Comparing the analgesic effect of intravenous paracetamol with morphine on patients with renal colic pain: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

IntroductionThe choice of intravenous paracetamol or morphine for the pain control of renal colic remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the analgesic efficacy and safety of intravenous paracetamol with morphine for renal colic pain.MethodsWe search PubMed, EMbase, Web of science, EBSCO, and Cochrane library databases through September 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the analgesic efficacy and safety of intravenous paracetamol versus morphine for renal colic pain. This meta-analysis is performed using the random-effect model.ResultsFive RCTs are included in the meta-analysis. Intravenous paracetamol can lead to significantly lower pain scores at 30 min (standard mean difference (Std. MD) = −0.40; 95% confidence interval (CI) = −0.68 to −0.12; P = 0.005) and incidence of dizziness (risk ratio (RR) = 0.06; 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.48; P = 0.007) than morphine for renal colic pain. There is no statistical difference of pain scores at 15 min (Std. MD = −0.80; 95% CI = −1.84 to 0.24; P = 0.13), analgesic rescue (RR = 0.73; 95% CI = 0.45 to 1.19; P = 0.21), the incidence of adverse events (RR = 0.60; 95% CI = 0.35 to 1.03; P = 0.06), nausea or vomiting (RR = 0.61; 95% CI = 0.20 to 1.87; P = 0.38) between two groups.ConclusionsIntravenous paracetamol may result in lower pain scores at 30 min than morphine for renal colic pain, and more studies should be conducted to compare their analgesic efficacy.     

Comparison of Ketamine,Dexmedetomidine and Lidocaine in Multimodal Analgesia Management Following Sleeve Gastrectomy Surgery: A Randomized Double-Blind Trial

PurposeThe aim of this study was to compare the effects of ketamine, dexmedetomidine, and lidocaine infusions added to the multimodal analgesia regimen on pain scores and analgesic requirement in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.DesignA prospective randomized double-blind trial. Seventy-three patients aged 18 to 65 years (ASA II-III) undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy were included. The patients were divided into 3 groups. Intravenous (IV) ketamine (0.5 mg/kg/h), dexmedetomidine (0.5 mcg/kg/h), and lidocaine (2 mg/kg/h) were administered to Groups K, D and L, respectively. Postoperative infusions were continued for 12 hours.MethodsVisual Analog Scale (VAS) scores (during rest and movement) in the admission to postanesthesia care unit, 1, 3, 6, 12, 24, 48 hours, and on day 15 were assessed postoperatively. Rescue analgesia requirement, the number of patients with nausea, retching, and vomiting, time to mobilization, and hospital length of stay (LOS) were recorded.FindingsVAS_rest values during all measurements in the first 24 hours, and VAS_movement values in the first 6 hours and at 24 hours were lower in Group L when compared to Group K and Group D (P < .001, P < .001, P = .008, respectively). VAS_rest at 48 hours and VAS_movement at 12 and 48 hours were lower in Group L when compared to Group K (P = .044, P = .001 and P = .011, respectively). There was no statistically significant difference between Group D compared to the other two groups at these times (P > .05). The requirement of rescue analgesia on postoperative day 1 was significantly higher in Group K (P < .001). Hospital LOS was shorter in Group L than in the other groups (P = .002).ConclusionsIV lidocaine added to multimodal analgesia provided better pain control in the early postoperative period compared to dexmedetomidine and ketamine and decreased the hospital LOS.     

The efficacy of intravenous lidocaine and its side effects in comparison with intravenous morphine sulfate in patients admitted to the ED with right upper abdominal pain suspected of biliary colic

