamol in these patients. METHODS: Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane and relevant trial registers were searched from inception to 14 February 2018 by two independent reviewers to detect all randomised studies with adult patients with acute minor musculoskeletal injuries treated with paracetamol as compared with other analgesics. There were no language or date restrictions. Two independent reviewers evaluated risk of bias and quality of evidence. Primary outcome was decrease in pain scores during the first 24 hours, and secondary outcomes included pain decrease beyond 24 hours, need for additional analgesia and occurrence of adverse events. RESULTS: Seven trials were included, evaluating 2100 patients who were treated with paracetamol or NSAIDs or the combination of both as comparisons, of which only four studies addressed the primary outcome. No studies were found comparing paracetamol with opioids. There were no differences in analgesic effectiveness within and beyond 24 hours, nor in need for additional analgesia and occurrence of adverse events. Overall, quality of evidence was low. Because of methodological inconsistencies, a meta-analysis was not possible. CONCLUSIONS: Based on available evidence, paracetamol is as effective as NSAIDs or the combination of both in treating pain in adult patients with minor musculoskeletal injuries in the acute setting. The quality of evidence is low.


Subject(s)
Acetaminophen/standards , Analgesia/standards , Musculoskeletal Diseases/drug therapy , Acetaminophen/therapeutic use , Adult , Analgesia/methods , Analgesics/standards , Analgesics/therapeutic use , Humans , Musculoskeletal Diseases/complications , Pain/drug therapy , Pain/etiology , Pain Management/methods , Pain Management/standards , Pain Measurement/methods
10.
Curr Opin Anaesthesiol ; 32(5): 683-689, 2019 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31389804

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In several guidelines, regional anesthesia and analgesia have been suggested as safer alternatives for general anesthesia and systemic analgesia for their safety profile in patients suffering from obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). However, the underlying scientific basis is still evolving. The present review is intended to provide an up-to-date account on the question whether the use of regional anesthesia improves outcomes in patients with OSA. RECENT FINDINGS: A number of studies found favorable effects of regional anesthesia used in patients with OSA, including reduced incidence of major perioperative complications such as the need for mechanical ventilation, reintubation and pulmonary/cardiac complications. No negative effects of regional anesthesia specific to patients with OSA were found. Regional anesthesia was most effective when used as a sole technique, but also carried benefits when added to general anesthesia. The majority of available literature focuses on orthopedic surgery and neuraxial anesthesia. SUMMARY: Regional anesthesia can be recommended as a good strategy to treat patients with OSA whenever feasible, as it reduces the incidence of potentially catastrophic perioperative complications. However, the breadth of both surgical and regional anesthetic techniques analyzed is limited; further research should focus on extending the knowledge base beyond neuraxial anesthesia and orthopedics.


Subject(s)
Anesthesia, Conduction/methods , Pain Management/methods , Perioperative Care/methods , Postoperative Complications/prevention & control , Sleep Apnea, Obstructive/complications , Analgesia/methods , Analgesia/standards , Anesthesia, Conduction/standards , Anesthesia, General/adverse effects , Anesthesia, General/standards , Anesthesiology/standards , Humans , Incidence , Pain Management/adverse effects , Pain Management/standards , Perioperative Care/adverse effects , Perioperative Care/standards , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Surgical Procedures, Operative/adverse effects , Treatment Outcome
11.
Curr Opin Anaesthesiol ; 32(3): 285-290, 2019 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31045635

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The objective of this review is to analyze and summarize the current anesthetic methods used to alleviate pain and discomfort during transvaginal oocyte retrieval procedures (TORP), to try to reach practical recommendations, based on the evidence, which will translate into daily practice, the knowledge on the anesthetic management of patients scheduled for TORP. RECENT FINDINGS: There is no strong evidence to recommend the avoidance of any technique or drug for TORP, including nitrous oxide or halogenated agents. Women should be offered any available technique. The evidence available up to date is not convincing enough to recommend avoiding any anesthetic technique in terms of pregnancy and birth rates. SUMMARY: TORP is painful for women and different techniques may be used for pain relief in day case surgery. The other important outcome to consider is the pregnancy rate, and any anesthetic technique or drug which would improve this pregnancy rate should be recommended. Conscious sedation and general anesthesia proved to be well tolerated for woman and the oocytes, despite the use of propofol, opioids, benzodiacepines, nitrous oxide, or other drugs. Spinal anesthesia and paracervical block are also acceptable options, and can be combined with conscious sedation. Nevertheless, more studies are needed to find out the ideal drug or technique combination for the woman and the oocyte.


