Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 51
Filtrar
2.
Can J Anaesth ; 2020 Nov 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33170454

RESUMO

PURPOSE: Opioids are the most widely used therapy for pain during the postoperative period. It has been suggested by some that hydromorphone is clinically superior. Our primary objective was to determine if there is a difference in postoperative pain score ratings between adult patients receiving intravenous hydromorphone vs intravenous morphine on discharge from the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU). METHODS: For this historical cohort study, convenience sampling was used to identify the first 605 patients ≥ 18 yr undergoing elective, non-cardiac surgery. Patients were categorized based on treatment in the PACU with hydromorphone (n = 326) or morphine (n = 279). Pain scores (scale of 0-10), nausea/vomiting (scale of 0-3), pruritis (scale of 0-3), and sedation (scale of 0-4), as well as total opioid dose administered from arrival in the PACU until readiness to discharge were evaluated. RESULTS: For the primary outcome of pain reported at discharge from the PACU, there was no significant difference between the mean (standard deviation) hydromorphone numeric rating scale (NRS) [2.8 (1.6)] and the morphine NRS [2.5 (1.5)] after adjusting for potential confounders (adjusted mean difference, 0.10; 95% confidence interval, -0.21 to 0.42; P = 0.53). Similarly, there were no significant between-group differences in length of stay in the PACU, satisfactory analgesia, nausea/vomiting, and sedation. CONCLUSION: This study serves to help guide the decision-making process for selecting either morphine or hydromorphone for acute postoperative analgesia. Overall, we found no significant difference for analgesia or for common opioid-related adverse effects between these two opioids in the postoperative period at the time of discharge from the PACU. Furthermore, according to this data, the equipotency ratio of hydromorphone to morphine is closer to 1:6.5 rather than the commonly employed 1:5 ratio.

3.
Br J Anaesth ; 2020 Oct 28.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33129489

RESUMO

In many countries, liberalisation of the legislation regulating the use of cannabis has outpaced rigorous scientific studies, and a growing number of patients presenting for surgery consume cannabis regularly. Research to date suggests that cannabis can impact perioperative outcomes. We present recommendations obtained using a modified Delphi method for the perioperative care of cannabis-using patients. A steering committee was formed and a review of medical literature with respect to perioperative cannabis use was conducted. This was followed by the recruitment of a panel of 17 experts on the care of cannabis-consuming patients. Panellists were blinded to each other's participation and were provided with rater forms exploring the appropriateness of specific perioperative care elements. The completed rater forms were analysed for consensus. The expert panel was then unblinded and met to discuss the rater form analyses. Draft recommendations were then created and returned to the expert panel for further comment. The draft recommendations were also sent to four independent reviewers (a surgeon, a nurse practitioner, and two patients). The collected feedback was used to finalise the recommendations. The major recommendations obtained included emphasising the importance of eliciting a history of cannabis use, quantifying it, and ensuring contact with a cannabis authoriser (if one exists). Recommendations also included the consideration of perioperative cannabis weaning, additional postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis, and additional attention to monitoring and maintaining anaesthetic depth. Postoperative recommendations included anticipating increased postoperative analgesic requirements and maintaining vigilance for cannabis withdrawal syndrome.

4.
Neurol India ; 68(5): 1101-1105, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33109859

RESUMO

Background: Stress response to surgery is mediated by the sympathetic nervous system and manifests as changes in hemodynamic and neuroendocrine parameters. Recently, the surgical pleth index (SPI) is employed for objective and continuous monitoring of nociceptive response during surgery. Opioids are the mainstay of managing stress response to nociception during the perioperative period. However, due to the well-known adverse effects of opioids, α2 agonists are increasingly used to ablate stress response and reduce opioid usage. Objectives: This study compared SPI and biomarkers of surgical stress between opioid (fentanyl) and non-opioid (dexmedetomidine) analgesia during craniotomy. Methods: Patients aged 18 to 60 years undergoing elective craniotomies for brain tumor resection under general anesthesia were randomized to receive fentanyl 1 µg/kg/h or dexmedetomidine 0.5 µ/kg/h infusion as the primary intraoperative analgesic. Our objective was to compare SPI and biomarkers of surgical stress-serum cortisol, blood glucose, arterial pH, and leucocyte count between the two groups. Results: Data of all 24 patients recruited into the study were analyzed. There was no difference in the demographic parameters between the groups. The SPI remained similar with both the drugs over various time points during the study period. There was no difference between the groups in the biomarkers of surgical stress-cortisol, blood glucose, and pH while leucocyte count was higher in the fentanyl group. Conclusions: The stress response to surgery during craniotomy for brain tumors is similar with opioid (fentanyl) and non-opioid (dexmedetomidine) analgesia as assessed by SPI and blood markers such as cortisol, glucose, and pH.

