Combined Dexamethasone and Dexmedetomidine as Adjuncts to Popliteal and Saphenous Nerve Blocks in Patients Undergoing Surgery of the Foot or Ankle: A Randomized, Blinded, Placebo-controlled Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Both dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine increase the duration of analgesia of peripheral nerve blocks. The authors hypothesized that combined intravenous dexamethasone and intravenous dexmedetomidine would result in a greater duration of analgesia when compared with intravenous dexamethasone alone and placebo. METHODS: The authors randomly allocated participants undergoing surgery of the foot or ankle under general anesthesia and with a combined popliteal (sciatic) and saphenous nerve block to a combination of 12 mg dexamethasone and 1 µg/kg dexmedetomidine, 12 mg dexamethasone, or placebo (saline). The primary outcome was the duration of analgesia measured as the time from block performance until the first sensation of pain in the surgical area as reported by the participant. The authors predefined a 33% difference in the duration of analgesia as clinically relevant. RESULTS: A total of 120 participants from two centers were randomized and 119 analyzed for the primary outcome. The median [interquartile range] duration of analgesia was 1,572 min [1,259 to 1,715] with combined dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine, 1,400 min [1,133 to 1,750] with dexamethasone alone, and 870 min [748 to 1,138] with placebo. Compared with placebo, the duration was greater with combined dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine (difference, 564 min; 98.33% CI, 301 to 794; P < 0.001) and with dexamethasone (difference, 489 min; 98.33% CI, 265 to 706; P < 0.001). The prolongations exceeded the authors' predefined clinically relevant difference. The duration was similar when combined dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine was compared with dexamethasone alone (difference, 61 min; 98.33% CI, -222 to 331; P = 0.614). CONCLUSIONS: Dexamethasone with or without dexmedetomidine increased the duration of analgesia in patients undergoing surgery of the foot or ankle with a popliteal (sciatic) and saphenous nerve block. Combined dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine did not increase the duration of analgesia when compared with dexamethasone.

Minimal important difference in postoperative morphine consumption after hip and knee arthroplasty using nausea, vomiting, sedation and dizziness as anchors.

BACKGROUND: Morphine-sparing effects are often used to evaluate non-opioid analgesic interventions. The exact effect that would warrant the implementation of these interventions in clinical practice (a minimally important difference) remains unclear. We aimed to determine this with anchor-based methods. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of three studies investigating pain management after hip or knee arthroplasty (PANSAID [NCT02571361], DEX-2-TKA [NCT03506789] and Pain Map [NCT02340052]). The overall population was median aged 70, median ASA 2, 54% female. We examined the correlation between 0 and 24 h postoperative iv morphine equivalent consumption and the severity of nausea, vomiting, sedation and dizziness. The anchor was different severity degrees of these opioid-related adverse events. The primary outcome was the difference in morphine consumption between patients experiencing no versus only mild events. Secondary outcomes included the difference in morphine consumption between patients with mild versus moderate and moderate versus severe events. We used Hodges-Lehmann median differences, exact Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests and quantile regression. RESULTS: The difference in iv morphine consumption was 6 mg (95% confidence interval: 4-8) between patients with no versus only mild events, 5 mg (2-8) between patients with mild versus moderate events and 0 mg (-4 to 4) between patients with moderate versus severe events. CONCLUSIONS: In populations comparable to this post-hoc analysis (orthopaedic surgery, median age 70 and ASA 2), we suggest a minimally important difference of 5 mg for 0-24 h postoperative iv morphine consumption.

Opioid consumption and non-opioid multimodal analgesic treatment in pain management trials after hip and knee arthroplasties: A meta-epidemiological study.

