We have shown that epinephrine markedly improves the analgesic effect of a thoracic epidural infusion of bupivacaine and fentanyl. Ropivacaine has an intrinsic vasoconstrictive effect, and epinephrine may therefore not have the same pharmacokinetic interaction in a ropivacaine-fentanyl infusion; but a possible spinal cord alpha(2)- agonist effect of epinephrine would give the same positive pharmacodynamic interaction with ropivacaine and fentanyl during epidural analgesia. In a prospective, randomized, crossover study, a thoracic epidural infusion of ropivacaine 1 mg/mL and fentanyl 2 microg/mL with or without epinephrine 2 microg/mL was given to 12 patients in a double-blinded manner after major thoracic or upper abdominal surgery. Main outcome measures were pain intensity at rest and when coughing, evaluated on a visual analog scale. Extent of sensory blockade was evaluated by determining dermatomal hypoesthesia to cold. Pain increased (P 0.001) and hypoesthetic dermatomal segments decreased (P 0.001) when epinephrine was omitted from the triple epidural infusion. After 3 h without epinephrine, pain intensity when coughing was unacceptable despite rescue analgesia. After restarting the triple epidural mixture with epinephrine, pain was again reduced to mild pain when coughing, and the sensory blockade was restored. The mixture with epinephrine caused less nausea and facilitated mobilization. We conclude that epinephrine improves the pain relief and reduces the side effects of a thoracic epidural infusion of ropivacaine and fentanyl after major thoracic or upper abdominal surgery. IMPLICATIONS: Epidural epinephrine markedly improves the pain relief and sensory blockade of a small-dose thoracic epidural infusion of ropivacaine and fentanyl. Nausea was reduced, and mobilization of the patients was facilitated.
Howell, C. J., T. Dean, et al. (2002).
"Randomised study of long term outcome after epidural versus non-
epidural analgesia during labour." BMJ 325(7360): 357.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether epidural analgesia during labour
is associated with long term backache. DESIGN: Follow up after
randomised controlled trial. Analysis by intention to treat. SETTING:
Department of obstetrics and gynaecology at one NHS trust.
PARTICIPANTS: 369 women: 184 randomised to epidural group (treatment
as allocated received by 123) and 185 randomised to non-epidural
group (treatment as allocated received by 133). In the follow up
study 151 women were from the epidural group and 155 from the
non-epidural group. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self reported low back
pain, disability, and limitation of movement assessed through one to
one interviews with physiotherapist, questionnaire on back pain and
disability, physical measurements of spinal mobility. RESULTS: There
were no significant differences between groups in demographic details
or other key characteristics. The mean time interval from delivery to
interview was 26 months. There were no significant differences in the
onset or duration of low back pain, with nearly a third of women in
each group reporting pain in the week before interview. There were no
differences in self reported measures of disability in activities of
daily living and no significant differences in measurements of spinal
mobility. CONCLUSIONS: After childbirth there are no differences in
the incidence of long term low back pain, disability, or movement
restriction between women who receive epidural pain relief and women
who receive other forms of pain relief.
Epidural Analgesia Enhances Functional
Exercise Capacity and Health-related Quality of Life after Colonic
Surgery: Results of a Randomized Trial
Franco Carli, M.D., M.Phil. *; Nancy Mayo, Ph.D. Ý;
Kristine Klubien, M.D. ý; Thomas Schricker, M.D., Ph.D.
ý; Judith Trudel, M.D., M.Sc. §; Paul Belliveau, M.D.
§ This article is accompanied by an Editorial View. Please see:
Wu CL, Raja SR: Optimizing postoperative analgesia: The use of global
outcome measures. Anesthesiology 2002; 97:533-4.
Background:
Multimodal analgesia programs have been shown to decrease hospital
stay, but it not clear which functions are restored after surgery.
The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of epidural
anesthesia and analgesia on functional exercise capacity and
health-related quality of life.
Methods:
Sixty-four patients undergoing elective colonic resection were
randomized to either patient-controlled analgesia with
morphine or thoracic epidural analgesia with bupivacaine and
fentanyl (epidural group). All patients in both groups received
similar perioperative care and were offered the same amount of
postoperative oral nutrition and assistance with mobilization.
Primary outcome was functional exercise capacity as measured
by the 6-min walking test, and secondary outcome was health-related
quality of life, as measured by the SF-36 health survey. These were
assessed before surgery and at 3 and 6 weeks after hospital
discharge. Other variables measured in hospital included pain and
fatigue visual analogue scale, bowel function, time out of bed,
nutritional intake, complication rate, readiness for discharge, and
length of hospital stay.
Results:
Although the 6-min walking test and the SF-36 physical health
component decreased in both groups at 3 and 6 weeks after surgery,
the patient-controlled analgesia group experienced a significantly
greater decrease at both times (P < 0.01). Patients in the
epidural group had lower postoperative pain and fatigue scores, which
allowed them to mobilize to a greater extent (P < 0.05) and eat
more (P < 0.05). Length of hospital stay and incidence of
complications were similar in both groups, although patients in the
epidural group were ready to be discharged earlier.
