Clonidine Premedication Reduces Maternal Requirement for Intravenous Morphine After Cesarean Delivery Without Affecting Newborn's Outcome:

Oral clonidine as a pre-anesthetic medication in hair transplantation surgery-A pilot study

BACKGROUND

Hair transplantation (HT) is a safe and rewarding procedure for a patient as well as the surgeon. Clonidine may be a good adjuvant in HT because of its analgesic, anxiolytic, and sedative effects.

OBJECTIVE

To study efficacy of Clonidine as a preoperative medication in HT.

METHODS & MATERIALS

The study was a prospective trial of 46 consecutive patients who underwent HT between January and May 2017. Patients with normal vital parameters on arrival were given Tab clonidine (0.1 mg) 30 min before starting of the procedure [Clonidine group (n = 30)]; rest were included in the control group (n = 16). Vitals were monitored every 30 min during surgery until the end. Patients were assessed for pain, level of sedation during surgery and for postoperative analgesia.

RESULT

All patients who received clonidine, except one, were comfortable and experienced no pain throughout the duration of surgery; nine went into deep sleep. Of the 16 patients in the control group, no patients reported deep sleep, 3 felt restless, and 4 had mild pain. There were no untoward effects in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that clonidine is useful as a pre-anesthetic medication in HT. However, this is a pilot study and further larger studies are needed.

Clonidine Effect on Pain After Cesarean Delivery: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Different Routes of Administration

BACKGROUND

Intrathecal clonidine prolongs spinal anesthesia. We evaluated the effects of the addition of intrathecal or intravenous clonidine (75 µg) to standard cesarean delivery spinal anesthesia on postoperative pain and neonatal outcomes.

METHODS

In a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial, 64 women scheduled for elective cesarean delivery under spinal anesthesia were randomly allocated and compared among 3 groups: intrathecal clonidine 75 µg, intravenous clonidine 75 µg, and placebo. The primary outcome was acute postoperative pain. A sample size of 26 individuals per group (N = 78) was planned.

RESULTS

From April 2015 to April 2016, 64 women were analyzed (14 excluded). No differences in postoperative pain scores were found (Numerical Verbal Scale for pain at movement at 24 hours of postcesarean delivery: 4.53 ± 3.0 vs 4.45 ± 2.73 vs 3.93 ± 3.07 for control, intrathecal, and intravenous, respectively, P = .771). Intrathecal and intravenous clonidine led to more sedation, in comparison to the control group, during the intraoperative period (Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale: -0.3 ± 0.47 vs -1 ± 0.53 vs -0.73 ± 0.45 for control, intrathecal, and intravenous, respectively, overall P < .001; Dunn correction: P < .001 for intrathecal versus control; P = .021 for intravenous versus control; and P = .208 for intrathecal versus intravenous).

CONCLUSIONS

Intrathecal or intravenous clonidine had no effect on postoperative pain after cesarean delivery. Both intrathecal and intravenous clonidine caused more sedation.