BackgroundIntravenous (IV) Lidocaine can be used as analgesic in acute pain management in the emergency department (ED).ObjectiveEfficacy of IV Lidocaine in comparison with IV morphine in acute pain management in the ED.MethodThis is a double-blind randomized clinical trial on adult (18–64 year) patients with right upper abdominal pain suspected of biliary colic who needed pain management. Participants randomly received IV lidocaine (5 cc = 100 mg) or morphine sulfate (5 cc = 5 mg). In both groups, patients' pain scores were recorded and assessed by Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) at baseline, 10, 20, 30, 45, 60 and 120 min after drug administration. Adverse side effects of lidocaine and morphine sulfate and changes in vital signs were also recorded and compared.ResultsA total number of 104 patients were enrolled in the study, including 49 men and 55 women. IV lidocaine reduced pain in less time in comparison with morphine sulfate. Mean (±SD) basic pain score was 8.23 (±1.76) in the lidocaine group and 8.73 (±0.96) in the morphine group. Patients' mean (±SD) pain score in both groups had no significant difference during the study except that of NRS2 (10 min after drug administration), which was 5.05 (±2.69) in lidocaine group compared with 6.39 (±2.06) in the morphine group and NRS4 (30 min after drug administration), which was significantly lower (P-value = 0.01) in the morphine group [3.84(±1.73) vs 4.41(±2.82)]. Only 9 patients had adverse effects in either group.ConclusionThe findings of this study suggest that IV lidocaine can be a good choice in pain management in biliary colic and can reduce pain in less time than morphine sulfate (in 10 min) without adding significant side effects; however, our primary outcome was the comparison of these two drugs after 60 min of drug administration in pain reduction which showed no significant difference between two groups.     

Intravenous magnesium sulfate vs. morphine sulfate in relieving renal colic: A randomized clinical trial

ObjectiveRenal colic emerging from renal stone is virtually the most severe pain which is experienced. Intravenous infusion of morphine sulfate is known as a usual treatment for the disease. This study was designed to compare the efficacy of magnesium sulfate vs morphine sulfate in renal colic relief as for analgesic effect as well as lack of morphine sulfate side effects when using magnesium sulfate.MethodsWe conducted a double-blind randomized clinical trial in renal colic patients who had referred to the emergency department of Shahid Sadoughi Hospital in Yazd, Iran. A total of 80 eligible patients were selected and randomly assigned into two groups; patients in the case group received 50 mg/kg intravenous magnesium sulfate, and those in the control group 0.1 mg/kg intravenous morphine. The primary outcome was the pain score measured on a numerical rating scale at 0, 10 and 20 minutes after infusion. Data were analyzed using SPSS₁₆.ResultsThe two groups were similar in terms of demographic features and pain intensity at the time of referral (P <.0001). Ten minutes after drug administration, the pain mean score in the morphine group leveled at 4.88, and in the magnesium group 5.70, which proved to be greater in the morphine group (P- = 0.06). However, the pain mean score turned out to be 3.65 in the morphine group and 3.20 in the magnesium group thus significantly indifferent (P = .48).ConclusionsIn this study, we concluded that administration of intravenous 50 mg/kg magnesium sulfate could be as effective as morphine in reducing renal colic without any further complications.     

Addition of Local Anesthetic Epidural Infusion Catheter to Intravenous Opioid Analgesia for Postoperative Pain Control in Children Undergoing Video Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery (VATS)

PurposePostoperative analgesia following minimally invasive video assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) in pediatric patients may involve intravenous opioid analgesics and continuous local anesthetic infusions via an epidural infusion catheter. The use of epidural catheters may avoid systemic side effects of intravenous opioids in this vulnerable population.DesignOur primary aim was to compare total morphine equivalents (MEQ) required, and pain scores between local anesthetic epidural infusion catheters combined with intravenous opioids, versus intravenous opioids alone in pediatric patients following VATS procedure.MethodsFollowing Institutional Review Board approval, we performed a retrospective chart review of children (ages 1 month to 18 years) who underwent VATS procedure for noncardiac thoracic surgery. Based on the postoperative analgesic technique used, the study population was divided into two groups that is, epidural group and nonepidural group. Both groups received intravenous systemic opioids. The primary outcome variables were total MEQ required and pain scores in the perioperative period.FindingsNinety-two patients were included in the study. Of these, 22 patients belonged to the epidural group versus 70 patients to the nonepidural group. There was no statistical difference in MEQ requirements or pain scores between the groups intraoperatively (P = .304), in the postanesthesia care unit (P = .166), or at postoperative time intervals of 24 hours (P = .805) and 48 hours (P = .844). The presence of infection or empyema was a significant factor for the avoidance of epidural placement by providers (P = .003).ConclusionsThere was no significant difference in the perioperative MEQ or postoperative pain scores between the epidural catheter group and the nonepidural group. More research is necessary to determine if this could be due to epidural catheter malposition and/or inadequate dermatomal coverage of surgical chest tubes.     