Subject(s)
Analgesia/standards , Anesthesia/standards , Conscious Sedation/standards , Oocyte Retrieval/adverse effects , Pain/prevention & control , Analgesia/adverse effects , Analgesia/methods , Analgesics/administration & dosage , Analgesics/adverse effects , Anesthesia/adverse effects , Anesthesia/methods , Anesthetics, Inhalation/administration & dosage , Anesthetics, Inhalation/adverse effects , Anesthetics, Local/administration & dosage , Anesthetics, Local/adverse effects , Conscious Sedation/adverse effects , Conscious Sedation/methods , Female , Humans , Oocyte Retrieval/methods , Pain/etiology , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Treatment Outcome
12.
Medicina (Kaunas) ; 55(8)2019 Jul 31.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31370298

ABSTRACT

Background and objectives: Worldwide, the number of caesarean sections performed has increased exponentially. Some studies have reported better pain control and lower postoperative requirements for opioids when intravenous (IV) paracetamol was administered preoperatively. This meta-analysis thus aimed to investigate the utility of preoperative IV paracetamol for post-caesarean analgesia. Materials and Methods: By using the keywords (paracetamol OR acetaminophen) AND [cesarea* OR caesarea* OR cesaria* OR caesaria*], a systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, Medline, Embase, Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for papers published in English between January 1, 1960 and March 1, 2019. Grey literature was searched as well. Results: Seven clinical trials were reviewed, while five randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind studies were included in the final meta-analysis. Applying per-protocol analysis and a random-effects model, there was a significant reduction in postoperative opioid consumption and pain score in the group that received preoperative IV paracetamol, compared to placebo, as the standardized mean difference (SMD) were -0.460 (95% CI -0.828 to -0.092, p = 0.014) and -0.719 (95% CI: -1.31 to -0.13, p = 0.018), respectively. However, there was significant heterogeneity amongst the different studies included in the meta-analysis (I2 = 70.66%), perhaps owing to their diverse protocols. Some studies administered IV paracetamol 15 min before induction while others gave it before surgical incision. Conclusion: This is the first review on the topic. Overall, preoperative IV paracetamol has convincingly demonstrated useful opioid-sparing effects and it also appears safe for use at the time of delivery. It should be considered as a component of an effective multimodal analgesic regimen. Future studies could be conducted on other patient groups, e.g., those with multiple comorbidities or chronic pain disorders, and further delineate the optimal timing to administer the drug preoperatively.


Subject(s)
Acetaminophen/standards , Analgesia/standards , Cesarean Section/adverse effects , Acetaminophen/therapeutic use , Adult , Analgesia/methods , Cesarean Section/methods , Female , Humans , Pregnancy , Preoperative Care/methods , Preoperative Care/standards
13.
Anesthesiology ; 128(6): 1092-1098, 2018 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29509579

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) has traditionally been used to compare the potency of volatile anesthetics. However, as it reflects the spinal mechanism of immobility rather than the cerebral mechanism of analgesia and hypnosis, it is doubtful that equi-MAC connotes equivalent analgesic or hypnotic potency. The level of analgesia and hypnosis can be assessed using surgical pleth index and bispectral index (BIS) values, respectively. This study was designed to compare the surgical pleth index and BIS values produced by equi-MAC of desflurane and sevoflurane in patients undergoing single-agent volatile anesthesia. METHODS: Eighty-nine patients were randomly allocated to two groups receiving either desflurane (n = 44) or sevoflurane (n = 45). Anesthesia was only maintained with assigned volatile anesthetic of age-corrected 1.0 MAC. Surgical pleth index values as an analgesic estimate and BIS values as a hypnotic estimate were obtained under standard tetanic stimulation. RESULTS: Post-stimulation surgical pleth index values (mean ± SD), the primary outcome, were significantly lower for the desflurane group than those for the sevoflurane group (49 ± 10 vs. 64 ± 14, difference, 15 [95% CI, 10 to 20], P < 0.001). The desflurane group showed significantly lower poststimulation BIS values (median [interquartile range]) than the sevoflurane group (36 [31 to 41] vs. 41 [38 to 47], difference, 6 [95% CI, 2 to 9], P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: During a steady-state of 1.0 MAC, desflurane and sevoflurane did not cause similar surgical pleth index and BIS values under the standardized nociceptive stimulus. These findings suggest that equi-MAC of desflurane and sevoflurane may not ensure equivalent analgesic or hypnotic potency. VISUAL ABSTRACT: An online visual overview is available for this article at http://links.lww.com/ALN/B726.


