Oxycodone versus other opioid analgesics after laparoscopic surgery: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous opioids are administered for the management of visceral pain after laparoscopic surgery. Whether oxycodone has advantages over other opioids in the treatment of visceral pain is not yet clear. METHODS: In this study, the analgesic efficiency and adverse events of oxycodone and other opioids, including alfentanil, sufentanil, fentanyl, and morphine, in treating post-laparoscopic surgery visceral pain were evaluated. This review was conducted according to the methodological standards described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis statement. The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched in December 2019. RESULTS: Ten studies were included in this review. The sample size was 695 participants. The results showed that compared with morphine and fentanyl, oxycodone had a more potent analgesic efficacy on the first day after laparoscopic surgery, especially during the first 0.5 h. There was no significant difference in sedation between the two groups. Compared to morphine and fentanyl, oxycodone was more likely to lead to dizziness and drowsiness. Overall, patient satisfaction did not differ significantly between oxycodone and other opioids. CONCLUSIONS: Oxycodone is superior to other analgesics within 24 h after laparoscopic surgery, but its adverse effects should be carefully considered.

Systematic review of anaesthetic medication for ERCP based on a network meta-analysis.

AIMS: We performed a systematic review of various anaesthetic medications for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and aimed to make a comprehensive comparison based on a network meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched globally recognized electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Central and EMBASE, to retrieve relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of anaesthetic medications for ERCP. Network meta-analysis was conducted by evaluating the procedure time, adverse effects and drug requirements. The cumulative probability P value was utilized to rank the medications under examination. RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs that examined 1877 patients were included in this research. Under good convergence and efficiency, data analysis was performed using a consistency model. For the comparison of procedure times, we found that a combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine (P = 0.19) or propofol plus pethidine (P = 0.18) seemed to be the two best medications for reducing procedure time. Additionally, midazolam combined with dexmedetomidine plus pethidine seemed to be the safest application for ERCP (P = 0.36). Propofol plus alfentanil also exhibited a good safety value (P = 0.28). For evaluation of drug requirements, the whole network connection could not be established; thus, comparisons in two subgroups were conducted. The results showed that midazolam combined with dexmedetomidine plus pethidine (P = 0.41) and propofol plus refentanil (P = 0.94) were superior to others in decreasing drug requirements. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the objective results and our conclusions, we deemed that a combination of midazolam and dexmedetomidine was recommended, and propofol plus opioids also revealed great clinical value. However, we are still expecting more clinical research in the future.

Randomized clinical trial of propofol versus alfentanil for moderate procedural sedation in the emergency department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the frequency of airway and respiratory adverse events leading to an intervention between moderate sedation using alfentanil or propofol. METHODS: We performed a randomized clinical trial in which adults undergoing moderate sedation in the ED received either alfentanil or propofol. Our primary outcome was the frequency of airway and respiratory adverse events leading to an intervention. Other outcomes included sedation depth, efficacy, sedation time, patient satisfaction, pain, and satisfaction. RESULTS: 108 subjects completed the trial: 52 receiving alfentanil and 56 receiving propofol. Airway or respiratory adverse events leading to an intervention were similar between the two groups: 23% for alfentanil and 20% for propofol (p=0.657). There were no serious adverse events in any group. Secondary outcomes were notably different in the rate of reported pain (48% for alfentanil, 13% for propofol) and recall (75% for alfentanil, 23% for propofol) and similar in the rate of satisfaction with the procedure (87% for alfentanil, 84% for propofol). CONCLUSION: We found a similar frequency of airway and respiratory adverse events leading to intervention between alfentanil and propofol used for moderate procedural sedation. Both agents appear safe for moderate procedural sedation.

Synergistic antinociceptive effects of alfentanil and propofol in the formalin test.

