Postoperative analgesia after major abdominal surgery: Fentanyl–bupivacaine patient controlled epidural analgesia versus fentanyl patient controlled intravenous analgesia

Intravenous versus Epidural Routes of Patient-Controlled Analgesia in Abdominal Surgery: Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the intravenous and epidural routes of patient-controlled anesthesia in abdominal surgery.

METHODS

We searched for randomized clinical trials that compared the intravenous and epidural modes of patient-controlled anesthesia in intra-abdominal surgery in adults. Data analysis was performed in RevMan 5.4. Heterogeneity was measured using I2 statistic. Risk of bias was assessed using the Jadad/Oxford quality scoring system.

RESULTS

Seven studies reporting 529 patients were included into the meta-analysis. For pain at rest, the mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) was -0.00 [-0.79, 0.78], p-value 0.99, while for pain on coughing, it was 0.43 [-0.02, 0.88], p-value 0.06, indicating that patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) was superior. For the sedation score, the mean difference with 95% CI was 0.26 [-0.37, 0.89], p-value 0.42, slightly favoring PCEA. For the length of hospital stay, the mean difference with 95% CI was 1.13 [0.29, 1.98], p-value 0.009, favoring PCEA. For postoperative complications, the risk ratio with 95% CI was 0.8 [0.62, 1.03], p-value 0.08, slightly favoring patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIVA). A significant effect was observed for hypotension, favoring PCIVA.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-controlled intravenous analgesia compared with patient-controlled epidural analgesia was associated with fewer episodes of hypotension. PCEA, on other hand, was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay. Pain control and other side effects did not differ significantly. Only three studies out of seven had an acceptable methodological quality. Thus, these conclusions should be taken with caution.

Opioid-Sparing Analgesia Impacts the Perioperative Anesthetic Management in Major Abdominal Surgery

Background and Objectives: The management of acute postoperative pain (APP) following major abdominal surgery implies various analgetic strategies. Opioids lie at the core of every analgesia protocol, despite their side effect profile. To limit patients’ exposure to opioids, considerable effort has been made to define new opioid-sparing anesthesia techniques relying on multimodal analgesia. Our study aims to investigate the role of adjuvant multimodal analgesic agents, such as ketamine, lidocaine, and epidural analgesia in perioperative pain control, the incidence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD), and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after major abdominal surgery. Materials and Methods: This is a clinical, observational, randomized, monocentric study, in which 80 patients were enrolled and divided into three groups: Standard group, C (n = 32), where patients received perioperative opioids combined with a fixed regimen of metamizole/acetaminophen for pain control; co-analgetic group, Co-A (n = 26), where, in addition to standard therapy, patients received perioperative systemic ketamine and lidocaine; and the epidural group, EA (n = 22), which included patients that received standard perioperative analgetic therapy combined with epidural analgesia. We considered the primary outcome, the postoperative pain intensity, assessed by the visual analogue scale (VAS) at 1 h, 6 h, and 12 h postoperatively. The secondary outcomes were the total intraoperative fentanyl dose, total postoperative morphine dose, maximal intraoperative sevoflurane concentration, confusion assessment method for intensive care units score (CAM-ICU) at 1 h, 6 h, and 12 h postoperatively, and the postoperative dose of ondansetron as a marker for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) severity. Results: We observed a significant decrease in VAS score, as the primary outcome, for both multimodal analgesic regimens, as compared to the control. Moreover, the intraoperative fentanyl and postoperative morphine doses were, consequently, reduced. The maximal sevoflurane concentration and POCD were reduced by EA. No differences were observed between groups concerning PONV severity. Conclusions: Multimodal analgesia concepts should be individualized based on the patient’s needs and consent. Efforts should be made to develop strategies that can aid in the reduction of opioid use in a perioperative setting and improve the standard of care.