5.
Anesthesiology ; 2020 09 29.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32991672

RESUMO

Opioids form an important component of general anesthesia and perioperative analgesia. Discharge opioid prescriptions are identified as a contributor for persistent opioid use and diversion. In parallel, there is increased enthusiasm to advocate opioid-free strategies, which include a combination of known analgesics and adjuvants, many of which are in the form of continuous infusions. This article critically reviews perioperative opioid use, especially in view of opioid-sparing versus opioid-free strategies. The data indicate that opioid-free strategies, however noble in their cause, do not fully acknowledge the limitations and gaps within the existing evidence and clinical practice considerations. Moreover, they do not allow analgesic titration based on patient needs; are unclear about optimal components and their role in different surgical settings and perioperative phases; and do not serve to decrease the risk of persistent opioid use, thereby distracting us from optimizing pain and minimizing realistic long-term harms.

6.
Br J Anaesth ; 125(5): 779-801, 2020 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32798067

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Despite common use, the benefit of adding steroids to local anaesthetics (SLA) for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) injections is uncertain. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of English-language RCTs to assess the benefit and safety of adding steroids to local anaesthetics (LA) for CNCP. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases from inception to May 2019. Trial selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Outcomes were guided by the Initiative in Methods, Measurements, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) statement with pain improvement as the primary outcome and pooled using random effects model and reported as relative risks (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Among 5097 abstracts, 73 trials were eligible. Although SLA increased the rate of success (42 trials, 3592 patients; RR=1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.25; number needed to treat [NNT], 13), the effect size decreased by nearly 50% (NNT, 22) with the removal of two intrathecal injection studies. The differences in pain scores with SLA were not clinically meaningful (54 trials, 4416 patients, MD=0.44 units; 95% CI, 0.24-0.65). No differences were observed in other outcomes or adverse events. No subgroup effects were detected based on clinical categories. Meta-regression showed no significant association with steroid dose or length of follow-up and pain relief. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of cortico steroids to local anaesthetic has only small benefits and a potential for harm. Injection of local anaesthetic alone could be therapeutic, beyond being diagnostic. A shared decision based on patient preferences should be considered. If used, one must avoid high doses and series of steroid injections. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO #: CRD42015020614.


Assuntos
Corticosteroides/uso terapêutico , Anestésicos Locais/uso terapêutico , Dor Crônica/tratamento farmacológico , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Corticosteroides/efeitos adversos , Anestésicos Locais/efeitos adversos , Humanos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Resultado do Tratamento
8.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 99(15): e19721, 2020 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32282729

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Moderate to severe postoperative pain and associated opioid use may interfere with patients' well-being and course of recovery. Regional anesthetic techniques provide an opportunity for opioid sparing and improved patient outcomes. A new regional technique called the erector spinae plane (ESP) block has the potential to provide effective analgesia after shoulder arthroscopy with minimal risks and decreased opioid consumption. Our primary objective is to determine whether, in patients who undergo arthroscopic shoulder surgery, a preoperative ESP block reduces pain scores as compared to periarticular infiltration at the end of surgery. Additionally, we will also examine other factors such as opioid consumption, sensory block, adverse events, patient satisfaction, and persistent pain. METHODS: This is a 2-arm, single-center, parallel-design, double-blind randomized controlled trial of 60 patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery. Eligible patients will be recruited in the preoperative clinic. Using a computer-generated randomization, with a 1:1 allocation ratio, patients will be randomized to either the ESP or periarticular infiltration group. Patients will be followed in hospital in the postanesthesia care unit, at 24 hours, and at 1 month. The study with be analyzed as intention-to-treat. DISCUSSION: This study will inform an evidence-based choice in recommending ESP block for shoulder arthroscopy, as well as providing safety data. The merits of the study include its double dummy blinding to minimize observer bias, and its assessment of patient important outcomes, including pain scores, opioid consumption, and patient satisfaction. This study will also help provide an estimate of the incidence of side effects and complications of the ESP block. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03691922; Recruited Date of registration: October 2, 2018.


