Adverse outcomes and opioid analgesic administration in acute abdominal pain

A Retrospective Comparison of Intravenous Opioid Use for Abdominal Pain in the Emergency Department After Implementation of Order Set Restriction

BACKGROUND

This study was developed to provide insight into the effects of an i.v. opioid order set on prescribing of i.v. opioids in the emergency department (ED) for nontraumatic, unspecified abdominal pain. Research is needed in this area to catalyze more consistent and evidence-based i.v. opioid prescribing.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to show the impact of an i.v. opioid order set restriction. Secondary objectives were the change in ED length of stay, change in pain score, total i.v. opioid morphine milligram equivalents, and number of i.v. opioid doses.

METHODS

Patients included in the study visited the ED with a relevant ICD-10-CM diagnosis code for nontraumatic, unspecified abdominal pain 3 months prior to or 3 months after the restriction. A sample size of 596 patients was calculated for 80% power to identify a 25% difference in the primary outcome.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant decrease in i.v. opioid administration after the restriction (44.2% preintervention, 23.2% postintervention; p < 0.001). Mean length of stay decreased from 6.6 h to 6.2 h (p < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in pain scores. Oral opioid use increased significantly (20.5% preintervention, 31.7% postintervention; p < 0.001); therefore, combined i.v. and oral opioid use did not change significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

The restriction correlated with a decrease in i.v. opioids. Pain control was not diminished as a result of the restriction. The results of this study may be used to generate hypotheses for comparing different modes of pain management in the ED in this patient population and others. Future studies should continue to evaluate the impact of oral vs. i.v. opioids.

Low dose of methylprednisolone for pain and immune function after thoracic surgery

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of single low-dose preoperative methylprednisolone (MP) on the immunological function and postoperative pain of patients undergoing elective video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery under general anesthesia.

METHODS

Eighty-one patients who underwent elective video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery were randomly assigned to the MP Group or the Control Group. The T lymphocyte subsets of CD3⁺, CD4⁺, and CD8⁺, the CD4⁺/CD8⁺ ratio at T₀ (before anesthesia), T₁ (after surgery), and T₂ (24 h after surgery) were all recorded. Postoperative rest and cough pain scores, as well as postoperative adverse effects and surgery complications were also recorded.

RESULTS

Compared to T0, the levels of CD3⁺ and CD4⁺ subsets and CD4⁺/CD8⁺ were significantly decreased, the level of CD8⁺ were increased after surgery in both groups. There was no significant difference in the variation of CD3+, CD4+, CD8⁺, and CD4+/CD8+ between the MP Group and the Control Group. Both the rest and cough pain of patients in the MP Group were significantly lower as compared to the Control Group at 2, 4, 6 and 24 hours after surgery. And the incidences of nausea and vomiting and dizziness were also significantly higher in the Control Group than those in the MP Group.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative single low-dose of MP (1 mg/kg) has no effect on immune function. Preoperative single low dose of MP (1 mg/kg) had effective analgesic effects and could reduce the incidence of dizziness and postoperative nausea and vomiting.

The utility of adding symptoms and signs to the management of injury-related pain

OBJECTIVE

Improved pain assessment and management in the emergency department (ED) is warranted. We aimed to determine the impact on pain management, of adding symptoms and signs to pain assessment.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A single center before-and-after study was conducted, supplemented by an interrupted time series analysis. The intervention included the addition of clinical presentation (CP) of the injury and facial expression (FE) of the patient to pain assessment scales of patients with soft tissue injures. Pain intensity was categorized as: mild, moderate, and severe. We compared types of pain relief medications, use of strong opioids, and pain relief efficacy between pre and post intervention phases.

RESULTS

Before-and-after analysis revealed a significant reduction in the use of strong opioids. The adjusted relative ratio for the use of strong opioids in the post intervention phase was 0.63 (95% CI: 0.48-0.82). This reduction was mostly driven by less use of strong opioids in patients reporting severe pain (from 17.3%-7.9%) (P < 0.0001). A larger proportion of patients in the post intervention phase than in the pre intervention phase received weak opioids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (27.4% vs 19.1%, P = 0.002), and a larger proportion did not receive any pain relief medication (19.8% vs 10.5%, p < 0.0001). The use of strong opioids increased with higher levels of FE and CP. Among patients with mild injury and reporting severe pain, the odds of receiving a strong opioid was nearly 9 times (OR = 8.9, 95% CI: 4.0-19.6) higher among those who were with an unrelaxed FE and showed pain behavior than those with relaxed FE. Interrupted time-series analysis showed that the mean ΔVAS (VAS score at entry minus VAS score at discharge) in the post intervention phase compared with the pre intervention phase was not statistically significant (P = 0.073). The use of strong opioids in the post intervention phase was significantly reduced (P = 0.017).