BACKGROUND: The leading principle in peri-operative pain management is multimodal analgesia, which reduces opioid requirements and associated adverse effects. Pragmatic pain trials should optimally test interventions in addition to multimodal non-opioid analgesics and interventions to ensure clinical relevance and baseline levels of opioid consumption that reflect clinical settings. We aimed to investigate opioid consumption and use of non-opioid analgesics administered adjunct to interventions in post-operative pain trials after total hip and knee arthroplasty. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted 7 January 2020 in The Cochrane Library's CENTRAL, PubMed, and EMBASE. Trials investigating analgesic interventions for post-operative pain in adults undergoing total hip or knee arthroplasty were included. The primary outcome was the aggregated median 0-24 h post-operative opioid consumption. Further, we assessed the use of paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, gabapentinoids, high-dose glucocorticoids, local infiltration analgesia and nerve blocks administered as co-interventions equally to all participants. We assessed trends over time for all outcomes. RESULTS: Of 14,200 records, 570 trials were included. Median 0-24 h opioid consumption was 21 and 22 mg iv morphine equivalents in hip and knee arthroplasty trials, respectively. Meta-regression showed no overall linear correlation between opioid consumption and publication year. The use of multimodal non-opioid analgesia increased over time, though only 48% of trials published from 2010 to 2020 administered two or more non-opioid analgesics. Applying more non-opioid analgesics was associated with lower opioid consumption in intervention groups. CONCLUSION: Post-operative 0-24 h morphine consumption was median 21-22 mg. The demonstrated differences in non-opioid multimodal analgesic regimens between research and clinical settings, can potentially diminish the demonstrated opioid-sparing effects of trial interventions when such are implemented in a clinical context.

Minimal important difference in opioid consumption based on adverse event reduction-A study protocol.

BACKGROUND: The patient-relevant minimal important difference for opioid consumption remains undetermined, despite its frequent use as primary outcome in trials on postoperative pain management. A minimal important difference is necessary to evaluate whether significant trial results are clinically relevant. Further, it can be used as effect size to ensure that trials are powered to find clinically relevant effects. By exploring the dose-response relationship between postoperative opioid consumption and opioid-related adverse effects, we aim to approximate the minimal important difference in opioid consumption anchored to opioid-related adverse effects. METHODS: This is a post-hoc analysis of aggregated data from two clinical trials (PANSAID NCT02571361 and DEX2TKA NCT03506789) and one observational cohort study (Pain Map NCT02340052) on pain management after total hip and knee arthroplasty. The primary outcome is the Hodges-Lehmann median difference in opioid consumption between patients with no opioid-related adverse effects and patients experiencing the mildest degree of one or more opioid-related adverse effects (i.e., mild nausea, sedation and/or dizziness or vomiting). Secondary outcomes include the Hodges-Lehmann median difference in opioid consumption that corresponds to one point on a cumulated opioid-related adverse event 0-10 scale. Further, we will explore the proportion of patients that experience opioid-related adverse effects for consecutive opioid dose intervals of 2 mg iv morphine equivalents. Quantile regression will be used to assess any significant interactions with patient baseline characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: This study will hopefully bring us one step closer to determining relevant opioid reductions and thereby improve our understanding of intervention effects and planning of future trials.

Haloperidol for the Treatment of Delirium in ICU Patients.

BACKGROUND: Haloperidol is frequently used to treat delirium in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), but evidence of its effect is limited. METHODS: In this multicenter, blinded, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned adult patients with delirium who had been admitted to the ICU for an acute condition to receive intravenous haloperidol (2.5 mg 3 times daily plus 2.5 mg as needed up to a total maximum daily dose of 20 mg) or placebo. Haloperidol or placebo was administered in the ICU for as long as delirium continued and as needed for recurrences. The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of the hospital at 90 days after randomization. RESULTS: A total of 1000 patients underwent randomization; 510 were assigned to the haloperidol group and 490 to the placebo group. Among these patients, 987 (98.7%) were included in the final analyses (501 in the haloperidol group and 486 in the placebo group). Primary outcome data were available for 963 patients (97.6%). At 90 days, the mean number of days alive and out of the hospital was 35.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 32.9 to 38.6) in the haloperidol group and 32.9 (95% CI, 29.9 to 35.8) in the placebo group, with an adjusted mean difference of 2.9 days (95% CI, -1.2 to 7.0) (P = 0.22). Mortality at 90 days was 36.3% in the haloperidol group and 43.3% in the placebo group (adjusted absolute difference, -6.9 percentage points [95% CI, -13.0 to -0.6]). Serious adverse reactions occurred in 11 patients in the haloperidol group and in 9 patients in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients in the ICU with delirium, treatment with haloperidol did not lead to a significantly greater number of days alive and out of the hospital at 90 days than placebo. (Funded by Innovation Fund Denmark and others; AID-ICU ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03392376; EudraCT number, 2017-003829-15.).

