Population kinetic/pharmacodynamic modelling of the haemodynamic effects of cafedrine/theodrenaline (Akrinor) under general anaesthesia.

AIMS: The 20:1 combination of cafedrine and theodrenaline (C/T) is widely used in Germany for the treatment of arterial hypotension. Since there is little knowledge about the impact of covariates on the effect, the aim was to develop a kinetic/pharmacodynamic covariate model describing mean arterial pressure (MAP), systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and heart rate (HR) for 30 min after the administration of C/T. METHODS: Data of patients receiving C/T from the HYPOTENS study (NCT02893241, DRKS00010740) were analysed using nonlinear mixed-effects modelling techniques. RESULTS: Overall, 16 579 measurements from 315 patients were analysed. The combination of two kinetic compartments and a delayed effect model, coupled with distinct Emax models for HR, SBP and DBP, described the data best. The model included age, sex, body mass index (BMI), antihypertensive medication, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification grade, baseline SBP at the time of hypotension and pre-surgery HR as covariates (all P < .001). A higher baseline SBP led to a lower absolute increase in MAP. Patients with higher age, higher BMI and lower ASA grade showed smaller increases in MAP. The initial increase was similar for male and female patients. The long-term effect was higher in women. Concomitant antihypertensive medication caused a delayed effect and a lower maximum MAP. The HR increased only slightly (median increase 2.6 bpm, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Seven covariates with an impact on the effect of C/T could be identified. The results will enable physicians to optimize the dose with respect to individual patients.

The effect of adjuvants added to local anaesthetics for single-injection upper extremity peripheral regional anaesthesia: A systematic review with network meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral regional anaesthesia is frequently used for upper extremity surgery. To prolong the duration of analgesia, adjuvants can be added to single-injection local anaesthetics. Despite attempts to compare several adjuvants in pairwise meta-analyses, a comprehensive comparison is still missing. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this network meta-analysis was to determine the effectiveness of adjuvants in upper extremity peripheral nerve blocks. DESIGN: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials with network meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: A literature search in Embase, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Web of Science was performed up to March 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing different adjuvants injected perineurally in peripheral upper extremity nerve blocks were eligible. Frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted using a random effects model with physiological saline as the comparator. The primary endpoint was the ratio of means (ROM) of the duration of analgesia. RESULTS: The review included 242 randomised controlled trials with a total of 17 391 patients. Twenty-eight adjuvants were compared in the largest networks. Most network estimations consisted of a high proportion of direct evidence. Fourteen adjuvants increased the duration of analgesia significantly by the following factors, ROM [95% confidence interval (CI)]: dexamethasone 1.95 (1.79 to 2.13), buprenorphine 1.83 (1.51 to 2.24), butorphanol 1.84 (1.41 to 2.39), potassium chloride 1.89 (1.15 to 3.11), dexmedetomidine 1.70 (1.59 to 1.81), sufentanil 1.70 (1.27 to 2.29), ketorolac 1.68 (1.24 to 2.27), midazolam 1.55 (1.24 to 1.94), tramadol 1.52 (1.32 to 1.75), nalbuphine 1.50 (1.30 to 1.72), morphine 1.43 (1.09 to 1.88), magnesium sulfate 1.42 (1.20 to 1.67), clonidine 1.36 (1.24 to 1.50) and fentanyl 1.23 (1.08 to 1.40). Inconsistency in network meta-analysis was substantial. Overall side effect rates were low with all adjuvants. CONCLUSION: The best interventions to prolong the duration of analgesia were dexamethasone, followed by dexmedetomidine, opioids, electrolytes, ketorolac and midazolam. There are general concerns about the quality of underlying studies and the risk of publication bias. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018115722.

[Update on PONV-What is new in prophylaxis and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting? : Summary of recent consensus recommendations and Cochrane reviews on prophylaxis and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting]. / Update PONV ­ Was gibt es Neues bei der Prophylaxe und Therapie von postoperativer Übelkeit und postoperativem Erbrechen? : Zusammenfassung rezenter Konsensusempfehlungen sowie Cochrane-Reviews zu Prophylaxe und Therapie postoperativer Übelkeit und postoperativen Erbrechens.

The prophylaxis and treatment of postoperative pain to enhance patient comfort has been a primary goal of anesthesiologists for the last decades; however, avoiding postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is, from a patient's perspective, a highly relevant and equally important goal of anesthesia. Recent consensus-based guidelines suggest the assessment of risk factors including female gender, postoperative opioid administration, non-smoking status, a history of PONV or motion sickness, young patient age, longer duration of anesthesia, volatile anesthetics and the type of surgery and reducing the patient's baseline risk (e.g. through the use of regional anesthesia and administration of non-opioid analgesics as part of a multimodal approach). In general, a liberal PONV prophylaxis is encouraged for adult patients and children, which should also be administered when no risk assessment is made. The basis for every adult patient should be a standard prophylaxis with two antiemetics, such as dexamethasone in combination with a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist. In patients at high risk, this should be supplemented by a third and potentially a fourth antiemetic prophylaxis with a different mechanism of action. A recently published comprehensive Cochrane meta-analysis comparing available antiemetic prophylaxes reported the highest effectiveness to prevent PONV for the NK1 receptor antagonist aprepitant (relative risk, RR 0.26), followed by ramosetron (RR 0.44), granisetron (RR 0.45), dexamethasone (RR 0.51) and ondansetron (RR 0.55), thereby revising the dogma that every antiemetic is equally effective. Adverse events of antiemetics were generally rare and reported in less than half of the included studies, yielding a low quality of evidence for these end points. In general, combinations of different antiemetics were more effective than single prophylaxes. In children above 3 years of age, the same principles should be applied as in adults. For these patients, there is a high degree of evidence for the combination of dexamethasone and 5­HT3 receptor antagonists. When PONV occurs, the consensus guidelines suggest that antiemetics from a class different than given as prophylaxis should be administered. To decrease the incidence of PONV and increase the quality of care, the importance of the implementation of institutional-level guidelines and protocols as well as assessment of PONV prophylaxis and PONV incidence is highly recommended.

Treatment of spinal anaesthesia-induced hypotension with cafedrine/theodrenaline versus ephedrine during caesarean section: Results from HYPOTENS, a national, multicentre, prospective, noninterventional study.

