Postoperative epidural morphine for postpartum tubal ligation analgesia.

Women undergoing postoperative postpartum tubal ligation (PPTL) often experience considerable pain. We hypothesized that epidural morphine, as part of a multi-modal analgesic regimen, would decrease postoperative pain and the need for systemic analgesia after PPTL. In a double-blinded study, patients were randomized to receive epidural saline or morphine 2 mg, 3 mg, or 4 mg after epidural anesthesia for PPTL. Postoperatively, ibuprofen 600 mg was administered every 6 h and patients could request acetaminophen 325 mg/hydrocodone 10 mg. The primary outcome variable was time to first request for supplemental analgesia. Verbal rating scores for pain and the incidence and severity of side effects were recorded for 24 h. Morphine group subjects requested supplemental analgesia later and received fewer doses compared with the saline group subjects. Peak cramping and incisional verbal rating scores for pain and the area under the verbal rating scores for pain x time curve for cramping pain were less after epidural morphine compared with saline, but there were no differences among morphine groups. Nausea, vomiting, and pruritus occurred more often in all morphine groups and subjects who received morphine 4 mg required treatment for these side effects more frequently than the saline or morphine 2 mg groups. In conclusion, epidural morphine 2 mg as part of a multi-modal analgesic regimen improved analgesia and decreased the need for supplemental analgesics after PPTL. The need to treat side effects with morphine 2 mg was not increased compared to a regimen of oral acetaminophen/opioid/nonsteroidal antiinflammatory analgesics.

Detection of hypoventilation during thoracoscopy: combined cutaneous carbon dioxide tension and oximetry monitoring with a new digital sensor.

BACKGROUND: Changes in Paco(2) have not been described during thoracoscopy under sedation-assisted local anesthesia. We hypothesized that hypoventilation might occur secondary to administration of sedatives and decreased ventilation in one lung. AIM: Prospectively measure cutaneous carbon dioxide tension (Pcco(2)) in addition to pulse oximetric saturation (Spo(2)) using a new combined digital sensor to examine the occurrence of hypoventilation during thoracoscopy under sedation-assisted local anesthesia. SETTING: University hospital. METHODS: Following validation studies, Pcco(2) was prospectively measured in 16 consecutive patients undergoing thoracoscopy under sedation-assisted local anesthesia using a combined digital earlobe sensor measuring Spo(2) (percentage) and Pcco(2) (millimeters of mercury). All patients received supplemental oxygen. Routine BP monitoring and Spo(2) was continued. Patients received IV hydrocodone, 5 mg, and intermittent boluses or IV midazolam and pethidine. RESULTS: Mean baseline Pcco(2) measurement was 39.1 +/- 7.2 mm Hg (+/- SD) [range, 27.5 to 50.5 mm Hg], and peak measurement during the procedure was 52.3 +/- 10.3 mm Hg (range, 37.2 to 77 mm Hg) [p < 0.001]. Median and mean changes in Pcco(2) measurement from baseline were 13.0 mm Hg and 13.2 +/- 5.3 mm Hg (range, 5.5 to 27.8 mm Hg), respectively. Mean fall in Spo(2) during the procedure was 4.6 +/- 3.2% (range, 1 to 14%). CONCLUSIONS: Thoracoscopy performed under sedation-assisted local anesthesia is associated with significant hypoventilation. Combined measurement of Spo(2) and Pcco(2) during thoracoscopy is a novel approach in the monitoring of ventilation, enhancing patient safety, and might allow to guide the administration of sedation in a better way.

Combination hydrocodone and ibuprofen versus combination oxycodone and acetaminophen in the treatment of moderate or severe acute low back pain.

BACKGROUND: Introduced in 1997, the combination of hydrocodone and ibuprofen is the only fixed-dose combination analgesic containing an opioid and ibuprofen that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of combination hydrocodone 7.5 mg and ibuprofen 200 mg (HC/IB) with those of combination oxycodone 5 mg and acetaminophen 325 mg (OX/AC) in the treatment of moderate or severe acute low back pain. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, repeat-dose study lasting up to 8 days. The recommended dosing of the study medications was 1 tablet every 4 to 6 hours, not to exceed 5 tablets per day. If adequate pain relief was not obtained, patients were permitted to take up to 4 doses per day of supplemental analgesic medication-the nonopioid component of the assigned study medication (ibuprofen 200 mg or acetaminophen 325 mg). Measures of efficacy included mean daily pain relief scores (0 = no relief, 1 = slight relief, 2 = moderate relief, 3 = good relief, and 4 = complete relief), mean daily number of tablets and doses of study medication, mean daily number of tablets and doses of supplemental analgesic medication, global evaluation (poor, fair, good, very good, or excellent), and results on the modified 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). All efficacy measures were analyzed on an intent-to-treat basis. Tolerability was evaluated based on adverse events reported spontaneously or elicited by the in vestigators using nonsuggestive questioning, as well as on the number of patients discontinuing treatment because of adverse events. RESULTS: The study enrolled 147 patients (75 HC/IB, 72 OX/AC). The most common cause of low back pain was muscular/ligamentous injury (97/147; 66.0%), followed by degenerative disk disease (27/147; 18.4%). At baseline, 80 patients (54.4%) reported experiencing moderate pain, and 67 patients (45.6%) reported experiencing severe pain. There were no significant differences between HC/IB and OX/AC with regard to mean ( +/- SD) daily pain relief scores (2.40 +/- 1.06 vs 2.50 +/- 1.01, respectively), mean daily number of tablets of study medication (1.80 +/- 1.70 vs 2.20 +/- 1.60), mean daily number of doses of study medication (1.80 +/- 1.65 vs 2.10 +/- 1.58), mean daily number of tablets of supplemental analgesic medication (0.60 +/- 1.13 vs 0.50 +/- 0.99), mean daily number of doses of supplemental analgesic medication (0.60 +/- 1.07 vs 0.50 +/- 0.90), global evaluations, or mean scores on the modified SF-36. In addition, there were no significant differences in the proportion of patients experiencing adverse events with HC/IB (47; 62.7%) and OX/AC (45; 62.5%). Adverse events were consistent with those generally associated with the component analgesics and predominantly involved the central nervous system and gastrointestinal system. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that HC/IB and OX/AC are similarly effective and tolerable in relieving moderate or severe acute low back pain. Additional controlled longitudinal trials are necessary to evaluate the clinical utility of HC/IB in treating acute low back pain.