Analgesic Effects and Adverse Reactions of Lidocaine for Patient-Controlled Intravenous Analgesia on Patients Undergoing Open Hepatectomy: A Retrospective Analysis

PurposeThe aim of this study was to investigate the effect of lidocaine for patient controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) in patients who underwent open hepatectomy.DesignA retrospective analysis.MethodsA total of 281 patients who underwent open hepatectomy from July 2018 to December 2018 were included. All patients were assigned into two groups: the lidocaine group (PCIA consisted of lidocaine, sufentanil, tramadol and granisetron) and the control group (PCIA consisted of sufentanil, tramadol and granisetron). The postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) and complications (including respiratory depression, hypotension, nausea and vomiting, pruritus, numbness of the corners of the mouth, dizziness) between the groups were compared.FindingsThere were no significant differences between the characteristics, duration of surgery and anesthesia, and recovery of postoperative activity between the two groups. In the first 3 days after the operation, the postoperative VAS score of the lidocaine group was lower than that of the control group at resting state, while after activity, the postoperative VAS contrast results were completely opposite. In particularly, the resting state at 48 hours (h) (1.05 ± 1.25 vs 1.57 ± 1.54) after surgery and the activity state at 72 h (3.02 ± 1.51 vs 2.2 ± 1.66) after surgery (P < 0.05). The incidence of mouth numbness and dizziness were significantly increased in the lidocaine group (P < 0.05).ConclusionThe addition of lidocaine in PCIA was not beneficial to improve the pain during activities and increased the incidence of perioral numbness and dizziness.     

Comparing Analgesia on an As-Needed Basis to Traditional Intravenous Patient-Controlled Analgesia Within Fast-Track Orthopedic Procedures: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BackgroundThe aim was to determine if the use of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IVPCA) in a fast-track joint replacement program is associated with increased use of perioperative opioid consumption and increased length of hospital stay.DesignA prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial.SettingsAcademic hospital.Participants/SubjectsA total of 80 patients aged 18-85 years, with body mass index (BMI) 18-40, undergoing elective total knee arthroplasty were recruited.MethodsPre-operatively, patients received gabapentin, celecoxib, and acetaminophen. Peri-operatively, patients received spinal anesthesia with morphine and fentanyl, and periarticular local anesthetic administration by the surgeon. Postoperatively, 80 patients were randomized by a computer-generated sequence into IVPCA group (group A, n = 40) and non-IVPCA group (group B, n = 40).ResultsThe primary outcome was 48-hour postoperative opioid consumption and length of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes included side effects of opioids, patient satisfaction, and pain scores. There was no significant difference within 48-hour postoperative opioid consumption (median 61.3 vs. 87.5, p = .181) and length of hospital stay (median 49.8 hours vs. 49.5 hours; p = .89) between the two groups. Also, there was no significant difference in patient satisfaction (median 5 in both groups), pain scores, and opioid-related side effects.ConclusionsIVPCA was associated with nonsignificant reduction in opioid exposure in elective total knee arthroplasty surgery within 48 hours. Neither group was superior in terms of length of hospital stay, opioid related side-effects, pain scores, and patient satisfaction.     

Reducing the Pain of Microemulsion Propofol Injections: A Double-Blind,Randomized Study of Three Methods of Tourniquet and Lidocaine

Background

Although the new formulation of lipid-free microemulsion propofol (MP) has some advantages over the lipid emulsion, it reportedly produces more injection pain than lipid-based propofol. Intravenous lidocaine with application of a rubber tourniquet before administration of propofol is considered to be the best method for reducing injection pain; however, this technique is not perfect.

Objective

The goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of different methods of tourniquet application and lidocaine administration on MP injection pain.

