British journal of anaesthesia
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical Trial
Patient-controlled analgesia: epidural fentanyl and i.v. morphine compared after caesarean section.
We have compared patient-controlled epidural fentanyl (PCEF) and patient-controlled i.v. morphine (PCIM) after Caesarean section in 84 patients, in a randomized, double-blind study. All patients had an epidural and an i.v. patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device, one of which delivered normal saline. Group PCEF received epidural fentanyl 20 micrograms with a 10-min lockout. ⋯ There was less nausea (P = 0.02) and drowsiness (P = 0.0003) with PCEF. There was no difference in the overall incidence and severity of pruritus (P = 0.77). However, pruritus started earlier with PCEF.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Clinical Trial
Iontophoretically applied lidocaine reduces pain on propofol injection.
We have compared iontophoretically and locally applied lidocaine for relief of pain on propofol injection. Pain was assessed on insertion of a 20-gauge i.v. cannula and at 10-s intervals for 30 s after injection of propofol. ⋯ Pain after injection of propofol was significantly reduced at 10 (P < 0.002), 20 (P < 0.001) and 30 s (P < 0.001). We conclude that iontophoretically applied lidocaine decreased the pain of cannulation and propofol injection.
-
We have estimated the effect of omitting antagonism of neuromuscular block on postoperative nausea and vomiting. A systematic search (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biological Abstracts, Cochrane library, reference lists and hand searching; no language restriction, up to March 1998) was performed for relevant randomized controlled trials. In eight studies (1134 patients), antagonism with neostigmine or edrophonium was compared with spontaneous recovery after general anesthesia with pancuronium, vecuronium, mivacurium or tubocurarine. ⋯ In two studies, three patients with spontaneous recovery after mivacurium or vecuronium needed rescue anticholinesterase drugs because of clinically relevant muscle weakness (number-needed-to-harm, 30). Omitting neostigmine may have a clinically relevant antiemetic effect when high doses are used. Omitting antagonism, however, introduces a non-negligent risk of residual paralysis even with short-acting neuromuscular blocking agents.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical Trial
Relative potencies of bupivacaine and ropivacaine for analgesia in labour.
We have used the technique of randomized, double-blind sequential allocation to compare the minimum local analgesic concentrations (MLAC) of epidural bupivacaine and ropivacaine for women in the first stage of labour. The test bolus was 20 ml of local anaesthetic solution. The concentration was determined by the response of the previous woman to a higher or lower concentration of local anaesthetic, according to up-down sequential allocation. ⋯ For bupivacaine, MLAC was 0.093 (95% CI 0.076-0.110)% w/v, and for ropivacaine, 0.156 (95% CI 0.136-0.176)%w/v (P < 0.0001, 95% CI difference 0.036-0.090). The analgesic potency of ropivacaine was 0.60 (0.47-0.75) relative to bupivacaine. Claims for reduced toxicity and motor block must be considered with differences in analgesic potency in mind.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical Trial
Patients' vs nurses' assessments of postoperative pain and anxiety during patient- or nurse-controlled analgesia.
We have compared patients' and nurses' assessments of postoperative pain and anxiety after different analgesic treatments. Sixty orthopaedic patients were allocated randomly to receive i.v. piritramide (either nurse-controlled or patient-controlled) or subarachnoid bupivacaine (nurse-controlled or patient-controlled). Patients and nurses assessed pain and anxiety using a visual analogue scale (VAS; 1-100 mm). ⋯ In general, patients' pain scores were higher than nurses' scores (patients' median VAS = 34 (range 1-76) mm; nurses VAS 21 (1-59) mm) and for all groups except the patient-controlled subarachnoid bupivacaine group, where they were significantly higher (P < 0.01). Discrepancy in pain estimates between patients and nurses increased with the level of pain. The relationship between patients' and nurses' anxiety scores was less clearly defined and did not depend on the level of anxiety.