Assuntos
Artroscopia/efeitos adversos , Bloqueio Nervoso/métodos , Músculos Paraespinais/diagnóstico por imagem , Ombro/cirurgia , Ultrassonografia de Intervenção/métodos , Analgésicos Opioides/normas , Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapêutico , Anestesia Local/métodos , Canadá/epidemiologia , Método Duplo-Cego , Economia/estatística & dados numéricos , Feminino , Humanos , Incidência , Masculino , Bloqueio Nervoso/efeitos adversos , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Dor Pós-Operatória/tratamento farmacológico , Dor Pós-Operatória/epidemiologia , Músculos Paraespinais/efeitos dos fármacos , Músculos Paraespinais/inervação , Satisfação do Paciente , Ombro/patologia , Resultado do Tratamento
9.
J Pain Res ; 13: 377-387, 2020.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32104059

RESUMO

Purpose: We conducted a feasibility 2×2 factorial trial comparing N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) antagonists (intravenous ketamine and oral memantine) versus placebo and intravenous steroids versus placebo, in patients having elective video-assisted thoracic surgery lobectomies, at St. Joseph's Hamilton, Canada, and Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, USA. Our feasibility objectives were: 1) recruitment rate/week; 2) recruitment of ≥90% of eligible patients; and 3) >90% follow-up. Secondary objectives were incidence and intensity of persistent post-surgical pain (PPSP) and other clinical and safety outcomes. Methods: Using computerized randomization, patients were allocated to one of four groups: NMDA active with steroid placebo; NMDA placebo with steroid active; both NMDA and steroid active; both NMDA and steroid placebo. Patients, health providers, and data analysts were blinded to allocation. Patients were followed for 3 months after randomization. Results: The trial was initiated in May 2017 at Hamilton and, after subsequent regulatory and ethics approval, in April 2018 at Cleveland. The trial had to be stopped after only 1 month of recruitment in Cleveland because the packaged study medications (memantine) expired and we were unable to procure the dosage required. Among 41 eligible patients, 27 (66%) were randomized. The recruitment rate/week was 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.47-0.79 in Hamilton; and 1, 95% CI: 0.83-1.17 in Cleveland. Follow-up was complete for all 24 patients (100%) in Hamilton, and 3 of 4 patients in Cleveland. In total, only 4 patients (15%), and 2 patients (7%) had persistent pain at rest and with movement, respectively. There were no significant differences between groups for other outcomes. Conclusion: The trial had to be stopped prematurely due to non-availability of study medications. Trial feasibility objectives of recruiting 90% of eligible patients and recruiting at least one patient/week per site were not met. Consideration for protocol changes will be necessary for the full trial. Trial Registration: NCT02950233.

10.
Can J Anaesth ; 67(3): 343-352, 2020 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31802414

RESUMO

PURPOSE: The use of interventional pain management (IPM) modalities to alleviate chronic pain is increasing despite the lack of high-quality evidence. We undertook this survey to explore patterns, training, and attributes of IPM practice. METHODS: We administered a 32-item survey via seven Canadian physician member organizations, whose members were engaged in the management of chronic pain. RESULTS: Of 777 physicians contacted, 256 (33%) responded: 45 (6%) declined to participate and 211 (27%) agreed to participate; the number of participants answering any given question varied. One hundred and sixty-nine of 194 (87%) practiced IPM and 103 of 194 (53%) managed only non-cancer pain. Pain management training of ≥ six months was associated with higher odds of IPM training (odds ratio [OR], 2.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32 to 6.7), but not necessarily ongoing IPM practice (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 0.74 to 5.3). A substantial percentage of physicians (108 of 168 [64%]) practiced IPM based only on training received during either their base residency program or courses. Only 48 of 186 (26%) felt that there were adequate opportunities for IPM training, and 69 of 186 (37%) believed that their colleagues practiced IPM in accordance with the best current evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey indicates that IPM practice and training were not uniform, and that interventional therapies for chronic pain may not be performed in accordance with the best available evidence. Our survey highlights a lack of IPM training opportunities, which may result in substandard training. Concerted efforts involving physician organizations and regulators are needed to standardize IPM training and develop clinical guidelines to optimize evidence-based practice.