Post-operative pain management modalities employed in clinical trials for adult patients in LMIC; a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Unrelieved postoperative pain afflicts millions each year in low and middle income countries (LMIC). Despite substantial advances in the study of pain, this area remains neglected. Current systematic review was designed to ascertain the types of clinical trials conducted in LMIC on postoperative pain management modalities over the last decade.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was performed in June 2019 on PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL Plus, and Web of Science databases to identify relevant trials on the management of postoperative pain in LMIC. Out of 1450 RCTs, 108 studies were reviewed for quality evidence using structured form of critical appraisal skill program. Total of 51 clinical trials were included after applying inclusion/exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Results are charted according to the type of surgery. Eleven trials on laparoscopic cholecystectomy used multimodal analgesia including some form of regional analgesia. Different analgesic modalities were studied in 4 trials on thoracotomy, but none used multimodal approach. In 11 trials on laparotomy, multimodal analgesia was employed along with the studied modalities. In 2 trials on hysterectomy, preemptive pregabalin or gabapentin were used for reduction in rescue analgesia. In 13 trials on breast surgical procedures and 10 on orthopaedic surgery, multimodal analgesia was used with some form of regional analgesia.

CONCLUSION

We found that over the past 10 years, clinical trials for postoperative pain modalities have evolved in LMIC according to the current postoperative pain management guidelines i.e. multi-modal approach with some form of regional analgesia. The current review shows that clinical trials were conducted using multimodal analgesia including but not limited to some form of regional analgesia for postoperative pain in LMIC however this research snapshot (of only three countries) may not exactly reflect the clinical practices in all 47 countries. Post Operative Pain Management Modalities Employed in Clinical Trials for Adult Patients in LMIC; A Systematic Review.

Extended-Release Dinalbuphine Sebacate Versus Intravenous Patient-Controlled Analgesia with Fentanyl for Postoperative Moderate-to-Severe Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

Post-operative pain control remains unsatisfactory in patients after laparotomy. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and quality of life with a single dose of extended-release dinalbuphine sebacate (ERDS) pre-operatively to intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with fentanyl in patients undergoing laparotomy.

METHODS

This was a prospective, open-label, randomized controlled study. Of 110 randomized patients, 107 completed all assessments. The area under the curve (AUC) of visual analogue scale (VAS) from baseline to 48 h after surgery, VAS throughout 7 days after surgery, post-operative analgesics use, quality of life, satisfaction, and safety were evaluated.

RESULTS

The AUC of VAS from baseline to 48 h after surgery were 118.6 [97.5% confidence interval (CI) 95.6-141.6] in ERDS group and 176.13 (97.5% CI 150.8-201.4) in PCA group, which showed the non-inferiority because the upper limit of the 97.5% CIs of ERDS group was lower than the lower limit of PCA group (P < 0.001), but also had superiority in favor of ERDS group (P < 0.001). ERDS group reported a significant reduction in VAS pain intensity at 4, 24, 32, 72, 120, and 144 h after surgery, and better quality of life (P < 0.05). The safety profile was comparable between ERDS and PCA groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing laparotomy, a single dose of dinalbuphine sebacate was superior to intravenous PCA with fentanyl on lower pain intensity and better quality of life.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03296488.

A comparison of fetomaternal outcome in PCEA using fentanyl, clonidine and dexmedetomidine as adjuvants with Ropivacaine in painless labor: a prospective, double blinded randomized study

