Determination of acute tolerance and hyperalgesia to remifentanil constant rate infusion in dogs undergoing sevoflurane anaesthesia

Pain Management in Animals with Oncological Disease: Opioids as Influencers of Immune and Tumor Cellular Balance

Advancements in understanding pain physiopathology have historically challenged animals' absence of pain senses. Studies have demonstrated that animals have comparable neural pain pathways, suggesting that cats and dogs likely experience pain similarly to humans. Understanding brain circuits for effective pain control has been crucial to adjusting pain management to the patient's individual responses and current condition. The refinement of analgesic strategies is necessary to better cater to the patient's demands. Cancer pain management searches to ascertain analgesic protocols that enhance patient well-being by minimizing or abolishing pain and reducing its impact on the immune system and cancer cells. Due to their ability to reduce nerve sensitivity, opioids are the mainstay for managing moderate and severe acute pain; however, despite their association with tumor progression, specific opioid agents have immune-protective properties and are considered safe alternatives to analgesia for cancer patients.

Effect of Ketorolac Tromethamine Combined With Remifentanil on Reducing Complications During the General Anesthesia Emergence

PURPOSE

To observe the effect of ketorolac tromethamine combined with remifentanil in sedation and analgesia during general anesthesia emergence and reducing general anesthesia complications.

DESIGN

This is an experimental design.

METHODS

A total of 90 patients who underwent partial or total thyroidectomy in our hospital were selected and randomly divided into three groups with 30 cases in each group. Routine general anesthesia combined with endotracheal intubation was given for general anesthesia, and different treatments were administered when the skin was sutured. Group K: intravenous injection of ketorolac tromethamine 0.9 mg/kg, intravenous injection of normal saline 10 mL/h by micropump until awakening and extubation; R group: intravenous injection of normal saline 2 mL, micropump intravenous injection of remifentanil 0.1 mcg/kg/min until awakening and extubation; KR group: intravenous injection of ketorolac tromethamine 0.5 mg/kg, micropump intravenous injection remifentanil 0.05 mcg/kg/min until awakening and extubation. After the operation, all patients entered the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) for recovery, extubation, scoring. The incidence and condition of various complications were counted.

FINDINGS

There was no significant difference in the general information or operation duration of the patients (P > .05). The types of general anesthesia induction drugs in each group were the same, and there was no significant difference in drug measurement (P > .05). The visual analogue scales of KR group were: 2.2 ± 0.6(T0) and 2.4 ± 0.9(T1), the Self-Rating Anxiety Scale scores of the KR groups were: 4.1 ± 0.6(T0), 3.7 ± 0.4(T1). Compared with the KR group, the visual analogue scale and Self-Rating Anxiety Scale scores of the K and R groups at T0 and T1 were increased (P < .05); the visual analogue scale and Self-Rating Anxiety Scale scores of the K and R groups at T0 and T1 were not significantly different (P > .05); at T2, there was no significant difference in visual analogue scale and Self-Rating Anxiety Scale scores among the three groups (P > .05). There was no significant difference in extubation time or PACU transfer time among the three groups (P > .05). The incidence of adverse reactions in KR group were: 3.3% (nausea), 3.3% (vomit), 0 (coughing and drowsiness). Compared with the KR group, the incidence of adverse reactions was higher in the K and R groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Ketorolac tromethamine combined with remifentanil can effectively relieve pain and sedation during general anesthesia recovery and reduce the incidence of complications related to general anesthesia recovery. At the same time, the application of ketorolac tromethamine can reduce the dosage of remifentanil and inhibit the occurrence of adverse reactions when used alone.

Pain burden, sensory profile and inflammatory cytokines of dogs with naturally-occurring neuropathic pain treated with gabapentin alone or with meloxicam

Canine neuropathic pain (NeuP) has been poorly investigated. This study aimed to evaluate the pain burden, sensory profile and inflammatory cytokines in dogs with naturally-occurring NeuP. Twenty-nine client-owned dogs with NeuP were included in a prospective, partially masked, randomized crossover clinical trial, and treated with gabapentin/placebo/gabapentin-meloxicam or gabapentin-meloxicam/placebo/gabapentin (each treatment block of 7 days; total 21 days). Pain scores, mechanical (MNT) and electrical (ENT) nociceptive thresholds and descending noxious inhibitory controls (DNIC) were assessed at baseline, days 7, 14, and 21. DNIC was evaluated using ΔMNT (after-before conditioning stimulus). Positive or negative ΔMNT corresponded to inhibitory or facilitatory pain profiles, respectively. Pain scores were recorded using the Client Specific Outcome Measures (CSOM), Canine Brief Pain Inventory (CBPI), and short-form Glasgow Composite Measure Pain Scale (CMPS-SF). Data from baseline were compared to those of sixteen healthy controls. ΔMNT, but not MNT and ENT, was significantly larger in controls (2.3 ± 0.9 N) than in NeuP (-0.2 ± 0.7 N). The percentage of dogs with facilitatory sensory profile was similar at baseline and after placebo (61.5–63%), and between controls and after gabapentin (33.3–34.6%). The CBPI scores were significantly different between gabapentin (CBPI _pain and CBPI _{overall impression}) and/or gabapentin-meloxicam (CBPI _pain and _interference) when compared with baseline, but not placebo. The CBPI scores were not significantly different between placebo and baseline. The concentration of cytokines was not different between groups or treatments. Dogs with NeuP have deficient inhibitory pain mechanisms. Pain burden was reduced after gabapentin and/or gabapentin-meloxicam when compared with baseline using CBPI and CMPS-SF scores. However, these scores were not superior than placebo, nor placebo was superior to baseline evaluations. A caregiver placebo effect may have biased the results.