BACKGROUND: In Germany, hypotension induced by spinal anaesthesia is commonly treated with a combination of cafedrine hydrochloride (C, 200 mg) and theodrenaline hydrochloride (T, 10 mg) in 2 ml. We compared the effectiveness of C/T with ephedrine. OBJECTIVES: The primary objectives were to assess the speed of onset and the ability to restore blood pressure without an increase in heart rate. Secondary objectives were to evaluate maternal/foetal outcomes and the number of required additional boluses or other additional measures. DESIGN: HYPOTENS was a national, multicentre, prospective, open-label, two-armed, noninterventional study comparing C/T with ephedrine in two prospectively defined cohorts. This study relates to the cohort of patients receiving spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. SETTING: German hospitals using either C/T or ephedrine in their routine clinical practice. PATIENTS: Women aged at least 18 years receiving spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section. INTERVENTIONS: Bolus administration of C/T or ephedrine at the discretion of the attending anaesthesiologist. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Endpoints within 15 min after initial administration of C/T or ephedrine were area under the curve between the observed SBP and the minimum target SBP; and incidence of newly occurring heart rate of at least 100 beats min-1. RESULTS: Although effective blood pressure stabilisation was achieved with both treatments, this effect was faster and more pronounced with C/T (P < 0.0001). The incidence of tachycardia and changes in heart rate were higher with ephedrine (P < 0.01). Fewer additional boluses (P < 0.01) were required with C/T. Although favourable neonatal outcomes were reported in both groups, base deficit and lactate values were greater with ephedrine (P < 0.01). Physician satisfaction was higher with C/T. CONCLUSIONS: After C/T, tachycardia was not a problem, providing an advantage over ephedrine. Fewer additional boluses were required with C/T, suggesting greater effectiveness. An increased base deficit with ephedrine suggests reduced oxygen supply or increased demands in foetal circulation. TRIALS REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02893241, German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00010740.

Context-sensitive decrement times for inhaled anesthetics in obese patients explored with Gas Man®.

Anesthesia care providers and anesthesia decision support tools use mathematical pharmacokinetic models to control delivery and especially removal of anesthetics from the patient's body. However, these models are not able to reflect alterations in pharmacokinetics of volatile anesthetics caused by obesity. The primary aim of this study was to refine those models for obese patients. To investigate the effects of obesity on the elimination of desflurane, isoflurane and sevoflurane for various anesthesia durations, the Gas Man® computer simulation software was used. Four different models simulating patients with weights of 70 kg, 100 kg, 125 kg and 150 kg were constructed by increasing fat weight to the standard 70 kg model. For each modelled patient condition, the vaporizer was set to reach quickly and then maintain an alveolar concentration of 1.0 minimum alveolar concentration (MAC). Subsequently, the circuit was switched to an open (non-rebreathing) circuit model, the inspiratory anesthetic concentration was set to 0 and the time to the anesthetic decrements by 67% (awakening times), 90% (recovery times) and 95% (resolution times) in the vessel-rich tissue compartment including highly perfused tissue of the central nervous system were determined. Awakening times did not differ greatly between the simulation models. After volatile anesthesia with sevoflurane and isoflurane, awakening times were lower in the more obese simulation models. With increasing obesity, recovery and resolution times were higher. The additional adipose tissue in obese simulation models did not prolong awakening times and thus may act more like a sink for volatile anesthetics. The results of these simulations should be validated by comparing the elimination of volatile anesthetics in obese patients with data from our simulation models.

Preoperative anxiety in adults - a cross-sectional study on specific fears and risk factors.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative anxiety comprising anesthesia and surgery related anxiety is common and perceived by many patients as the worst aspect of the surgical episode. The aim of this study was to identify independent predictors of these three anxieties dimensions and to quantify the relevance of specific fears particularly associated with anesthesia. METHODS: This study was part of a cross-sectional survey in patients scheduled to undergo elective surgery. Anxiety levels were measured with the Amsterdam Preoperative Anxiety and Information Scale (APAIS). Modified numeric rating scales (mNRS, range 0-10) were used to assess the severity of eight selected specific fears which were predominantly analyzed descriptively. Multivariate stepwise linear regression was applied to determine independent predictors of all three anxiety dimensions (APAIS anxiety subscales). RESULTS: 3087 of the 3200 enrolled patients were analyzed. Mean (SD) total preoperative anxiety (APAIS-A-T, range 4-20) was 9.9 (3.6). High anxiety (APAIS-A-T > 10) was reported by 40.5% of subjects. Mean (SD) levels of concern regarding the eight studied specific fears ranged from 3.9 (3.08) concerning "Anesthesiologist error" to 2.4 (2.29) concerning "Fatigue and drowsiness" with an average of 3.2 (2.84) concerning all specific fears. Ranking of all specific fears according to mean mNRS scores was almost identical in patients with high versus those with low anxiety. Among nine independent predictors of anxiety, only 3 variables (female gender, negative and positive anesthetic experience) independently predicted all three APAIS anxiety subscales. Other variables had a selective impact on one or two APAIS anxiety subscales only. Female gender had the strongest impact on all three APAIS anxiety subscales. Adjusted r2 values of the three models were all below 13%. CONCLUSIONS: The high variability of importance assigned to all specific fears suggests an individualized approach is advisable when support of anxious patients is intended. Considering independent predictors of anxiety to estimate each patient's anxiety level is of limited use given the very low predictive capacity of all three models. The clinical benefit of dividing patients into those with high and low anxiety is questionable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Registry of Clinical Trials (DRKS00016725), retrospectively registered.

Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common adverse effect of anaesthesia and surgery. Up to 80% of patients may be affected. These outcomes are a major cause of patient dissatisfaction and may lead to prolonged hospital stay and higher costs of care along with more severe complications. Many antiemetic drugs are available for prophylaxis. They have various mechanisms of action and side effects, but there is still uncertainty about which drugs are most effective with the fewest side effects. OBJECTIVES: • To compare the efficacy and safety of different prophylactic pharmacologic interventions (antiemetic drugs) against no treatment, against placebo, or against each other (as monotherapy or combination prophylaxis) for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia • To generate a clinically useful ranking of antiemetic drugs (monotherapy and combination prophylaxis) based on efficacy and safety • To identify the best dose or dose range of antiemetic drugs in terms of efficacy and safety SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. The first search was performed in November 2017 and was updated in April 2020. In the update of the search, 39 eligible studies were found that were not included in the analysis (listed as awaiting classification). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing effectiveness or side effects of single antiemetic drugs in any dose or combination against each other or against an inactive control in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia. All antiemetic drugs belonged to one of the following substance classes: 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, D2 receptor antagonists, NK1 receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, antihistamines, and anticholinergics. No language restrictions were applied. Abstract publications were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A review team of 11 authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias and subsequently extracted data. We performed pair-wise meta-analyses for drugs of direct interest (amisulpride, aprepitant, casopitant, dexamethasone, dimenhydrinate, dolasetron, droperidol, fosaprepitant, granisetron, haloperidol, meclizine, methylprednisolone, metoclopramide, ondansetron, palonosetron, perphenazine, promethazine, ramosetron, rolapitant, scopolamine, and tropisetron) compared to placebo (inactive control). We performed network meta-analyses (NMAs) to estimate the relative effects and ranking (with placebo as reference) of all available single drugs and combinations. Primary outcomes were vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively, serious adverse events (SAEs), and any adverse event (AE). Secondary outcomes were drug class-specific side effects (e.g. headache), mortality, early and late vomiting, nausea, and complete response. We performed subgroup network meta-analysis with dose of drugs as a moderator variable using dose ranges based on previous consensus recommendations. We assessed certainty of evidence of NMA treatment effects for all primary outcomes and drug class-specific side effects according to GRADE (CINeMA, Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis). We restricted GRADE assessment to single drugs of direct interest compared to placebo. MAIN RESULTS: We included 585 studies (97,516 randomized participants). Most of these studies were small (median sample size of 100); they were published between 1965 and 2017 and were primarily conducted in Asia (51%), Europe (25%), and North America (16%). Mean age of the overall population was 42 years. Most participants were women (83%), had American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I and II (70%), received perioperative opioids (88%), and underwent gynaecologic (32%) or gastrointestinal surgery (19%) under general anaesthesia using volatile anaesthetics (88%). In this review, 44 single drugs and 51 drug combinations were compared. Most studies investigated only single drugs (72%) and included an inactive control arm (66%). The three most investigated single drugs in this review were ondansetron (246 studies), dexamethasone (120 studies), and droperidol (97 studies). Almost all studies (89%) reported at least one efficacy outcome relevant for this review. However, only 56% reported at least one relevant safety outcome. Altogether, 157 studies (27%) were assessed as having overall low risk of bias, 101 studies (17%) overall high risk of bias, and 327 studies (56%) overall unclear risk of bias. Vomiting within 24 hours postoperatively Relative effects from NMA for vomiting within 24 hours (282 RCTs, 50,812 participants, 28 single drugs, and 36 drug combinations) suggest that 29 out of 36 drug combinations and 10 out of 28 single drugs showed a clinically important benefit (defined as the upper end of the 95% confidence interval (CI) below a risk ratio (RR) of 0.8) compared to placebo. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than single drugs in preventing vomiting. However, single NK1 receptor antagonists showed treatment effects similar to most of the drug combinations. High-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs reduce vomiting (ordered by decreasing efficacy): aprepitant (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.38, high certainty, rank 3/28 of single drugs); ramosetron (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.59, high certainty, rank 5/28); granisetron (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.54, high certainty, rank 6/28); dexamethasone (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.57, high certainty, rank 8/28); and ondansetron (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.60, high certainty, rank 13/28). Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that the following single drugs probably reduce vomiting: fosaprepitant (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.21, moderate certainty, rank 1/28) and droperidol (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.69, moderate certainty, rank 20/28). Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol showed clinically important benefit, but low doses showed no clinically important benefit. Aprepitant was used mainly at high doses, ramosetron at recommended doses, and fosaprepitant at doses of 150 mg (with no dose recommendation available). Frequency of SAEs Twenty-eight RCTs were included in the NMA for SAEs (10,766 participants, 13 single drugs, and eight drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for SAEs when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to low. Droperidol (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.08 to 9.71, low certainty, rank 6/13) may reduce SAEs. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 1.39, 95% CI 0.26 to 7.36, very low certainty, rank 11/13), ramosetron (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.05 to 15.74, very low certainty, rank 7/13), granisetron (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 13.15, very low certainty, rank 10/13), dexamethasone (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.28 to 4.85, very low certainty, rank 9/13), and ondansetron (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.32 to 8.10, very low certainty, rank 12/13). No studies reporting SAEs were available for fosaprepitant. Frequency of any AE Sixty-one RCTs were included in the NMA for any AE (19,423 participants, 15 single drugs, and 11 drug combinations). The certainty of evidence for any AE when using one of the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol compared to placebo) ranged from very low to moderate. Granisetron (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.05, moderate certainty, rank 7/15) probably has no or little effect on any AE. Dexamethasone (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.08, low certainty, rank 2/15) and droperidol (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98, low certainty, rank 6/15) may reduce any AE. Ondansetron (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.01, low certainty, rank 9/15) may have little or no effect on any AE. We are uncertain about the effects of aprepitant (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97, very low certainty, rank 3/15) and ramosetron (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.54, very low certainty, rank 11/15) on any AE. No studies reporting any AE were available for fosaprepitant. Class-specific side effects For class-specific side effects (headache, constipation, wound infection, extrapyramidal symptoms, sedation, arrhythmia, and QT prolongation) of relevant substances, the certainty of evidence for the best and most reliable anti-vomiting drugs mostly ranged from very low to low. Exceptions were that ondansetron probably increases headache (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28, moderate certainty, rank 18/23) and probably reduces sedation (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.96, moderate certainty, rank 5/24) compared to placebo. The latter effect is limited to recommended and high doses of ondansetron. Droperidol probably reduces headache (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.86, moderate certainty, rank 5/23) compared to placebo. We have high-certainty evidence that dexamethasone (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09, high certainty, rank 16/24) has no effect on sedation compared to placebo. No studies assessed substance class-specific side effects for fosaprepitant. Direction and magnitude of network effect estimates together with level of evidence certainty are graphically summarized for all pre-defined GRADE-relevant outcomes and all drugs of direct interest compared to placebo in http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4066353. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found high-certainty evidence that five single drugs (aprepitant, ramosetron, granisetron, dexamethasone, and ondansetron) reduce vomiting, and moderate-certainty evidence that two other single drugs (fosaprepitant and droperidol) probably reducevomiting, compared to placebo. Four of the six substance classes (5-HT3 receptor antagonists, D2 receptor antagonists, NK1 receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids) were thus represented by at least one drug with important benefit for prevention of vomiting. Combinations of drugs were generally more effective than the corresponding single drugs in preventing vomiting. NK1 receptor antagonists were the most effective drug class and had comparable efficacy to most of the drug combinations. 5-HT3 receptor antagonists were the best studied substance class. For most of the single drugs of direct interest, we found only very low to low certainty evidence for safety outcomes such as occurrence of SAEs, any AE, and substance class-specific side effects. Recommended and high doses of granisetron, dexamethasone, ondansetron, and droperidol were more effective than low doses for prevention of vomiting. Dose dependency of side effects was rarely found due to the limited number of studies, except for the less sedating effect of recommended and high doses of ondansetron. The results of the review are transferable mainly to patients at higher risk of nausea and vomiting (i.e. healthy women undergoing inhalational anaesthesia and receiving perioperative opioids). Overall study quality was limited, but certainty assessments of effect estimates consider this limitation. No further efficacy studies are needed as there is evidence of moderate to high certainty for seven single drugs with relevant benefit for prevention of vomiting. However, additional studies are needed to investigate potential side effects of these drugs and to examine higher-risk patient populations (e.g. individuals with diabetes and heart disease).

