Comparison of ropivacaine-fentanyl patient-controlled epidural analgesia with morphine intravenous patient-controlled analgesia for perioperative analgesia and recovery after open colon surgery

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of ropivacaine-fentanyl patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) with morphine intravenous (IV) patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, multicenter trial. SETTING: Five university-affiliated hospitals. PATIENTS: 41 patients undergoing colon surgery. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to receive either standardized combined epidural/general anesthesia followed by PCEA with ropivacaine 0.2% and fentanyl (2 microg/mL) or standardized general anesthesia followed by morphine IV PCA. All patients participated in a standardized postoperative clinical pathway. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Analgesia was assessed with visual analog scale (VAS) scores. Postoperative recovery was assessed by completion of prospectively defined discharge milestones and time until discharge. Statistical analyses included nonparametric and contingency table analyses. The PCEA group had better analgesia (> 50% reduction in pain scores, assessed both at rest and during a cough) for the first 3 days after surgery (p < 0.0,005). The PCEA group achieved discharge milestones approximately 36 hours faster (p < 0.002), but time until discharge was similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Ropivacaine-fentanyl PCEA provides superior analgesia, reduced opioid requirement, and more rapid recovery after colon surgery.     

Thoracic epidural analgesia compared with patient controlled intravenous morphine after upper abdominal surgery

Twenty–one ASA I or II patients undergoing upper abdominal surgery were studied for 24 hours after operation. They were entered into a prospective, randomised study of patient–controlled intravenous morphine compared with continuous thoracic epidural fentanyl combined with 0.2% bupivacaine. Pain relief was superior in the bupivacaine series ( P < 0.05) throughout the 24 hour study period and this was associated with significantly greater pulmonary ventilation compared with the PCA series. Forced expiratory parameters were reduced in both series after the operation but significantly less so in the epidural group. There was a reduced incidence of emetic symptoms in the epidural group ( P < 0.05) but the incidence of other minor side effects did not differ significantly. Thoracic epidural fentanyl/bupivacaine results in significantly better analgesia than patient–controlled intravenous morphine.     

A multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing patient-controlled epidural with intravenous analgesia for pain relief in labor

In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, we sought to determine whether patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) for labor affected the incidence of cesarean delivery when compared with patient-controlled IV opioid analgesia (PCIA). Healthy, term nulliparous patients in 4 Canadian institutions were randomly assigned to receive PCIA with fentanyl (n = 118) or PCEA with 0.08% bupivacaine and fentanyl 1.6 microg/mL (n = 124). There was no difference in the incidence of cesarean delivery-10.2% (12 of 118) versus 9.7% (12 of 124)-or instrumental vaginal delivery-21.2% (25 of 118) versus 29% (36 of 124)-between groups. The duration of the second stage of labor was increased in the PCEA group by a median of 23 min (P = 0.02). Fifty-one patients (43%) in the PCIA group received epidural analgesia: 39 (33%) because of inadequate pain relief and 12 (10%) to facilitate operative delivery. Patients in the PCIA group required more antiemetic therapy (17% versus 6.4%; P = 0.01) and had more sedation (39% versus 5%; P < 0.001). Maternal mean pain and satisfaction with analgesia scores were better in the PCEA group (P < 0.001 and P = 0.02, respectively). More neonates in the PCIA group required active resuscitation (52% versus 31%; P = 0.001) and naloxone (17% versus 3%; P < 0.001). These observations support the hypothesis that PCEA does not result in an increased incidence of obstetrical intervention compared with PCIA. PCEA provides superior analgesia and less maternal and neonatal sedation compared with PCIA.     

Thoracic epidural analgesia versus intravenous patient-controlled analgesia for the treatment of rib fracture pain after motor vehicle crash.

BACKGROUND: Pain from rib fracture pain may affect pulmonary function, morbidity, and length of intensive care unit stay. Previous trials have varied epidural technique within the study and have used several outcome variables. METHODS: The charts of patients who sustained rib fractures after a motor vehicle crash between January 1, 1994, and June 30, 1997, were reviewed. Data were collected from 64 patients who had three or more rib fractures and initiation of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with morphine or thoracic epidural analgesia with bupivacaine and fentanyl within 24 hours of admission. RESULTS: Injury Severity Score and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores were not significantly different between groups. Patients in the epidural group had significantly more rib fractures and were significantly older. Patients who received epidural analgesia had significantly lower pain scores at all times. There were no differences in the lengths of intensive care unit or hospital stays, or the incidence of pulmonary complications or organ failure between groups. CONCLUSION: Thoracic epidural analgesia with bupivacaine and fentanyl provided superior analgesia than intravenous patient-controlled analgesia morphine.     

Thoracic epidural anesthesia for cardiac surgery: the effects on tracheal intubation time and length of hospital stay.