Subject(s)
Analgesia/methods , Anesthetics, Inhalation/administration & dosage , Desflurane/administration & dosage , Hypnotics and Sedatives/administration & dosage , Pulmonary Alveoli/drug effects , Sevoflurane/administration & dosage , Adult , Analgesia/standards , Anesthetics, Inhalation/standards , Desflurane/standards , Electroencephalography/drug effects , Electroencephalography/methods , Female , Humans , Hypnotics and Sedatives/standards , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Pulmonary Alveoli/physiology , Sevoflurane/standards , Therapeutic Equivalency
14.
J Surg Res ; 228: 160-169, 2018 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29907207

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Although evidence-based guidelines recommend a multimodal approach to pain management, limited information exists on adherence to these guidelines and its association with outcomes in a generalized population. We sought to assess the association between discharge multimodal analgesia and postoperative pain outcomes in two diverse health care settings. METHODS: We evaluated patients undergoing four common surgeries associated with high pain in electronic health records from an academic hospital (AH) and Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Multimodal analgesia at discharge was characterized as opioids in combination with acetaminophen (O + A) and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory (O + A + N) drugs. Hierarchical models estimated associations of analgesia with 45-d follow-up pain scores and 30-d readmissions. RESULTS: We identified 7893 patients at AH and 34,581 at VHA. In both settings, most patients were discharged with O + A (60.6% and 54.8%, respectively), yet a significant proportion received opioids alone (AH: 24.3% and VHA: 18.8%). Combining acetaminophen with opioids was associated with decreased follow-up pain in VHA (Odds ratio [OR]: 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79, 0.93) and readmissions (AH OR: 0.74, CI: 0.60, 0.90; VHA OR: 0.89, CI: 0.82, 0.96). Further addition of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs was associated with further decreased follow-up pain (AH OR: 0.71, CI: 0.53, 0.96; VHA OR: 0.77, CI: 0.69, 0.86) and readmissions (AH OR: 0.46, CI: 0.31, 0.69; VHA OR: 0.84, CI: 0.76, 0.93). In both systems, patients receiving multimodal analgesia received 10%-40% less opioids per day compared to opioids only. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of surgical patients receive a multimodal pain approach at discharge yet many receive only opioids. Multimodal regimen at discharge was associated with better follow-up pain and all-cause readmissions compared to the opioid-only regimen.


Subject(s)
Analgesia/methods , Guideline Adherence/statistics & numerical data , Pain Management/methods , Pain, Postoperative/drug therapy , Surgical Procedures, Operative/adverse effects , Adult , Aged , Analgesia/standards , Analgesia/statistics & numerical data , Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic use , Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal/therapeutic use , Drug Therapy, Combination/methods , Drug Therapy, Combination/standards , Electronic Health Records/statistics & numerical data , Evidence-Based Medicine/methods , Evidence-Based Medicine/standards , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pain Management/standards , Pain Management/statistics & numerical data , Pain Measurement , Pain, Postoperative/diagnosis , Pain, Postoperative/etiology , Patient Discharge , Patient Readmission/statistics & numerical data , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome
15.
Eur J Anaesthesiol ; 35(1): 6-24, 2018 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28877145