Oral analgesia for relieving post-caesarean pain

BACKGROUND

Oral analgesia is a convenient and widely used form of pain relief following caesarean section. It includes various medications used at different doses alone or in adjunction to other form of analgesia.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of oral analgesia for post-caesarean pain relief.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 July 2014) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Quasi-randomised and cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion.Interventions included oral medication given to women for post-caesarean pain relief compared with oral medication, or placebo/no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed for inclusion all the potential studies and independently assessed trial quality, extracted the data using the agreed data extraction form, and checked them for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight small trials involving 962 women (out of 13 included trials) contributed data to the analysis, of which only four trials had low risk of bias.None of the included studies reported on 'adequate pain relief', which is one of this review's primary outcomes. 1. Opiod analgesics versus placeboBased on one trial involving 120 women, the effect of opioids versus placebo was not significant in relation to the need for additional pain relief (primary outcome) (risk ratio (RR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 1.92), and the effect in terms of adverse drug effects outcomes was also uncertain (RR 6.58, 95% CI 0.38 to 113.96).Low (75 mg) and high (150 mg) doses of tramadol had a similar effect on the need for additional pain relief (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.78 and RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 2.68, respectively, one study, 80 women). 2. Non-opioid analgesia versus placeboThe confidence interval for the lower requirement for additional analgesia (primary outcome) with the non-opioid analgesia group was wide and includes little or no effect (average RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.01, six studies, 584 women). However, we observed substantial heterogeneity due to the variety of non-opioid drugs used (I(2) = 85%). In a subgroup analysis of different drugs, only gabapentin use resulted in less need for additional pain relief (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.51, one trial, 126 women). There was no difference in need for additional pain relief with the use of celexocib, ibuprofen, ketoprofen, naproxen, paracetamol. Maternal drug effects were more common with the use of non-opioid analgesics (RR 11.12, 95% CI 2.13 to 58.22, two trials, 267 women).Gabapentin 300 mg (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.49, one study, 63 women) and 600 mg (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.71, one study, 63 women) as well as ketoprofen 100 mg (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.79, one study 72 women) were both more effective than placebo with respect to the need for additional pain relief. However, the 50 mg ketoprofen group and the placebo group did not differ in terms of the number of women requiring additional pain relief (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.07, one study, 72 women). 3. Combination analgesics versus placeboOur pooled analysis for the effect of combination analgesics on the need for additional pain relief was RR 0.70 (95% CI 0.35 to 1.40, three trials, 242 women, I(2) = 69%). When comparing different drugs within the combination oral analgesics versus placebo comparison we observed subgroup differences (P = 0.05; I² = 65.8%). One trial comparing paracetamol plus codeine versus placebo resulted in fewer women requiring additional pain relief (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.82, one trial, 65 women). However, there were no differences in the the number of women requiring additional pain relief when comparing paracetamol plus oxycodone versus placebo, or paracetamol plus propoxyphene (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.28, one trial, 96 women and RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.69, one trial, 81 women, respectively).Maternal drug effects were more common in combination analgesics group versus placebo (RR 13.18, 95% CI 2.86 to 60.68, three trials, 252 women). 4. Opioid analgesics versus non-opioid analgesicsThe confidence interval for the effect on additional pain relief between opioid and non-opioid drugs was very wide (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.51, one trial, 121 women). Side effects were more common with the use opioids versus non-opioids analgesics (RR 2.32, 95% CI 1.15 to 4.69, two trials 241 women). 5. Opioid analgesics versus combination analgesicsThere was no difference in need for additional pain relief in opioid analgesics versus combination analgesics based on one study involving 121 women comparing tramadol and paracetamol plus propoxyphene (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.51). Maternal adverse effects also did not differ between the two groups (RR 6.74, 95% CI 0.39 to 116.79). 6. Non-opioid versus combination analgesicsThe need for additional pain relief was greater in the group of women who received non-opoid analgesics (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.93, one trial, 192 women) compared with the group of women who received combination analgesics. Secondary outcomes not reported in the included studiesNo data were found on the following secondary outcomes: number of days in hospital post-operatively, re-hospitalisation due to incisional pain, fully breastfeeding on discharge, mixed feeding at discharge, incisional pain at six weeks after caesarean section, maternal post partum depression, effect (negative) on mother and baby interaction and cost of treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Eight trials with 962 women were included in the analysis, but only four trials were of high quality. All the trials were small. We carried out subgroup analysis for different drugs within the same group and for high versus low doses of the same drug. However, the relatively few studies (one to two trials) and numbers of women (40 to 136) limits the reliability of these subgroup analyses.Due to limited data available no conclusions can be made regarding the safest and the most effective form of oral analgesia for post-caesarean pain. Further studies are necessary.

Medical management of acute pain in patients with chronic pain

The number of patients with chronic pain has increased over the years, as well as the number of patients who manage chronic pain with opioids. As prescribed opioid use has increased, so has its abuse and misuse. It has also been estimated that the number of people using opioids illicitly has doubled worldwide over the last 20 years. Management of chronic pain with opioids is associated with pathophysiological phenomena such as tolerance, dependence and hyperalgesia. They can become a problem when chronic pain patients present for a surgical procedure. Furthermore, patients who are on opioids on a regular basis require higher amounts during the perioperative period. The perioperative management of the chronic pain patient is difficult and complex. Developing an appropriate plan that can fulfill patients' and surgical team's needs requires skills and experience. The aim of this review is to describe the options available for the optimal perioperative management of acute pain in patients with a history of chronic pain.

Combination of oral clonidine and intravenous low-dose ketamine reduces the consumption of postoperative patient-controlled analgesia morphine after spine surgery

OBJECTIVE

Because ketamine, clonidine, and morphine modulate nociceptive pain, coadministration of these drugs would augment the activity of postoperative analgesic drugs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of coadministration of ketamine and clonidine on postoperative morphine consumption in patients after spine surgery.

METHODS

The patients undergoing spine surgery were allocated randomly to one of the four study groups, which are as follows: group M (n = 12), intravenously (IV) administered patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) morphine alone; group MK (n = 12), IV-PCA morphine plus intra- and postoperative ketamine; group MC (n = 13), IV-PCA morphine plus oral clonidine premedication; group MCK (n = 12), IV-PCA morphine plus intra- and postoperative ketamine and clonidine premedication. The patients in the MC and MCK groups received 4 μg/kg clonidine orally, whereas those in the MK and MCK groups received IV bolus of ketamine (10 mg) at a rate of 2 mg/kg/hour during anesthesia. Patients were arranged to use IV-PCA mode for administration of drugs, which was programmed to deliver a bolus dose of 2-mg morphine (groups M and MC), or boluses of 2-mg morphine and 2-mg ketamine (groups MK and MCK). Scores of visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, morphine requirement, vital signs, nausea, sedation, and other side effects were followed up to 60 hours after surgery.

