Short-term use of remifentanil during endotracheal extubation for prophylactic analgesia in neurosurgical patients after craniotomy (SURE after Craniotomy Study): a study protocol and statistical analysis plan for a randomised controlled trial

Advances in the clinical application of oxycodone in the perioperative period

To review the research progress of pure opioid receptor agonist oxycodone. The research progress of oxycodone in terms of pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, adverse reactions, clinical application, combined medication and new progress in clinical application was summarized by referring to the literature. Oxycodone is a semi-synthetic thebaine derivative of opioid alkaloids, and is a pure opioid μ and κ receptor agonist. The main action sites are the central nervous system and visceral smooth muscle. Due to its advantages of low adverse reactions, good analgesic effects, and a wide range of safe doses, the drug has been widely used in the control of acute and chronic postoperative pain, as well as malignant and non-malignant pain. Since the end of the 20^th century, researchers have begun to formulate antipyretic analgesics, opioid receptor agonists, opioid receptor antagonists, dopamine receptor antagonists and other drugs with oxycodone in different proportions to enhance the analgesic effect. At the same time, it can reduce the dosage of oxycodone and reduce its adverse reactions, so as to achieve the purpose of limiting opioid abuse. With the continuous research on the efficacy and safety of oxycodone in the perioperative period at home and abroad, oxycodone has become the only dual-opioid potent analgesic that can be used in clinical work.

Role of a successful spontaneous breathing trial in ventilator liberation in brain-injured patients

BACKGROUND

Spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs) have been shown to improve outcomes in critically ill patients. However, in patients with brain injury, indications for intubation and mechanical ventilation are different from those of non-neurological patients, and the role of an SBT in patients with brain injury is less established. The aim of the present study was to compare key respiratory variables acquired during a successful SBT between patients with successful ventilator liberation versus failed ventilator liberation.

METHODS

In this prospective study, patients with brain injury (≥18 years of age), who completed a 30-min SBT, were enrolled. Airway pressure, flow, esophageal pressure, and diaphragm electrical activity (ΔEAdi) were recorded before (baseline) and during the SBT. Respiratory rate (RR), tidal volume, inspiratory muscle pressure (ΔPmus), ΔEAdi, and neuromechanical efficiency (ΔPmus/ΔEAdi) of the diaphragm were calculated breath by breath and compared between the liberation success and failure groups. Failed liberation was defined as the need for invasive ventilator assistance within 48 h after the SBT.

RESULTS

In total, 46 patients (51.9±13.2 years, 67.4% male) completed the SBT. Seventeen (37%) patients failed ventilator liberation within 48 h. Another 11 patients required invasive ventilation within 7 days after completing the SBT. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the success and failed groups. In-depth analysis showed similar changes in patterns and values of respiratory physiological parameters between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with brain injury, ventilator liberation failure was common after successful SBT. In-depth physiological analysis during the SBT did not provide data to predict successful liberation in these patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (No. NCT02863237).

Pharmacological interventions for the prevention of acute postoperative pain in adults following brain surgery