Background: Patient controlled epidural analgesia has been associated with marked maternal satisfaction. Combination of local anesthetics with various adjuvants have been tried to ensure optimum analgesia with no or negligible fetomaternal side effects. Aim: To compare fentanyl, clonidine or dexmedetomidine as adjuvants with ropivacaine for labor epidural analgesia (LEA) using a PCEA pump with the objective to assess fetomaternal outcome in terms of analgesic effect, success rate of vaginal delivery, complications, neonatal APGAR score and maternal satisfaction. Materials and methods: Sixty full term laboring women received 10 ml 0.2% ropivacaine followed by continuous infusion of 0.1% ropivacaine with 2 μg/ml of either dexmedetomidine, fentanyl or clonidine respectively in Groups A, B, and C at 6 ml/hr. demand bolus setting was 2 ml with a lock out interval of 15 minutes. At full cervical dilatation another 10 ml bolus of respective solution were given. Parturients were monitored at 0, 10, 20, 30 min after giving 1st epidural bolus dose and then at 30 min interval for ongoing labor for pain relief (VAS), motor blockade (Bromage score), progress of labor (duration of 1st stage and 2nd stage), mode of delivery, fetal APGAR score (at 1 min and 5 min), vitals (HR, NIBP, RR, SpO2), overall patient satisfaction and complications. The statistical analysis was done both qualitatively (Fisher-exact test/Chi-square test) and quantitatively (one-way analysis of variance test with post-hoc intergroup comparisons using Bonferroni’s correction). Results: Onset of pain relief was earlier in fentanyl group, however after 1 h all three groups showed comparable pain relief (P>0.05). There was a significant reduction in HR in group C and B compared to group A (P<0.001) and MAP in group C compared to groups A and B. The motor- blocking potency was slightly higher in dexmedetomidine group, however no significant motor weakness observed in any parturient. Mean demand bolus need was more in group C compared to A and B (P<0.001). There was no significant difference in mode of delivery (either SVD or cesarean) in between the groups. There was not a single case of fetal distress and most of the parturients showed satisfactory response to PCEA. Conclusion: All three study drugs produced equipotent analgesia in combination with ropivacaine 0.1%. There was absolute pain relief without significant motor blockade or any increase in instrumentation/cesarean deliveries or any adverse fetal outcomes.

Epidural analgesia versus patient-controlled intravenous analgesia for pain following intra-abdominal surgery in adults

BACKGROUND

Intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IVPCA) with opioids and epidural analgesia (EA) using either continuous epidural administration (CEA) or patient-controlled (PCEA) techniques are popular approaches for analgesia following intra-abdominal surgery. Despite several attempts to compare the risks and benefits, the optimal form of analgesia for these procedures remains the subject of debate.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to update and expand a previously published Cochrane Review on IVPCA versus CEA for pain after intra-abdominal surgery with the addition of the comparator PCEA. We have compared both forms of EA to IVPCA. Where appropriate we have performed subgroup analysis for CEA versus PCEA.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases for relevant studies: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2017; Issue 8), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1966 to September 2017), and Embase (OvidSP) (1988 to September 2017) using a combination of MeSH and text words. We searched the following trial registries: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the EU Clinical Trials Register in September 2017, together with reference checking and citation searching to identify additional studies.We included only randomized controlled trials and used no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all parallel and cross-over randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CEA or PCEA (or both) with IVPCA for postoperative pain relief in adults following intra-abdominal surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (JS and EY) independently identified studies for eligibility and performed data extraction using a data extraction form. In cases of disagreement (three occasions) a third review author (MB) was consulted. We appraised each included study to assess the risk of bias as outlined in Section 8.5 of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 32 studies (1716 participants) in our review. There are 10 studies awaiting classification and one ongoing study. A total of 869 participants (51%) received EA and 847 (49%) received IVPCA. The EA trials included 16 trials with CEA (418 participants) and 16 trials with PCEA (451 participants). The studies included a broad range of surgical procedures (including hysterectomies, radical prostatectomies, Caesarean sections, colorectal and upper gastrointestinal procedures), a wide range of adult ages, and were performed in several different countries.Our pooled analyses suggested a benefit with regard to pain scores (using a visual analogue scale between 0 and 100) in favour of EA techniques at rest. The mean pain reduction at rest from waking to six hours after operation was 5.7 points (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.9 to 9.5; 7 trials, 384 participants; moderate-quality evidence). From seven to 24 hours, the mean pain reduction was 9.0 points (95% CI 4.6 to 13.4; 11 trials, 558 participants; moderate-quality evidence). From 24 hours the mean pain reduction was 5.1 points (95% CI 0.9 to 9.4; 7 trials, 393 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Due to high statistical heterogeneity, no pooled analysis was possible for the estimation of pain on movement at any time. Two single studies (one using CEA and one PCEA) reported lower pain scores with EA compared to IVPCA at 0 to 6 hours and 7 to 24 hours. At > 24 hours the results from 2 studies (both CEA) were conflicting.We found no difference in mortality between EA and IVPCA, although the only deaths reported were in the EA group (5/287, 1.7%). The risk ratio (RR) of death with EA compared to using IVPCA was 3.37 (95% CI 0.72 to 15.88; 9 trials, 560 participants; low-quality evidence).A single study suggested that the use of EA may result in fewer episodes of respiratory depression, with an RR of 0.47 (95% CI 0.04 to 5.69; 1 trial; low-quality evidence). The successful placement of an epidural catheter can be technically challenging. The improvements in pain scores above were accompanied by an increase in the risk of failure of the analgesic technique with EA (RR 2.48, 95% CI 1.13 to 5.45; 10 trials, 678 participants; moderate-quality evidence); the occurrence of pruritus (RR 2.36, 95% CI 1.67 to 3.35; 8 trials, 492 participants; moderate-quality evidence); and episodes of hypotension requiring intervention (RR 7.13, 95% CI 2.87 to 17.75; 6 trials, 479 participants; moderate-quality evidence). There was no clear evidence of an advantage of one technique over another for other adverse effects considered in this review (Venous thromboembolism with EA (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.95; 2 trials, 101 participants; low-quality evidence); nausea and vomiting (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.27; 10 trials, 645 participants; moderate-quality evidence); sedation requiring intervention (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.87; 4 trials, 223 participants; moderate-quality evidence); or episodes of desaturation to less than 90% (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.37; 5 trials, 328 participants; moderate-quality evidence)).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The additional pain reduction at rest associated with the use of EA rather than IVPCA is modest and unlikely to be clinically important. Single-trial estimates provide low-quality evidence that there may be an additional reduction in pain on movement, which is clinically important. Any improvement needs to be interpreted with the understanding that the use of EA is also associated with an increased chance of failure to successfully institute analgesia, and an increased likelihood of episodes of hypotension requiring intervention and pruritus. We have rated the evidence as of moderate quality given study limitations in most of the contributing studies. Further large RCTs are required to determine the ideal analgesic technique. The 10 studies awaiting classification may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.