Side Effect Rates of Opioids in Equianalgesic Doses via Intravenous Patient-Controlled Analgesia: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Side effects of opioids used for the treatment of acute pain frequently limit their analgesic quality. Many studies have compared opioid side effects in patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), but it remains unclear whether there are specific side effect profiles that can be exploited when choosing an opioid for a patient. In this review, we wanted to determine the risk ratios (RRs) for the most common side effects when using different opioids for intravenous PCA in equianalgesic doses and rank the substances accordingly. METHODS: A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), and Web of Science identified 63 randomized controlled trials comparing opioids under equianalgesic conditions. Inclusion criteria were comparable pain stimulus between groups, equal coanalgesic treatment, and comparable resulting pain scores. Quality of studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool with 6 items. Frequentistic network meta-analysis was conducted with morphine as the comparator. This method not only summarizes all estimated effects from direct comparisons of different interventions but also allows for indirect comparisons between interventions that can be linked via the common comparator, in which case the indirect evidence can be used to enhance the precision of the direct comparisons. Primary end points of this study were RRs for nausea and vomiting, pruritus, and events of sedation, as well as mean differences for scores of sedation. Events of respiratory depression were counted. Secondary end point was patient satisfaction (mean difference). The study protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42017062355). RESULTS: Sixteen opioid interventions were compared in the largest network (nausea and vomiting outcome) and 7 opioid interventions in the smallest network (sedation events outcome). Most interventions did not differ from morphine on the primary outcomes (side effects), with some exceptions. Buprenorphine had a significantly higher RR of nausea and vomiting, whereas fentanyl had a lower RR of nausea and vomiting. Nalbuphine, butorphanol, methadone, and pethidine/meperidine had a lower risk of pruritus. Respiratory depression was rare (22 of 2452 patients). Pethidine/meperidine, fentanyl, and oxymorphone caused significantly lower sedation scores. Tramadol caused significantly lower satisfaction scores, whereas oxycodone, alfentanil, remifentanil, fentanyl, and pethidine/meperidine caused significantly higher satisfaction scores. CONCLUSIONS: The opiate chosen for treatment most likely has little effect on the incidence of pruritus and nausea/vomiting, although considerable differences exist in terms of better and worse opioids in the presented rankings. Larger differences between drugs were observed with regard to sedation and patient satisfaction, and choosing the appropriate opioid may help to improve PCA in this regard.

[Antihypotensive drugs in cesarean sections : Treatment of arterial hypotension with ephedrine, phenylephrine and Akrinor® (cafedrine/theodrenaline) during cesarean sections with spinal anesthesia]. / Antihypotensiva bei Kaiserschnittentbindungen : Behandlung der arteriellen Hypotension mit Ephedrin, Phenylephrin und Akrinor® (Cafedrin/Theodrenalin) im Rahmen von Kaiserschnittentbindungen in Spinalanästhesie.

BACKGROUND: Arterial hypotension is a frequent complication following spinal anesthesia for cesarean sections. A fast treatment is necessary to maintain the well-being of the mother and to avoid deficiencies in the intrauterine supply to the child. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the effects of the most frequently used vasoactive substances for treatment of hypotension in patients undergoing cesarean sections in Germany, i.e. ephedrine (E), phenylephrine (P) and Akrinor (A, cafedrine/theodrenaline), a 20:1 combination of cafedrine and theodrenaline. METHODS: A retrospective single center analysis of 772 patients (16-50 years old) with arterial hypotension following spinal anesthesia for cesarean section and requiring treatment with vasoactive substances (July 2012-April 2017) was carried out. In the three observation periods the respective current clinical standard treatment of E, P or A was applied. The primary end-points were changes in maternal hemodynamics, pH and base excess (BE) in the child and the resulting blood pressure values. The statistical analysis plan of the study was registered in the German registry for clinical trials (DRKS-ID: DRKS00012520). RESULTS: The initial blood pressure before the intervention was comparable in all three groups, with no clinically relevant differences between the individual groups. In the course of anesthesia the largest blood pressure decrease as well as the largest resulting increase after the intervention were found in group A. In group P there was an increased need for an alternative catecholamine in comparison to the other two groups (P : 13 patients, 3.7%, E: 5 patients, 3.3% and A: 0 patients (0%), p  0.007). Differences were detected in the BE of the child (mean E: -1.36, P : -2.03, A: -2.57, p  0.0001) and the incidence of bradycardia requiring drug intervention (E: 0.7%, P : 5.4%, A: 1.9%, p = 0.007). No significant differences were found for the arterial pH of the child and APGAR scores. CONCLUSION: The differences of the individual vasoactive substances seemed to be much smaller than one would expect based on the results of randomized clinical trials. The incidence and extent of bradycardia and neonatal acidosis were much lower than previously reported. The determined differences seemed to have no major clinical relevance. Although the A group required less bolus administrations and seemed to be the most potent substance, the results imply that the assessment of the effects of vasoactive substances should not be carried out without consideration of the accompanying measures.

[Anaesthesiologic Techniques for Patients at Risk of Aspiration]. / Einleitung des nicht nüchternen Patienten: Welche Techniken sind zu verwenden?

Rapid sequence induction and intubation (RSII) is the appropriate method of inducing general anaesthesia in patients who are at a risk of aspiration. The classical RSII is limited to a few treatment recommendations which are rarely based on evidence-based findings. New techniques (e.g., video laryngoscopy) as well as new means of diagnostics (e.g., sonography) require reevaluation of traditional techniques. In this article non-pharmacological treatment strategies of RSII are described. Furthermore, old and new methods to minimise the risk of aspiration are discussed. This includes gastric tube and gastric sonography as well as modalities for anaesthesia induction, e.g. patient positioning, face mask ventilation, relaxometry, cricoid and left-paratracheal pressure. In-hospital, RSII treatment standards must be familiar to all team members and treatment processes have to be well established and practiced regularly. The aim of this article is to present systematics that can be used as a decision-making basis for local operating procedures.