Conclusions:
The superior quality of pain relief provided by epidural analgesia
had a positive impact on out-of-bed mobilization, bowel function, and
intake of food, with long-lasting effects on exercise capacity and
health-related quality of life.
Park, W. Y., J. S. Thompson, et al. (2001). "Effect of epidural anesthesia and analgesia on perioperative outcome: a randomized, controlled Veterans Affairs cooperative study." Ann Surg 234(4): 560-9; discussion 569-71.
OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that epidural anesthesia and postoperative epidural analgesia decrease the incidence of death and major complications during and after four types of intraabdominal surgical procedures. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Even though many beneficial aspects of epidural anesthesia have been reported, clinical trials of epidural anesthesia for outcome of surgical patients have shown conflicting results. METHODS: The authors studied 1,021 patients who required anesthesia for one of the intraabdominal aortic, gastric, biliary, or colon operations. They were assigned randomly to receive either general anesthesia and postoperative analgesia with parenteral opioids (group 1) or epidural plus light general anesthesia and postoperative epidural morphine (group 2). The patients were monitored for death and major complications during and for 30 days after surgery, as well as for postoperative pain, time of ambulation, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Overall, there was no significant difference in the incidence of death and major complications between the two groups. For abdominal aortic surgical patients, unlike the other three types of surgical patients, the overall incidence of death and major complications was significantly lower in group 2 patients (22%) than in group 1 patients (37%), stemming from differences in the incidence of new myocardial infarction, stroke, and respiratory failure between the two groups. Overall, group 2 patients received significantly less analgesic medication but had better pain relief than group 1 patients. In group 2 aortic patients, endotracheal intubation time was 13 hours shorter and surgical intensive care stay was 3.5 hours shorter. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of anesthetic and postoperative analgesic techniques on perioperative outcome varies with the type of operation performed. Overall, epidural analgesia provides better postoperative pain relief. Epidural anesthesia and epidural analgesia improve the overall outcome and shorten the intubation time and intensive care stay in patients undergoing abdominal aortic operations.
Priestley, M. C., L. Cope, et al. (2002). "Thoracic Epidural Anesthesia for Cardiac Surgery: The Effects on Tracheal Intubation Time and Length of Hospital Stay." Anesth Analg 94(2): 275-282.
This is the cardiac epidural study performed at Westmead. It is a large randomised trial, funded by an external grant
Improvements in analgesia after major surgery may allow a more rapid recovery and shorter hospital stay. We performed a prospective randomized trial to study the effects of epidural analgesia on the length of hospital stay after coronary artery surgery. The anesthetic technique and postoperative mobilization were altered to facilitate early intensive care discharge and hospital discharge. Fifty patients received high (T1 to T4) thoracic epidural anesthesia (TEA) with ropivacaine 1% (4-mL bolus, 3--5 mL/h infusion), with fentanyl (100- microg bolus, 15--25 microg/h infusion) and a propofol infusion (6 mg . kg(-1) . h(-1)). Another 50 patients (the General Anesthesia group) received fentanyl 15 microg/kg and propofol (5 mg . kg(-1) . h(-1)), followed by IV morphine patient-controlled analgesia. The TEA group had lower visual analog scores with coughing postextubation (median, 0 vs 26 mm; P 0.0001) and were extubated earlier (median hours [interquartile range], 3.2 [2.1--4.6] vs 6.7 [3.3--13.2]; P 0.0001). More than half of all patients were discharged home on Postoperative Day 4 (24%) or 5 (33%), but there was no difference in the length of stay between the TEA group (median [interquartile range], Day 5 [5--6]) and the General Anesthesia group (median [interquartile range], Day 5 [4--7]). There were no differences in postoperative spirometry or chest radiograph changes or in markers for postoperative myocardial ischemia or infarction. No significant TEA-related complications occurred. In summary, TEA provided better analgesia and allowed earlier tracheal extubation but did not reduce the length of hospital stay after coronary artery surgery. IMPLICATIONS: We found that epidural analgesia was more effective than IV morphine for cardiac surgery. Epidural anesthesia also allowed earlier weaning from mechanical ventilation, but it did not affect hospital discharge time.
Epidural anaesthesia and analgesia: better otcome after major
surgery?. BMJ 1999. 319:531-2
Download full text
here!
Norris, E. J., C. Beattie, et al. (2001). "Double-masked randomized trial comparing alternate combinations of intraoperative anesthesia and postoperative analgesia in abdominal aortic surgery." Anesthesiology 95(5): 1054-67.