BACKGROUND

Pain following brain surgery can compromise recovery. Several pharmacological interventions have been used to prevent pain after craniotomy; however, there is currently a lack of evidence regarding which interventions are most effective.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives are to assess the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for prevention of acute postoperative pain in adults undergoing brain surgery; compare them in terms of additional analgesic requirements, incidence of chronic headache, sedative effects, length of hospital stay and adverse events; and determine whether these characteristics are different for certain subgroups.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Web of Science and two trial registries together with reference checking and citation searching on 28th of November 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included blinded and non-blinded, randomized controlled trials evaluating pharmacological interventions for the prevention of acute postoperative pain in adults undergoing neurosurgery, which had at least one validated pain score outcome measure.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We calculated mean differences for the primary outcome of pain intensity; any pain scores reported on a 0 to 100 scale were converted to a 0 to 10 scale.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 42 completed studies (3548 participants) and identified one ongoing study. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) reduce pain up to 24 hours (0 to 6 hours, MD -1.16, 95% CI -1.57 to -0.76; 12 hours, MD -0.62, 95% CI -1.11 to -0.14; 24 hours, MD -0.66, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.13; 6 studies, 742 participants; all high-quality evidence). Results for other outcomes were imprecise (additional analgesic requirements: MD 1.29 mg, 95% CI -5.0 to 2.46, 4 studies, 265 participants; nausea and vomiting RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.94, 2 studies, 345 participants; both low-quality evidence). Dexmedetomidine reduces pain up to 12 hours (0 to 6 hours, MD -0.89, 95% CI -1.27 to -0.51, moderate-quality evidence; 12 hours, MD -0.81, 95% CI -1.21 to -0.42, low-quality evidence). It did not show efficacy at 24 hours (MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.16; 2 studies, 128 participants; low-quality evidence). Dexmedetomidine may decrease additional analgesic requirements (MD -21.36 mg, 95% CI -34.63 to -8.1 mg, 2 studies, 128 participants, low-quality evidence). Results for other outcomes were imprecise (nausea and vomiting RR -0.43, 95% CI 0.06 to 3.08, 3 studies, 261 participants; hypotension RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.28, 3 studies, 184 participants; both low-quality evidence). Scalp blocks may reduce pain up to 48 hours (0 to 6 hours, MD -0.98, 95% CI -1.66 to -0.3, 10 studies, 414 participants; 12 hours, MD -0.95, 95% CI -1.53 to -0.37, 8 studies, 294 participants; 24 hours, MD -0.78, 95% CI -1.52 to -0.05, 9 studies, 433 participants, all low-quality evidence; 48 hours, MD -1.34, 95% CI -2.57 to -0.11, 4 studies, 135 participants, very low-quality evidence. When studies with high risk of bias were excluded, significance remained at 12 hours only. Scalp blocks may decrease additional analgesia requirements (SMD -1.11, 95% CI -1.97 to -0.25, 7 studies, 314 participants). Results for other outcomes were imprecise (nausea and vomiting RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.32, 4 studies, 165 participants, very low-quality evidence). Scalp Infiltration may reduce pain postoperatively but efficacy was inconsistent, with a significant effect at 12 and 48 hours only (12 hours, MD -0.71, 95% CI -1.34 to -0.08, 7 studies, 309 participants, low-quality evidence; 48 hours, MD - 1.09, 95% CI -2.13 to - 0.06, 3 studies, 128 participants, moderate-quality evidence). No benefit was observed at other times (0 to 6 hours, MD -0.64, 95% CI -1.28 to -0.00, 9 studies, 475 participants, moderate-quality evidence; 24 hours, MD -0.39, 95% CI -1.06 to 0.27,6 studies, 260 participants, low-quality evidence. Scalp infiltration may reduce additional analgesia requirements MD -9.56 mg, 95% CI -15.64 to -3.49, 6 studies, 345 participants, very low-quality evidence). When studies with high risk of bias were excluded, scalp infiltration lost the pain benefit at 12 hours and effects on additional analgesia requirements, but retained the pain-reducing benefit at 48 hours (MD -0.56, 95% CI -1.20 to -0.32, 2 studies, 100 participants, very low-quality evidence). Results for other outcomes were imprecise (nausea and vomiting, RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.41, 4 studies, 318 participants, low-quality evidence). Pregabalin or gabapentin may reduce pain up to 6 hours (2 studies, 202 participants), MD -1.15,95% CI -1.66 to -0.6, 2 studies, 202 participants, low-quality evidence). One study examined analgesic efficacy at 12 hours showing significant benefit. No analgesia efficacy was shown at later times (24 hours, MD -0.29, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.19; 48 hours, MD - 0.06, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.77, 2 studies, 202 participants, low-quality evidence). Additional analgesia requirements were not significantly less (MD -0.37 (95% CI -1.10 to 0.35, 3 studies, 234 participants, low-quality evidence). Risk of nausea and vomiting was significantly reduced (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.89, 3 studies, 273 participants, low-quality evidence). Results for other outcomes were imprecise (additional analgesia requirements: MD -0.37, 95% CI -1.10 to 0.35, 3 studies, 234 participants, low-quality evidence). Acetaminophen did not show analgesic benefit (0 to 6 hours, MD -0.35, 95% CI -1.00 to 0.30; 12 hours, MD -0.51, 95% CI -1.04 to 0.03, 3 studies, 332 participants, moderate-quality evidence; 24 hours, MD -0.34, 95% CI -1.20 to 0.52, 4 studies, 439 participants, high-quality evidence). Results for other outcomes remained imprecise (additional analgesia requirements, MD 0.07, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.99, 4 studies, 459 participants, high-quality evidence; length of hospitalizations, MD -3.71, 95% CI -14.12 to 6.7, 2 studies, 335 participants, moderate-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is high-quality evidence that NSAIDs reduce pain up to 24 hours postoperatively. The evidence for reductions in pain with dexmedetomidine, pregabalin or gabapentin, scalp blocks, and scalp infiltration is less certain and of very low to moderate quality. There is low-quality evidence that scalp blocks and dexmedetomidine may reduce additional analgesics requirements. There is low-quality evidence that gabapentin or pregabalin may decrease nausea and vomiting, with the caveat that the total number of events for this comparison was low.