Perioperative prevention of persistent pain after total hip and knee arthroplasty-Protocol for two systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Between 9% and 20% of patients experience moderate to severe persistent postoperative pain after total hip or knee arthroplasty. Severe immediate postoperative pain limits rehabilitation and is associated with the development of persistent postoperative pain. Therefore, perioperative analgesic and physiotherapeutic interventions are of interest to reduce persistent pain. In two systematic reviews with identical methodology, we aim to investigate the effects of (a) perioperative analgesic interventions and (b) physiotherapeutic interventions in reducing persistent pain after total hip and knee arthroplasty. METHODS: We will include randomised and cluster-randomised controlled trials on perioperative analgesic and physiotherapeutic interventions for patients undergoing elective total hip or knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis. After contact with the authors, trials without pain data 3-24 months postoperatively will be excluded. Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and reference lists will be searched for eligible trials. Two authors will independently screen, extract data and assess the risk of bias. The primary outcome is pain scores 3-24 months postoperatively. Meta-analyses will be performed for interventions with two or more trials. We will conduct trial sequential analyses and assign Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) ratings. CONCLUSION: No previous review on reduction of persistent postoperative pain has included non-pharmacological or invasive analgesic techniques. These two reviews with identical methodology will summarise the evidence of analgesic and physiotherapeutic perioperative interventions to prevent persistent pain. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42021284175.

Telepresence Robots at the Urology and Emergency Department: A Pilot Study Assessing Patients' and Healthcare Workers' Satisfaction.

COVID-19 intensified interest in telemedicine, yet no study has evaluated the use of a telepresence robot on unselected urological patients. Therefore, we performed a survey study of patients, bedside caregivers and urologists, investigating the satisfaction and applicability of a telepresence robot (Beam Pro, Suitable Technologies, USA) at the urology ward and emergency department. The primary outcome was the number of patient encounters solved without the urologist's physical presence. Between March 2021 and May 2021, patients, caregivers, and urologists filled in 42, 35, and 54 questionnaires, respectively. Most patients were male (79%), with a mean age of 64 (SD ± 17). Two of the department's ten urologists participated. The urologists responded that physical examination was required in 7 (13%) encounters. The caregivers would have preferred the urologist physically present in 11 (31%) cases. Most patients (71%) "agreed" or "strongly agreed" that they were willing to be attended by a telepresence robot at future evaluations and generally, patients gave high satisfaction scores. Though implementation among the department's urologists was a major challenge, participating urologists reported that physical presence could be avoided in 87% of the patient encounters. Studies of patient-reported outcome measures comparing telemedical and physical patient encounters are needed.

Adherence to participant flow diagrams in trials on postoperative pain management after total hip and knee arthroplasty: a methodological review.

BACKGROUND: The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement aims to improve transparent reporting of randomised clinical trials. It comprises a participant flow diagram with the reporting of essential numbers for enrolment, allocation and analyses. We aimed to quantify the use of participant flow diagrams in randomised clinical trials on postoperative pain management after total hip and knee arthroplasty. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL up till January 2020. The primary outcome was the proportion of trials with adequate reporting of participant flow diagrams, defined as reporting of number of participants screened for eligibility, randomised and included in the primary analysis. Secondary outcomes were recruitment (randomised:screened) and retention (analysed:randomised) rates, reporting of a statistical strategy, reasons for exclusion from the primary analysis and handling of missing outcome data. Trends over time were assessed with statistical process control. RESULTS: Of the 570 included trials, we found adequate reporting in 240 (42%). Reporting with participant flow diagram increased significantly over time. Median recruitment was 73% (IQR 44-91%), and retention was 97% (IQR 93-100%). These rates did not change over time. Trials with adequate reporting of participant flow were more likely to report a statistical strategy (41% vs 8%), reasons for post-randomisation exclusions (100% vs 55%) and handling of missing outcome data (14% vs 6%). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to participant flow diagrams for RCTs has increased significantly over time. Still, there is room for improvement of adequate reporting of flow diagrams, to increase transparency of trials details.

Minimal clinically important differences in randomised clinical trials on pain management after total hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Sample size determination is essential for reliable hypothesis testing in clinical trials and should rely on adequate sample size calculations with alpha, beta, variance, and an effect size being the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). This facilitates interpretation of the clinical relevance of statistically significant results. No gold standard for MCIDs exists in postoperative pain research. METHODS: We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase for English language articles on randomised trials investigating analgesic interventions after total hip or knee arthroplasty. Primary outcomes were the reported MCIDs for pain score and cumulated rescue opioid consumption. Secondary outcomes included reported sample size calculations and propensity to report statistical significance without reaching MCID. Trend analyses were conducted using statistical process control. RESULTS: We included 570 trials. Median MCID for 0-24 h opioid consumption was 10 mg i.v. morphine equivalents for absolute reductions (interquartile range [IQR]: 6.8-14.5) and relative 40% (IQR: 30-50%). Median MCIDs for pain scores were absolute 15 mm at rest (IQR: 10-20) and 18 mm during movement (IQR: 10-20) on a 0-100 mm VAS and relative 30% (IQR: 20-30%). No trends were demonstrated for MCIDs. Adequate sample size calculations were reported in 34% of trials. In 46% of trials with statistically significant primary outcomes, the differences did not reach the predetermined MCID. CONCLUSIONS: We provide clinician-perceived MCID estimates for rescue opioid consumption and pain scores that can be used for sample size calculations until reliable evidence-based patient-rated MCIDs emerge. Nearly half of the trials with significant findings did not reach the predetermined MCID.