The present study was conducted to determine the combined analgesic effect of alfentanil and propofol in the formalin test. Diluted formalin was injected into the dorsal surface of the right hind paw in rats. Nociceptive behavior was determined by counting the number of flinches of the injected paw for 1 h after injection; a reduction in formalin­induced flinching was interpreted as an antinociceptive effect. Isobolographic analysis was used to determine the type of antinociceptive interaction (additivity, antagonism or synergism). Extracellular signal­regulated kinase (ERK) and c­fos protein levels were also detected by western blot analysis to determine the potential mechanisms of the synergistic effect. Alfentanil, propofol or an alfentanil­propofol combination had an antinociceptive effect in the formalin test. The median effective dose (ED50), value of the individual drug was also obtained. The derived theoretical ED50 for the antinociceptive effect (4.36 mg/kg) was different from the observed experimental ED50 value (2.51 mg/kg). The interaction between alfentanil and propofol that produced the antinociceptive effect was synergistic according to isobolographic analysis. Furthermore, the combination of alfentanil and propofol treatments may produce synergistically antinociceptive effects by inhibiting the phosphorylation of ERK1/2 and decreasing the expression of c­fos in the spinal cord. These results demonstrated that combined treatment, with alfentanil and propofol, produced synergistic antinociceptive effects in the formalin test and may have therapeutic potential for the treatment of acute pain.

Propofol-alfentanyl versus midazolam-alfentanyl in inducing procedural amnesia of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in children--blind randomised trial.

UNLABELLED: In paediatric patients, esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is commonly performed with the use of sedation. The aim of the study was to compare the effectiveness of propofol and midazolam in providing procedural amnesia and controlling behaviour in children undergoing diagnostic EGD. Children (9-16 years), classified to the first or second class of the American Society of Anaesthesiologists' physical status classification referred for EGD, were randomly assigned to receive propofol with alfentanyl or midazolam with alfentanyl for sedation during the procedure. Within 120 min after the procedure, patients were repeatedly investigated for memory of the procedure and for memory of pain intensity during EGD with the use of the visual analogue scale. Activity and cooperation of the patient during the procedure was assessed with the relative adequacy scale. Of the 51 children, 48 completed the study. Propofol was significantly better than midazolam in inducing amnesia of procedural pain (mean difference 11.53 mm; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.96 to 22.10), loss of memory of the procedure (relative risk 0.4; 95 % CI 0.21 to 0.59) and controlling behaviour (relative risk 2.12; 95 % CI 1.33 to 3.36). CONCLUSION: In children sedated for EGD, propofol is significantly better than midazolam at providing procedural amnesia and controlling behaviour during the procedure.

Effect of ketamine versus alfentanil following midazolam in preventing emergence agitation in children after sevoflurane anaesthesia: a prospective randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of intranasal ketamine versus alfentanil in addition to oral midazolam for the prevention of emergence agitation in children. METHODS: Children undergoing urological surgery with sevoflurane anaesthesia received oral midazolam 40 min before induction and were then randomly assigned to receive 2 mg/kg ketamine, 10 µg/kg alfentanil or 1 ml isotonic saline intranasally. Parental separation status and mask acceptance were assessed preoperatively. Emergence agitation was evaluated using a paediatric anaesthesia emergence delirium (PAED) score. RESULTS: Data from 78 children were evaluated in the study. There were no significant differences between the groups in demographic characteristics, recovery times or parental separation scores. Mask acceptance was significantly better in the ketamine group than in the saline group. The mean PAED score in the ketamine group was significantly better than in the other two groups, but was similar in the saline and alfentanil groups. The incidence of emergence agitation was 3.8%, 36.0% and 40.7% in the ketamine, alfentanil and saline groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of intranasal ketamine to oral midazolam significantly improved the quality of induction and reduced sevoflurane-induced emergence agitation, in children undergoing urological surgery.

Methadone and oedema in the palliative care setting: a case report and review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: Methadone is a synthetic opioid which is being used with increased frequency in the palliative care setting for management of complex pain. There have been cases published reporting the development of oedema with methadone maintenance therapy but no cases on the association with methadone and peripheral oedema in the palliative care setting. As yet, the underlying mechanisms are unclear. CASE PRESENTATION: This case report describes a gentleman with ependymoma and difficult-to-control lower back pain and scrotal pain. This pain had failed to respond to other strong opioids. He was prescribed methadone and then subsequently developed bilateral peripheral oedema. CASE MANAGEMENT: Peripheral oedema resolved following cessation of methadone. CONCLUSIONS: This highlights an important potential adverse effect of methadone in a society of increased methadone prescription for pain control. The published literature to date is reviewed and possible underlying mechanisms explored.

A double-blinded randomized evaluation of alfentanil and morphine vs fentanyl: analgesia and sleep trial (DREAMFAST).