RESULTS

Although there were significant differences in VAS pain scores at rest 24-48 hours after the surgery, the VAS pain score at movement was similar among the groups. The number of PCA request and cumulative morphine requirement were significantly lower in the MCK group than in the M group.

CONCLUSION

This study results show that the administration of perioperative low-dose ketamine combined with clonidine premedication could reduce the consumption of postoperative PCA morphine following spine surgery.

Clonidine--a potent analgesic adjuvant

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The alpha(2)-adrenoceptor agonist clonidine is one of the most widely investigated substances in anaesthesia and pain therapy. Recently, numerous experimental and clinical studies have allowed a better understanding of its underlying mechanisms of action and interactions with other analgesic drugs.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several experimental studies have shown that clonidine may improve the analgesic effect of anti-inflammatory agents and also have significant peripheral antinociceptive effects. Volunteer and clinical studies have demonstrated analgesic effects of clonidine after systemic administration, whereas local administration of plain clonidine (e.g. intra-articular, intravenous regional) showed only limited clinical efficacy. The major clinical place of clonidine may thus be as an adjuvant to other analgesics, as shown in a number of studies in which clonidine has been investigated in combination with local anaesthetics, opioids and ketamine. An increasing number of studies have now investigated clonidine in paediatric patients and have demonstrated that the effects are generally similar to those in adults. Furthermore, it seems that in paediatric patients the side-effects of clonidine are predictable and of limited clinical importance.

SUMMARY

During the past decade clonidine has been investigated as an adjuvant for general and regional anaesthesia and in the postoperative period. There is no doubt that clonidine improves analgesia after systemic, spinal or peripheral opioids, and prolongs the analgesic action of most local anaesthetics. The side-effects of usual doses of clonidine are predictable. Given the clinical experience of an increasing number of hospitals, clonidine should no longer be considered an experimental drug, but a useful addendum to the pharmacological armamentarium.

Useful adjuvants for postoperative pain management

Adjuvants are compounds which by themselves have undesirable side-effects or low potency but in combination with opioids allow a reduction of narcotic dosing for postoperative pain control. Adjuvants are needed for postoperative pain management due to side-effects of opioid analgesics, which hinder recovery, especially in the increasingly utilized ambulatory surgical procedures. NMDA antagonists have psychomimetic side-effects at high doses, but at moderate doses do not cause stereotypic behavior but allow reduction in opioid dose to obtain better pain control. Alpha-2 adrenergic agonists cause sedation, hypotension and bradycardia at moderate doses, but at low doses can be opioid sparing especially in spinal administration. Gabapentin-like compounds have low potency against acute pain, but in combination with opioids allow a reduction in opioid dose with improved analgesia. Corticosteroids may have only a limited role as adjuvants while acetylcholine esterase inhibitors may have too many side-effects. Newer adjuvants will be needed to reduce opioid dose and concomitant side-effects, even more as same day surgeries become more routine.

Role of Analgesic Adjuncts in Postoperative Pain Management

Postoperative pain remains a major problem. A multi-modal analgesic approach is recommended to optimize pain management and reduce opiate-related adverse effects. Several analgesic adjuncts have been investigated, and many have proved to have a useful analgesic effect. This article reviews the literature regarding use of analgesic adjuncts in the perioperative period.

Epidural oxycodone or morphine following gynaecological surgery †

BACKGROUND

The analgesic action of oxycodone is of rapid onset, in contrast to morphine, and is mediated by kappa-opioid receptors of the spinal cord. We compared analgesia and side-effects of epidural oxycodone with those of morphine after gynaecological surgery.

METHODS

We studied prospectively in 75 women in a double-blind, randomized manner: epidural morphine 6 mg day(-1) (n=25), epidural oxycodone 6 mg day(-1) (n=25) and epidural oxycodone 12 mg day(-1) (n=25). All patients underwent gynaecological surgery under general (isoflurane and nitrous oxide) and epidural anaesthesia. Visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores at rest and on coughing, verbal descriptive scale (VDS) satisfaction scores, sedation scores, pruritus scores and nausea/vomiting scores were recorded for 3 days after surgery.

RESULTS

VAS pain scores at rest in patients who received oxycodone 6 mg day(-1) were higher than in patients who received morphine 6 mg day(-1) at 6 h and on the first postoperative day and were significantly higher than in patients who received oxycodone 12 mg day(-1) on the first postoperative day. Scores for nausea, vomiting and pruritus in patients who received oxycodone 6 mg day(-1) and 12 mg day(-1) were lower than those in patients who received morphine. No significant differences were seen in VAS at cough and VDS satisfaction scores between the three groups.