Methods

This single-center, randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted in 140 patients aged 18 to 65 years. Patients were randomly divided into 4 groups (n = 35 each). Group A received MP (2 mg/kg) after lidocaine (0.6 mg/kg) with a tourniquet with arm down (venous engorgement); group B received MP after lidocaine with a tourniquet with arm up (venous gravity drainage); group C received MP with a tourniquet with arm down; and group D (control group) received MP only (with no tourniquet). In groups A and C, the tourniquet was released after MP; in group B, the tourniquet was released before MP. Injection pain was evaluated by using a verbal pain score (VPS). The bispectral index, the time from the beginning of drug injection to the loss of eyelash reflex, and time to the lowest bispectral index value were recorded.

Results

Group A showed significantly less incidence of pain than the control group when MP was injected. The mean VPS was significantly lower in groups A, B, and C than in group D (the control group). The VPS of group A was significantly lower than that in group B. Other observed values were not significantly different.

Conclusions

We concluded that intravenous retention of lidocaine with the application of a rubber tourniquet under venous engorgement of the arm reduces the incidence and intensity of MP injection pain. Clinical trial registry: UMIN000010725.     

Lack of Benefit From Paracetamol (Acetaminophen) for Palliative Cancer Patients Requiring High-Dose Strong Opioids: A Randomized,Double-Blind,Placebo-Controlled,Crossover Trial

ContextThe adjunctive use of paracetamol (acetaminophen) with strong opioids has become entrenched practice in palliative care pain management, despite little evidence to support its use.ObjectiveThe study aim was to investigate potential analgesic benefits of 4 g of paracetamol daily for palliative cancer patients requiring high-dose opioids.MethodsThirty-one patients, using at least 200 mg of oral morphine equivalent daily, were recruited to a prospective, double-blinded, randomized, crossover trial. Patients received usual medications plus 4 g of paracetamol or placebo for five days each in random order. Primary outcome, effect on pain, was assessed using daily diaries, including a numerical rating scale (NRS) from zero (no pain) to 10 (unbearable) and recording numbers of breakthrough analgesics. Secondary outcomes—nausea, vomiting, cognitive impairment, constipation, and overall well-being—were assessed using the NRS. Data from the last four days of each treatment were analyzed. Patients also indicated in which part of the study their pain was better controlled.ResultsTwenty-two patients, requiring a median dose of 255 mg of oral morphine equivalent daily, completed the trial. There were no significant order or treatment-by-order interaction effects for any variable; paired t-tests were conducted to investigate change in mean levels on outcome variables with placebo vs. paracetamol. For none of the variables was there a statistically significant difference when assessed with placebo compared with paracetamol. No change approached clinically significant levels, with a mean difference in rated pain of 0.16, and mean difference of 0.42 for a number of breakthrough medications. Fifteen patients were undecided whether paracetamol improved pain.ConclusionsThese data do not support the common practice of adding regular paracetamol daily as an adjunct to high-dose opioids for pain control in cancer patients receiving palliative care.     

Comparing Diazepam Plus Fentanyl With Midazolam Plus Fentanyl in the Moderate Procedural Sedation of Anterior Shoulder Dislocations: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BackgroundThe reduction of shoulder dislocation requires adequate procedural sedation and analgesia. The mixture of midazolam and fentanyl is reported in the literature, but long-acting benzodiazepines in conjunction with fentanyl are lacking.Study ObjectiveOur aim was to compar e IV diazepam with IV midazolam in moderate procedural sedation (based on the classification of the American Society of Anesthesiologists) for the reduction of shoulder dislocation.MethodsThis was a randomized controlled clinical trial conducted from April 2019 to December 2019 in the emergency department of a university-affiliated hospital in Tehran, Iran. Participants were adult patients (aged 18–65 years) with anterior shoulder dislocation. Group A (n = 42) received diazepam 0.1 mg/kg plus fentanyl 1 μg/kg IV and group B received midazolam 0.1 mg/kg plus fentanyl 1 μg g/kg IV. Main outcomes measured were onset of muscle relaxation, time taken to reduction, total procedure time, number of the reduction attempts, patient recovery time, the occurrence of the adverse effects, amount of the pain reported by the patients using visual analog scale, and patients and physicians overall satisfaction with the procedure using a Likert scale question.ResultsEighty-one patients were included. The mean ± standard deviation time of the onset of the muscle relaxation and time taken to reduction was shorter in the diazepam plus fentanyl group (p = 0.016 and p = 0.001, respectively). Adverse effects and pain relief were not statistically different between the two groups. Patient recovery time and total procedure time was shorter in the midazolam plus fentanyl group (p = 0.008 and p = 0.02, respectively). The overall satisfaction of patients and physicians was higher in the diazepam plus fentanyl group.ConclusionsAs compared with midazolam plus fentanyl, diazepam plus fentanyl was superior in terms of the onset of the muscle relaxation, patient and physician satisfaction, and time taken to reduction.     

