Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 1999
Meta AnalysisA meta-analysis of the effectiveness of cell salvage to minimize perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion in cardiac and orthopedic surgery. International Study of Perioperative Transfusion (ISPOT) Investigators.
Concern about risks of allogeneic transfusion has led to an interest in methods for decreasing perioperative transfusion. To determine whether cell salvage reduces patient exposure to allogeneic blood, we performed meta-analyses of randomized trials, evaluating the effectiveness and safety of cell salvage in cardiac or orthopedic elective surgery. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who received at least one perioperative allogeneic red cell transfusion. Twenty-seven studies were included in the meta-analyses. Cell salvage devices that do not wash salvaged blood were marginally effective in cardiac surgery patients when used postoperatively (relative risk [RR] = 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.79-0.92). Devices that wash or do not wash salvaged blood considerably decreased the proportion of orthopedic surgery patients who received allogeneic transfusion (RR = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.30-0.51 and RR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.26-0.46, respectively). No studies of cell savers that wash salvaged blood during cardiac surgery were included. Cell salvage did not appear to increase the frequency of adverse events. We conclude that cell salvage in orthopedic surgery decreases the risk of patients' exposure to allogeneic blood transfusion perioperatively. Postoperative cell salvage in cardiac surgery, with devices that do not wash the salvaged blood, is only marginally effective. ⋯ This meta-analysis of all published randomized trials provides the best current estimate of the effectiveness of cell salvage and is useful in guiding clinical practice. We conclude that cell salvage in orthopedic surgery decreases the proportion of patients requiring allogeneic blood transfusion perioperatively, but postoperative cell salvage is only marginally effective in cardiac surgery.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialMulti-regional local anesthetic infiltration during laparoscopic cholecystectomy in patients receiving prophylactic multi-modal analgesia: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study.
Pain is the dominant complaint after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. No study has examined the combined effects of a somato-visceral blockade during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Therefore, we investigated the effects of a somato-visceral local anesthetic blockade on pain and nausea in patients undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In addition, all patients received multi-modal prophylactic analgesic treatment. Fifty-eight patients were randomized to receive a total of 286 mg (66 mL) ropivacaine or 66 mL saline via periportal and intraperitoneal infiltration. During the first 3 postoperative h, the use of morphine and antiemetics was registered, and pain and nausea were rated hourly. Daily pain intensity, pain localization, and supplemental analgesic consumption were registered the first postoperative week. Ropivacaine reduced overall pain the first two hours and incisional pain for the first three postoperative hours (P < 0.01) but had no apparent effects on intraabdominal or shoulder pain. During the first 3 postoperative h, morphine requirements were lower (P < 0.05), and nausea was reduced in the ropivacaine group (P < 0.05). Throughout the first postoperative week, incisional pain dominated over other pain localizations in both groups (P < 0.01). We conclude that the somato-visceral local anesthetic blockade reduced overall pain during the first 2 postoperative h, and nausea, morphine requirements, and incisional pain were reduced during the first 3 postoperative h in patients receiving prophylactic multi-modal analgesic treatment. ⋯ A combination of incisional and intraabdominal local anesthetic treatment reduced incisional pain but had no effect on deep intraabdominal pain or shoulder pain in patients receiving multimodal prophylactic analgesia after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Incisional pain dominated during the first postoperative week. Incisional infiltration of local anesthetics is recommended in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Oct 1999
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialPatient-controlled analgesia with morphine plus lysine acetyl salicylate.
Using a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) delivery system, we evaluated the clinical advantages and disadvantages of morphine PCA compared with morphine plus lysine acetyl salicylate (LAS), a soluble aspirin. After major orthopedic surgery, 50 adult patients were enrolled in a prospective, randomized, and double-blinded study. When a patient in the recovery room complained of pain, an initial dose of morphine or the morphine/LAS mixture was titrated to achieve analgesia of visual analog score < or = 3 in 30 min. An equivalent volume PCA dose of either morphine 1 mg/mL or morphine 0.5 mg + LAS 90 mg/mL was used with a lockout interval of 10 min. Pain score, patient satisfaction, vital signs, and adverse effects were observed for 48 h. Adequate analgesia (visual analog scale score < or = 3) was achieved with either drug. Morphine consumption in the morphine/LAS group was significantly less than in morphine group (13.9 vs 18.4 mg in 24 h and 24.3 vs 32.4 mg in 48 h). Significantly more sedation was evident with the morphine group (P < 0.05). We conclude that injectable LAS can be used as an effective and safe adjuvant to morphine for PCA. This combination reduces dose requirements of morphine and hence some of its adverse effects. ⋯ Injectable aspirin could be used as an effective and safe adjuvant to morphine for patient-controlled analgesia. This combination reduces the dose requirement of morphine and therefore some of the morphine-related untoward effects.