BACKGROUND: Patients using fentanyl patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), the standard first-line choice in our hospitals, commonly complain of postoperative sleep disruption due to pain. The aim of this study was to determine whether the PCA combination of alfentanil and morphine, which provides longer analgesia without compromising onset speed, would improve postoperative pain-related sleep interference. METHODS: Two hundred and twelve adults undergoing major surgery where PCA was the planned principal postoperative analgesic modality were randomized to either the combination of alfentanil and morphine (Group AM) or fentanyl (Group F). The primary outcome was pain-related awakenings during the second postoperative night as measured by the study questionnaire, based on the St Mary's Hospital Sleep Questionnaire. Analgesic efficacy, other sleep measures, and opioid-related side-effects were also assessed. RESULTS: There was no difference in pain-related sleep disturbance between the groups, with 41% of Group AM and 53% of Group F waking due to pain (P=0.10). Group AM had better rest and dynamic analgesia in the first 24 h with fewer requiring rescue ketamine infusion during the 2 day study period (2 vs 14%, P=0.001). Those in Group AM experienced less nausea and vomiting in the second 24 h (18 vs 35%, P=0.028) but more pruritus (40 vs 23%, P=0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Despite better early postoperative analgesia, pain-related sleep interference was not improved by the PCA combination of alfentanil and morphine. AUSTRALIAN NEW ZEALAND CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY: Ref: ACTRN12608000118303.

Analgesia without sedatives during colonoscopies: worth considering?

Colonoscopy is a proven method for bowel cancer screening and is often experienced as a painful procedure. Today, there are two main strategies to facilitate colonoscopy. First, deep sedation results in satisfied patients but increases sedation-associated risks and raises costs for healthcare providers. Second, there is the advocacy for colonoscopies without any form of sedation. This might be an option for a special group of patients, but does not hold true for everybody. Following Moerman's hypothesis: "If pain is the crucial point, why do we need sedation?" this review shows the analgesic options for a painless procedure, increasing success rates without increasing risk of sedation. There are two agents, with the potential to be a nearly ideal analgesic agent for colonoscopy: alfentanil and nitrous oxide (N(2)O). Administration of either substance causes the patient to be comfortable yet alert and facilitates a short turnover. Advantages of these drugs include rapid onset and offset of action, analgesic and anxiolytic effects, ease of titration to desired level, rapid recovery, and an excellent safety profile.

Day-surgery patients anesthetized with propofol have less postoperative pain than those anesthetized with sevoflurane.

BACKGROUND: There have been recent studies suggesting that patients anesthetized with propofol have less postoperative pain compared with patients anesthetized with volatile anesthetics. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind study, 80 patients undergoing day-case diagnostic laparoscopic gynecological surgery were either anesthetized with IV propofol or sevoflurane. The primary outcome measured was pain on a visual analog scale. RESULTS: Patients anesthetized with propofol had less pain compared with patients anesthetized with sevoflurane (P = 0.01). There was no difference in any of the other measured clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The patients anesthetized with propofol appeared to have less pain than patients anesthetized with sevoflurane.

Post-induction alfentanil reduces sevoflurane-associated emergence agitation in children undergoing an adenotonsillectomy.

BACKGROUND: Emergence agitation is a common problem in paediatric anaesthesia, especially after volatile induction and maintenance anaesthesia (VIMA) with sevoflurane. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of alfentanil to prevent emergence agitation without delayed recovery after VIMA with sevoflurane in children undergoing an adenotonsillectomy. METHODS: One hundred and five children, aged 3-10 years, were randomly allocated to receive normal saline (control group), alfentanil 10 microg/kg (A10) or 20 microg/kg (A20) 1 min after loss of the eyelash reflex. Anaesthesia was induced and maintained with sevoflurane. Time to tracheal extubation, recovery time, Paediatric Anaesthesia Emergence Delirium (PAED) scale and emergence behaviour were assessed. RESULTS: The incidence of severe agitation was significantly lower in the A10 and A20 groups compared with those in the control group (11/32 and 12/34 vs. 24/34, respectively) (P=0.007, 0.006, respectively). PAED scales were significantly different between the three groups (P=0.008), and lower in the A10 and A20 groups than that in the control group (P=0.044, 0.013, respectively). However, the incidence of severe agitation and PAED scale was not different between the A10 and the A20 groups. Time to tracheal extubation and recovery time were similar in all three groups. CONCLUSION: The administration of alfentanil 10 microg/kg after induction of anaesthesia for children undergoing an adenotonsillectomy under VIMA reduced the incidence of emergence agitation without delaying the recovery time or causing significant hypotension.