Lower or Higher Oxygenation Targets for Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure.

BACKGROUND: Patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in the intensive care unit (ICU) are treated with supplemental oxygen, but the benefits and harms of different oxygenation targets are unclear. We hypothesized that using a lower target for partial pressure of arterial oxygen (Pao2) would result in lower mortality than using a higher target. METHODS: In this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 2928 adult patients who had recently been admitted to the ICU (≤12 hours before randomization) and who were receiving at least 10 liters of oxygen per minute in an open system or had a fraction of inspired oxygen of at least 0.50 in a closed system to receive oxygen therapy targeting a Pao2 of either 60 mm Hg (lower-oxygenation group) or 90 mm Hg (higher-oxygenation group) for a maximum of 90 days. The primary outcome was death within 90 days. RESULTS: At 90 days, 618 of 1441 patients (42.9%) in the lower-oxygenation group and 613 of 1447 patients (42.4%) in the higher-oxygenation group had died (adjusted risk ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.94 to 1.11; P = 0.64). At 90 days, there was no significant between-group difference in the percentage of days that patients were alive without life support or in the percentage of days they were alive after hospital discharge. The percentages of patients who had new episodes of shock, myocardial ischemia, ischemic stroke, or intestinal ischemia were similar in the two groups (P = 0.24). CONCLUSIONS: Among adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in the ICU, a lower oxygenation target did not result in lower mortality than a higher target at 90 days. (Funded by the Innovation Fund Denmark and others; HOT-ICU ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03174002.).

Cognitive Function During Opioid Tapering in Patients with Chronic Pain: A Prospective Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: Evidence for efficacy and safety lacks for long-term opioid therapy in patients with chronic non-cancer pain and adverse effects, including affection of cognitive function and quality of life, is of concern. We aimed to investigate cognitive function and health-related quality of life in patients with chronic non-cancer pain during opioid reduction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: At two multidisciplinary pain centers, all patients with planned opioid reduction were screened for eligibility. Cognitive function was assessed using the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) and Trail Making Test A and B. Health-related quality of life was assessed using Short Form-36 (SF36) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). RESULTS: We included 51 participants and 40 participants attended follow-up of median 254 (IQR 106-357) days. Baseline RBANS score was 82 (IQR 65-93) with reference population norm value of 100 (SD±15). Daily opioid consumption was reduced from median 80 (IQR 45-161) oral morphine milligram equivalents to 19 (IQR 0-60) mg. RBANS score estimate increased by 6.2 (95% CI 3.1-9.3, p=0.0004) points after tapering. No differences were observed for Trail Making Test times, HADS or SF36 scores. CONCLUSION: Generally, cognitive function showed minor improvement after opioid tapering with stationary health-related quality of life, depression and anxiety scores. The clinical significance is unclear, as no minimal clinically important difference in RBANS score is available.

A systematic review of trial registry entries for randomized clinical trials investigating COVID-19 medical prevention and treatment.