ABSTRACT

: Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) has become a widespread practice given the increasing demand to relieve anxiety, discomfort and pain during invasive diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. The role of, and credentialing required by, anaesthesiologists and practitioners performing PSA has been debated for years in different guidelines. For this reason, the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA) and the European Board of Anaesthesiology have created a taskforce of experts that has been assigned to create an evidence-based guideline and, whenever the evidence was weak, a consensus amongst experts on: the evaluation of adult patients undergoing PSA, the role and competences required for the clinicians to safely perform PSA, the commonly used drugs for PSA, the adverse events that PSA can lead to, the minimum monitoring requirements and post-procedure discharge criteria. A search of the literature from 2003 to 2016 was performed by a professional librarian and the retrieved articles were analysed to allow a critical appraisal according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method. The Taskforce selected 2248 articles. Where there was insufficiently clear and concordant evidence on a topic, the Rand Appropriateness Method with three rounds of Delphi voting was used to obtain the highest level of consensus among the taskforce experts.These guidelines contain recommendations on PSA in the adult population. It does not address sedation performed in the ICU or in children and it does not aim to provide a legal statement on how PSA should be performed and by whom. The National Societies of Anaesthesiology and Ministries of Health should use this evidence-based document to help decision-making on how PSA should be performed in their countries. The final draft of the document was available to ESA members via the website for 4 weeks with the facility for them to upload their comments. Comments and suggestions of individual members and national Societies were considered and the guidelines were amended accordingly. The ESA guidelines Committee and ESA board finally approved and ratified it before publication.


Subject(s)
Analgesia/standards , Anesthesiology/standards , Conscious Sedation/standards , Pain Management/standards , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Societies, Medical/standards , Adult , Analgesia/methods , Anesthesiology/methods , Conscious Sedation/methods , Europe , Humans , Pain Management/methods
16.
Emerg Med J ; 35(1): 33-38, 2018 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28780493

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of the study was to measure the impact of an observational pain assessment dementia tool on time from ED arrival to first dose of analgesic medicine. METHODS: A multisite cluster randomised controlled trial was conducted to test the Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia (PAINAD) tool. Patients aged 65 years or older suspected of a long bone fracture were screened for cognitive impairment using the Six-Item Screening (SIS) tool. Patients scoring 4 or less on SIS (intervention sites) were assessed for pain using PAINAD. Control sites, assessed pain using standard methods. The primary outcome was time to first dose of analgesia and was analysed on an intention-to-treat basis with a sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: We enrolled 602 patients, of which 323 (54%) were at intervention sites (n=4). The median time to analgesia was 82 min (IQR 45-151 min). There was no statistically significant difference in median time to analgesia for intervention 83 (IQR 48-158 min) and non-intervention 82 min (IQR 41-147 min) sites (p=0.414). After adjusting for age, fracture type, arrival mode and triage category, there remained no significant difference in time to analgesia (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.17, p=0.74). Of the 602 patients enrolled, 273 actually had cognitive impairment. A sensitivity analysis demonstrated patients at intervention sites received analgesia 13 min sooner (90 vs 103 min, p=0.91). CONCLUSION: Use of the PAINAD was not associated with a shorter time to analgesia, although there was a clinically important but non-significant improvement in the cognitively impaired patient group. Further research is needed to address this clinically important and complex issue.


Subject(s)
Analgesia/standards , Cognition , Pain Measurement/methods , Pain Measurement/standards , Aged , Analgesia/methods , Analgesics/therapeutic use , Cluster Analysis , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pain/drug therapy , Pain Management/methods
17.
Lancet ; 387(10032): 1999-2007, 2016 May 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26993881