11.
Can J Neurol Sci ; 46(4): 415-422, 2019 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31293233

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Post-craniotomy pain can be severe and is often undermanaged. Opioids can interfere with neurological monitoring and are associated with adverse effects. This systematic review aimed to identify measures of opioid-free analgesia and compare their effectiveness with opioid analgesia for post-craniotomy pain in patients with supratentorial tumors. METHODS: EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases were searched from their inception to February 14, 2017, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating opioid versus non-opioid analgesia post-supratentorial craniotomy. Two reviewers independently carried out study selection and data extraction. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Outcomes were pain control (changes to pain scores or use of rescue analgesia) and adverse effects. Considering the number of studies and heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis was done without pooling and results were summarized using tables. Non-opioids were assessed for the potential to be equivalent to opioid-based analgesics for pain relief and adverse effects. RESULTS: Of 467 RCTs, 4 met our inclusion criteria (n = 186 patients). Patients with scalp blocks (2 RCTs) had less post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV), but scalp block was not superior to morphine for analgesia. Acetaminophen (1 RCT) was less likely to induce PONV but provided inadequate pain relief compared to morphine and sufentanil. Dexmedetomidine (1 RCT) was not superior to remifentanil for analgesia although it delayed time to rescue analgesia. CONCLUSIONS: Limited evidence suggests that scalp blocks and dexmedetomidine have the potential to eliminate the need for opioid analgesia. Multimodal analgesia should be considered as significant opioid-sparing effects have been shown.


Assuntos
Analgésicos não Entorpecentes/uso terapêutico , Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapêutico , Craniotomia/efeitos adversos , Dor Pós-Operatória/tratamento farmacológico , Neoplasias Supratentoriais/cirurgia , Humanos , Manejo da Dor/métodos
12.
Br J Anaesth ; 123(2): e333-e342, 2019 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31153631

RESUMO

Until recently, the belief that adequate pain management was not achievable while patients remained on buprenorphine was the impetus for the perioperative discontinuation of buprenorphine. We aimed to use an expert consensus Delphi-based survey technique to 1) specify the need for perioperative guidelines in this context and 2) offer a set of recommendations for the perioperative management of these patients. The major recommendation of this practice advisory is to continue buprenorphine therapy in the perioperative period. It is rarely appropriate to reduce the buprenorphine dose irrespective of indication or formulation. If analgesia is inadequate after optimisation of adjunct analgesic therapies, we recommend initiating a full mu agonist while continuing buprenorphine at some dose. The panel believes that before operation, physicians must distinguish between buprenorphine use for chronic pain (weaning/conversion from long-term high-dose opioids) and opioid use disorder (OUD) as the primary indication for buprenorphine therapy. Patients should ideally be discharged on buprenorphine, although not necessarily at their preoperative dose. Depending on analgesic requirements, they may be discharged on a full mu agonist. Overall, long-term buprenorphine treatment retention and harm reduction must be considered during the perioperative period when OUD is a primary diagnosis. The authors recognise that inter-patient variability will require some individualisation of clinical practice advisories. Clinical practice advisories are largely based on lower classes of evidence (level 4, level 5). Further research is required in order to implement meaningful changes in practitioner behaviour for this patient group.