The Effect of a Cartoon and an Information Video About Intravenous Insertion on Pain and Fear in Children Aged 6 to 12 Years in the Pediatric Emergency Unit: A Randomized Controlled Trial

IntroductionIntravenous insertion is the most common invasive procedure made for administering intravascular fluid and medicine. Peripheral venous catheterization may cause pain, fear, and stress in children. This study aimed to compare the effects of watching a cartoon and an information video about intravenous insertion on the pain and fear levels of children aged 6-12 years.MethodsThe study was an experimental, randomized controlled clinical trial. It was conducted with 477 children aged 6-12 years randomized into 3 groups: the informative animated video group, the cartoon group, and the control group. Fear and pain perception were evaluated on the basis of the feedback from the child, observer nurse, and parents. The Children’s Fear Scale was used to evaluate the fear level and the Wong-Baker FACES Scale was used to assess pain levels. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance, the chi-square test, and the intraclass correlation coefficient test.ResultsThe children who watched the information video before the intravenous insertion procedure and those who watched a cartoon during the procedure had lower mean pain and fear scores as evaluated by the child (pain: F = 278.67, P = 0.001; fear: F = 294.88, P = 0.001), parent (pain: F = 279.53, P = 0.001; fear: F = 294.47, P = 0.001), and nurse (pain: F = 286.88, P = 0.001; fear: F = 300.81, P = 0.001) than children in the control group.DiscussionThis study showed that watching an animation video or a cartoon was effective in lowering children’s perceived level of pain and fear during an intravenous insertion intervention.     

Use of Scheduled Nonopioid Analgesia to Decrease Inpatient Opioid Consumption After Scheduled Cesarean Birth

ObjectiveTo compare opioid use and pain scores in women who had scheduled cesarean birth before and after implementing a scheduled nonopioid analgesia practice guideline.DesignQuality improvement project with a comparison of pre-/postintervention.Setting/Local ProblemA 170-bed community hospital where the administration of postcesarean pain medications was unstandardized.ParticipantsConvenience sample of 175 individuals who were scheduled for cesarean birth (106 in preintervention group and 69 in postimplementation group).Intervention/MeasurementsAll participants had received a dose of 150 mcg of intrathecal morphine intraoperatively. Care of participants in the postimplementation group included a new practice guideline using preoperative oral acetaminophen 1 g and postoperative intravenous ketorolac 30 mg that transitioned to ibuprofen 600 mg orally every 6 hours until discharge. Acetaminophen 1 g every 6 hours also continued until discharge. For breakthrough pain, oxycodone 5 mg to 10 mg was available.ResultsResults were analyzed using the chi-square and t test. There was a statistical difference in the mean milligram morphine equivalent consumed after scheduled cesarean birth (preintervention = 21.15 vs. postintervention = 3.91, p < .001). Postimplementation, 84.1% of participants did not consume any opioids beyond the intrathecal dose compared to 47.2% of participants preintervention. Mean pain scores decreased from 2.49 to 1.62 (p < .001), and there was an observed decrease of the highest reported pain score from 5.39 to 4.03 (p < .001).ConclusionThe results of this project support the current literature indicating that the administration of a scheduled nonopioid multimodal analgesia regimen to individuals with scheduled cesarean birth is an effective postoperative pain management strategy. This approach to managing surgical birth pain can decrease subjective reports of pain and overall opioid consumption during the hospital stay.     