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 x kg(-1) x h(-1)). Another 50 patients (the General Anesthesia group) received fentanyl 15 microg/kg and propofol (5 mg x kg(-1) x 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.     

Efficacy of postoperative patient-controlled and continuous infusion epidural analgesia versus intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with opioids: a meta-analysis

The authors performed a meta-analysis and found that epidural analgesia overall provided superior postoperative analgesia compared with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia. For all types of surgery and pain assessments, all forms of epidural analgesia (both continuous epidural infusion and patient-controlled epidural analgesia) provided significantly superior postoperative analgesia compared with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia, with the exception of hydrophilic opioid-only epidural regimens. Continuous epidural infusion provided statistically significantly superior analgesia versus patient-controlled epidural analgesia for overall pain, pain at rest, and pain with activity; however, patients receiving continuous epidural infusion had a significantly higher incidence of nausea-vomiting and motor block but lower incidence of pruritus. In summary, almost without exception, epidural analgesia, regardless of analgesic agent, epidural regimen, and type and time of pain assessment, provided superior postoperative analgesia compared to intravenous patient-controlled analgesia.     

Remifentanil compared with morphine for postoperative patient-controlled analgesia after major abdominal surgery: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This randomized, double-blinded clinical study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of remifentanil and morphine administered using intravenous (i.v.) patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) for postoperative analgesia after major abdominal surgery during the first 24 postoperative hours. METHODS: Sixty-nine patients were randomly allocated into two groups, each receiving remifentanil or morphine. The first group received i.v. remifentanil PCA with a loading dose of 45 microg, a maintenance dose of 1 microg min(-1), a bolus dose of 15 microg and a lockout interval of 10 min during the first 24 postoperative hours. The second group received i.v. morphine PCA with a loading dose of 5 mg, a maintenance dose of 0.3 mg h(-1), a bolus dose of 1 mg and a lockout interval of 15 min. Age, weight, sex, history of general anaesthesia, duration of surgery and time spent in the post-anaesthesia care unit were recorded. Preoperative pulse rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressures (BP), respiration rate and arterial blood gases were collected. Pulmonary function was tested before induction of anaesthesia, as well as at 4 and 26 h after operation. Pulse rate, systolic and diastolic BP, respiration rate, arterial blood gases, sedation and visual analogue scores, and presence of side-effects in the recovery room and on the ward for 24 h were recorded at 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 12, 18 and 24 h after operation. Total drug use, number of boluses delivered, number of boluses demanded and delivery/demand ratio were collected. RESULTS: Sixty patients were evaluated. The groups did not differ in age, weight, sex, history of general anaesthesia, duration of surgery or time spent in the recovery unit. There were also no clinically relevant differences between the groups with regard to haemodynamic and respiratory parameters as well as sedation and visual analogue scores (P > 0.05). More bolus doses were demanded and delivered and the delivery/demand ratio was significantly higher in the remifentanil group (P < 0.05). There was no finding suggesting acute opioid tolerance during remifentanil or morphine PCA. CONCLUSION: The i.v. remifentanil PCA with the chosen dosage regimen after abdominal surgery produces postoperative analgesia and has cardiovascular side-effects similar to those achieved with i.v. morphine. Special attention must be given to respiratory depression during establishment of PCA with remifentanil.     

Effects of general anesthesia with and without thoracic epidural block on length of stay after open spine surgery: a single-blinded randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND CONTEXTLength of hospital stay (LOS) is an important concern in all types of surgery, and the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol has been developed to improve perioperative management and outcomes, which require multidisciplinary management. In terms of pain control, intraoperative regional anesthesia and postoperative opioid-sparing analgesia are recommended. For open spine surgery, we aimed to combine thoracic epidural analgesia to reduce pain and opioid-related side effects, thereby hastening recovery.PURPOSEThis study aimed to compare the length of hospital stay after open complete laminectomy with fusion between general anesthesia and combined general anesthesia involving a single thoracic epidural injection.DESIGNA randomized single-blinded controlled study.PATIENT SAMPLEThirty-eight patients scheduled for elective open laminectomy with fusion between I and III levels were selected.OUTCOME MEASURESLOS, postoperative pain, patient-controlled morphine consumption at 24 hours, patient satisfaction score, and other opioid-related side effects were recorded.METHODSPatients were randomly selected to receive standard general anesthesia (GA) or GA combined with a single-shot thoracic epidural at T11–T12 or T12–L1, a block with 10 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine, and 4 mg of morphine.RESULTSThere were no significant differences in the demographic variables between groups. LOS was significantly lower in the combined epidural and/or GA than in the control group (3.78±0.81 [mean±standard deviation] and 4.79±1.51 days, respectively; p=.017). Numeric rating score (at rest) at the post-anesthesia care unit, 24 hours postoperative morphine consumption (mg), operating time, and blood loss were significantly lower in the epidural group. Patients who received combined epidural and/or GA were more likely to report higher patient satisfaction (p=.008). However, the incidence of intraoperative hypotension was significantly higher in the epidural group (72.2% vs. 21.1%, p=.003). The incidences of adverse events and surgical field rating scores did not differ between the 2 patient groups.CONCLUSIONSCombined lower thoracic epidural and/or GA in patients undergoing elective lumbar spine surgery was associated with decreased LOS.     