BACKGROUND: Improvement in patient outcome and reduced use of medical resources may result from using epidural anesthesia and analgesia as compared with general anesthesia and intravenous opioids, although the relative importance of intraoperative versus postoperative technique has not been studied. This prospective, double-masked, randomized clinical trial was designed to compare alternate combinations of intraoperative anesthesia and postoperative analgesia with respect to postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing surgery of the abdominal aorta. METHODS: One hundred sixty-eight patients undergoing surgery of the abdominal aorta were randomly assigned to receive either thoracic epidural anesthesia combined with a light general anesthesia or general anesthesia alone intraoperatively and either intravenous or epidural patient-controlled analgesia postoperatively (four treatment groups). Patient-controlled analgesia was continued for at least 72 h. Protocols were used to standardize perioperative medical management and to preserve masking intraoperatively and postoperatively. A uniform surveillance strategy was used for the identification of prospectively defined postoperative complications. Outcome evaluation included postoperative hospital length of stay, direct medical costs, selected postoperative morbidities, and postoperative recovery milestones. RESULTS: Length of stay and direct medical costs for patients surviving to discharge were similar among the four treatment groups. Postoperative outcomes were similar among the four treatment groups with respect to death, myocardial infarction, myocardial ischemia, reoperation, pneumonia, and renal failure. Epidural patient-controlled analgesia was associated with a significantly shorter time to extubation (P = 0.002). Times to intensive care unit discharge, ward admission, first bowel sounds, first flatus, tolerating clear liquids, tolerating regular diet, and independent ambulation were similar among the four treatment groups. Postoperative pain scores were also similar among the four treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing surgery of the abdominal aorta, thoracic epidural anesthesia combined with a light general anesthesia and followed by either intravenous or epidural patient-controlled analgesia, offers no major advantage or disadvantage when compared with general anesthesia alone followed by either intravenous or epidural patient-controlled analgesia.
Rodgers, A., N. Walker, et al. (2000). "Reduction of postoperative mortality and morbidity with epidural or spinal anaesthesia: results from overview of randomised trials." BMJ 321(7275): 1493. download full text here! (a must read)
OBJECTIVES: To obtain reliable estimates of the effects of neuraxial blockade with epidural or spinal anaesthesia on postoperative morbidity and mortality. DESIGN: Systematic review of all trials with randomisation to intraoperative neuraxial blockade or not. STUDIES: 141 trials including 9559 patients for which data were available before 1 January 1997. Trials were eligible irrespective of their primary aims, concomitant use of general anaesthesia, publication status, or language. Trials were identified by extensive search methods, and substantial amounts of data were obtained or confirmed by correspondence with trialists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: All cause mortality, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, transfusion requirements, pneumonia, other infections, respiratory depression, and renal failure. RESULTS: Overall mortality was reduced by about a third in patients allocated to neuraxial blockade (103 deaths/4871 patients versus 144/4688 patients, odds ratio=0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 0.90, P=0. 006). Neuraxial blockade reduced the odds of deep vein thrombosis by 44%, pulmonary embolism by 55%, transfusion requirements by 50%, pneumonia by 39%, and respiratory depression by 59% (all P0.001). There were also reductions in myocardial infarction and renal failure. Although there was limited power to assess subgroup effects, the proportional reductions in mortality did not clearly differ by surgical group, type of blockade (epidural or spinal), or in those trials in which neuraxial blockade was combined with general anaesthesia compared with trials in which neuraxial blockade was used alone. CONCLUSIONS: Neuraxial blockade reduces postoperative mortality and other serious complications. The size of some of these benefits remains uncertain, and further research is required to determine whether these effects are due solely to benefits of neuraxial blockade or partly to avoidance of general anaesthesia. Nevertheless, these findings support more widespread use of neuraxial blockade.
Beattie, W. S., N. H. Badner, et al. (2001). "Epidural
analgesia reduces postoperative myocardial infarction: a
meta-analysis." Anesth Analg 93(4): 853-8.
This is hot off the press! This time it seems that cardiac
outcome is improved by 24 hours of epidural analgesia.
Postoperative cardiac morbidity and mortality continue to pose considerable risks to surgical patients. Postoperative epidural analgesia is considered to have beneficial effects on cardiac outcomes. The use in high-risk cardiac patients remains controversial. No study has shown that postoperative epidural analgesia decreases postoperative myocardial infarction (PMI) or death. All studies are underpowered to show such a result, and the cost of conducting a large trial is prohibitive. We performed a metaanalysis to determine whether postoperative epidural analgesia continued for more than 24 h after surgery reduces PMI or in-hospital death. The available databases were searched for randomized controlled trials of epidural analgesia that was extended at least 24 h into the postoperative period. The search yielded 17 studies, of which 11 were randomized controlled trials comprising 1173 patients. Metaanalysis was conducted by using the fixed-effects model, calculating both an odds ratio and a rate difference. Postoperative epidural analgesia resulted in better analgesia for the first 24 h after surgery. The rate of PMI was 6.3%, with lower rates in the Epidural group (rate difference, -3.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI] -7.4%, -0.2%; P = 0.049). The frequency of in-hospital death was 3.3%, with no significant difference between Epidural and Nonepidural groups (rate difference, -1.3%; 95% CI, -3.8%, 1.2%, P = 0.091). Subgroup analysis of postoperative thoracic epidural analgesia showed a significant reduction in PMI in the Epidural group (rate difference, -5.3%; 95% CI, -9.9%, -0.7%; P = 0.04). IMPLICATIONS: Postoperative epidural analgesia, especially thoracic epidural analgesia, continued for more than 24 h reduces postoperative myocardial infarctions.