CONCLUSION

Adding symptoms and signs to pain assessment of patients admitted with soft tissue injuries decreased the use of strong opioids, without affecting pain relief efficacy.

Adverse events are rare among adults 50 years of age and younger with flank pain when abdominal computed tomography is not clinically indicated according to the emergency physician

OBJECTIVE

Many emergency physicians (EPs) order "confirmatory" abdominal computed tomography (CT) in young flank pain patients, despite a high clinical suspicion of renal colic and the risk of radiation exposure. We measured the adverse outcome rate among flank pain patients identified as not requiring abdominal CT by the EP on a data form, regardless of whether CT was eventually ordered. Our secondary objective was to describe diagnoses other than renal colic identified by CT in this population.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective observational study at two community EDs. We asked staff EPs to complete a data sheet on patients ages 18 to 50 years with a first episode of flank pain, recording 1) if the flank pain was consistent with renal colic and 2) if the EP felt abdominal CT was indicated. Adverse outcomes (defined a priori as urgent surgical procedures, disability, or death) were assessed by research assistants at 4 weeks using telephone follow-up and a hospital records search.

RESULTS

We enrolled 389 patients; 353 completed follow-up (91%). The average age was 38.8 years, and 72.0% were male. Of 212 patients identified in the "CT not indicated" group, 2 had another diagnosis identified (unruptured diverticulitis and a ruptured ovarian cyst), but none had adverse outcomes (95% CI 0-1.4).

CONCLUSIONS

Adverse events were rare (< 1.5%) among patients < 50 years old with flank pain when CT was not required according to the clinical assessment of the EP. Future research should assess the adverse outcomes of withholding CT in low-risk patients using a larger patient sample.

Management of Pain in the Emergency Department

Since pain is a primary impetus for patient presentation to the Emergency Department (ED), its treatment should be a priority for acute care providers. Historically, the ED has been marked by shortcomings in both the evaluation and amelioration of pain. Over the past decade, improvements in the science of pain assessment and management have combined to facilitate care improvements in the ED. The purpose of this review is to address selected topics within the realm of ED pain management. Commencing with general principles and definitions, the review continues with an assessment of areas of controversy and advancing knowledge in acute pain care. Some barriers to optimal pain care are discussed, and potential mechanisms to overcome these barriers are offered. While the review is not intended as a resource for specific pain conditions or drug information, selected agents and approaches are mentioned with respect to evolving evidence and areas for future research.

Analgesia in patients with acute abdominal pain

BACKGROUND

For decades, the indication of analgesia in patients with Acute Abdominal Pain (AAP) has been deferred until the definitive diagnosis has been made, for fear of masking symptoms, generating a change in the physical exploration or obstructing the diagnosis of a disease requiring surgical treatment. This strategy has been questioned by some studies that have shown that the use of analgesia in the initial evaluation of patients with AAP leads to a significant reduction in pain without affecting diagnostic accuracy.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether the evidence available supports the use of opioid analgesics in the diagnostic process of patients with AAP.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were identified through searches in Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, issue 2, 2009), MEDLINE (1966 to 2009) and EMBASE (1980 to 2009). A randomised controlled trial (RCT) filter for a MEDLINE search was applied (with appropriate modification for an EMBASE search). Trials also were identified through "related articles". The search was not limited by language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published RCTs which included adult patients with AAP, without gender restriction, comparing any opioids analgesia regimen with the non-use of analgesic before any intervention and independent of the results.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent reviewers assessed the studies identified via the electronic search. Articles that were relevant and pertinent to the aims of the study were selected and their respective full-text versions were collected for subsequent blinded evaluation. The allocation concealment was considered in particular as an option to diminish the biases.The data collected from the studies were reviewed qualitatively and quantitatively using the Cochrane Collaboration statistical software RevMan 5.0. After performing the meta-analysis, the chi-squared test for heterogeneity was applied. In situations of significant clinical heterogeneity, statistical analyses were not applied to the pool of results. In situations of heterogeneity, the random effect model was used to perform the meta-analysis of the results. A sensitivity analysis was also applied based on the evaluation to the methodological quality of the primary studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Differences with use of opioid analgesia were verified in variables: Change in the intensity of the pain, change in the patients comfort level.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The use of opioid analgesics in the therapeutic diagnosis of patients with AAP does not increase the risk of diagnosis error or the risk of error in making decisions regarding treatment.