Assuntos
Buprenorfina/administração & dosagem , Dor Crônica/tratamento farmacológico , Técnica Delfos , Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Opioides/prevenção & controle , Assistência Perioperatória/métodos , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Analgésicos Opioides/administração & dosagem , Humanos , Manejo da Dor/métodos
13.
BMJ Open ; 9(5): e027374, 2019 05 22.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31122990

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: The ongoing opioid epidemic has necessitated increasing prescriptions of buprenorphine, which is an evidence-based treatment for opioid use disorder, and also shown to reduce harms associated with unsafe opioid administration. A systematic review of perioperative management strategies for patients taking buprenorphine concluded that there was little guidance for managing buprenorphine perioperatively. The aim of this project is to develop consensus guidelines on the optimal perioperative management strategies for this group of patients. In this paper, we present the design for a modified Delphi technique that will be used to gain consensus among patients and multidisciplinary experts in addiction, pain, community and perioperative medicine. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A national panel of experts identified by perioperative, pain and/or addiction systematic review authorship established an international profile in perioperative, pain and/or addiction research, community clinical excellence and by peer referral. A steering group will develop the first round with a list of indications to be rated by the panel of national experts, patients and allied healthcare professionals. In round 1, the expert panel will rate the appropriateness of each individual item and provide additional suggestions for revisions, additions or deletions. The definition of consensus will be set a priori. Consensus will be gauged for both appropriateness and inappropriateness of treatment strategies. Where an agreement is not reached and items are suggested for addition/deletion/modification, round 2 will take place over teleconference in order to obtain consensus. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Institutional research ethics board provided a waiver for this modified Delphi protocol. We plan on developing a national guideline for the management of patients taking buprenorphine in the perioperative period that will be generalisable across three sets of preoperative diagnoses including opioid use disorder and/or co-occurring pain disorders. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.


Assuntos
Buprenorfina/uso terapêutico , Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Opioides/tratamento farmacológico , Dor Pós-Operatória/tratamento farmacológico , Assistência Perioperatória/métodos , Consenso , Técnica Delfos , Humanos , Tratamento de Substituição de Opiáceos , Transtornos Relacionados ao Uso de Opioides/complicações , Manejo da Dor , Dor Pós-Operatória/complicações
14.
BMJ Open ; 9(4): e028537, 2019 05 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31048449

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Annually, millions of adults suffer hip fractures. The mortality rate post a hip fracture is 7%-10% at 30 days and 10%-20% at 90 days. Observational data suggest that early surgery can improve these outcomes in hip fracture patients. We designed a clinical trial-HIP fracture Accelerated surgical TreaTment And Care tracK (HIP ATTACK) to determine the effect of accelerated surgery compared with standard care on the 90-day risk of all-cause mortality and major perioperative complications. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: HIP ATTACK is a multicentre, international, parallel group randomised controlled trial (RCT) that will include patients ≥45 years of age and diagnosed with a hip fracture from a low-energy mechanism requiring surgery. Patients are randomised to accelerated medical assessment and surgical repair (goal within 6 h) or standard care. The co-primary outcomes are (1) all-cause mortality and (2) a composite of major perioperative complications (ie, mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction, pulmonary embolism, pneumonia, sepsis, stroke, and life-threatening and major bleeding) at 90 days after randomisation. All patients will be followed up for a period of 1 year. We will enrol 3000 patients. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All centres had ethics approval before randomising patients. Written informed consent is required for all patients before randomisation. HIP ATTACK is the first large international trial designed to examine whether accelerated surgery can improve outcomes in patients with a hip fracture. The dissemination plan includes publishing the results in a policy-influencing journal, conference presentations, engagement of influential medical organisations, and providing public awareness through multimedia resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02027896; Pre-results.


Assuntos
Fraturas do Quadril/cirurgia , Idoso , Feminino , Fraturas do Quadril/mortalidade , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/epidemiologia , Projetos de Pesquisa , Fatores de Tempo
15.
Eur J Pain ; 23(7): 1234-1250, 2019 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30848504

