Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Aug 2003
Postoperative pain experience: results from a national survey suggest postoperative pain continues to be undermanaged.
Postoperative pain can have a significant effect on patient recovery. An understanding of patient attitudes and concerns about postoperative pain is important for identifying ways health care professionals can improve postoperative care. To assess patients' postoperative pain experience and the status of acute pain management, we conducted a national study by using telephone questionnaires. A random sample of 250 adults who had undergone surgical procedures recently in the United States was obtained from National Family Opinion. Patients were asked about the severity of postsurgical pain, treatment, satisfaction with pain medication, patient education, and perceptions about postoperative pain and pain medications. Approximately 80% of patients experienced acute pain after surgery. Of these patients, 86% had moderate, severe, or extreme pain, with more patients experiencing pain after discharge than before discharge. Experiencing postoperative pain was the most common concern (59%) of patients. Almost 25% of patients who received pain medications experienced adverse effects; however, almost 90% of them were satisfied with their pain medications. Approximately two thirds of patients reported that a health care professional talked with them about their pain. Despite an increased focus on pain management programs and the development of new standards for pain management, many patients continue to experience intense pain after surgery. Additional efforts are required to improve patients' postoperative pain experience. ⋯ A survey of 250 US adults who had undergone a recent surgical procedure asked about their postoperative pain experience. Approximately 80% of patients experienced pain after surgery. Of these patients, 86% had moderate, severe, or extreme pain. Additional efforts are required to improve patients' postoperative pain experience.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Aug 2003
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialA comparison of the costs and efficacy of ondansetron and dolasetron in the prophylaxis of postoperative vomiting in pediatric patients undergoing ambulatory surgery.
Postoperative vomiting (POV) after ambulatory surgery remains a major problem. We designed this study to determine the smallest dose of dolasetron equivalent to the Food and Drug Administration approved dose of ondansetron 100 micro g/kg IV, for the prophylaxis of POV in children undergoing surgery. In this double-blinded controlled study, 204 healthy ASA I-II children aged 2-12 yr, undergoing superficial ambulatory (day-case) surgery, were randomized to receive either ondansetron 100 micro g/kg IV, or dolasetron 45, 175, 350, or 700 micro g/kg IV during a standardized perioperative regimen. The primary end-point was the incidence of complete response, defined as the absence of POV symptoms. Costs were calculated from the perspective of the hospital using a previously described model. The incidence of early (0-6 h) and 24-h emesis was more frequent in the dolasetron 45 micro g/kg group compared with the dolasetron 350 and 700 micro g/kg groups and with the ondansetron group. Repeated POV occurred more often when dolasetron was used in a dose <350 micro g/kg. There were no significant differences in emesis rates between the dolasetron 175, 350, and 700 micro g/kg groups or between these groups and the ondansetron 100 micro g/kg group. The smallest dose of dolasetron with acceptable equivalent efficacy and patient satisfaction scores to ondansetron 100 micro g/kg was 350 micro g/kg. Institutional costs for managing POV were less with dolasetron 350 micro g/kg than with ondansetron. ⋯ This randomized double-blinded dose-ranging study concluded that dolasetron, 350 micro g/kg IV, was the smallest dose that provided acceptable equivalent efficacy and patient satisfaction scores to ondansetron, 100 micro g/kg IV, for the prophylaxis of postoperative vomiting in children undergoing outpatient surgery. However, with this dose, the costs to the institution for managing postoperative vomiting were less.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Aug 2003
The effects of pyrilamine and cimetidine on mRNA C-fos expression and nociceptive flinching behavior in rats.