The efficacy and effect of opioid analgesia in undifferentiated abdominal pain in children: a review of four studies

INTRODUCTION

The question of whether opioid analgesia should be given in patients with undifferentiated acute abdominal pain has been characterized by concerns about its efficacy and that signs used to determine accurate diagnosis may be masked by the drug. The objective of this review is to critically analyze pertinent pediatric randomized controlled studies considering this issue.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted via Medline in October 2007, using the terms 'abdominal pain', 'physical examination', 'analgesics', 'opioid' and 'appendicitis'. Other articles were identified using the bibliographies of papers found through Medline; alternate databases were searched but did not reveal additional studies.

RESULTS

A total of four trials were identified, and their validity and applicability were reviewed. In all studies, randomization to the analgesia group was associated with significant reduction in pain; one study showing no greater effect with opioid than placebo. All studies used a 10 cm Visual Analogue Scale to assess pain. All studies were only sufficiently powered to consider the primary outcome of opioid efficacy in abdominal pain vs placebo rather than diagnostic accuracy, although they all reported on diagnostic accuracy. Meta-analysis of results for efficacy and accuracy was not possible due to the heterogeneity of study populations.

CONCLUSIONS

A large, probably multi-centred trial is needed to answer with sufficient power the question of whether opioid analgesia impairs diagnostic accuracy in children with undifferentiated acute abdominal pain.

Efficacy and Impact of Intravenous Morphine Before Surgical Consultation in Children With Right Lower Quadrant Pain Suggestive of Appendicitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The evidence supporting the use of analgesia in children with abdominal pain suggestive of appendicitis is limited. The objectives of the study are to evaluate the efficacy of morphine before surgical consultation in children presenting to the pediatric emergency department (ED) with right lower quadrant pain suggestive of appendicitis and determine whether it has an impact on the time between arrival in the ED and the surgical decision.

METHODS

All children between the ages of 8 and 18 years who presented to a pediatric ED with a presumptive diagnosis of appendicitis were eligible to be enrolled in a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial if the initial pain was at least 5 of 10 on a verbal numeric scale. Patients received either 0.1 mg/kg of intravenous morphine (maximum 5 mg) or placebo. The primary outcomes were (1) the difference in pain using a visual analog scale at baseline and 30 minutes after the completion of the intervention, analyzed by comparing the mean pain differences for the treatment versus placebo groups; and (2) the time between arrival in the ED and the surgical decision, analyzed by comparing the median delay for the 2 groups.

RESULTS

Ninety patients with a suspected diagnosis of appendicitis were randomized to receive morphine or placebo. Both groups were similar in terms of demographics, medical history, physical findings, emergency physician assessment of the probability of appendicitis, and initial pain score. There was no important difference in the decrease of pain between the morphine (n=45) and placebo (n=42) groups 30 minutes after the intervention: 24+/-23 mm and 20+/-18 mm, respectively (delta 4 mm [95% confidence interval [CI] -5 to 12 mm]). There was also no important difference in the time between arrival in the ED and the surgical decision: median 269 minutes (95% CI 240 to 355 minutes) for morphine and 307 minutes (95% CI 239 to 415 minutes) for placebo (delta -34 minutes [95% CI -105 to 40 minutes]).

CONCLUSION

The use of morphine in children with a presumptive diagnosis of appendicitis did not delay the surgical decision. In our group of patients, however, morphine at a dose of 0.1 mg/kg was not more effective than placebo in diminishing their pain at 30 minutes.

Analgesia in patients with acute abdominal pain

BACKGROUND

For decades, analgesia for patients with acute abdominal pain was withheld until a definitive diagnosis was established for fear of masking the symptoms, changing physical findings or ultimately delaying diagnosis and treatment of a surgical condition. This non-evidence-based approach has been challenged by recent studies demonstrating that the use of analgesia in the initial evaluation of patients with acute abdominal pain leads to significant pain reduction without affecting diagnostic accuracy. However, early administration of analgesia to such patients can greatly reduce their pain and does not interfere with a diagnosis, which may even be facilitated due to the severity of physical symptoms being reduced.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if the currently available evidence supports the use of opioid analgesia in patient management with acute abdominal pain; and to assess changes in a patient comfort while awaiting definitive diagnosis and final treatment decisions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were identified by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, issue 4, 2006), MEDLINE (1966 to 2006) and EMBASE (1980 to 2006). Randomized controlled trial filter for MEDLINE and EMBASE search. Trials will also be identified by "related articles". The searches were not limited by language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that include adult patients with acute abdominal pain, without gender restriction, comparing any opioid analgesia regime to no analgesia administered prior to any intervention regardless of outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors looked independently at the titles and abstracts of reports. Potentially relevant studies selected by at least one reviewer were retrieved in full text versions for potential inclusion. Allocation concealment was important to avoid bias and was graded using the Cochrane approach. The data from studies included was reviewed qualitatively and quantitatively using the Cochrane Collaborations methodology and statistical software RevMan Analysis 1.0.5. In the case of homogeneity or non- worrying heterogeneity, a random effects model was used. Sensitivity analysis was performed based on quality assessment.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Improvement with use of opioid analgesia was verified in variables patient comfort, reduction of pain, changes in physical examination.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review provide some evidence to support the notion that the use of opioid analgesics in patients with acute abdominal pain is helpful in terms of patient comfort and does not retard decisions to treat.