Royal College of Anaesthetists (UK) (1998). Guidelines for the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the perioperative period, Royal College of Anaesthetists.
Available for free if you email the RCA. Comes as both short and full versions. Unfortunately does not cover COX 2 inhibitors.
Ballantyne, J. C., D. B. Carr, et al. (1998). "The comparative effects of postoperative analgesic therapies on pulmonary outcome: cumulative meta-analyses of randomized, controlled trials." Anesth Analg 86(3): 598-612.
This is important. It assesses the value of different types of analgesia on pulmonary outcome after surgery.
We performed meta-analyses of randomized, control trials to assess the effects of seven analgesic therapies on postoperative pulmonary function after a variety of procedures: epidural opioid, epidural local anesthetic, epidural opioid with local anesthetic, thoracic versus lumbar epidural opioid, intercostal nerve block, wound infiltration with local anesthetic, and intrapleural local anesthetic. Measures of forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1), forced vital capacity (FVC), vital capacity (VC), peak expiratory flow rate (PEFR), PaO2, and incidence of atelectasis, pulmonary infection, and pulmonary complications overall were analyzed. Compared with systemic opioids, epidural opioids decreased the incidence of atelectasis (risk ratio [RR] 0.53, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-0.85) and had a weak tendency to reduce the incidence of pulmonary infections (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.18-1.53) and pulmonary complications overall (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.20-1.33). Epidural local anesthetics increased PaO2 (difference 4.56 mm Hg, 95% CI 0.058-9.075) and decreased the incidence of pulmonary infections (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.21-0.65) and pulmonary complications overall (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.42-0.80) compared with systemic opioids. Intercostal nerve blockade tends to improve pulmonary outcome measures (incidence of atelectasis: RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.27-1.57, incidence of pulmonary complications overall: RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.18-1.22), but these differences did not achieve statistical significance. There were no clinically or statistically significant differences in the surrogate measures of pulmonary function (FEV1, FVC, and PEFR). These analyses support the utility of epidural analgesia for reducing postoperative pulmonary morbidity but do not support the use of surrogate measures of pulmonary outcome as predictors or determinants of pulmonary morbidity in postoperative patients. IMPLICATIONS: When individual trials are unable to produce significant results, it is often because of insufficient patient numbers. It may be impossible for a single institution to study enough patients. Meta-analysis is a useful tool for combining the data from multiple trials to increase the patient numbers. These meta-analyses confirm that postoperative epidural pain control can significantly decrease the incidence of pulmonary morbidity.
Basse, L., D. Hjort Jakobsen, et al. (2000). "A clinical pathway to accelerate recovery after colonic resection [In Process Citation]." Ann Surg 232(1): 51-7.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the feasibility of a 48-hour postoperative stay program after colonic resection. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Postoperative hospital stay after colonic resection is usually 6 to 12 days, with a complication rate of 10% to 20%. Limiting factors for early recovery include stress-induced organ dysfunction, paralytic ileus, pain, and fatigue. It has been hypothesized that an accelerated multimodal rehabilitation program with optimal pain relief, stress reduction with regional anesthesia, early enteral nutrition, and early mobilization may enhance recovery and reduce the complication rate. METHODS: Sixty consecutive patients undergoing elective colonic resection were prospectively studied using a well-defined postoperative care program including continuous thoracic epidural analgesia and enforced early mobilization and enteral nutrition, and a planned 48- hour postoperative hospital stay. Postoperative follow-up was scheduled at 8 and 30 days. RESULTS: Median age was 74 years, with 20 patients in ASA group III-IV. Normal gastrointestinal function (defecation) occurred within 48 hours in 57 patients, and the median hospital stay was 2 days, with 32 patients staying 2 days after surgery. There were no cardiopulmonary complications. The readmission rate was 15%, including two patients with anastomotic dehiscence (one treated conservatively, one with colostomy); other readmissions required only short-term observation. CONCLUSION: A multimodal rehabilitation program may significantly reduce the postoperative hospital stay in high-risk patients undergoing colonic resection. Such a program may also reduce postoperative ileus and cardiopulmonary complications. These results may have important implications for the care of patients after colonic surgery and in the future assessment of open versus laparoscopic colonic resection.
Brodner, G., H. Van Aken, et al. (2001). "Multimodal perioperative management--combining thoracic epidural analgesia, forced mobilization, and oral nutrition--reduces hormonal and metabolic stress and improves convalescence after major urologic surgery." Anesth Analg 92(6): 1594-600.