RESUMO

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors are involved in pain signalling and neuroplasticity. Memantine has been shown to have analgesic properties in pre-clinical and small clinical studies. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of memantine to prevent or reduce chronic pain. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases were searched for comparative trials using memantine, either against placebo or active medications, for chronic pain in adults. Pain relief was considered our primary outcome. Meta-analyses were conducted if outcomes were reported in two or more studies. Outcomes were reported as mean differences (MD) or risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Quality was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Among 454 citations, 15 studies were included with populations predominantly consisting of neuropathic conditions and fibromyalgia. Overall, we observed unclear reporting of randomization and allocation methods, apart from potential for publication bias. Among the 11 studies looking at chronic pain treatment, the difference in end pain score with memantine was not significant: MD = -0.58 units (95% CI -1.31, 0.14); I2  = 82% (low quality). In two surgical studies using memantine for pain prevention, memantine decreased pain intensity: MD = -1.02 units (95% CI -1.38, -0.66); I2  = 0%. Dizziness was significantly more common with memantine: RR = 4.90 (95% CI 1.26, 18.99); I2  = 52% (moderate quality). CONCLUSION: The current evidence regarding the use of memantine for chronic pain is limited and uncertain. Despite its potential, pain relief achieved in clinical studies is small and is associated with an increase in dizziness. SIGNIFICANCE: Despite a sound rationale, the benefit of using memantine for chronic pain is unclear. Our systematic review and meta-analysis show that memantine may have the potential to decrease pain. However, it can also increase common adverse effects. Considering the small number of studies with potential for bias and inconclusive evidence, there was low to very low certainty. Hence, no clear recommendations can be made about its routine clinical use until larger and more definitive studies are conducted.


Assuntos
Dor Crônica/tratamento farmacológico , Memantina/uso terapêutico , Adulto , Analgésicos/uso terapêutico , Fibromialgia/tratamento farmacológico , Humanos , Receptores de N-Metil-D-Aspartato/antagonistas & inibidores
16.
Int J Clin Pract ; 73(6): e13338, 2019 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30829429

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Moderate to severe pain is common despite the use of potent opioids during craniotomies. Non-opioid agents such as dexmedetomidine reduce undesirable opioid effects and are successfully used as primary analgesic during bariatric surgeries. This study assessed the feasibility of conducting a large randomised controlled trial comparing fentanyl with dexmedetomidine for perioperative analgesia during craniotomy. METHODS: This was a prospective single-centre randomised controlled feasibility trial. Twenty-four consenting adult patients undergoing supratentorial craniotomy at NIMHANS, Bangalore, India, were recruited after ethical approval in March and April 2018. They received either fentanyl 1 µg kg-1  h-1 (n = 12) or dexmedetomidine 0.5  µg kg-1  h-1 (n = 12) as primary intraoperative analgesic drug. Patient, anaesthesiologist, outcome assessor and data analyst were blinded to the study intervention. Our feasibility outcomes (primary) were recruitment and adherence rates. We also explored the potential efficacy of intervention and adverse events. RESULTS: We recruited 24 out of 30 eligible patients and had 100% protocol adherence, thereby demonstrating the feasibility of a larger randomised controlled trial. All 24 patients completed the study. The demographic and clinical parameters were similar between the groups. Compared between fentanyl and dexmedetomidine, there was no difference in the intraoperative fentanyl (top-up) consumption (µg), expressed as median and interquartile range: 25 (0-50) and 0 (0-50); P = 0.844; and no difference in postoperative pain at 15 and 60 minutes. Adverse events were few and similar with fentanyl and dexmedetomidine. CONCLUSIONS: A large-scale randomised controlled trial of perioperative dexmedetomidine versus fentanyl is feasible. Dexmedetomidine has the potential to be non-inferior to fentanyl for perioperative analgesia during craniotomies.


Assuntos
Analgésicos não Entorpecentes/uso terapêutico , Craniotomia , Dexmedetomidina/uso terapêutico , Fentanila/uso terapêutico , Cuidados Intraoperatórios/métodos , Dor Pós-Operatória/prevenção & controle , Adulto , Método Duplo-Cego , Esquema de Medicação , Estudos de Viabilidade , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Projetos Piloto , Estudos Prospectivos , Resultado do Tratamento
17.
BMJ Open ; 9(2): e022995, 2019 03 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30826789