Analgesia administration for acute abdominal pain in the pediatric emergency department

OBJECTIVE

To document the use of analgesia for children with acute abdominal pain in the Pediatric Emergency Department (PED) and to compare between children with suspected appendicitis in a high versus low probability.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients 0-16 years recruited prospectively as part of another PED study in Toronto. History of present illness and physical examination was available, and information on analgesia administered in the PED was retrospectively collected from charts. Physicians' probability of appendicitis before any imaging was recorded. A follow-up call was made to verify final diagnosis.

RESULTS

We included 438 patients, 16% with appendicitis. Analgesics were given 154 times to 112 patients. Thirty-one percent of the cohort received analgesia before seeing the physician, mostly febrile, 37% after seeing the physician, and 17% after seeing a pediatric-surgery consultant. Fifteen percent received multiple dosages. Underdosing was recorded in 14% of medications, mostly morphine (24%). Analgesia was given significantly more often to children with high probability of appendicitis. Age was not a factor in analgesia administration.

CONCLUSION

Children with abdominal pain receive more analgesia when the physician suspects appendicitis, yet only in half of the cases, and only 15% receive opioids. Opioid underdosing happens in a quarter of times it is given.

Analgesic use in children with acute abdominal pain

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine the frequency of analgesic use in children (5 to 17 years inclusive) who present to a pediatric emergency department with acute abdominal pain.

METHODS

A retrospective medical record review of patients presenting to a children's hospital over a 1-year period with a chief complaint of abdominal pain and subsequently referred to the pediatric surgical service. The records were reviewed to determine emergency department analgesic use, patient disposition, and laparotomy rate.

RESULTS

Two hundred ninety patients met our inclusion criteria. Of the patients seen initially by emergency physicians, 14.3% received analgesics, while those seen directly by the surgical service received analgesia 15.4% of the time. The laparotomy rate for the 290 patients was 46.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

Analgesic use in children who present to the emergency department with acute abdominal pain and require a surgical consultation was very low, although half required a laparotomy. Prospective studies are needed to determine the efficacy and safety of analgesic use in this setting.

Does morphine change the physical examination in patients with acute appendicitis?

The objective of this study was to determine if judicious dosing of morphine sulfate can provide pain relief without changing important physical examination findings in patients with acute appendicitis. We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind crossover design. Patients scheduled for appendectomy were randomized to two groups. Group A received 0.075 mg/kg intravenous morphine sulfate and 30 minutes later received placebo. The sequence of medication was reversed in group B. Patients were examined by a surgical resident and an EM attending before and after receiving medication. Six explicit physical examination findings were documented as absent, indeterminate, or present. Physicians were also asked if they felt overall examination findings had changed after medication. Patient's visual analog scale (VAS) was recorded before each medication and at study completion. Thirty-four patients were enrolled and full data were available for 22 patients. Neither morphine nor placebo caused a significant change in individual examination findings. Three patients in both groups were judged to have a change in their examination after medication. The median change in VAS was 20 mm after morphine and 0 mm after placebo (P =.01). In this pilot study, patients with clinical signs of appendicitis were treated with morphine and had significant improvement of their pain without changes in their physical examination.

Critically reappraising the literature-driven practice of analgesia administration for acute abdominal pain in the emergency room prior to surgical evaluation

BACKGROUND

Classic teaching is that narcotic analgesia in the setting of an acute abdomen can alter physical examination findings and should therefore be withheld until after a surgeon's examination.

METHODS

A telephone survey of emergency medicine physicians representing 60 US hospitals was conducted to assess the current practices and opinions regarding the early administration of narcotic analgesia in this setting. Relevant literature was also reviewed for methodological errors.