We sought in this prospective study to use a multimodal approach to reduce stress and improve recovery in patients undergoing major surgery. During an initial study period, 30 patients were randomly allocated to receive general anesthesia (GA; Group 1) or a combination of GA and intraoperative thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA; Group 2) when undergoing radical cystectomy. Parenteral nutrition was provided for 5 days after surgery. During the second period, 15 patients were treated with a multimodal approach (Group 3) consisting of intraoperative GA and TEA, postoperative patient-controlled TEA, early oral nutrition, and enforced mobilization. Data for plasma and urine catecholamines, plasma cortisol, the nitrogen balance, the postoperative inflammatory nutrition index, pain relief, fatigue, sleep, overnight recovery, recovery of bowel function, and mobilization were recorded up to the fifth postoperative day. Plasma concentrations of catecholamines and cortisol were comparable in all patients, but those in Group 3 had lower levels of urinary catecholamine excretion. Protein intake was more effective with parenteral nutrition. Nitrogen balances were less negative, and the postoperative inflammatory nutrition index score increased significantly in the traditional groups but not in Group 3. Multimodally treated patients reported less fatigue and better overnight recovery. Along with improved pain relief, recovery of bowel function, and ambulation, there were no differences in the postoperative complication rates among the three groups. The multimodal approach reduced stress and improved metabolism and recovery after radical cystectomy.
Capdevila, X., Y. Barthelet, et al. (1999). "Effects of perioperative analgesic technique on the surgical outcome and duration of rehabilitation after major knee surgery [see comments]." Anesthesiology 91(1): 8-15.
BACKGROUND: Continuous passive motion after major knee surgery optimizes the functional prognosis but causes severe pain. The authors tested the hypothesis that postoperative analgesic techniques influence surgical outcome and the duration of convalescence. METHODS: Before standardized general anesthesia, 56 adult scheduled for major knee surgery were randomly assigned to one of three groups, each to receive a different postoperative analgesic technique for 72 h: continuous epidural infusion, continuous femoral block, or intravenous patient- controlled morphine (dose, 1 mg; lockout interval, 7 min; maximum dose, 30 mg/4 h). The first two techniques were performed using a solution of 1% lidocaine, 0.03 mg/ml morphine, and 2 microg/ml clonidine administered at 0.1 ml x kg(-1) x h(-1). Pain was assessed at rest and during continuous passive motion using a visual analog scale. The early postoperative maximal amplitude of knee flexion was measured during continuous passive motion at 24 h and 48 h and compared with the target levels prescribed by the surgeon. To evaluate functional outcome, the maximal amplitudes were measured again on postoperative day 5, at hospital discharge (day 7), and at 1- and 3-month follow-up examinations. When the patients left the surgical ward, they were admitted to a rehabilitation center, where their length of stay depended on prospectively determined discharge criteria RESULTS: The continuous epidural infusion and continuous femoral block groups showed significantly lower visual analog scale scores at rest and during continuous passive motion compared with the patient-controlled morphine group. The early postoperative knee mobilization levels in both continuous epidural infusion and continuous femoral block groups were significantly closer to the target levels prescribed by the surgeon than in the patient-controlled morphine group. On postoperative day 7, these values were 90 degrees (60-100 degrees)(median and 25th-75th percentiles) in the continuous epidural infusion group, 90 degrees (60- 100 degrees) in the continuous femoral block group, and 80 degrees (60- 100 degrees) in the patient-controlled morphine group (P 0.05). The durations of stay in the rehabilitation center were significantly shorter: 37 days (range, 30-45 days) in the continuous epidural infusion group, 40 days (range, 31-60 days) in the continuous femoral block group, and 50 days (range, 30-80 days) in the patient-controlled morphine group (P 0.05). Side effects were encountered more frequently in the continuous epidural infusion group. CONCLUSION: Regional analgesic techniques improve early rehabilitation after major knee surgery by effectively controlling pain during continuous passive motion, thereby hastening convalescence.
Carr, D. B. and A. K. Jacox (1992). Acute pain management: operative or medical procedures and trauma, clinical practice guideline. Rockville MN, Agency for health care policy and research, US department of health and human services.
Dahl, J. B., S. Moiniche, et al. (1994). "Wound infiltration with local anaesthetics for postoperative pain relief [see comments]." Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 38(1): 7-14.
Duthie, D. J. (1998). "Remifentanil and tramadol." Br J Anaesth 81(1): 51-7.
The lack of analgesic efficacy limits tramadol as a sole agent to treat severe pain after surgery. However, it has a relative lack of respiratory depressant and constipating effects compared with morphine and codeine, and does not share the propensity of nonsteroidal anti- inflammatory drugs to provoke asthma, gastrointestinal mucosal damage and renal impairment. It may well have a place in the management of pain after surgery, in combination with another drug, such as paracetamol, or after control of the worst of pain after surgery by a regional local anaesthetic technique.
Gottschalk, A., D. S. Smith, et al. (1998). "Preemptive epidural analgesia and recovery from radical prostatectomy: a randomized controlled trial." Jama 279(14): 1076-82.