Efficacy of Intravenous Ibuprofen and Intravenous Paracetamol in Multimodal Pain Management of Postoperative Pain After Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy

PurposeMany different techniques, including multimodal analgesia, have been used for the management of postoperative pain after Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Ketorolac, intravenous (IV) paracetamol, rofecoxib, and IV ibuprofen have been used as a part of a multimodal analgesic approach in different surgical procedures. However, the efficacy of IV ibuprofen has not been well elucidated in adult patients undergoing elective PCNL. The aim of the study was to examine the efficacy of IV ibuprofen compared to IV paracetamol after elective PCNL.DesignThis was a prospective randomized clinic study.MethodsThe study was conducted with 50 patients scheduled for PNCL between the ages of 18 and 65. IV ibuprofen 800 mg infusion was used for Group I, and 1 g IV paracetamol infusion Group P. IV tramadol infusion was administered with a Patient Controlled Analgesia device for postoperative analgesia. The primary outcome was 24-hour tramadol consumption. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity and side effects of the drugs. All outcomes were recorded in the 30th minute in the PACU and in 2, 4, 6, 12, 24 hours postoperatively.FindingsTotal postoperative tramadol consumption was significantly lower in Group I compared with Group P (P = .031). There was also a significant decrease in the cumulative tramadol consumption between the two groups in the 2nd and 24th hours (P < .012). In all measurement periods, pain intensity, sedation score, nausea and vomiting, itching, additional analgesia, and satisfaction with pain management were similar between the two groups.ConclusionIV ibuprofen, used as a part of multimodal tramadol-based analgesia reduced tramadol consumption compared with IV paracetamol in the first 24 hours postoperatively after elective PCNL. The IV ibuprofen-tramadol combination seems appeared superior to a paracetamol-tramadol combination.     

Lidocaine for prevention of propofol injection-induced pain: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled study of the effect of duration of venous occlusion with a tourniquet in adults

Background: Many patients experience pain on injection of propofol. The use of lidocaine to prevent propofol injection pain is common. The analgesic effect of pre-injected lidocaine has been found to increase when a tourniquet is used.Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of various venous occlusion times with lidocaine analgesia to prevent pain during propofol injection.Methods: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled study, women aged 18 to 45 years, classifed as American Society of Anesthesiologists physical sta- tus I or II, who were scheduled to undergo elective surgery under general anesthesia induced with propofol, were randomly assigned to 1 of 5 groups: group 1, 2% lidocaine 20 mg in saline in a total volume of 10 mL and no venous occlusion; group 2, 2% lidocaine 20 mg in saline in a total volume of 10 mL plus venous occlusion for 15 seconds; group 3, 2% lidocaine plus venous occlusion for 30 seconds; group 4, 2% lidocaine plus venous occlusion for 60 seconds; and group 5, saline 10 mL and no venous occlusion. When the first 25% of the calculated propofol dose was administered, patients were asked about propofol-induced pain using a verbal pain scale (0 = no pain; 1 = mild pain; 2 = moderate pain; and 3 = severe pain). All patients and the anesthesiologist who evaluated pain severity were blinded to the study preparation being used.Results: The study comprised 100 women who were randomly divided into 5 groups of 20 patients each. Significantly more patients in group 5 (18 [90%] patients; P < 0.05) reported pain compared with the other treatment groups. In groups 2, 3, and 4, in which venous occlusion was applied, pain was reported during propofol injection in 6 (30%), 7 (35%), and 2 (10%) patients, respectively. The incidence of reported pain was significantly greater in group 1 (lidocaine without venous occlusion) than in group 4 (P < 0.05); however, the incidence of pain was similar in group 1 compared with groups 2 and 3.Conclusions: The present study found that pretreatment with lidocaine 20 mg with or without venous occlusion significantly reduced the incidence and the severity of pain during the injection of propofol when compared with the group with no venous occlusion administered saline. In addition, pretreatment with lidocaine 20 mg plus venous occlusion for 60 seconds significantly reduced the incidence of propofol-induced pain compared with lidocaine without venous occlusion.     