Combination hydrocodone and ibuprofen versus combination codeine and acetaminophen for the treatment of chronic pain.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of combination hydrocodone 7.5 mg and ibuprofen 200 mg with that of combination codeine 30 mg and acetaminophen 300 mg for the treatment of chronic pain. BACKGROUND: Hydrocodone 7.5 mg with ibuprofen 200 mg is the only approved fixed-dose combination analgesic containing an opioid and ibuprofen. METHODS: In this randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, repeated-dose, active-comparator, 4-week, multicenter study, 469 patients were randomly assigned to receive a 1-tablet (n = 156) or 2-tablet (n = 153) dose of combination hydrocodone 7.5 mg and ibuprofen 200 mg (HI1 and HI2, respectively) or a 2-tablet dose of combination codeine 30 mg and acetaminophen 300 mg (CA, n = 160), the active comparator, every 6 to 8 hours as needed for pain. Efficacy was measured through pain relief scores, number of daily doses of study medication, number of daily doses of supplemental analgesics, number of patients who discontinued therapy due to an unsatisfactory analgesic response, and global assessment scores. RESULTS: Of the 469 patients, 255 (54.4%) were female and 214 (45.6%) were male. The mean age was 51.1 years. Types of chronic pain included back (214; 45.6%), arthritic (145; 30.9%), other musculoskeletal (65; 13.9%), cancer (6; 1.3%), diabetic neuropathic (3; 0.6%), postherpetic neuralgic (5; 1.1%), other neurologic (21; 4.5%), and other unclassified chronic pain (10; 2.1%). During the 48 hours prior to the study, 351 (74.8%) patients had been treated with opioid or opioid-nonopioid combination analgesics. The overall mean daily pain relief score was significantly greater in the HI2 group (2.25+/-0.89) than in the HI1 group (1.98+/-0.87) (P = 0.003) or the CA group (1.85+/-0.96) (P < 0.001). The overall mean number of daily doses of study medication was significantly less in the HI2 group (2.94+/-0.99) than in the HI1 group (3.23+/-0.76) (P = 0.036) or the CA group (3.26+/-0.75) (P = 0.014). The overall mean number of daily doses of supplemental analgesics was significantly less in the HI2 group (0.24+/-0.49) than in the HI1 group (0.34+/-0.58) (P = 0.021) or CA group (0.49+/-0.85) (P = 0.010). The number of patients who discontinued treatment due to an unsatisfactory analgesic response was significantly less in the HI2 group (2; 1.3%) than in the CA group (12; 7.5%) (P = 0.008). HI2 was more effective than HI1 and CA as measured by pain relief scores for week 1 (P < 0.001 vs HI1 and CA), week 2 (P < 0.001 vs HI1 and CA), and week 3 (P = 0.008 vs HI1 and P < 0.001 vs CA); daily doses of study medication for week 1 (P = 0.019 vs HI1 and P = 0.011 vs CA); daily doses of supplemental analgesics for week 1 (P = 0.010 vs HI1 and CA); and global assessment scores for week 1 (P = 0.018 vs HI1 and P < 0.001 vs CA), week 2 (P = 0.005 vs HI1 and P < 0.001 vs CA), and week 4 (P = 0.013 vs HI1 and P = 0.023 vs CA). There were no significant differences between HI1 and CA in any efficacy variable. There were no significant differences in the number of patients experiencing adverse events in the HI2 (127; 83%), HI1 (124; 79.5%), and CA (129; 80.6%) groups. However, the mean number of patients who discontinued treatment due to adverse events was significantly greater in the HI2 group (40; 26.1%) than in the HI1 group (23; 14.7%) (P = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that 2-tablet doses of combination hydrocodone 7.5 mg and ibuprofen 200 mg may be more effective than either 1-tablet doses of this combination or 2-tablet doses of combination codeine 30 mg and acetaminophen 300 mg. Moreover, 1-tablet doses of combination hydrocodone 7.5 mg and ibuprofen 200 mg may be as effective as 2-tablet doses of combination codeine 30 mg and acetaminophen 300 mg.