CONTEXT: Preemptive analgesia can decrease the sensitization of the central nervous system that would ordinarily amplify subsequent nociceptive input, but a clear demonstration of its clinical efficacy is necessary for it to become a routine component of acute pain therapy. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of preemptive epidural analgesia on postoperative pain and other clinically important outcome variables after radical retropubic prostatectomy. DESIGN AND SETTING: A block randomized double-blind clinical trial lasting 20 months at a single academic medical center. PATIENTS: A total of 100 generally healthy and neurologically intact patients scheduled for radical retropubic prostatectomy for the treatment of prostate cancer in whom an epidural catheter for treating postoperative pain was to be placed prior to the induction of general anesthesia. INTERVENTIONS: Epidural bupivacaine, epidural fentanyl, or no epidural drug was administered prior to induction of anesthesia and throughout the entire operation, followed by aggressive postoperative epidural analgesia for all patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Daily pain scores during hospitalization and pain scores obtained 3.5, 5.5, and 9.5 weeks after hospital discharge. RESULTS: The patients who received epidural fentanyl or bupivacaine prior to surgical incision (preemptive analgesia) experienced 33% less pain while hospitalized (P=.007). Pain scores in those receiving preemptive analgesia were significantly lower at 9.5 weeks (P=.02), but were not significantly different at 3.5 or 5.5 weeks. At 9.5 weeks, 32 (86%) of 37 patients receiving preemptive analgesia were pain-free compared with 9 (47%) of 19 control patients (P=.004). Patients receiving preemptive analgesia were more active 3.5 weeks after surgery (P=.01), but not at 5.5 or 9.5 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Even in the presence of aggressive postoperative pain management, preemptive epidural analgesia significantly decreases postoperative pain during hospitalization and long after discharge, and is associated with increased activity levels after discharge.
Horlocker, T. T. and D. J. Wedel (1998). "Spinal and epidural blockade and perioperative low molecular weight heparin: smooth sailing on the Titanic [editorial] [see comments]." Anesth Analg 86(6): 1153-6.
Read this for good overview of the use of LMWH and neuraxial blockade. See also the guidelines elsewhere in this Web site
Kehlet, H. (1997). "Multimodal approach to control postoperative pathophysiology and rehabilitation." Br J Anaesth 78(5): 606-17.
Major surgery is still associated with undesirable sequelae such as pain, cardiopulmonary, infective and thromboembolic complications, cerebral dysfunction, nausea and gastrointestinal paralysis, fatigue and prolonged convalescence. The key pathogenic factor in postoperative morbidity, excluding failures of surgical and anaesthetic technique, is the surgical stress response with subsequent increased demands on organ function. These changes in organ function are thought to be mediated by trauma-induced endocrine metabolic changes and activation of several biological cascade systems (cytokines, complement, arachidonic acid metabolites, nitric oxide, free oxygen radicals, etc). To understand postoperative morbidity it is therefore necessary to understand the pathophysiological role of the various components of the surgical stress response and to determine if modification of such responses may improve surgical outcome. While no single technique or drug regimen has been shown to eliminate postoperative morbidity and mortality, multimodal interventions may lead to a major reduction in the undesirable sequelae of surgical injury with improved recovery and reduction in postoperative morbidity and overall costs.
Kehlet, H. (1999). "Acute pain control and accelerated postoperative surgical recovery." Surg Clin North Am 79(2): 431-43.
Postoperative pain relief continues to demand our awareness, and surgeons should be fully aware of the potential physiologic benefits of effective dynamic pain relief regimens and the great potential to improve postoperative outcome if such analgesia is used for rehabilitation. To achieve advantageous effects, accelerated multimodal postoperative recovery programs should be developed as a multidisciplinary effort, with integration of postoperative pain management into a postoperative rehabilitation program. This requires revision of traditional care programs, which should be adjusted according to recent knowledge within surgical pathophysiology. Such efforts must be expected to lead to improved quality of care for patients, with less pain and reduced morbidity leading to cost efficiency.
Kehlet, H. and T. Mogensen (1999). "Hospital stay of 2 days after open sigmoidectomy with a multimodal rehabilitation programme." Br J Surg 86(2): 227-30.
BACKGROUND: Hospital stay after colonic surgery is usually between 5 and 10 days, limiting factors being pain, ileus, organ dysfunction and fatigue. Single-modality intervention to reduce these factors with laparoscopic surgery usually requires a hospital stay of 5 days. This paper reports the results of a multimodal rehabilitation regimen after open sigmoidectomy. METHODS: Sixteen unselected patients scheduled for elective sigmoid resection (median age 71 years) underwent operation under combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia. After operation, epidural analgesia was continued for 48 h, with immediate oral nutrition and mobilization, and with planned discharge 2 days after surgery. RESULTS: The median postoperative hospital stay was 2 (range 2-6) days (48 h), patients being mobilized for a median of 5 h on the second postoperative day (24-48 h) and for 10 h on the third day (48-72 h). Within 48 h of operation 14 patients had an oral intake of 2000 ml or more and 15 had resumed defaecation. Fatigue and pain scores were low during the first 8-9 days after operation, with a median of 13 h of mobilization per day after discharge. There were no medical or surgical complications during 30 days of follow-up, except for two patients who suffered postspinal headache. CONCLUSION: Postoperative recovery after open colonic surgery may be accelerated by effective pain relief integrated into an accelerated rehabilitation programme.
Lewis, K. S. and N. H. Han (1997). "Tramadol: a new centrally acting analgesic." Am J Health Syst Pharm 54(6): 643-52.
The pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, adverse effects, and dosage and administration of tramadol are reviewed. Tramadol is a synthetic analogue of codeine that binds to mu opiate receptors and inhibits norepinephrine and serotonin reuptake. It is rapidly and extensively absorbed after oral doses and is metabolized in the liver. Analgesia begins within one hour and starts to peak in two hours. In patients with moderate postoperative pain, i.v. or i.m. tramadol is roughly equal in efficacy to meperidine or morphine; for severe acute pain, tramadol is less effective than morphine. Oral tramadol can also be effective after certain types of surgery. Tramadol and meperidine are equally effective in postoperative patient-controlled analgesia. In epidural administration for pain after abdominal surgery, tramadol is more effective than bupivacaine but less effective than morphine. In patients with ureteral calculi, both dipyrone and butylscopolamine are more effective than tramadol. For labor pain, i.m. tramadol works as well as meperidine and is less likely to cause neonatal respiratory depression. Oral tramadol is as effective as codeine for acute dental pain. In several types of severe or refractory cancer pain, tramadol is effective, but less so than morphine; for other types of chronic pain, such as low-back pain, oral tramadol works as well as acetaminophen- codeine. Common adverse effects of tramadol include dizziness, nausea, dry mouth, and sedation. The abuse potential seems low. The recommended oral dosage is 50-100 mg every four to six hours. Tramadol is an effective, if expensive, alternative to other analgesics in some clinical situations.
Liu, S., R. L. Carpenter, et al. (1995). "Epidural anesthesia and analgesia. Their role in postoperative outcome." Anesthesiology 82(6): 1474-506.
Liu, S. S., R. L. Carpenter, et al. (1995). "Effects of perioperative analgesic technique on rate of recovery after colon surgery." Anesthesiology 83(4): 757-65.
BACKGROUND: Choice of perioperative analgesia may affect the rate of recovery of gastrointestinal function and thus duration and cost of hospitalization after colonic surgery. METHODS: Fifty-four patients undergoing partial colectomy surgery were randomized into four groups. All groups received a standardized general anesthetic. Group MB received a preoperative bolus of epidural bupivacaine and morphine followed by an infusion of morphine and bupivacaine. Group M received a preoperative bolus of epidural morphine followed by an infusion of morphine. Group B received a preoperative bolus of bupivacaine followed by an infusion of bupivacaine. Group P received a preoperative bolus of intravenous morphine followed by intravenous patient-controlled morphine postoperatively. All patients participated in a standardized recovery program to minimize the influence of nonanalgesic factors on recovery of gastrointestinal function. All epidural groups were double-blinded. All patients were deemed ready for discharge according to prospectively defined criteria. RESULTS: Groups B and MB reported superior analgesia with activity (P < 0.01). Group M had a greater incidence of pruritus (P < 0.05). Group B had a greater incidence of orthostatic hypotension (P = 0.04). Groups B and MB recovered gastrointestinal function and fulfilled discharge criteria approximately 1.5 days earlier than groups M and P (P < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Epidural analgesia with bupivacaine and morphine provided the best balance of analgesia and side effects while accelerating postoperative recovery of gastrointestinal function and time to fulfillment of discharge criteria after colon surgery in relatively healthy patients within the context of a multimodal recovery program.
Liu, S. S. and M. F. Mulroy (1998). "Neuraxial anesthesia and analgesia in the presence of standard heparin." Reg Anesth Pain Med 23(6 Suppl 2): 157-63.
Meissner, A., N. Rolf, et al. (1997). "Thoracic epidural anesthesia and the patient with heart disease: benefits, risks, and controversies." Anesth Analg 85(3): 517-28.
Miaskowski, C., J. Crews, et al. (1999). "Anesthesia-based pain services improve the quality of postoperative pain management." Pain 80(1-2): 23-9.
Anesthesia-based pain services are facilitating improvements in the quality of care of surgical patients by developing and directing institution-wide perioperative analgesia programs that include interdisciplinary collaborations. However, the impact of anesthesia- based pain services has not been evaluated in a systematic fashion. This prospective multisite study (n = 23 hospitals) utilized a standardized approach to evaluate the quality of pain care provided to patients who were and who were not cared for by an anesthesia-based pain service. A total of 5837 patients were evaluated using a standardized survey that consisted of a medical record review and a patient interview. The data were collected as part of the hospitals' quality improvement activities. Forty-nine percent of the patients were cared for by an anesthesia-based pain service. Patients who received pain service care reported significantly lower pain intensity scores; had lower levels of pain in the postoperative period; had a lower incidence of pruritus, sedation, and nausea; and experienced significantly less pain than expected. In addition, these patients were more likely to receive patient education about postoperative pain management; were more satisfied with their postoperative pain management; and were discharged sooner from the hospital. The findings from this study demonstrate that the care provided by anesthesia-based pain services has a significant impact on patient outcomes.
NHMRC (1999). "Acute pain management: scientific evidence." http://www.nhmrc.health.gov.au/publications/synopses/cp57syn.htm.
Power, I. and S. Barratt (1999). "Analgesic agents for the postoperative period. Nonopioids." Surg Clin North Am 79(2): 275-95.