Amisulpride Prevents Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Patients at High Risk: A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting causes distress for patients and can prolong care requirements. Consensus guidelines recommend use of multiple antiemetics from different mechanistic classes as prophylaxis in patients at high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting. The prophylactic efficacy of the dopamine D2/D3 antagonist amisulpride in combination with other antiemetics was investigated. METHODS: This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, international, multicenter trial was conducted in 1,147 adult surgical patients having three or four postoperative nausea and vomiting risk factors. Patients were randomized to receive either intravenous amisulpride (5 mg) or matching placebo at induction of general anesthesia, in addition to one standard, nondopaminergic antiemetic, most commonly ondansetron or dexamethasone. Vomiting/retching, nausea, and use of rescue medication were recorded for 24 h after wound closure. The primary endpoint was complete response, defined as no emesis or rescue medication use in the 24-h postoperative period. RESULTS: Complete response occurred in 330 of 572 (57.7%) of the amisulpride group and 268 of 575 (46.6%) of the control group (difference 11.1 percentage points; 95% CI, 5.3 to 16.8; P < 0.001). The incidences of emesis (13.8% vs. 20.0%, P = 0.003), any nausea (50.0% vs. 58.3%, P = 0.002), significant nausea (37.1% vs. 47.7%, P < 0.001), and rescue medication use (40.9% vs. 49.4%, P = 0.002) were significantly lower in the amisulpride group. Adverse events and laboratory and electrocardiogram abnormalities occurred no more frequently with amisulpride than with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous amisulpride was safe and effective as prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting when given in combination with an antiemetic from another class to adult patients at high risk for suffering postoperative nausea and vomiting undergoing elective surgery under inhalational general anesthesia. VISUAL ABSTRACT: An online visual overview is available for this article at http://links.lww.com/ALN/B727.

Continuous intravenous perioperative lidocaine infusion for postoperative pain and recovery in adults.

BACKGROUND: The management of postoperative pain and recovery is still unsatisfactory in a number of cases in clinical practice. Opioids used for postoperative analgesia are frequently associated with adverse effects, including nausea and constipation, preventing smooth postoperative recovery. Not all patients are suitable for, and benefit from, epidural analgesia that is used to improve postoperative recovery. The non-opioid, lidocaine, was investigated in several studies for its use in multimodal management strategies to reduce postoperative pain and enhance recovery. This review was published in 2015 and updated in January 2017. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and risks) of perioperative intravenous (IV) lidocaine infusion compared to placebo/no treatment or compared to epidural analgesia on postoperative pain and recovery in adults undergoing various surgical procedures. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and reference lists of articles in January 2017. We searched one trial registry contacted researchers in the field, and handsearched journals and congress proceedings. We updated this search in February 2018, but have not yet incorporated these results into the review. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of continuous perioperative IV lidocaine infusion either with placebo, or no treatment, or with thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) in adults undergoing elective or urgent surgery under general anaesthesia. The IV lidocaine infusion must have been started intraoperatively, prior to incision, and continued at least until the end of surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used Cochrane's standard methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were: pain score at rest; gastrointestinal recovery and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included: postoperative nausea and postoperative opioid consumption. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 new trials in the update. In total, the review included 68 trials (4525 randomized participants). Two trials compared IV lidocaine with TEA. In all remaining trials, placebo or no treatment was used as a comparator. Trials involved participants undergoing open abdominal (22), laparoscopic abdominal (20), or various other surgical procedures (26). The application scheme of systemic lidocaine strongly varies between the studies related to both dose (1 mg/kg/h to 5 mg/kg/h) and termination of the infusion (from the end of surgery until several days after).The risk of bias was low with respect to selection bias (random sequence generation), performance bias, attrition bias, and detection bias in more than 50% of the included studies. For allocation concealment and selective reporting, the quality assessment yielded low risk of bias for only approximately 20% of the included studies.IV Lidocaine compared to placebo or no treatment We are uncertain whether IV lidocaine improves postoperative pain compared to placebo or no treatment at early time points (1 to 4 hours) (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.72 to -0.28; 29 studies, 1656 participants; very low-quality evidence) after surgery. Due to variation in the standard deviation (SD) in the studies, this would equate to an average pain reduction of between 0.37 cm and 2.48 cm on a 0 to 10 cm visual analogue scale . Assuming approximately 1 cm on a 0 to 10 cm pain scale is clinically meaningful, we ruled out a clinically relevant reduction in pain with lidocaine at intermediate (24 hours) (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.04; 33 studies, 1847 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and at late time points (48 hours) (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.04; 24 studies, 1404 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Due to variation in the SD in the studies, this would equate to an average pain reduction of between 0.10 cm to 0.48 cm at 24 hours and 0.08 cm to 0.42 cm at 48 hours. In contrast to the original review in 2015, we did not find any significant subgroup differences for different surgical procedures.We are uncertain whether lidocaine reduces the risk of ileus (risk ratio (RR) 0.37, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.87; 4 studies, 273 participants), time to first defaecation/bowel movement (mean difference (MD) -7.92 hours, 95% CI -12.71 to -3.13; 12 studies, 684 participants), risk of postoperative nausea (overall, i.e. 0 up to 72 hours) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.91; 35 studies, 1903 participants), and opioid consumption (overall) (MD -4.52 mg morphine equivalents , 95% CI -6.25 to -2.79; 40 studies, 2201 participants); quality of evidence was very low for all these outcomes.The effect of IV lidocaine on adverse effects compared to placebo treatment is uncertain, as only a small number of studies systematically analysed the occurrence of adverse effects (very low-quality evidence).IV Lidocaine compared to TEAThe effects of IV lidocaine compared with TEA are unclear (pain at 24 hours (MD 1.51, 95% CI -0.29 to 3.32; 2 studies, 102 participants), pain at 48 hours (MD 0.98, 95% CI -1.19 to 3.16; 2 studies, 102 participants), time to first bowel movement (MD -1.66, 95% CI -10.88 to 7.56; 2 studies, 102 participants); all very low-quality evidence). The risk for ileus and for postoperative nausea (overall) is also unclear, as only one small trial assessed these outcomes (very low-quality evidence). No trial assessed the outcomes, 'pain at early time points' and 'opioid consumption (overall)'. The effect of IV lidocaine on adverse effects compared to TEA is uncertain (very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain whether IV perioperative lidocaine, when compared to placebo or no treatment, has a beneficial impact on pain scores in the early postoperative phase, and on gastrointestinal recovery, postoperative nausea, and opioid consumption. The quality of evidence was limited due to inconsistency, imprecision, and study quality. Lidocaine probably has no clinically relevant effect on pain scores later than 24 hours. Few studies have systematically assessed the incidence of adverse effects. There is a lack of evidence about the effects of IV lidocaine compared with epidural anaesthesia in terms of the optimal dose and timing (including the duration) of the administration. We identified three ongoing studies, and 18 studies are awaiting classification; the results of the review may change when these studies are published and included in the review.