Effect of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation on the EC50 of remifentanil suppressing responses to tracheal extubation in elderly patients

Transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS) is a emerging treatment which combines transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation with traditional acupoint therapy. The present study was aimed to evaluate the effect of TEAS on the effective concentration (EC50) of remifentanil suppressing tracheal extubation response in elderly patients.Fifty-three patients undergoing spine surgery were randomly divided into 2 groups: control group (group C, n = 26) and transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation group (group TEAS, n = 27). The EC50 values for remifentanil TCI were determined using sequential method and probit analysis.The remifentanil EC50 of that suppressed responses to extubation during anesthetic emergence was 1.20 ng/mL in group TEAS, a value that was significantly lower than the 1.64 ng/mL needed by patients in group C.The TEAS can enhance the efficacy of remifentanil on suppressing responses to tracheal extubation in elderly patients, the EC50 of remifentanil can reduce approximately 27% compared with group C.

The Prophylactic Use of Remifentanil for Delayed Extubation After Elective Intracranial Operations: a Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blinded Trial

BACKGROUND

Endotracheal extubation is a painful and stressful procedure. The authors hypothesized that the prophylactic use of remifentanil would attenuate the pain intensity and stress responses resulting from extubation in neurosurgical patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, double-blinded, controlled trial, 160 patients with planned delay extubation after elective intracranial operation were randomized 1:1 to receive either remifentanil or normal saline (control) before their extubation. The dose regime of remifentanil was a bolus of 0.5 μg/kg over 1 minute, followed by a continuous infusion of 0.05 μg/kg/min for 20 minutes. The primary outcome was the incidence of severe pain during the periextubation period. Secondary outcomes included changes in the pain intensity and vital signs, failing to pass an extubation evaluation after the study drug infusion, severe adverse events, postextubation complications, and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Two patients in the remifentanil group did not pass the extubation evaluation. The incidence of severe pain during the periextubation period was significantly lower in the remifentanil group compared with the control group (25.0% vs. 41.3%, P=0.029). Compared with the control group, the visual analog scale in the remifentanil group was significantly lower after the bolus of remifentanil (12±18 vs. 25±27, P=0.001) and immediately after extubation (19±25 vs. 34±30, P=0.001). There were no significant differences in the vital signs immediately after extubation between the 2 groups (P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The prophylactic use of remifentanil decreases the incidence of severe pain. Our preliminary findings merit a larger trial to clarify the effect of the prophylactic use of remifentanil on clinical outcomes and adverse events.