For many reasons, nonopioid analgesics have proven to be of immense benefit in postoperative pain relief. Consideration of the limitations and side effects of opioids confirms the need for alternative, complementary analgesics. The current understanding of pain pathophysiology recognizes that many tissue and neuronal factors and changes are invoked by tissue damage, producing peripheral and central sensitization, and some of these may be modulated by the use of NSAIDs, NMDA antagonists, and local anesthetic agents. If successful preemptive analgesic techniques are developed, they will likely include the use of NSAIDs and perhaps NMDA antagonists. Nonopioids are of benefit in multimodal analgesia and allow acute rehabilitation of surgical patients. Acetaminophen, NSAIDs, alpha 2-antagonists, and NMDA antagonists are in routine use as components of multimodal analgesia, in combination with opioids or local anesthetic techniques. Tramadol is interesting because it has nonopioid and opioid actions that can be attributed to the two isomers found in the racemic mixture. Spinal neostigmine and the use of adenosine represent completely different mechanisms of nonopioid analgesia being investigated. Nonopioids, including lidocaine, ketamine, the anticonvulsants, and the antidepressants, are necessary for the treatment of patients with the difficult clinical problem of neuropathic pain that can present in the postoperative period.
Reuben, S. S., N. R. Connelly, et al. (1998). "Dose-response of ketorolac as an adjunct to patient-controlled analgesia morphine in patients after spinal fusion surgery." Anesth Analg 87(1): 98-102.
This randomized, blind study was designed to determine the appropriate dose of ketorolac (a drug used as a supplement to opioids) to administer to patients who have undergone spinal stabilization surgery. The ketorolac was administered every 6 h, in addition to patient- controlled analgesia (PCA) with morphine, to 70 inpatients undergoing spine stabilization by one surgeon. The study was performed to determine the analgesic efficacy and incidence of side effects with different doses of ketorolac. The patients were divided into seven groups. They were given either i.v. saline (control group) or i.v. ketorolac (5, 7.5, 10, 12.5, 15, or 30 mg) every 6 h. The outcomes measured included pain scores, 24-h morphine usage, level of sedation, and side effect profile six times during the first 24 h postoperatively. The total dose of morphine was significantly larger in the control and 5 mg ketorolac groups than in the other five groups. Morphine consumption was similar in all groups receiving > or = 7.5 mg of ketorolac. The pain scores were significantly higher in the control group than in some of the larger dose groups at three of the study intervals. The 5 mg group had higher pain scores than the other groups at most of the time intervals studied. There were no significant differences in pain scores among the other five groups. Sedation scores were higher (i.e., patients were more sedated) in the control group than in the other six groups at three of the time periods. We conclude that the administration of ketorolac 7.5 mg every 6 h has a morphine- sparing effect equivalent to that of larger doses in patients undergoing spine stabilization surgery. Using larger doses of ketorolac did not result in less somnolence, lower morphine use, or less pain. We recommend that ketorolac 7.5 mg be given every 6 h to patients undergoing spinal fusion surgery in addition to PCA morphine. Implications: Using smaller doses of ketorolac (e.g., 7.5 mg every 6 h) as a supplement to morphine patient-controlled analgesia is as effective as larger doses in patients who have undergone spine stabilization surgery.
Stacey, B. R., T. E. Rudy, et al. (1997). "Management of patient-controlled analgesia: a comparison of primary surgeons and a dedicated pain service." Anesth Analg 85(1): 130-4.
Although Patient-Controlled Analgesia (PCA) is routinely available in most hospitals in the United States, there appears to be little standardization regarding who provides this valuable service to postoperative patients. This study evaluates the differences in PCA management practices and patient outcomes between primary service (PS) physicians and acute pain service (APS) physicians. Over a 3-mo period, 40 patients prescribed PCA by PS physicians were prospectively studied without the knowledge of the physicians or nurses involved in PCA management. After collecting PS data, a proportionate stratified random sampling procedure was used to select 40 APS patients matched for gender, age, and type of surgery. Data regarding patient demographics, PCA prescription, changes in PCA orders, opioid consumption, reason for discontinuation of PCA, verbal analog scale pain scores, side effects, and post-PCA pain management were analyzed. Although pain scores were not different between groups, APS patients had fewer side effects, were more likely to receive a loading dose, had their PCA settings adjusted more often (P < 0.05), and used more opioid. PS patients were more likely to receive intramuscular medications after PCA discontinuation (P < 0.05). This study demonstrates potentially important PCA management differences between APS and PS physicians.
Wang, L. P., J. Hauerberg, et al. (1999). "Incidence of spinal epidural abscess after epidural analgesia: a national 1-year survey." Anesthesiology 91(6): 1928-36.
This unique, prospective national audit, from Denmark found that the incidence of epidural abscess was 1:1930. Risk factors included immunosupression, prolonged duration of use (6 days) and non-university hospital.
Vandermeulen, E. P., H. Van Aken, et al. (1994). "Anticoagulants and spinal-epidural anesthesia." Anesth Analg 79(6): 1165-77.