Efficacy of fentanyl or alfentanil in suppressing reflex sneezing after propofol sedation and periocular injection.

PURPOSE: A sneeze reflex may occur after propofol sedation and during periocular injections. Unexpected movement from sneezing can result in needle injury to the globe or optic nerve, or hematoma. We investigate the efficacy of concomitant fentanyl or alfentanil in reducing sneezing following propofol and during periocular injections. METHODS: Our prospective, randomized study included 81 adult patients undergoing conscious sedation prior to periocular injection of local anesthesia. All patients received propofol and were randomized to propofol only (25 patients), propofol plus midazolam (14 patients), propofol plus opioid (31 patients), propofol plus midazolam and opioid (11 patients). Periocular injection of local anesthetic was given in the usual manner. The main outcome measure was sneezing. Patients were also assessed for cardiorespiratory parameters, analgesia, and adverse side effects of sedatives. RESULTS: Of the patients who received no opioid, 17 of 39 (43.6%) sneezed. Of the patients who received an opioid, 0 of 42 sneezed (p < 0.0001 by Fisher exact two-tailed test). Among subjects receiving no opioids, midazolam was associated with a higher incidence of the sneeze reflex, but this was not quite statistically significant (p = 0.09). No adverse cardiorespiratory events were noted and analgesia was universally adequate. CONCLUSIONS: Fentanyl or alfentanil suppressed sneezing after propofol sedation and eyelid anesthetic injection. These medications may prevent needle injury.

Randomized double blind comparison between sciatic-femoral nerve block and propofol-remifentanil, propofol-alfentanil general anesthetics in out-patient knee arthroscopy.

The aim of this study is the evaluation preparation and discharge times as well as the side-effects, patient satisfaction and costs after out-patient knee arthroscopy performed with a combined sciatic-femoral nerve block or a propofol-remifentanil, propofol-alfentanil general anesthetics. Sixty patients, (remifentanil group 1, n = 20), (alfentanil group 2, n = 20) and a combined sciatic-femoral nerve block (PNB group 3, n = 20). In group 1, anesthesia was induced with remifentanil (1 mic kg(-1) followed by 0.5 mic kg(-1) min(-1) i.v), in group 2 alfentanil (20 mic kg(-1) followed by 2 mic kg(-1) min(-1) i.v, in both groups (group 1, 2) propofol was given 2 mg kg(-1) i.v followed by 9 mg kg(-1) h(-1) i.v. Patients then received atracurium 0.6 mg kg(-1) i.v. to facilitate endotracheal intubation. In the PNB group (group 3), patients received a sciatic-femoral nerve block with ropivacaine 25 mL 0.75 mg using a multiple injection technique aided by a nerve stimulator and a short, bevelled, Teflon-coated stimulating needle. There was no significant difference in the duration of stay in the post anesthesia care unit and day surgery unit between groups, there was significant increase in the time to first urination in PNB group than the other two groups. Also there was no significant difference in the stay in delay surgery. The cost of disposal materials, preoperative and post operative times were higher in PNB group. The cost of drugs was higher in remifentanil and alfentanil groups than PNB group; the total cost was insignificant in the three groups. In conclusion, this prospective randomized study suggests that in patients undergoing out-patient arthroscopy, a combined sciatic-femoral nerve block (using a small volume of ropivacaine 0.75%) compared with a propofol-remifentanil or propofol-alfentanil general anesthetics techniques may provide similar intraoperative analgesic efficacy, a shorter length of stay in the PACU and an increased likelihood of bypassing the first phase of postoperative recovery.

Opioid withdrawal syndrome on switching from hydromorphone to alfentanil.

Opioid switching is increasingly practiced. This patient did not tolerate morphine, oxycodone or hydromorphone due to opioid toxicity. Finally switch to alfentanil was performed. The patient developed classical opioid withdrawal symptoms and signs from discontinuation of the hydromorphone. Administration of small aliqouts of this drug reversed the symptoms. The existance of incomplete cross tolerance between hydromorphone and alfentanil is demonstrated.