Effect of Patient State Index Monitoring on the Recovery Characteristics in Morbidly Obese Patients: Comparison of Inhalation Anesthesia and Total Intravenous Anesthesia

PurposeObese patients have a significantly higher risk of adverse effects associated with general anesthesia. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of Patient State Index (PSI) monitoring on recovery from anesthesia and the incidence of any postoperative complications among patients undergoing bariatric surgery with total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and inhalational anesthesia.DesignThis prospective, double-blind, and randomized controlled trial was conducted between February 2017 and August 2017 and included 120 morbidly obese patients (body mass index >40 kg/m²).MethodsPatients were randomly divided into four groups; group P-PSI (n = 30): TIVA with PSI monitoring; group P (n = 30): TIVA without PSI monitoring; group D-PSI (n = 30): desflurane with PSI monitoring; and group D (n = 30): desflurane without PSI monitoring. The discharge time from the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), postoperative complications, and hemodynamic parameters were recorded and evaluated.FindingsNo significant differences were found in demographic data, duration of anesthesia, admittance to PACU, discharge from PACU, modified Aldrete scores, and perioperative mean blood pressure and heart rate. Nausea and vomiting scores were significantly lower in group P-PSI, group P, and group D-PSI compared with group D.ConclusionsAlthough TIVA and inhalational anesthesia can be safely used for obese patients, intraoperative PSI monitoring may decrease the discharge time from PACU and reduces incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting caused by inhalation anesthetics.     

Efficacy of Videoconference Group Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) and Behavioral Activation Therapy for Depression (BATD) for Chronic Low Back Pain (CLBP) Plus Comorbid Depressive Symptoms: A Randomized Controlled Trial (IMPACT Study)

This study examined the efficacy of adding a remote, synchronous, group, videoconference-based form of acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) or behavioral activation therapy for depression (BATD) to treatment-as-usual (TAU) in 234 patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) plus comorbid depressive symptoms. Participants were randomly assigned to ACT, BATD, or TAU. Compared to TAU, ACT produced a significant reduction in pain interference at posttreatment (d = .64) and at follow-up (d = .73). BATD was only superior to TAU at follow-up (d = .66). A significant reduction in pain catastrophizing was reported by patients assigned to ACT and BATD at posttreatment (d = .45 and d = .59, respectively) and at follow-up (d = .59, in both) compared to TAU. Stress was significantly reduced at posttreatment by ACT in comparison to TAU (d = .69). No significant between-group differences were found in depressive or anxiety symptoms. Clinically relevant number needed to treat (NNT) values for reduction in pain interference were obtained at posttreatment (ACT vs TAU = 4) and at follow-up (ACT vs TAU = 3; BATD vs TAU = 5). In both active therapies, improvements in pain interference at follow-up were significantly related to improvements at posttreatment in psychological flexibility. These findings suggest that new forms of cognitive-behavioral therapy are clinically useful in improving pain interference and pain catastrophizing. Further research on evidence-based change processes is required to understand the therapeutic needs of patients with chronic pain and comorbid conditions.Trial numberNCT04140838.PerspectiveGroup videoconference-based ACT and BATD showed greater efficacy than TAU for reducing pain interference and pain catastrophizing in patients with CLBP plus clinically relevant depression. Psychological flexibility appeared to be the main contributor to treatment effects for both ACT and BATD.     

The Comparison of Two Different Techniques of Remifentanil Administration During Implantable Vascular Access Device Procedures