CONCLUSION

Epidural oxycodone was as effective as morphine at the doses investigated, with fewer side-effects.

Postcesarean analgesia with spinal morphine, clonidine, or their combination

In this randomized, double-blind trial in 240 women, we investigated the analgesic efficacy and duration of subarachnoid fentanyl 15 microg with morphine, clonidine, or both morphine and clonidine for cesarean delivery. A dose-finding analysis showed similar postoperative efficacy and side effects for groups receiving morphine 100 microg with clonidine 60, 90, or 150 microg. Data from these groups were combined (MC60-150, n = 113) and compared with groups receiving morphine 100 microg (n = 39), clonidine 150 microg (n = 39), or morphine 100 microg plus clonidine 30 microg (n = 41). The four groups differed in the time to patient-controlled morphine use and cumulative morphine consumption (P < 0.0001 and P < 0.001, respectively), with the longest duration and smallest dose in MC60-150. Pain scores were significantly different among groups. Onset of sensory block, ephedrine requirement and incidence of hypotension, patient satisfaction, and recovery were similar. Groups receiving clonidine had greater sedation, those receiving morphine had more severe pruritus, and group MC60-150 showed a trend to more vomiting intraoperatively. Compared with morphine 100 microg or clonidine 150 microg alone, the combination of subarachnoid morphine 100 microg and at least 60 microg of clonidine was found to increase the duration of postcesarean analgesia, reduce opioid requirement, and increase intraoperative sedation.

IMPLICATIONS

A multimodal approach to postcesarean analgesia, using subarachnoid bupivacaine, fentanyl, morphine 100 microg, and clonidine 60 microg, improves pain relief compared with morphine 100 microg or clonidine 150 microg alone, but increases intraoperative sedation and may increase perioperative vomiting.

Current status of pre-emptive analgesia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The controversy over preemptive analgesia continues unabated, with studies both supporting and refuting its efficacy. The timing of an analgesic intervention and presence of a placebo control may have significant impact on the interpretation of results and may have led to the premature conclusion that preemptive analgesia is of limited clinical utility. A review of the recent literature using strict definitions of preemptive and preventive analgesia is required in order to clarify the broader issue of the benefits of perioperative analgesia.

RECENT FINDINGS

A total of 27 studies, published from April 2001 to April 2002, were found to evaluate preemptive (n = 12) or preventive analgesia (n = 15). Evidence for a benefit of preventive analgesia was strong, with 60% of studies finding reduced pain or analgesic consumption beyond the clinical duration of action of the analgesic intervention. Evidence for a benefit of preemptive analgesia was equivocal, with 41.7% of studies demonstrating that preincisional treatment reduces pain or analgesic consumption to a greater extent than does postincisional treatment.

SUMMARY

Studies that used a preventive design had a greater likelihood of finding a beneficial effect. The application of preventive perioperative analgesia (not necessarily preincisional) is associated with a significant reduction in pain beyond the clinical duration of action of the analgesic agent, in particular for the N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonists. The classical definition of preemptive analgesia should be abandoned in favor of preventive analgesia. This will broaden the scope of inquiry from a narrow focus on preincisional versus postincisional interventions to one that aims to minimize postoperative pain and analgesic requirements by reducing peripheral and central sensitization arising from noxious preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative inputs.

Clonidine in paediatric anaesthesia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review aims to summarize results of recently published studies concerning clonidine application in paediatric anaesthesia, to analyse trends in these studies, and to discuss perspectives of the perioperative use of clonidine for children.

RECENT FINDINGS

Reassessment of clonidine premedication has revealed that oral clonidine is inferior to midazolam for preoperative sedation. Oral or intravenous clonidine has been successfully used for the prevention of sevoflurane-induced agitation during emergence from anaesthesia. Peripheral injection or caudal (epidural) administration of clonidine prolonged the duration and enhanced the quality of postoperative analgesia by local anaesthetics without severe side effects. However, some negative results concerning potentiation of postoperative analgesia with clonidine have been reported.

SUMMARY

Clonidine may be less favored than midazolam as premedication for children because of inferior clonidine-induced sedation. Additional comparative studies are required, however, to confirm this finding. On the other hand, clonidine-induced analgesia may well be useful and find wide application in paediatric anaesthesia. Prospective multicentre trials using a larger number of patients will be needed to verify the usefulness of caudal clonidine for postoperative pain relief. Prophylactic use of clonidine against sevoflurane-induced agitation may represent a new and promising application. Assessment of the efficacy of clonidine in potentiating regional anaesthesia/analgesia by local anaesthetics in children also needs more investigation. Moreover, it may be worthwhile to try new successful applications demonstrated in adults for paediatric anaesthesia.