The effects of different doses of remifentanil on intraocular pressure after tracheal intubation: a randomized, double-blind and prospective study.

We investigated the effects of alfentanil and different doses of remifentanil on intraocular pressure (IOP) and hemodynamic responses during laryngoscopy and endotracheal intubation in 60 patients. IOP values decreased significantly from 30 seconds before the intubation to 5 minutes after intubation measurements compared to baseline values in all the groups. However, a significant increase in IOP was recorded in the 0.5-microg remifentanil group after tracheal intubation.

Prevention of pain on injection of propofol: a comparison of remifentanil with alfentanil in children.

AIM: Propofol has a high incidence of pain on injection, particularly when a vein on the back of hand is used. Administration of lidocaine, either before or mixed with propofol remains the most widely used method to attenuate this pain. The use of opioids such as alfentanil and fentanyl has been found to decrease pain induced by propofol injection. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of different doses of remifentanil and alfentanil in minimizing the pain caused by propofol. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, healthy premedicated children between the age group of 5-12 years admitted for adenotonsillectomy were randomly allocated to one of 6 treatment groups. Group I: remifentanil 0.25 microg kg(-1); Group II: remifentanil 0.50 microg kg(-1); Group III: alfentanil 15 microg kg(-1); Group IV: alfentanil 20 microg kg(-1) 60 s prior to propofol mixed with 1 mL of 0.9% normal saline; Group V: lidocaine 1 mL of 1% (10 mg) added to 100 mg of propofol and Group VI: normal saline. During the injection of propofol (3 mg kg(-1)) pain perception was assessed with a four-point behavioural scale: none, mild, moderate, or severe. RESULTS: There were 52 subjects in Group I, 51 in Group II, 49 in Group III, 52 in Group IV, 52 in Group V and 52 in Group VI; 63.46% of patients in Group I, 39.21% in Group II, 38.77% in Group III, 36.53% in Group IV, 38.46% in Group V and 84.61% in Group VI experienced pain. Statistically, Groups II, III, IV and V were significantly better than placebo in the reduction of propofol pain (P<0.0001). Groups II, III and IV significantly reduced the pain in comparison with Group I (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Pretreatment with intravenous remifentanil 0.5 microg kg(-1), alfentanil 15 microg kg(-1) and 20 microg kg(-1) were equally effective in reducing pain associated with propofol injection in children between the age group of 5-12 years.

Intraoperative low-dose S-ketamine has no preventive effects on postoperative pain and morphine consumption after major urological surgery in children.

BACKGROUND: Clinical studies suggest low-dose ketamine may have preemptive effects on postoperative pain in adults. The objective of this study was to determine whether intraoperative low-dose S-ketamine reduces postoperative pain and morphine consumption in children undergoing major urological surgery. MATERIALS: Thirty children scheduled for major urological surgery were included in this prospective study. Anesthesia was performed as total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with alfentanil and propofol. Fifteen patients additionally received an intravenous bolus of S-ketamine (0.2 mg.kg-1) followed by a continuous infusion of 5 microg.kg-1.min-1, which was stopped immediately after skin closure (Ketamine Group). Another 15 patients received an infusion of saline (CONTROL group). After transfer to the PACU, pain intensity was evaluated using a numeric rating scale (NRS). First patient controlled analgesia (PCA) request, cumulative morphine consumption and pain intensities within the first 72 h were compared. RESULTS: Morphine consumption was not significantly different during the first 72 h ( CONTROL: 0.4 mg.kg-1, 0.24-0.51 mg.kg-1, Ketamine: 0.32 mg.kg-1, 0.19-0.61 mg.kg-1; median, 25-75% percentile; n.s.). However, differences were found in pain intensity during the first postoperative hour ( CONTROL: 4.0, 3.2-4.6, Ketamine: 2.5, 1.3-3.5; median, 25-75% percentile; P<0.05) and in the time to first PCA use ( CONTROL: 37, 28-46 min, Ketamine: 62, 38-68 min; median, 25-75% percentile; P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative low-dose S-ketamine had no effect on morphine consumption during the first 72 h after surgery. The differences in pain intensity and time to first PCA use probably reflect additional sedation and antinociceptive effects of S-ketamine rather than a true 'prevention' of pain.