C-fos and Fos expression, frequently used as a neural nociceptive marker, is altered by many drugs. The effects of histamine receptor antagonists on c-fos messenger (m)RNA expression are unknown. We examined the effect of local and systemic administration of pyrilamine (H(1) receptor antagonist) and cimetidine (H(2) receptor antagonist) on the nociceptive flinching behavior elicited by injection of 50 micro L of 1% formalin into the dorsal region of the hind paw of rats. Nociceptive flinching behavior was observed for 45 min, and the rats were then killed and lumbar spinal cord obtained for c-fos mRNA expression, measured using the Northern blot hybridization technique. Systemic administration of pyrilamine and cimetidine did not elicit response in nociceptive behavior or in c-fos mRNA expression. When the drugs were locally administered, they affected behavior and c-fos mRNA expression in different patterns. Pyrilamine decreased the number of flinches in a dose dependent manner in both phases, whereas cimetidine did not affect Phase I and decreased the number of flinches in Phase II, but only partially. Pyrilamine 5 and 20 mM decreased c-fos mRNA expression, and cimetidine decreased the expression only at 100 mM. The systemic use of the drugs had no effect on c-fos mRNA expression. ⋯ Histamine receptor antagonists present antinociceptive effects when administered peripherally. These effects are observed through a nociceptive flinching behavior test and mRNA c-fos expression. Pyrilamine (H(1) receptor antagonist) has a greater antinociceptive effect than cimetidine (H(2) receptor antagonist).
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Aug 2003
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Clinical TrialDiaspirin-crosslinked hemoglobin reduces blood transfusion in noncardiac surgery: a multicenter, randomized, controlled, double-blinded trial.
In this randomized, prospective, double-blinded clinical trial, we sought to investigate whether diaspirin-crosslinked hemoglobin (DCLHb) can reduce the perioperative use of allogeneic blood transfusion. One-hundred-eighty-one elective surgical patients were enrolled at 19 clinical sites from 1996 to 1998. Selection criteria included anticipated transfusion of 2-4 blood units, aortic repair, and major joint or abdomino-pelvic surgery. Once a decision to transfuse had been made, patients received initially up to 3 250-mL infusions of 10% DCLHb (n = 92) or 3 U of packed red blood cells (PRBCs) (n = 89). DCLHb was infused during a 36-h perioperative window. On the day of surgery, 58 of 92 (64%; confidence interval [CI], 54%-74%) DCLHb-treated patients received no allogeneic PRBC transfusions. On Day 1, this number was 44 of 92 (48%; CI, 37%-58%) and decreased further until Day 7, when it was 21 of 92 (23%; CI, 15%-33%). During the 7-day period, 2 (1-4) units of PRBC per patient were used in the DCLHb group compared with 3 (2-4) units in the control patients (P = 0.002; medians and 25th and 75th percentiles). Mortality (4% and 3%, respectively) and incidence of suffering at least one serious adverse event (21% and 15%, respectively) were similar in DCLHb and PRBC groups. The incidence of jaundice, urinary side effects, and pancreatitis were more frequent in DCLHb patients. The study was terminated early because of safety concerns. Whereas the side-effect profile of modified hemoglobin solutions needs to be improved, our data show that hemoglobin solutions can be effective at reducing exposure to allogeneic blood for elective surgery. ⋯ In a randomized, double-blinded red blood cell controlled, multicenter trial, diaspirin-crosslinked hemoglobin spared allogeneic transfusion in 23% of patients undergoing elective noncardiac surgery. The observed side-effect profile indicates a need for improvement in hemoglobin development.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Aug 2003
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical TrialThe effect of exogenous epinephrine on the incidence of hypotensive/bradycardic events during shoulder surgery in the sitting position during interscalene block.
Sudden hypotensive and/or bradycardic events (HBE) have been reported in 13%-28% of patients undergoing shoulder surgery in the sitting position during interscalene block. The Bezold-Jarisch reflex is the most likely mechanism for these events. It has been hypothesized that exogenous epinephrine might be a key component to the occurrence of HBE. We conducted this prospective, randomized study to verify this hypothesis. Patients received a local anesthetic solution with (Group E; n = 55) or without (Group P; n = 55) epinephrine for interscalene block; no further exogenous epinephrine was administered. Blood pressure control was achieved with IV urapidil, a peripheral vasodilator, as needed. The incidence of HBE was 11% in Group P versus 29% in Group E (P = 0.015). Increased intraoperative heart rate and arterial blood pressure were recorded in Group E (P = 0.000). Urapidil was administered to 13% of Group P and to 31% of Group E patients (P = 0.018). Urapidil administration induced a HBE in 4% of Group P and in 5% of Group E patients. We conclude that exogenous epinephrine is involved in the development of HBE in this setting. ⋯ Sudden hypotensive and/or bradycardic events occur during shoulder surgery in the sitting position during interscalene block. In this study, we demonstrated that the presence of epinephrine in the local anesthetic mixture significantly increases the incidence of these events.