Patient-controlled analgesia in postoperative cardiac surgery

Comparing the Effectiveness of Patient Control Analgesia Pump and Bolus Morphine in Controlling Pain After Cardiopulmonary Bypass Graft Surgery

Background

Postoperative pain is a complex process commonly caused by surgical trauma. It is one of the major concerns of patients undergoing heart surgery. Despite new techniques and modern analgesic treatments, postoperative pain is still one of the most important controversial issues.

Methods

68 patients scheduled for elective CABG with CPB were included in a prospective, double-blind clinical trial. They were randomly divided into two groups. One group received PCA pump including morphine (group P) with underlying infusion of 0.02 mg/kg/Qh, bolus dose of 1 mg, lockout time of 15 minutes, and a maximum of 4 bolus of 0.02 mg/kg for one hour and the other group received morphine bolus (group B). Three patients were excluded from the study, and 33 and 32 patients participated in the groups P and B, respectively. Variables including age, gender, pump time, aortic clamp time, duration of surgery, complications (nausea and vomiting, GI Bleeding, and hypoxia), level of pain based on VAS, opioid consumption, hemodynamic, and sedation status were measured in both groups.

Results

There was no significant difference between the groups regarding age, gender, pump time, clamp time, duration of surgery, complication, sedation score, and hemodynamic status in most of the assessment periods. By assessing the pain severity in the groups at different periods, results showed a significant difference between the groups except at enrollment, and a lower severity of pain was noted in the group P compared to the group B. The consumed opioid was significantly higher in the group P than in the group B. However, higher doses of diclofenac and paracetamol were administered in the group B compared to the group P.

Conclusions

Results showed that higher morphine would be used in patients with PCA pump after extubation following heart surgery, and this increased dose of opioid was associated with better pain control and lack of complication. Therefore, PCA pump with underlying infusion could be effectively used in patients undergoing CABG that are directly assessed in intensive care unite.

Patient controlled opioid analgesia versus non-patient controlled opioid analgesia for postoperative pain

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2006. Patients may control postoperative pain by self administration of intravenous opioids using devices designed for this purpose (patient controlled analgesia or PCA). A 1992 meta-analysis by Ballantyne et al found a strong patient preference for PCA over non-patient controlled analgesia, but disclosed no differences in analgesic consumption or length of postoperative hospital stay. Although Ballantyne's meta-analysis found that PCA did have a small but statistically significant benefit upon pain intensity, a 2001 review by Walder et al did not find statistically significant differences in pain intensity or pain relief between PCA and groups treated with non-patient controlled analgesia.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of patient controlled intravenous opioid analgesia (termed PCA in this review) versus non-patient controlled opioid analgesia of as-needed opioid analgesia for postoperative pain relief.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran the search for the previous review in November 2004. For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014, Issue 12), MEDLINE (1966 to 28 January 2015), and EMBASE (1980 to 28 January 2015) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in any language, and reference lists of reviews and retrieved articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected RCTs that assessed pain intensity as a primary or secondary outcome. These studies compared PCA without a continuous background infusion with non-patient controlled opioid analgesic regimens. We excluded studies that explicitly stated they involved patients with chronic pain.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data, which included demographic variables, type of surgery, interventions, efficacy, and adverse events. We graded each included study for methodological quality by assessing risk of bias and employed the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence. We performed meta-analysis of outcomes that included pain intensity assessed by a 0 to 100 visual analog scale (VAS), opioid consumption, patient satisfaction, length of stay, and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-nine studies with 1725 participants receiving PCA and 1687 participants assigned to a control group met the inclusion criteria. The original review included 55 studies with 2023 patients receiving PCA and 1838 patients assigned to a control group. There were fewer included studies in our updated review due to the revised exclusion criteria. For the primary outcome, participants receiving PCA had lower VAS pain intensity scores versus non-patient controlled analgesia over most time intervals, e.g., scores over 0 to 24 hours were nine points lower (95% confidence interval (CI) -13 to -5, moderate quality evidence) and over 0 to 48 hours were 10 points lower (95% CI -12 to -7, low quality evidence). Among the secondary outcomes, participants were more satisfied with PCA (81% versus 61%, P value = 0.002) and consumed higher amounts of opioids than controls (0 to 24 hours, 7 mg more of intravenous morphine equivalents, 95% CI 1 mg to 13 mg). Those receiving PCA had a higher incidence of pruritus (15% versus 8%, P value = 0.01) but had a similar incidence of other adverse events. There was no difference in the length of hospital stay.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Since the last version of this review, we have found new studies providing additional information. We reanalyzed the data but the results did not substantially alter any of our previously published conclusions. This review provides moderate to low quality evidence that PCA is an efficacious alternative to non-patient controlled systemic analgesia for postoperative pain control.