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Approximately 400 000 Americans and 36 000 Canadians undergo cardiac surgery annually, and up to 56% will develop chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP). The primary aim of this study is to explore the association of pain-related beliefs and gender-based pain expectations on the development of CPSP. Secondary goals are to: (A) explore risk factors for poor functional status and patient-level cost of illness from a societal perspective up to 12 months following cardiac surgery; and (B) determine the impact of CPSP on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) borne by cardiac surgery, in addition to the incremental cost for one additional QALY gained, among those who develop CPSP compared with those who do not. METHODS AND ANALYSES: In this prospective cohort study, 1250 adults undergoing cardiac surgery, including coronary artery bypass grafting and open-heart procedures, will be recruited over a 3-year period. Putative risk factors for CPSP will be captured prior to surgery, at postoperative day 3 (in hospital) and day 30 (at home). Outcome data will be collected via telephone interview at 6-month and 12-month follow-up. We will employ generalised estimating equations to model the primary (CPSP) and secondary outcomes (function and cost) while adjusting for prespecified model covariates. QALYs will be estimated by converting data from the Short Form-12 (version 2) to a utility score. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol has been approved by the responsible bodies at each of the hospital sites, and study enrolment began May 2015. We will disseminate our results through CardiacPain.Net, a web-based knowledge dissemination platform, presentation at international conferences and publications in scientific journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01842568.


Assuntos
Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Cardíacos/efeitos adversos , Dor Crônica/etiologia , Adulto , Ansiedade/complicações , Ansiedade/epidemiologia , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Cardíacos/economia , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Cardíacos/psicologia , Dor Crônica/economia , Dor Crônica/psicologia , Efeitos Psicossociais da Doença , Feminino , Custos de Cuidados de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Masculino , Dor Pós-Operatória/etiologia , Dor Pós-Operatória/psicologia , Estudos Prospectivos , Escalas de Graduação Psiquiátrica , Qualidade de Vida , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Fatores de Risco
18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30858986

RESUMO

Background: Respiratory depression is a serious perioperative complication associated with morbidity and mortality. Recently, technology has become available to wirelessly monitor patients on regular surgical wards with continuous pulse oximetry and wireless clinician notification with alarms. When a patient's SpO2 falls below a set threshold, the clinician is notified via a pager and may intervene earlier to prevent further clinical deterioration. To date, the technology has not been evaluated with a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Methods: We designed a parallel-group unblinded pilot RCT of a wireless monitoring system on two surgical wards in an academic teaching hospital. Postsurgical patients with an anticipated length of stay of at least 1 day were included and randomized to standard care or standard care plus wireless respiratory monitoring for up to a 72-h period. The primary outcomes were feasibility outcomes: average patients recruited per week and tolerability of the system by patients. Secondary outcomes included (1) respiratory events (naloxone administration for respiratory depression, ICU transfers, and cardiac arrest team activation) and (2) system alarm types and details. The analysis of the outcomes was based on descriptive statistics and estimates reported using point (95% confidence intervals). Criteria for success of feasibility were recruitment of an average of 15 patients/week and 90% of the patients tolerating the system. Results: The pilot trial enrolled 250 of the 335 patients screened for eligibility, with 126 and 124 patients entering the standard monitoring and wireless groups, respectively. Baseline demographics were similar between groups, except for slightly more women in the wireless group. Average patient recruitment per week was 14 95% CI [12, 16] patients. The wireless monitoring was quite tolerable with 86.6% (95% CI 78.2-92.7%) of patients completing the full course, and there were no other adverse events directly attributable to the monitoring. With regard to secondary outcomes, the respiratory event rate was low with only 1 event in the wireless group and none in the control group. The average number of alarms per week was 4.0 (95% CI, 1.6-6.4). Conclusions: This pilot study demonstrated adequate patient recruitment and high tolerability of the wireless monitoring system. A full RCT that is powered to detect patient important outcomes such as respiratory depression is now underway. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, Registration number NCT02907255, registered 7 September 2016-retrospectively registered.