RESULTS

Fifty-nine of 60 (98.3%) respondents reported that it is their practice to administer analgesia prior to surgical evaluation. Of these, only 9 of 59 (15.3%) reported always informing the surgeon prior to dosing the patient. The two most common motivations cited were that patient discomfort takes precedence (52 of 59; 88.1%) and that the literature supports the practice to be safe (51 of 59; 86.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

It is common for emergency medicine physicians to medicate acute abdomen patients prior to surgical evaluation. Numerous significant study limitations and design flaws were found that question the validity of the four clinical trials supporting this practice. Because many physicians base their clinical decisions on these trials, a careful analysis of their shortcomings, as well as our own personal experiences and practice recommendations, is discussed.

Effects of morphine analgesia on diagnostic accuracy in Emergency Department patients with abdominal pain: a prospective, randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Because of concerns about masking important physical findings, there is controversy surrounding whether it is safe to provide analgesia to patients with undifferentiated abdominal pain. The purpose of this study was to address the effects of analgesia on the physical examination and diagnostic accuracy for patients with abdominal pain.

STUDY DESIGN

The study was a prospective, double-blind clinical trial in which adult Emergency Department (ED) patients with undifferentiated abdominal pain were randomized to receive placebo (control group, n = 36) or morphine sulphate (MS group, n = 38). Diagnostic and physical examination assessments were recorded before and after a 60-minute period during which study medication was titrated. Diagnostic accuracy and physical examination changes were compared between groups using univariate statistical analyses.

RESULTS

There were no differences between control and MS groups with respect to changes in physical or diagnostic accuracy. The overall likelihood of change in severity of tenderness was similar in MS (37.7%) as compared with control (35.3%) patients (risk ratio [RR] 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-1.78). MS patients were no more likely than controls to have a change in pain location (34.0% versus 41.2%, RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.50-1.36). Diagnostic accuracy did not differ between MS and control groups (64.2% versus 66.7%, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.73-1.27). There were no differences between groups with respect to likelihood of any change occurring in the diagnostic list (37.7% versus 31.4%, RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.71-2.05). Correlation with clinical course and final diagnosis revealed no instance of masking of physical examination findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this study support a practice of early provision of analgesia to patients with undifferentiated abdominal pain.

Effect on diagnostic efficiency of analgesia for undifferentiated abdominal pain

BACKGROUND

The question of whether it is safe to provide analgesia for patients with undifferentiated acute abdominal pain is marked by longstanding controversy over the possible masking of physical findings. The goal of this review is to assess the pertinent studies.

METHOD

A Medline search was performed in April 2002, using the terms 'analgesia', 'abdominal pain', 'acute abdomen' and 'morphine'. Other articles were identified using the bibliographies of papers found through Medline. All articles reporting clinical trials of analgesia and its effects on diagnosis or physical examination were reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of eight trials (one reported only as an abstract) were identified. Because of significant disparity in trial design, no formal analysis such as meta-analysis was performed. However, detailed review of the trials revealed a striking consistency in results. In no study was there an association between analgesia and diagnostic impairment or dangerous masking of the findings of physical examination.

CONCLUSION

The literature addressing early pain relief for abdominal pain is characterized by weaknesses, but there is a common theme suggesting that analgesia is safe. Pending further research, which should address some of the shortcomings of extant studies, a practice of judicious provision of analgesia appears safe, reasonable and in the best interests of patients in pain.

Nurse-initiated intravenous morphine in the emergency department: efficacy, rate of adverse events and impact on time to analgesia

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were: (i) to measure the analgesic efficacy and frequency of adverse events following autonomous nurse-initiated intravenous morphine in patients presenting with acute pain, awaiting medical assessment; and (ii) to determine whether such a process would improve the time to analgesia.

METHODS

A prospective convenience sample of patients presenting in acute pain received titrated intravenous morphine by experienced emergency nurses. Pain scores on a 10.0 cm visual analogue scale and predetermined adverse events defined by physiological parameters were measured at regular intervals over the following 60 min. Demographic, diagnostic and waiting time data were also recorded.

RESULTS

Three hundred and forty nine patients were enrolled over a 12-month period. The median initial pain score was 8.5 cm, with a reduction to 4.0 cm at 1 h. Respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, heart rate and blood pressure all showed small but statistically significant reductions over 60 min. There were 15 predefined adverse events, 10 episodes of hypotension and five episodes of oxygen desaturation. No intervention other than supplemental oxygen was required. There were no episodes of bradycardia, bradypnoea or reduced level of consciousness. The median time to narcotic was 18 min and the median time to be seen by a doctor was 52 min.

CONCLUSION

Experienced emergency nurses can initiate effective intravenous narcotic analgesia for patients in acute pain awaiting medical assessment, with minimal change in physiological parameters. This process can improve the time to analgesia for patients in acute pain.