Effects of Patient-Controlled Epidural Analgesia and Patient-Controlled Intravenous Analgesia on Analgesia in Patients Undergoing Spinal Fusion Surgery

We compared the outcomes of patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) in analgesia after spinal fusion surgery. A total of 120 patients who underwent spinal fusion surgeries between April 2013 and April 2015 at Shaanxi Provincial People's Hospital were selected for this study based on defined inclusion criteria. All patients were randomly divided into 2 groups before surgery: PCEA group (n = 65) and PCIA group (n = 55). Visual analog scales (VAS) were used to evaluate the degree of pain. Besides, the active and passive activities of patients during 1- to 3-day recovery period after surgery were recorded. Verbal rating scales were used to measure pain levels after surgery and after surgery. Adverse effects of PCEA and PCIA were monitored, which included nausea, vomiting, pruritus, drowsiness, respiratory depression, and headache. Our results showed no statistically significant differences between PCEA and PCIA in sex ratio, age, height, weight, American Society of Anesthesiologists level, surgery time, number of fusion section, surgery methods, and duration of anesthesia (all P > 0.05). The PCEA group was associated with significantly lower VAS scores, compared with the PCIA group, at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 48-hour postsurgery (all P < 0.05) when surgery-associated pain is expected to be intense. Also, compared with the PCIA group, the PCEA group showed higher frequency of recovery activities on first and second day postsurgery (all P < 0.05). The overall patient satisfaction level of analgesia in the PCEA group was significantly higher than in the PCIA group (P < 0.05). Moreover, the incidence of hypopiesia and skin itching in the PCIA group was higher than in the PCEA group (all P < 0.05). Finally, drowsiness and headache were markedly lower in the PCIA group after surgery, compared with the PCEA group, and this difference was statistically significant (all P < 0.05). Our results provide strong evidence that PCEA exhibits significantly greater efficacy than PCIA for pain management after spinal fusion surgery, with lower VAS scores, higher frequency of recovery activities, and overall higher satisfaction level.