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The excruciating pain of patients with renal colic on presentation to the emergency department requires effective analgesia to be administered in the shortest possible time. Trials comparing intramuscular non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs with intravenous opioids or paracetamol have been inconclusive because of the challenges associated with concealment of randomisation, small sample size, differences in outcome measures, and inadequate masking of participants and assessors. We did this trial to develop definitive evidence regarding the choice of initial analgesia and route of administration in participants presenting with renal colic to the emergency department. METHODS: In this three-treatment group, double-blind, randomised controlled trial, adult participants (aged 18-65 years) presenting to the emergency department of an academic, tertiary care hospital in Qatar, with moderate to severe renal colic (Numerical pain Rating Scale ≥ 4) were recruited. With the use of computer-generated block randomisation (block sizes of six and nine), participants were assigned (1:1:1) to receive diclofenac (75 mg/3 mL intramuscular), morphine (0.1 mg/kg intravenous), or paracetamol (1 g/100 mL intravenous). Participants, clinicians, and trial personnel were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants achieving at least a 50% reduction in initial pain score at 30 min after analgesia, assessed by intention-to-treat analysis and per-protocol analysis, which included patients where a calculus in the urinary tract was detected with imaging. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02187614. FINDINGS: Between Aug 5, 2014, and March 15, 2015, we randomly assigned 1645 participants, of whom 1644 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (547 in the diclofenac group, 548 in the paracetemol group, and 549 in the morphine group). Ureteric calculi were detected in 1316 patients, who were analysed as the per-protocol population (438 in the diclofenac group, 435 in the paracetemol group, and 443 in the morphine group). The primary outcome was achieved in 371 (68%) patients in the diclofenac group, 364 (66%) in the paracetamol group, and 335 (61%) in the morphine group in the intention-to-treat population. Compared to morphine, diclofenac was significantly more effective in achieving the primary outcome (odds ratio [OR] 1·35, 95% CI 1·05-1·73, p=0·0187), whereas no difference was detected in the effectiveness of morphine compared with intravenous paracetamol (1·26, 0·99-1·62, p=0·0629). In the per-protocol population, diclofenac (OR 1·49, 95% CI 1·13-1·97, p=0·0046) and paracetamol (1·40, 1·06-1·85, p=0·0166) were more effective than morphine in achieving the primary outcome. Acute adverse events in the morphine group occurred in 19 (3%) participants. Significantly lower numbers of adverse events were recorded in the diclofenac group (7 [1%] participants, OR 0·31, 95% CI 0·12-0·78, p=0·0088) and paracetamol group (7 [1%] participants, 0·36, 0·15-0·87, p=0·0175) than in the morphine group. During the 2 week follow-up, no additional adverse events were noted in any group. INTERPRETATION: Intramuscular non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs offer the most effective sustained analgesia for renal colic in the emergency department and seem to have fewer side-effects. FUNDING: Hamad Medical Corporation Medical Research Center, Doha, Qatar.


Subject(s)
Analgesia/methods , Emergency Service, Hospital/standards , Renal Colic/drug therapy , Acetaminophen/administration & dosage , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Analgesia/standards , Analgesics, Non-Narcotic/administration & dosage , Analgesics, Opioid/administration & dosage , Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal/administration & dosage , Delivery of Health Care/standards , Diclofenac/administration & dosage , Double-Blind Method , Female , Humans , Injections, Intramuscular , Injections, Intravenous , Male , Middle Aged , Morphine/administration & dosage , Qatar , Tertiary Care Centers , Time-to-Treatment , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
18.
Neurocrit Care ; 27(Suppl 1): 4-28, 2017 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28913751

ABSTRACT

Airway management and ventilation are central to the resuscitation of the neurologically ill. These patients often have evolving processes that threaten the airway and adequate ventilation. Furthermore, intubation, ventilation, and sedative choices directly affect brain perfusion. Therefore, Airway, Ventilation, and Sedation was chosen as an Emergency Neurological Life Support protocol. Topics include airway management, when and how to intubate with special attention to hemodynamics and preservation of cerebral blood flow, mechanical ventilation settings and the use of sedative agents based on the patient's neurological status.


Subject(s)
Airway Management/methods , Analgesia/methods , Anesthesia/methods , Clinical Protocols , Critical Care/methods , Emergency Medical Services/methods , Life Support Care/methods , Neurology/methods , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Airway Management/standards , Analgesia/standards , Anesthesia/standards , Clinical Protocols/standards , Critical Care/standards , Emergency Medical Services/standards , Humans , Life Support Care/standards , Neurology/education , Neurology/standards , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Respiration, Artificial/standards
19.
Curr Opin Anaesthesiol ; 30(1): 30-35, 2017 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27764049