19.
Can J Anaesth ; 66(2): 201-217, 2019 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30484167

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) are treated with opioid agonist-antagonists such as buprenorphine/naloxone. Perioperative management of patients on buprenorphine/naloxone is inconsistent and remains a controversial topic with mismanagement posing a significant risk to the long-term health of these patients. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search involving Medline, Medline In-Process, Embase, Cochrane Central, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, Web of Science (Clarivate), Scopus (Elsevier), CINAHL (EbscoHosst), and PubMed (NLM). RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included in the final sample, including one controlled study and four observational studies . Neither the controlled study nor the observational studies assessed addiction treatment retention, harm reduction, or long-term mortality rates as primary or secondary outcomes. Of the observational studies, authors showed equivalent peri- and postoperative pain control among buprenorphine continued patients. All but one authors described adequate analgesia among the case reports in which buprenorphine ≤ 16 mg sublingually (SL) daily was continued during the perioperative period. Long-term harm reduction was not reported with only three case reports including any long-term abstinence or relapse rates. CONCLUSIONS: The current understanding of the risks and benefits of continuing or stopping buprenorphine perioperatively is limited by a lack of high-quality evidence. Observational studies and case reports indicate no evidence against continuing buprenorphine perioperatively, especially when the dose is < 16 mg SL daily. In patients with significant potential for relapse, such as those with a recent history of OUD, the discontinuation of buprenorphine should have a strong rationale supported by patient and surgical preferences. Future studies require standardized reporting of median doses, details on the route of delivery, dosing schedules and any dosing changes, and rates of addiction relapse, including long-term morbidity and mortality where possible.


Assuntos
Analgésicos Opioides/efeitos adversos , Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapêutico , Buprenorfina/efeitos adversos , Buprenorfina/uso terapêutico , Assistência Perioperatória/métodos , Combinação Buprenorfina e Naloxona , Humanos , Síndrome de Abstinência a Substâncias/epidemiologia , Síndrome de Abstinência a Substâncias/etiologia , Resultado do Tratamento
20.
Medicine (Baltimore) ; 97(45): e13115, 2018 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30407326

RESUMO

RATIONALE: Ehlers-Danlos syndromes (EDSs) are a heterogeneous group of heritable connective tissue disorders involving defective collagen synthesis. Patients with EDS are prone for chronic myofascial pain, apart from other comorbidities. Although the initial pathology is commonly nociceptive, progression of EDS leads to neuropathies and central sensitization of pain signals. Overall, approximately 90% or more EDS patients suffer from chronic pain. There are no existing guidelines to manage chronic pain in EDS patients. In this article, we illustrate 2 case reports of EDS patients with chronic pain and review the relevant literature regarding the pathological considerations and management of chronic pain in EDS. PATIENT CONCERNS: Our first patient had worsening multiple joint pains despite treatment with medications and a recent diagnosis of EDS-type 3. The second patient had a complicated history including longstanding EDS and multiple previous surgeries. She was referred due to concern about complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) in her upper extremity. DIAGNOSES: For the first patient, apart from chronic pain due to her EDS, her history also revealed that she suffered from kinesiophobia. For the second patient, a detailed clinical assessment revealed no signs of CRPS but instead a generalized worsening of EDS symptoms. INTERVENTIONS: Both patients were evaluated by the multidisciplinary team consisting of a pain physician, nurse, pain psychologist, and a kinesiologist. Their treatment involved optimization of daily medications, participation in pain self-management sessions that included cognitive behavioral therapy, graded exercises, coping, and relaxation strategies. OUTCOMES: Both patients demonstrated significantly better pain control and achieved overall improvement in daily living. LESSONS: EDS is a complex illness with a multitude of symptoms. As in our patients, EDS patients also suffer from panic and anxiety disorders that increase the burden of pain. Apart from optimization of medications, EDS patients are best managed by a multidisciplinary approach that includes pain education and life style changes. The caution that they are resistant to local anesthetics is unwarranted. Appropriate pain interventions in selected patients may have a role to decrease pain intensity.


Assuntos
Dor Crônica/terapia , Terapia Cognitivo-Comportamental/métodos , Síndrome de Ehlers-Danlos/complicações , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Adulto , Analgésicos/uso terapêutico , Dor Crônica/etiologia , Feminino , Humanos , Medição da Dor/métodos , Autogestão/métodos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...