Programmed intermittent epidural bolus versus continuous epidural infusion for postoperative analgesia after major abdominal and gynecological cancer surgery: a randomized, triple-blinded clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Continuous epidural infusion (CEI) is the standard application setting for epidural infusion. A new mode, the programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) technique, showed reduced local anesthetic (LA) consumption and improved analgesia in obstetric analgesia. Goal of this trial was to evaluate the effects of PIEB versus CEI [combined with patient-controlled bolus (PCEA)] on LA consumption and pain scorings in major abdominal cancer surgery. METHODS: Following ethical approval, patients scheduled for major abdominal cancer surgery under general anesthesia in combination with epidural analgesia were randomized to receive either a PIEB mode of 6 mL/h or a CEI mode set at 6 mL/h of ropivacaine 0.2%, both combined with a PCEA mode set at a 4 mL bolus. LA consumptions and pain scorings were documented until the second postoperative evening. RESULTS: Eighty-four datasets were analyzed (CEI: n = 40, PIEB: n = 44). Regarding the primary endpoint, cumulative LA PCEA bolus volumes until day 2 differed significantly between the groups [PIEB 10 mL (2-28 mL) versus CEI, 28 mL (12-64 mL), median (25th-75th percentiles), p = 0.002]. Overall, LA consumption volumes were significantly lower in the PIEB group versus in the CEI group [PIEB: 329 mL (291-341 mL) vs. CEI: 350 mL (327-381 mL), p = 0.003]. Pain scores were comparable at each time point. CONCLUSIONS: This trial demonstrates reduced needs for PCEA bolus in the PIEB group. There were no clinically relevant benefits regarding morphine consumption, pain scorings, or other secondary outcome parameters. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study has been registered retrospectively in the ClinicalTrials.gov registry ( NCT03378804 ), date of registration: December, 20th 2017.

Bispectral index to guide induction of anesthesia: a randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown to what extent hypotension frequently observed following administration of propofol for induction of general anesthesia is caused by overdosing propofol. Unlike clinical signs, electroencephalon-based cerebral monitoring allows to detect and quantify an overdose of hypnotics. Therefore, we tested whether the use of an electroencephalon-based cerebral monitoring will cause less hypotension following induction with propofol. METHODS: Subjects were randomly assigned to a bispectral index (BIS)-guided (target range 40-60) or to a weight-related (2 mg.kg- 1) manual administration of propofol for induction of general anesthesia. The primary endpoint was the incidence of hypotension following the administration of propofol. Secondary endpoints included the degree of hypotension and correlations between BIS and drop in mean arterial pressure (MAP). Incidences were analyzed with Fisher's Exact-test. RESULTS: Of the 240 patients enrolled into this study, 235 predominantly non-geriatric (median 48 years, 25th - 75th percentile 35-61 years) patients without severe concomitant disease (88% American Society of Anesthesiology physical status 1-2) undergoing ear, nose and throat surgery, ophthalmic surgery, and dermatologic surgery were analyzed. Patients who were manually administered propofol guided by BIS (n = 120) compared to those who were given propofol by weight (n = 115) did not differ concerning the incidence of hypotension (44% vs. 45%; p = 0.87). Study groups were also similar regarding the maximal drop in MAP compared to baseline (33% vs. 30%) and the proportion of hypotensive events related to all measurements (17% vs. 19%). Final propofol induction doses in BIS group and NON-BIS group were similar (1.93 mg/kg vs. 2 mg/kg). There was no linear correlation between BIS and the drop in MAP at all times (r < 0.2 for all) except for a weak one at 6 min (r = 0.221). CONCLUSION: Results of our study suggest that a BIS-guided compared to a weight-adjusted manual administration of propofol for induction of general anesthesia in non-geriatric patients will not lower the incidence and degree of arterial hypotension. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Registry of Clinical Trials ( DRKS00010544 ), retrospectively registered on August 4, 2016.

[Patient-controlled Analgesia (PCA): an Overview About Methods, Handling and New Modalities]. / Patientenkontrollierte Analgesie: Methoden, Handhabung und Ausbaufähigkeit.

Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) is one of the well established methods for the treatment of postoperative pain. A cochrane-review concluded that PCA is associated with better postoperative pain ratings and improved patient-satifaction compared to traditional way of administering opioids. Some prerequisites concerning patient selection, education of the patient and the medical staff, and supervision during PCA therapy are mandatory for a safe use of PCA. Current PCA modalities (intravenous and epidural routes of application) are expanded by newer, less invasive routes of drug administration, e.g. by the iontophoretic transdermal and the sublingual route. Their role in improving safety and the quality of pain therapy on the one hand side, and costs on the other hand side are discussion.

Intravenous Amisulpride for the Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: Two Concurrent, Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Two essentially identical, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group phase III studies evaluated the efficacy of intravenous amisulpride, a dopamine D2/D3 antagonist, in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adult surgical patients. METHODS: Adult inpatients undergoing elective surgery during general anesthesia and having at least two of the four Apfel risk factors for postoperative nausea and vomiting were enrolled at 9 U.S. and 10 European sites. A single 5-mg dose of amisulpride or matching placebo was given at induction of anesthesia. The primary endpoint was complete response, defined as no vomiting/retching and no use of antiemetic rescue medication in the 24-h postoperative period. Nausea incidence was a secondary endpoint. RESULTS: Across the two studies, 689 patients were randomized and dosed with study medication, of whom 626 were evaluable per protocol. In the U.S. study, 46.9% (95% CI, 39.0 to 54.9) of patients achieved complete response in the amisulpride group compared to 33.8% (95% CI, 26.2 to 42.0) in the placebo group (P = 0.026). In the European study, complete response rates were 57.4% (95% CI, 49.2 to 65.3) for amisulpride and 46.6% (95% CI, 38.8 to 54.6) for placebo (P = 0.070). Nausea occurred less often in patients who received amisulpride than those who received placebo. There was no clinically significant difference in the safety profile of amisulpride and placebo; in particular, there were no differences in terms of QT prolongation, extrapyramidal side effects, or sedation. CONCLUSIONS: One of the two trials demonstrated superiority, while pooling both in a post hoc change to the plan of analysis supported the hypothesis that amisulpride was safe and superior to placebo in reducing the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting in a population of adult inpatients at moderate to high risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Patient-controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus alternative parenteral methods for pain management in labour.

