[Safety and monitoring of patient-controlled intravenous analgesia : Clinical practice in German hospitals]

[Perioperative pain therapy in minimally invasive thoracic surgery]

Thoracic surgery is often associated with severe postoperative pain levels. Even though these are less pronounced in thoracoscopic approaches, mechanical irritation, compression or injury of intercostal nerves and placement of chest tubes can cause pain levels, which must be treated. An adequate pain therapy in thoracic surgery is essential as insufficient inspiration due to inadequate analgesia may result in postoperative complications. Epidural anesthesia was considered the gold standard in thoracotomy for a long time. For video-assisted thoracoscopy, however, it is sometimes no longer recommended due to its benefit-risk ratio. Alternative thoracic blocks are the paravertebral block, the erector spinae plane block and the serratus anterior block, for which research has found heterogeneous results.This article summarizes the current recommendations for perioperative management of thoracoscopic surgery and gives an overview of the PROSPECT recommendations as well as the current Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF) guidelines for perioperative and postoperative pain therapy. In particular, individual regional anesthesia techniques and their current evidence are reviewed.

Salivary cortisol as a biomarker of stress in surgical patients

Background

Surgical stress and pain result in activation of hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal axis. The aim of this study was to establish the effects of postoperative pain and various modalities of analgesic administration on salivary and serum cortisol levels, as well as to establish the validity of salivary cortisol as a stress indicator in surgical patients.

Methods

A randomized controlled trial involved 60 patients scheduled for elective abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery. Patients were randomly divided into two groups depending on the model of postoperative analgesia. The first group (MI - morphine intermittently) included patients given morphine doses 0.1 mg/kg/6h s.c. intermittently. The second group (MPCA - morphine patient-controlled analgesia) included patients who received morphine via the PCA system - intravenous administration of morphine adjusted to a dose of 1 mg per shot and a lockout interval of 6 minutes.

Propofol total intravenous anaesthesia versus inhalational anaesthesia for acute postoperative pain in patients with morphine patient-controlled analgesia: a large-scale retrospective study with covariate adjustment

Background

To compare the postoperative analgesic effect of propofol total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) versus inhalational anaesthesia (GAS) in patients using morphine patient-controlled analgesia (PCA).

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was performed in a single tertiary university hospital. Adult patients who used PCA morphine after general anaesthesia across 15 types of surgeries were included. Patients who received propofol TIVA were compared to those who had inhalational anaesthesia. Primary outcomes assessed were postoperative numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores and postoperative opioid consumption.

Results

Data from 4202 patients were analysed. The overall adjusted NRS pain scores were significantly lower in patients who received propofol TIVA at rest (GEE: β estimate of the mean on a 0 to 10 scale = -0.56, 95% CI = (-0.74 to -0.38), p < 0.001; GAS as reference group) and with movement (β estimate = -0.89, 95% CI = (-1.1 to -0.69), p < 0.001) from postoperative days (POD) 1–3. Propofol TIVA was associated with lower overall adjusted postoperative morphine consumption (β estimate = -3.45, 95% CI = (-4.46 to -2.44), p < 0.001). Patients with propofol TIVA had lower adjusted NRS pain scores with movement for hepatobiliary/pancreatic (p < 0.001), upper gastrointestinal (p < 0.001) and urological surgeries (p = 0.005); and less adjusted postoperative morphine consumption for hepatobiliary/pancreatic (p < 0.001), upper gastrointestinal (p = 0.006) and urological surgeries (p = 0.002). There were no differences for other types of surgeries.

Conclusion

Propofol TIVA was associated with statistically significant, but small reduction in pain scores and opioid consumption in patients using PCA morphine. Subgroup analysis suggests clinically meaningful analgesia possibly for hepatobiliary/pancreatic and upper gastrointestinal surgeries.

Trial registration

This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03875872).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12871-022-01683-9.

[Critical incidents in acute pain management-A risk analysis of CIRS reports]

BACKGROUND

Areas of activity with many intersections pose an increased risk for errors and critical incidents. Therefore, procedures for acute pain therapy are potentially associated with an increased risk for adverse patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to identify and grade the risk of critical incidents in the context of acute pain management.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The register of the nationwide reporting system critical incident reporting system of the Professional Association of German Anesthesiologists, the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine and the Medical Center for Quality in Medicine (CIRSmedical Anesthesiology) was screened for incidents concerning pain management. Out of 5365 cases reported nationwide up to 24 March 2020, 508 reports with the selection criterion "pain" could be identified and reviewed and 281 reports (55%) were included in a systematic analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 281 reports most came from anesthesiology departments (94%; 3% from surgery departments and 3% from other departments). The reported cases occurred most frequently on normal wards but a relevant proportion of the reports concerned intermediate and intensive care units or areas covered by a pain service (PS). Based on the description of the incident in the report, an involvement of the PS could be assumed for 42% of the cases. In terms of time, most of the events could be assigned to normal working hours (90%) and working days (84%; weekends 16%). The analyzed reports related to parenteral administration of analgesics (40%) and central (40%) or peripheral regional anesthesia procedures (23%) and 13% of the reports related to patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA; multiple answers possible). Most of the events were caused by technical errors, communication deficits and deviations from routine protocols. A relevant number of the cases were based on mix-ups in the administration route, the dosage, or the active agent. About one third of the sources of error were of an organizational nature, 59% of the cases posed a possible vital risk and in 16% of cases patients had vital complications. The risk grading by risk matrix resulted in an extremely high risk in 7%, a high risk in 62%, a moderate risk in 25% and a low risk in 6% of the cases. Comparing risk assessment of events with involvement of different analgesic methods, multiple medication, combination of analgesic methods or involvement of PS showed no significant differences. Likewise, no differences could be identified between the risk assessments of events at different superordinate cause levels. If more than one overriding cause of error had an impact, initially no higher risk profile was found.

CONCLUSION

Incidents in the context of acute pain management can pose high risks for patients. Incidents or near-incidents are mostly related to mistakes and lack of skills of the staff, often due to time pressure and workload as well as to inadequate organization.