PurposeThe aim was to compare analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of two different techniques of intravenous remifentanil administration in patients undergoing vascular; access device procedures with monitored anesthesia care.DesignA randomized, single-blinded controlled study.MethodsThe patients (N = 92) were 30-80 years old and of American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status I-III. The first group was the continuous infusion group (group CI). Intravenous continuous remifentanil was infused after starting at a dosage of 0.1 mcg/kg/min, and the dose was raised incrementally up to 1 mcg/kg/min if required. The second group was intravenous bolus patient-controlled sedation analgesia (PCSA) with remifentanil infusion at a dose of 0.05 mcg/kg per minute and bolus of 0.1 mcg/kg with lock-out time of 3 minutes. In both groups, a bolus dose of 0.1 mcg/kg remifentanil was administered. The data evaluated include level of pain and sedation, total amount of remifentanil consumption, bolus doses of remifentanil, patient and surgeon satisfaction, hemodynamic data, and adverse events.FindingsIn comparison between techniques, pain and sedation scores during procedure, duration of procedure, patient and surgeon satisfaction, additional rescue medication, and bolus doses were not statistically different (P > .05). The total amount of remifentanil administered was significantly lower in the infusion group than that in the bolus group (P = .031).ConclusionsFor central venous access device procedures under monitored anesthesia care, remifentanil use in both infusion and bolus techniques could provide sufficient sedation and analgesia without serious adverse effects. Total remifentanil consumption amount in infusion group is lower than that in the bolus group.     

Analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of epidural morphine compared to parenteral opioids after elective caesarean section: A systematic review

BackgroundThe optimal effective dose of epidural morphine that provides postoperative analgesia after caesarean section with minimal side effects remains debated.AimsWe performed a systematic review to assess the analgesic efficacy and the incidence of adverse effects of epidural morphine after caesarean section compared to systemic analgesia with opioids.MethodsWe searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane Collaboration Library databases. Studies were evaluated with the Modified Oxford Scale. Prospective randomized studies comparing analgesic efficacy and/or adverse effects of a single epidural morphine administration versus systemic opioids after elective caesarean section were included.ResultsTen studies (n = 431) were selected. Epidural morphine increases the time until the first request for a rescue analgesic (Emax, 29.7 h; 95% confidence interval, 25.2–33.9) and decreases pain scores and postoperative morphine request during the first 24 h compared to systemic opioid analgesia. However, epidural morphine increases the incidence of pruritus (relative risk, 2.7; 95% CI, 2.1–3.6) and nausea (relative risk, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.2–3.3).ConclusionsA single bolus of epidural morphine provides better analgesia than parenteral opioids but with an effect limited to the first postoperative day after caesarean section and with an increase in morphine side effects.     

Efficacy of Different Doses of Lidocaine in the Prevention of Pain Due to Propofol Injection: A Randomized, Open-Label Trial in 120 Patients

Background: The incidence of pain due to propofol injection is high, but the most efficacious method of preventing this pain has not been identified.Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of lidocaine, at different doses and schedules, on propofol injection pain.Methods: In this open-label study, conducted at the Department of Anaesthesiology, Erciyes University Gevher Nesibe Hospital (Kayseri, Turkey), patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists Patient Acuity Classification I-II (ASA I-II) (ie, patients with absent [I] or mild [II] underlying systemic disease) aged 18 to 60 years undergoing various types of surgery were eligible. Patients were randomized to 1 of 4 treatment groups: group 1 received propofol; group 2, a combination of propofol plus lidocaine 10 mg; group 3, lidocaine 10 mg 30 seconds before propofol administration; and group 4, lidocaine 1 mg/kg 30 seconds before propofol administration (all drugs were administered intravenously). After cessation of the standard replacement fluid infusion (isotonic saline), propofol was given at a rate of 2 mL every 5 seconds until a dose of 2 mg/kg was reached. The patients were asked to rate their pain according to the following scale: 0 = none, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, and 3 = severe.Results: A total of 120 patients (61 men, 59 women; mean [SD] age, 38.7 [8.9] years) were enrolled in the study (n = 30 patients in each group). The incidence of injection pain in groups 2 and 4 was significantly lower than that in groups 1 and 3 (all P<0.05), but no significant difference in the incidence of pain was found between groups 1 and 3. The incidence of pain in group 2 was significantly lower than that in group 4 (P<0.05).Conclusions: In this study population, the addition of 10 mg of lidocaine to propofol 2 mg/kg, or the administration of 1 mg/kg of lidocaine 30 seconds before the administration of propofol 2 mg/kg, effectively decreased pain caused by propofol injection. Furthermore, a lower dose of lidocaine could be used. Based on our results, we suggest mixing propofol with 10 mg of lidocaine to decrease pain due to propofol injection during anesthesia induction.