BACKGROUND: Multiple analgesic strategies for pain relief during labour are available. Recently remifentanil, a short-acting opioid, has recently been used as an alternative analgesic due to its unique pharmacological properties. OBJECTIVES: To systematically assess the effectiveness of remifentanil intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) for labour pain, along with any potential harms to the mother and the newborn. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (9 December 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), handsearched congress abstracts (November 2015), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-randomised trials comparing remifentanil (PCA) with another opioid (intravenous (IV)/intramuscular (IM)), or with another opioid (PCA), or with epidural analgesia, or with remifentanil (continuous IV), or with remifentanil (PCA, different regimen), or with inhalational analgesia, or with placebo/no treatment in all women in labour including high-risk groups with planned vaginal delivery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data, and appraised study quality.We contacted study authors for additional information other than incomplete outcome data. We performed random-effects meta-analysis.To reduce the risk of random error in meta-analysis we performed trial sequential analysis. We included total zero event trials and used a constant continuity correction of 0.01 (ccc 0.01) for meta-analysis. We applied the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the quality of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty RCTs with 3569 women were included. Of those, 10 trials (2983 participants) compared remifentanil (PCA) to an epidural, four trials (216 participants) to another opioid (IV/IM), three trials (215 participants) to another opioid (PCA), two trials (135 participants) to remifentanil (continuous IV), and one trial (20 participants) to remifentanil (PCA, different regimen). No trials were identified for the remaining comparisons.Methodological quality of studies was moderate to poor. We assessed risk of bias as high for blinding issues and incomplete outcome data in 65% and 45% of the included studies, respectively.There is evidence of effect that women in the remifentanil (PCA) group were more satisfied with pain relief than women in the other opioids (IV/IM) group (standardised mean difference (SMD) 2.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 3.49, four trials, very low-quality evidence), and that women were less satisfied compared to women in the epidural group (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.04, seven trials, very low-quality evidence).There is evidence of effect that remifentanil (PCA) provided stronger pain relief at one hour than other opioids administered IV/IM (SMD -1.58, 95% CI -2.69 to -0.48, three trials, very low-quality evidence) or via PCA (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.00, three trials, very low-quality evidence). Pain intensity was higher in the remifentanil (PCA) group compared to the epidural group (SMD 0.57, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.84, six trials, low-quality evidence).Data were limited on safety aspects for both the women and the newborns. Only one study analysed maternal apnoea in a comparison of remifentanil (PCA) versus epidural and reported that half of the women in the remifentanil and none in the epidural group had an apnoea (very low-quality evidence). There is no evidence of effect that remifentanil (PCA) was associated with an increased risk for maternal respiratory depression when compared to epidural analgesia (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.62, ccc 0.01, three trials, low-quality evidence) and no reliable conclusion might be reached compared to remifentanil (continuous IV) (all study arms included zero events, two trials, low-quality evidence). In one trial of remifentanil (PCA) versus another opioid (IM) three out of 18 women in the remifentanil and none out of 18 in the control group had a respiratory depression (very low-quality evidence).There is no evidence of effect that remifentanil (PCA) was associated with an increased risk for newborns with Apgar scores less than seven at five minutes compared to epidural analgesia (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.57, ccc 0.01, five trials, low-quality evidence) and no reliable conclusion might be reached compared to another opioid (IV) and compared to remifentanil (PCA, different regimen) both with zero events in all study arms (one trial, very-low quality evidence). In one trial of remifentanil (PCA) versus another opioid (PCA) none out of nine newborns in the remifentanil and three out of eight in the opioid (PCA) group had Apgar scores less than seven (very-low quality evidence).There is evidence that remifentanil (PCA) was associated with a lower risk for the requirement of additional analgesia when compared to other opioids (IV/IM) (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.81, three trials, moderate-quality evidence) and that it was associated with a higher risk compared to epidural analgesia (RR 9.27, 95% CI 3.73 to 23.03, ccc 0.01, six trials, moderate-quality evidence). There is no evidence of effect that remifentanil (PCA) reduced the requirement for additional analgesia compared to other opioids (PCA) (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.28, three trials, low-quality evidence).There is evidence that there was no difference in the risk for caesarean delivery between remifentanil (PCA) and other opioids (IV/IM) (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.32, ccc 0.01, four trials, low-quality evidence) and epidural analgesia (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.22, ccc 0.01, nine trials, moderate-quality evidence), respectively. Pooled meta-analysis revealed an increased risk for caesarean section under remifentanil (PCA) compared to other opioids (PCA) (RR 2.78, 95% CI 0.99 to 7.82, two trials, very low-quality evidence). However, a wide range of clinically relevant and non-relevant treatment effects is compatible with this result. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current systematic review, there is mostly low-quality evidence to inform practice and future research may significantly alter the current situation. The quality of evidence is mainly limited by poor quality of the studies, inconsistency, and imprecision. More research is needed on maternal and neonatal safety outcomes (maternal apnoea and respiratory depression, Apgar score) and on the optimal mode and regimen of remifentanil administration to provide highest efficacy with reasonable adverse effects for mothers and their newborns.

Vapocoolant Spray Versus Lidocaine Infiltration for Radial Artery Cannulation: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Local infiltration with lidocaine is a frequently used measure to prevent pain during arterial cannulation. Its administration is associated with pain. Vapocoolants like ethyl chloride or alkanes also affect rapid-onset anesthesia. However, their administration causes less discomfort compared with administration of lidocaine. The effectiveness of vapocoolants in mitigating discomfort associated with arterial cannulation never has been studied. The authors therefore compared vapocoolant with lidocaine for reducing discomfort caused by arterial cannulation. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, controlled study. SETTING: University hospital, single center. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred sixty adult patients requiring arterial cannulation before induction of general anesthesia for cardiac surgery or carotid endarterectomy. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received either lidocaine infiltration or vapocoolant spray prior to arterial cannulation. Overall discomfort resulting from the whole procedure (applying local/topical anesthesia followed by arterial puncture) was rated on a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale. Puncture failure rate and time required for the intervention also were recorded. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: One hundred forty-three patients were included in the per-protocol analysis. Mean pain scores in the vapocoolant group were 3.4 (±1.58) compared with 4.5 (±2.29) in the lidocaine group (difference 1.1±0.33; p = 0.032; Mann-Whitney U-test). The higher puncture failure rate in the lidocaine group (n = 11 v 4) was not significant (p = 0.06; Fisher's exact test). The time required for the intervention was longer in the lidocaine group (138±44 s v 128±44 s; p = 0.019; Mann-Whitney U-test). CONCLUSIONS: Vapocoolant spray is an alternative to lidocaine infiltration to mitigate discomfort associated with arterial cannulation.