Patient-controlled interscalene analgesia versus patient-controlled intravenous analgesia in postoperative analgesia after upper extremity surgery

The effectiveness of patient-controlled interscalene analgesia (PCISA) and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIVA) in the management of postoperative pain in 36 patients was studied. The general anesthetic technique was standardized. After surgery, all patients received 2 mg intravenous morphine. The patients were then randomized to receive either PCISA or PCIVA. The PCISA group received an interscalene block with 20 ml of 1% lidocaine. A catheter was introduced within the interscalene sheath and 20 min after the initial block, patients received a continuous infusion of 0.125 bupivacaine at rate of 4 ml/h supplemented by a bolus dose of 3 ml with a 15-min lockout time. PCIVA was given as a 1 mg morphine bolus and a 7-min lockout time. Pain relief was regularly assessed using a visual analog scale. Side effects and patient satisfaction were noted. The study period ended 48 h after the operation. Pain relief was significantly better controlled in the PCISA group 6, 12, 24, and 30 h after the operation (P<0.05). At 36, 42, and 48 h, no significant difference in pain score between the two groups was observed. Patient satisfaction was greater in the PCISA group (P<0.05). Vomiting and pruritus were observed more frequently in the PCIVA group (P<0.05). No major complications occurred in any of the study patients. The use of the PCISA technique was uncomplicated and provided better pain relief than PCIVA in postoperative analgesia.     

Evaluation of costs and effects of epidural analgesia and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia after major abdominal surgery

Background. The outcome of different treatment strategies forpostoperative pain has been an issue of controversy. Apart fromefficacy and effectiveness a policy decision should also considercost-effectiveness. Since economic analyses on postoperativepain treatment are rare we developed a decision model in a pilotcost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) comparing epidural analgesia(EDA) and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) aftermajor abdominal surgery in routine care. Methods. Using a decision-tree model, treatment with EDA (ropivacaineand morphine) was compared with PCIA (morphine). Effects andcosts of treatment were established. The number of pain-freedays at rest (pain intensity <30 using visual analogue scale1–100 mm) was the primary measure of effect. An incrementalcost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as the differencein direct costs divided by the difference in effect. A databaseon 644 patients collected for the purpose of quality controlduring the period of 1997 to 1999 was the main data source.Sensitivity analysis was used to test uncertain data. Results. EDA was more effective in terms of pain-free days butmore expensive. The additional cost for each pain-free day was5652 Euros. Conclusion. It is a judgement of value if the additional costis reasonable. When the cost of around 55 000 Euros per gainedlife-year with full health for other interventions is debated,our result indicates poor cost-effectiveness for EDA. Beforeany conclusion can be drawn concerning policy recommendationsthe difference in costs has to be related to other outcome measuresas length of hospital stay, morbidity and mortality are required.     

Efficacy of systemic lidocaine on postoperative quality of recovery and analgesia after video-assisted thoracic surgery: A randomized controlled trial

Study objectiveIntraoperative systemic lidocaine has become widely accepted as an adjunct to general anesthesia, associated with opioid-sparing and enhanced recovery. We hypothesized that perioperative systemic lidocaine improves postoperative pain and enhances the quality of recovery (QoR) in patients following video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS).DesignProspective, single-center, double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial.SettingSingle institution, tertiary university hospital.PatientsAdult patients aged 18 to 65 undergoing VATS were eligible for participation.InterventionsPatients enrolled in this study were randomized to receive either system lidocaine (a bolus of 1.5 mg kg⁻¹, followed by an infusion of 2 mg kg⁻¹ h⁻¹ until the end of the surgical procedure) or identical volumes and rates of 0.9% saline.MeasurementsThe primary outcome was a global QoR-15 score 24 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes included postoperative pain score, cumulative opioid consumption, emergence time, length of PACU stay, adverse events, and patient satisfaction.Main resultsThere was no difference in the global QoR-15 scores at 24 h postoperatively between the lidocaine and saline groups (median 117, IQR 113.5–124, vs. median 116, IQR 111–120, P = 0.067), with a median difference of 3 (95% CI 0 to 6, P = 0.507). Similarly, postoperative pain scores, postoperative cumulative opioid consumption, PACU length of stay, the occurrence of PONV, and patient satisfaction were comparable between the two groups (all P > 0.05).ConclusionsOur current findings do not support using perioperative systemic lidocaine as a potential strategy to improve postoperative pain and enhance QoR in patients undergoing VATS.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry (identifier: ChiCTR1900027515).