AIM: To identify investigated interventions for COVID-19 prevention or treatment via trial registry entries on planned or ongoing randomised clinical trials. To assess these registry entries for recruitment status, planned trial size, blinding and reporting of mortality. METHODS: We identified trial registry entries systematically via the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and 33 trial registries up to June 23, 2020. We included relevant trial registry entries for randomized clinical trials investigating medical preventive, adjunct or supportive therapies and therapeutics for treatment of COVID-19. Studies with non-random and single-arm design were excluded. Trial registry entries were screened by two authors independently and data were systematically extracted. RESULTS: We included 1303 trial registry entries from 71 countries investigating 381 different single interventions. Blinding was planned in 47% of trials. Sample size was >200 participants in 40% of trials and a total of 611,364 participants were planned for inclusion. Mortality was listed as an outcome in 57% of trials. Recruitment was ongoing in 54% of trials and completed in 8%. Thirty-five percent were multicenter trials. The five most frequent investigational categories were immune modulating drugs (266 trials (20%)), unconventional medicine (167 trials (13%)), antimalarial drugs (118 trials (9%)), antiviral drugs (100 trials (8%)) and respiratory adjuncts (78 trials (6%)). The five most frequently tested uni-modal interventions were: chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine (113 trials with 199,841 participants); convalescent plasma (64 trials with 11,840 participants); stem cells (51 trials with 3,370 participants); tocilizumab (19 trials with 4,139 participants) and favipiravir (19 trials with 3,210 participants). CONCLUSION: An extraordinary number of randomized clinical trials investigating COVID-19 management have been initiated with a multitude of medical preventive, adjunctive and treatment modalities. Blinding will be used in only 47% of trials, which may have influence on future reported treatment effects. Fifty-seven percent of all trials will assess mortality as an outcome facilitating future meta-analyses.

Differences in patient characteristics and external validity of randomized clinical trials on pain management following total hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The external validity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is critical for the relevance of trial results in a clinical setting. We aimed to assess the external validity of RCTs investigating postoperative pain treatment after total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA) by comparing patient characteristics in these trials with a clinical cohort. Further, we assessed the use of exclusion criteria of the included RCTs. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant RCTs up to June 2019. Data on patient characteristics from this research population were compared with an unselected clinical cohort from the Danish Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Registries in the period 2005-2019. Trends in patient characteristics and the use of exclusion criteria were assessed with control charts. RESULTS: In total, 550 RCTs with 48 962 participants were included in the research cohort. The clinical cohort included 101 439 THA patients and 90 505 TKA patients. Patient characteristics (age, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score and sex distribution) in the research cohort resembled those of the clinical cohort. Age, BMI and ASA scores did not change over time in the research cohort. In the clinical cohort, age increased among both THA and TKA patients, and BMI and ASA scores increased among TKA patients. Most commonly used exclusion criteria in the RCTs were high ASA score (62%), older age (45%), obesity (32%) and chronic opioid use (41%). Exclusion of chronic opioid users and individuals with obesity increased over time. CONCLUSION: Patient characteristics in research trials investigating postoperative pain management after THA and TKA currently resemble those of a clinical cohort. However, individuals in the clinical cohort are getting older, and TKA patients more obese with increasing ASA scores. Concomitantly, RCTs increase the tendency to exclude patients with older age, obesity, chronic pain and/or opioid use. This trending discrepancy can hinder the generalizability of future research results, and therefore increased focus on pragmatic trials resembling real-world conditions are needed. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019125691.

Using four different clinical tools as predictors for pain after total hip arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of postoperative pain remains a significant clinical problem, and prediction of patients with a risk of higher postoperative pain levels is an important focus. We aimed to identify patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) with risk of higher pain levels at 24 h postoperatively by using four simple and easily available clinical tools. METHODS: This prospective observational cohort study included 102 patients having THA at Zealand University Hospital in Denmark. The following predictive tools were investigated for identifying patients with higher postoperative pain levels at 24 h postoperatively, both at rest and during mobilization: preoperative pain by peripheral venous cannulation (PVC) (dichotomized according to numerical rating scale pain ≤ 2/> 2 (PVC-Low/PVC-High) (primary outcome); the post anesthesia care unit (PACU) nurses' expectations of patients pain levels; patients early pain levels at the PACU; and patients own forecast of postoperative pain levels. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to analyze comparisons between prediction groups. For the primary outcome we considered a p-value < 0.01 as statistically significant and for other outcomes a p-value of 0.05. RESULTS: We found no significant differences between the PVC groups for pain during mobilization at 24-h postoperatively: PVC-Low: 6 (4-8) (median, (IQR)) versus PVC-High: 7 (5-8) (median, (IQR)), p = 0.10; and for pain at rest: PVC-Low 2 (0-3) (median, (IQR)) versus PVC-High 3 (2-5) (median, (IQR)), p = 0.12. Other comparisons performed between predictive groups did not differ significantly. CONCLUSIONS: In this prospective cohort study of 102 THA patients, we did not find that preoperative pain by PVC, when using a cut-off point of NRS ≤ 2, were able to predict postoperative pain at 24 h postoperatively. Neither did PACU nurses' prediction of pain, patients forecast of pain, nor did maximum pain levels at the PACU. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered 20th February 2018 at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03439566).