ASSIST - Patient satisfaction survey in postoperative pain management from Indian subcontinent

INTRODUCTION

To compare pain scores at rest and ambulation and to assess patient satisfaction between the different modalities of pain management at different time points after surgery.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN

The ASSIST (Patient Satisfaction Survey: Pain Management) was an investigator-initiated, prospective, multicenter survey conducted among 1046 postoperative patients from India.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Pain scores, patient's and caregiver's satisfaction toward postoperative pain treatment, and overall pain management at the hospital were captured at three different time points through a specially designed questionnaire. The survey assessed if the presence of acute pain services (APSs) leads to better pain scores and patient satisfaction scores.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

One-way ANOVA was used to evaluate the statistical significance between different modalities of pain management, and paired t-test was used to compare pain and patient satisfaction scores between the APS and non-APS groups.

RESULTS

The results indicated that about 88.4% of patients reported postoperative pain during the first 24 h after surgery. The mean pain score at rest on a scale of 1-10 was 2.3 ± 1.8 during the first 24 h after surgery and 1.1 ± 1.5 at 72 h; the patient satisfaction was 7.9/10. Significant pain relief from all pain treatment was reported by patients in the non-APS group (81.6%) compared with those in the APS (77.8%) group (P < 0.0016).

CONCLUSION

This investigator-initiated survey from the Indian subcontinent demonstrates that current standards of care in postoperative pain management remain suboptimal and that APS service, wherever it exists, is yet to reach its full potential.

Epidural pain relief versus systemic opioid-based pain relief for abdominal aortic surgery

BACKGROUND

Epidural analgesia offers greater pain relief compared to systemic opioid-based medications, but its effect on morbidity and mortality is unclear. This review was originally published in 2006 and was updated in 2012 and again in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of postoperative epidural analgesia in comparison with postoperative systemic opioid-based analgesia for adults undergoing elective abdominal aortic surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

In the updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and five trial registers in November 2014, together with reference checking to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials comparing postoperative epidural analgesia and postoperative systemic opioid-based analgesia for adults who underwent elective open abdominal aortic surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information and data when required. We assessed the level of evidence according to the scale provided by the GRADE working group.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 trials published from 1987 to 2009 with 1498 participants in this updated review. Participants had a mean age between 60.5 and 71.3 years. The percentage of women in the included studies varied from 0% to 28.1%. Adding an epidural to general anaesthesia for people undergoing abdominal aortic repair reduced myocardial infarction (risk ratio (RR) 0.54 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30 to 0.97); I(2) statistic = 0%; number needed to treat for one additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 28 (95% CI 19 to 1423), visual or verbal analogical scale (VAS) scores up to three days after the surgery (mean difference (MD) -1.78 (95% CI -2.32 to -1.25); I(2) statistic = 0% for VAS scores on movement at postoperative day one), time to tracheal extubation (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.42 (95% CI -0.70 to -0.15); I(2) statistic = 83%; equivalent to a mean reduction of 36 hours), postoperative respiratory failure (RR 0.69 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.85); I(2) statistic = 0%; NNTB 8 (95% CI 6 to 16)), gastrointestinal bleeding (OR 0.20 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.65); I(2) statistic = 0%; NNTB 32 (95% CI 27 to 74)) and time spent in the intensive care unit (SMD -0.23 (95% CI -0.41 to -0.06); I(2) statistic = 0%; equivalent to a mean reduction of six hours). We did not demonstrate a reduction in the mortality rate up to 30 days (RR 1.06 (95% CI 0.60 to 1.86); I(2) statistic = 0%). The level of evidence was low for mortality and time before tracheal extubation; moderate for myocardial infarction, respiratory failure and intensive care unit length of stay; and high for gastrointestinal bleeding and VAS scores.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Epidural analgesia provided better pain management, reduced myocardial infarction, time to tracheal extubation, postoperative respiratory failure, gastrointestinal bleeding, and intensive care unit length of stay compared with systemic opioid-based drugs. For mortality, we did not find a difference at 30 days.