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Despite marked improvements in perioperative outcomes, esophagectomy continues to be a high-risk operation associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Progress has been achieved through evidence-based changes in preoperative optimization, intraoperative ventilation strategies, fluid therapy, and analgesia, as well as expedited postoperative recovery pathways. This review will summarize the recent literature on the anesthetic management of patients undergoing esophageal resection. RECENT FINDINGS: The current focus in publications on the perioperative management of esophagectomy patients can be summarized under the umbrella term of enhanced recovery pathways, focusing on ventilation, fluid therapy, analgesia and minimally invasive surgical approaches. Lung protective ventilation reduces pulmonary complications in cases requiring one-lung ventilation. Excess fluid administration contributes to morbidity while restrictive approaches have not resulted in an increased risk of acute kidney injury. Goal-directed fluid therapy remains intuitive yet unproven. Thoracic epidural analgesia reduces the systemic inflammatory response, pulmonary complications, and enhances postoperative pain control, yet if causing perioperative hypotension may be associated with anastomotic leaks. Enhanced recovery pathways have facilitated low morbidity and mortality rates in a high-risk population but are heterogeneous and limited by a weak evidence base. Minimally invasive surgical approaches are increasingly popular and appear to have at least equivalent outcomes to open procedures. SUMMARY: The morbidity and mortality after esophagectomy remains high despite significant improvements over the last decades. Enhanced recovery pathways appear promising in achieving further marginal gains but at present are lacking large scale, prospective, multicenter evidence.


Subject(s)
Anesthesia/trends , Esophageal Neoplasms/surgery , Esophagectomy/adverse effects , Perioperative Period/mortality , Age Factors , Aged , Analgesia/methods , Analgesia/standards , Analgesia/trends , Anesthesia/methods , Anesthesia/standards , Esophagectomy/methods , Evidence-Based Medicine/methods , Evidence-Based Medicine/standards , Evidence-Based Medicine/trends , Humans , Laparoscopy/adverse effects , Laparoscopy/methods , Laparoscopy/trends , Patient-Centered Care/methods , Patient-Centered Care/standards , Patient-Centered Care/trends , Perioperative Care/methods , Perioperative Care/standards , Perioperative Care/trends , Thoracoscopy/adverse effects , Thoracoscopy/methods , Thoracoscopy/trends
20.
Curr Opin Anaesthesiol ; 30(3): 349-356, 2017 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28323671

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Use of perioperative opioids for surgical pain management of children presents clinical challenges because of concerns of serious adverse effects including life-threatening respiratory depression. This is especially true for children with history of obstructive sleep apnea. This review will explore current knowledge of clinically relevant factors and genetic polymorphisms that affect opioid metabolism and postoperative outcomes in children. RECENT FINDINGS: Within the past several years, an increasing number of case reports have illustrated clinically important respiratory depression, anoxic brain injuries and even death among children receiving appropriate weight-based dosages of codeine and other opioids for analgesia at home setting particularly following tonsillectomy. Several national and international organizations have issued advisories on use of codeine in pediatrics, based on cytochrome P450 family 2 subfamily D type 6 (CYP2D6) pharmacogenetics. We have discussed the pros and cons of alternatives to codeine for pain management. SUMMARY: Although routine preoperative genotyping to identify children at risk and personalized opioid use for pediatric perioperative pain management is still a distant reality, current known implications of CYP2D6 pharmacogenetics on codeine use shows that pharmacogenetics has the potential to guide anesthesia providers on perioperative opioid selection and dosing to maximize efficacy and safety.


Subject(s)
Analgesia/adverse effects , Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic use , Codeine/therapeutic use , Opioid-Related Disorders/genetics , Pain Management/methods , Pain, Postoperative/drug therapy , Tonsillectomy/adverse effects , Analgesia/methods , Analgesia/standards , Analgesia/trends , Analgesics, Opioid/pharmacology , Anesthesia/adverse effects , Anesthesia/methods , Anesthesia/standards , Anesthesia/trends , Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal/therapeutic use , Child , Clinical Protocols , Codeine/pharmacology , Cytochrome P-450 CYP2D6/genetics , Genotype , Humans , Hypoxia, Brain/chemically induced , Opioid-Related Disorders/etiology , Opioid-Related Disorders/prevention & control , Pain Management/adverse effects , Pain Management/standards , Pain Management/trends , Perioperative Care/adverse effects , Perioperative Care/methods , Polymorphism, Genetic , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Respiratory Insufficiency/chemically induced , Risk Factors , Sleep Apnea, Obstructive/complications
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL