Surgery and opioids: evidence-based expert consensus guidelines on the perioperative use of opioids in the United Kingdom.

There are significant concerns regarding prescription and misuse of prescription opioids in the perioperative period. The Faculty of Pain Medicine at the Royal College of Anaesthetists have produced this evidence-based expert consensus guideline on surgery and opioids along with the Royal College of Surgery, Royal College of Psychiatry, Royal College of Nursing, and the British Pain Society. This expert consensus practice advisory reproduces the Faculty of Pain Medicine guidance. Perioperative stewardship of opioids starts with judicious opioid prescribing in primary and secondary care. Before surgery, it is important to assess risk factors for continued opioid use after surgery and identify those with chronic pain before surgery, some of whom may be taking opioids. A multidisciplinary perioperative care plan that includes a prehabilitation strategy and intraoperative and postoperative care needs to be formulated. This may need the input of a pain specialist. Emphasis is placed on optimum management of pain pre-, intra-, and postoperatively. The use of immediate-release opioids is preferred in the immediate postoperative period. Attention to ensuring a smooth care transition and communication from secondary to primary care for those taking opioids is highlighted. For opioid-naive patients (patients not taking opioids before surgery), no more than 7 days of opioid prescription is recommended. Persistent use of opioid needs a medical evaluation and exclusion of chronic post-surgical pain. The lack of grading of the evidence of each individual recommendation remains a major weakness of this guidance; however, evidence supporting each recommendation has been rigorously reviewed by experts in perioperative pain management.

Establishing the characteristics for patients with chronic Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: the value of the CRPS-UK Registry.

OBJECTIVE: The long-term prognosis of patients with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) is unknown with no reported prospective studies from the United Kingdom longer than 18 months. The CRPS-UK Network aims to study this by use of a Registry. The aims of this article are, to outline the CRPS-UK Registry, assess the validity of the data and to describe the characteristics of a sample of the UK CRPS population. METHODS: A web-based CRPS-UK Registry was developed and made accessible to centres experienced in diagnosing and managing patients with CRPS. Pragmatic annual follow-up questions were agreed. RESULTS: Up until July 2013, the Registry has recruited 240 patients. A blinded, validation study of 20 consecutive patients from two centres (10 each) demonstrated 95.6% completion and 99.4% accuracy of a random sample of the recorded data. These patients had chronic disease (median duration: 29 months); 72.5% were female (2.6:1), with a mean age at symptoms onset of 43 years, and were left-handed more than expected (21.8% versus 10% in the general population). Patients reported a delayed diagnosis, with the median time between symptom onset and diagnosis of 6 months. In all, 30 patients (12.5%) had multiple limb involvement and (83.3%) had a contiguous spread of CRPS. CONCLUSION: CRPS-UK Registry is a validated method for actively recruiting well-characterised patients with CRPS to provide further information on the long-term outcome.

PAin SoluTions In the Emergency Setting (PASTIES)--patient controlled analgesia versus routine care in emergency department patients with non-traumatic abdominal pain: randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patient controlled analgesia (PCA) is better than routine care in providing effective analgesia for patients presenting to emergency departments with moderate to severe non-traumatic abdominal pain. DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicentre, parallel group, randomised controlled trial SETTING: Five English hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: 200 adults (66% (n=130) female), aged 18 to 75 years, who presented to the emergency department requiring intravenous opioid analgesia for the treatment of moderate to severe non-traumatic abdominal pain and were expected to be admitted to hospital for at least 12 hours. INTERVENTIONS: Patient controlled analgesia or nurse titrated analgesia (treatment as usual). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was total pain experienced over the 12 hour study period, derived by standardised area under the curve (scaled from 0 to 100) of each participant's hourly pain scores, captured using a visual analogue scale. Pre-specified secondary outcomes included total morphine use, percentage of study period in moderate or severe pain, percentage of study period asleep, length of hospital stay, and satisfaction with pain management. RESULTS: 196 participants were included in the primary analyses (99 allocated to PCA and 97 to treatment as usual). Mean total pain experienced was 35.3 (SD 25.8) in the PCA group compared with 47.3 (24.7) in the treatment as usual group. The adjusted between group difference was 6.3 (95% confidence interval 0.7 to 11.9). Participants in the PCA group received significantly more morphine (mean 36.1 (SD 22.4) v 23.6 (13.1) mg; mean difference 12.3 (95% confidence interval 7.2 to 17.4) mg), spent less of the study period in moderate or severe pain (32.6% v 46.9%; mean difference 14.5% (5.6% to 23.5%)), and were more likely to be perfectly or very satisfied with the management of their pain (83% (73/88) v 66% (57/87); adjusted odds ratio 2.56 (1.25 to 5.23)) in comparison with participants in the treatment as usual group. CONCLUSIONS: Significant reductions in pain can be achieved by PCA compared with treatment as usual in patients presenting to the emergency department with non-traumatic abdominal pain. Trial registration European Clinical Trials Database EudraCT2011-000194-31; Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN25343280.

PAin SoluTions In the Emergency Setting (PASTIES)--patient controlled analgesia versus routine care in emergency department patients with pain from traumatic injuries: randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether patient controlled analgesia (PCA) is better than routine care in patients presenting to emergency departments with moderate to severe pain from traumatic injuries. DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicentre, parallel group, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Five English hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: 200 adults (71% (n = 142) male), aged 18 to 75 years, who presented to the emergency department requiring intravenous opioid analgesia for the treatment of moderate to severe pain from traumatic injuries and were expected to be admitted to hospital for at least 12 hours. INTERVENTIONS: PCA (n = 99) or nurse titrated analgesia (treatment as usual; n = 101). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was total pain experienced over the 12 hour study period, derived by standardised area under the curve (scaled from 0 to 100) of each participant's hourly pain scores, captured using a visual analogue scale. Pre-specified secondary outcomes included total morphine use, percentage of study period in moderate/severe pain, percentage of study period asleep, length of hospital stay, and satisfaction with pain management. RESULTS: 200 participants were included in the primary analyses. Mean total pain experienced was 47.2 (SD 21.9) for the treatment as usual group and 44.0 (24.0) for the PCA group. Adjusted analyses indicated slightly (but not statistically significantly) lower total pain experienced in the PCA group than in the routine care group (mean difference 2.7, 95% confidence interval -2.4 to 7.8). Participants allocated to PCA used more morphine in total than did participants in the treatment as usual group (mean 44.3 (23.2) v 27.2 (18.2) mg; mean difference 17.0, 11.3 to 22.7). PCA participants spent, on average, less time in moderate/severe pain (36.2% (31.0) v 44.1% (31.6)), but the difference was not statistically significant. A higher proportion of PCA participants reported being perfectly or very satisfied compared with the treatment as usual group (86% (78/91) v 76% (74/98)), but this was also not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: PCA provided no statistically significant reduction in pain compared with routine care for emergency department patients with traumatic injuries. Trial registration European Clinical Trials Database EudraCT2011-000194-31; Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN25343280.

Does transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) alleviate the pain experienced during bone marrow sampling in addition to standard techniques? A randomised, double-blinded, controlled trial.

AIMS: Bone marrow aspiration and trephine (BMAT) biopsies remain important tests in haematology. However, the procedures can be moderately to severely painful despite standard methods of pain relief. To test the efficacy of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) in alleviating the pain from BMAT in addition to standard analgesia using a numerical pain rating scale (NRS). METHODS: 70 patients requiring BMAT were randomised (1:1) in a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. -35 patients received TENS impulses at a strong but comfortable amplitude (intervention group) and 35 patients received TENS impulses just above the sensory threshold (control group) (median pulse amplitude 20 and 7 mA, respectively). Patients and operators were blinded to group allocation. Pain assessments were made using a numerical pain scale completed after the procedure. RESULTS: No significant difference in NRS pain recalled after the procedure was detected (median pain score 5.7 (95% CI 4.8 to 6.6) in control vs 5.6 (95% CI 4.8 to 6.4) in the intervention group). However, 100% of patients who had previous experience of BMAT and >94% of participants overall felt they benefited from using TENS and would recommend it to others for this procedure. There were no side effects from the TENS device, and it was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: TENS is a safe, non-invasive adjunct to analgesia for reducing pain during bone marrow biopsy and provides a subjective benefit to most users; however, no objective difference in pain scores was detected when using TENS in this randomised controlled study. CLINICAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02005354.

Diagnosis, mechanisms and treatment of complex regional pain syndrome.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The incidence and disease course of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) has been unclear until recently. This was due to inconsistent diagnostic criteria used in previous studies and a lack of large-scale prospective datasets. Multiple mechanisms of CRPS have been suggested, and recent research has begun to explain how inflammation, the immune system and the autonomic nervous system may interact with aberrant central neuroplasticity to produce the clinical picture. This review summarizes progress in these fields. RECENT FINDINGS: National registries of patients with CRPS have provided us with an invaluable insight into the epidemiology of the disorder. We now have a better understanding of the disease course and expected outcome. Widespread sensory abnormalities, not limited to the CRPS limb, have been found suggesting that systemic changes may occur. Parietal lobe dysfunction and problems with sensory-motor integration have also been revealed. Abnormalities in the immune system in CRPS have also been demonstrated. SUMMARY: Recent findings in diverse research fields suggest novel treatment options for CRPS: from targeting autoimmunity to correcting abnormal body image. Many of the advances in our understanding of CRPS have arisen from the development of collaborative research efforts, such as the TREND group in the Netherlands.

PAin SoluTions In the Emergency Setting (PASTIES); a protocol for two open-label randomised trials of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) versus routine care in the emergency department.

INTRODUCTION: Pain is the commonest reason that patients present to an emergency department (ED), but it is often not treated effectively. Patient controlled analgesia (PCA) is used in other hospital settings but there is little evidence to support its use in emergency patients. We describe two randomised trials aiming to compare PCA to nurse titrated analgesia (routine care) in adult patients who present to the ED requiring intravenous opioid analgesia for the treatment of moderate to severe pain and are subsequently admitted to hospital. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Two prospective multi-centre open-label randomised trials of PCA versus routine care in emergency department patients who require intravenous opioid analgesia followed by admission to hospital; one trial involving patients with traumatic musculoskeletal injuries and the second involving patients with non-traumatic abdominal pain. In each trial, 200 participants will be randomised to receive either routine care or PCA, and followed for the first 12 h of their hospital stay. The primary outcome measure is hourly pain score recorded by the participant using a visual analogue scale (VAS) over the 12 h study period, with the primary statistical analyses based on the area under the curve of these pain scores. Secondary outcomes include total opioid use, side effects, time spent asleep, patient satisfaction, length of hospital stay and incremental cost effectiveness ratio. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is approved by the South Central-Southampton A Research Ethics Committee (REC reference 11/SC/0151). Data collection will be completed by August 2013, with statistical analyses starting after all final data queries are resolved. Dissemination plans include presentations at local, national and international scientific meetings held by relevant Colleges and societies. Publications should be ready for submission during 2014. A lay summary of the results will be available to study participants on request, and disseminated via a publically accessible website. REGISTRATION DETAILS: The study is registered with the European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT Number: 2011-000194-31) and is on the ISCRTN register (ISRCTN25343280).