Tapentadol Prolonged Release for Chronic Pain: A Review of Clinical Trials and 5 Years of Routine Clinical Practice Data.

Tapentadol prolonged release (PR) for the treatment of moderate to severe chronic pain combines 2 modes of action. These are µ-opioid receptor agonism and noradrenaline reuptake inhibition in a single molecule that allow higher analgesic potency through modulation of different pharmacological targets within the pain transmitting systems. At the same time, this can also serve as a clue for modulation of different pain-generating mechanisms according to nociceptive, neuropathic, or mixed pain conditions. Tapentadol PR has now been on the market for 5 years, with over 4.6 million people treated worldwide. A panel of pain specialists convened in Germany to review the clinical program and to discuss the role of tapentadol PR in the management of chronic pain. The clinical study program demonstrated effective and generally well-tolerated treatment for up to 2 years in a broad range of chronic pain conditions, including those with neuropathic pain components. This was confirmed in routine clinical practice observations. Head-to-head studies with World Health Organization (WHO) III opioids such as oxycodone controlled release and oxycodone/naloxone PR showed at least comparable pain relief in the treatment of moderate-to-severe musculoskeletal pain. Rotation from poorly tolerated WHO III opioids to tapentadol PR provided effective pain relief and better symptom control for musculoskeletal pain compared to previous medication. Functionality, health status and quality of life also improved under tapentadol PR treatment. The gastrointestinal tolerability profile was more favorable compared to other tested WHO III opioids. Tapentadol PR has a good safety profile and no evidence of acquired tolerance from the long-term data so far collected. Overall, tapentadol PR represents an effective and generally well-tolerated alternative to "classical" opioidergic drugs.

Continuous intravenous perioperative lidocaine infusion for postoperative pain and recovery.

BACKGROUND: The management of postoperative pain and recovery is still unsatisfactory in clinical practice. Opioids used for postoperative analgesia are frequently associated with adverse effects including nausea and constipation. These adverse effects prevent smooth postoperative recovery. On the other hand not all patients may be suited to, and take benefit from, epidural analgesia used to enhance postoperative recovery. The non-opioid lidocaine was investigated in several studies for its use in multi-modal management strategies to reduce postoperative pain and enhance recovery. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to assess the effects (benefits and risks) of perioperative intravenous lidocaine infusion compared to placebo/no treatment or compared to epidural analgesia on postoperative pain and recovery in adults undergoing various surgical procedures. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 5 2014), MEDLINE (January 1966 to May 2014), EMBASE (1980 to May 2014), CINAHL (1982 to May 2014), and reference lists of articles. We searched the trial registry database ClinicalTrials.gov, contacted researchers in the field, and handsearched journals and congress proceedings. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of continuous perioperative intravenous lidocaine infusion either with placebo, or no treatment, or with epidural analgesia in adults undergoing elective or urgent surgery under general anaesthesia. The intravenous lidocaine infusion must have been started intraoperatively prior to incision and continued at least until the end of surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Trial quality was independently assessed by two authors according to the methodological procedures specified by the Cochrane Collaboration. Data were extracted by two independent authors. We collected trial data on postoperative pain, recovery of gastrointestinal function, length of hospital stay, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), opioid consumption, patient satisfaction, surgical complication rates, and adverse effects of the intervention. MAIN RESULTS: We included 45 trials involving 2802 participants. Two trials compared intravenous lidocaine versus epidural analgesia. In all the remaining trials placebo or no treatment was used as a comparator. Trials involved participants undergoing open abdominal (12), laparoscopic abdominal (13), or various other surgical procedures (20).The risk of bias was low with respect to selection bias (random sequence generation), performance bias, attrition bias, and detection bias in more than 50% of the included studies. For allocation concealment and selective reporting the quality assessment yielded low risk of bias for only approximately 20% of the included studies.We found evidence of effect for intravenous lidocaine on the reduction of postoperative pain (visual analogue scale, 0 to 10 cm) compared to placebo or no treatment at 'early time points (one to four hours)' (mean difference (MD) -0.84 cm, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.10 to -0.59; low-quality evidence) and at 'intermediate time points (24 hours)' (MD -0.34 cm, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.11; low-quality evidence) after surgery. However, no evidence of effect was found for lidocaine to reduce pain at 'late time points (48 hours)' (MD -0.22 cm, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.03; low-quality evidence). Pain reduction was most obvious at 'early time points' in participants undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery (MD -1.14, 95% CI -1.51 to -0.78; low-quality evidence) and open abdominal surgery (MD -0.72, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.47; moderate-quality evidence). No evidence of effect was found for lidocaine to reduce pain in participants undergoing all other surgeries (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.89 to 0.28; low-quality evidence). Quality of evidence is limited due to inconsistency and indirectness (small trial sizes).Evidence of effect was found for lidocaine on gastrointestinal recovery regarding the reduction of the time to first flatus (MD -5.49 hours, 95% CI -7.97 to -3.00; low-quality evidence), time to first bowel movement (MD -6.12 hours, 95% CI -7.36 to -4.89; low-quality evidence), and the risk of paralytic ileus (risk ratio (RR) 0.38, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.99; low-quality evidence). However, no evidence of effect was found for lidocaine on shortening the time to first defaecation (MD -9.52 hours, 95% CI -23.24 to 4.19; very low-quality evidence).Furthermore, we found evidence of positive effects for lidocaine administration on secondary outcomes such as reduction of length of hospital stay, postoperative nausea, intraoperative and postoperative opioid requirements. There was limited data on the effect of IV lidocaine on adverse effects (e.g. death, arrhythmias, other heart rate disorders or signs of lidocaine toxicity) compared to placebo treatment as only a limited number of studies systematically analysed the occurrence of adverse effects of the lidocaine intervention.The comparison of intravenous lidocaine versus epidural analgesia revealed no evidence of effect for lidocaine on relevant outcomes. However, the results have to be considered with caution due to imprecision of the effect estimates. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low to moderate evidence that this intervention, when compared to placebo, has an impact on pain scores, especially in the early postoperative phase, and on postoperative nausea. There is limited evidence that this has further impact on other relevant clinical outcomes, such as gastrointestinal recovery, length of hospital stay, and opioid requirements. So far there is a scarcity of studies that have systematically assessed the incidence of adverse effects; the optimal dose; timing (including the duration of the administration); and the effects when compared with epidural anaesthesia.