Impact of patient-controlled analgesia on pain relief after coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Pain has been pointed out as one of the concerns of cardiac surgery patients. Acute pain management has been a challenge for health professionals and several regiments have been described. We designed this study to evaluate the effectiveness of pain control with patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) versus conventional nurse-controlled analgesia (NCA) during the postoperative period in the intensive care unit (ICU) after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.

METHODS

In this randomized clinical trial, 80 elective CABG candidates were selected by convenience sampling. They were randomly allocated to two groups to receive either PCA or NCA. PCA plus continuous infusion of morphine started immediately after transferring the patients to the ICU. NCA was based on intravenous injections of morphine on demand. Pain was assessed using a verbal rating scale (VRS). Sedation level and morphine consumption were also evaluated from extubation until 48 hours after surgery. Data was analyzed using SPSS13.

RESULTS

VRS scores were higher in the NCA group compared to the PCA group [3.27 (1.17) vs. 0.75 (0.66); p < 0.001]. Morphine consumption was significantly higher in the PCA group compared to the NCA group [28.43 (7.15) mg vs. 8.37 (5.36) mg; p < 0.001]. PCA was safe and respiratory depression was not observed in any of the subjects. Mean sedation scores did not differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

PCA with background infusion of morphine increases morphine consumption and improves pain relief. It appears to be superior to NCA and can be recommended for patients after CABG surgery.

Patient controlled opioid analgesia versus conventional opioid analgesia for postoperative pain

BACKGROUND

Patients may control postoperative pain by self-administration of intravenous opioids using devices designed for this purpose (patient controlled analgesia or PCA). A 1992 meta-analysis by Ballantyne found a strong patient preference for PCA over conventional analgesia but disclosed no differences in analgesic consumption or length of postoperative hospital stay. Although Ballantyne's meta-analysis found that PCA did have a small but statistically significant benefit upon pain intensity, Walder's review in 2001 did not find a significant differences in pain intensity and pain relief between PCA and conventionally treated groups.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of PCA versus conventional analgesia (such as a nurse administering an analgesic upon a patient's request) for postoperative pain control.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2004, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1966 to 2004), and EMBASE (1994 to 2004). Additional reports were identified from the reference lists of retrieved papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs of PCA versus conventional analgesia that employed pain intensity as a primary or secondary outcome were selected. These trials included RCTs that compared PCA without a continuous background infusion versus conventional parenteral analgesic regimens. Studies that explicitly stated they involved patients with chronic pain were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Trials were scored using the Oxford Quality Scale. Meta-analyses were performed of outcomes that included analgesic efficacy assessed by a Visual Analog Scale (VAS), analgesic consumption, patient satisfaction, length of stay and adverse effects. A sufficient number of the retrieved trials reported these parameters to permit meta-analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-five studies with 2023 patients receiving PCA and 1838 patients assigned to a control group met inclusion criteria. PCA provided better pain control and greater patient satisfaction than conventional parenteral 'as-needed' analgesia. Patients using PCA consumed higher amounts of opioids than the controls and had a higher incidence of pruritus (itching) but had a similar incidence of other adverse effects. There was no difference in the length of hospital stay.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides evidence that PCA is an efficacious alternative to conventional systemic analgesia for postoperative pain control.

New approaches and old controversies to postoperative pain control following cardiac surgery

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of postoperative pain control in cardiac surgical patients on morbidity, mortality and other outcome measures.

BACKGROUND

New approaches in pain control have been introduced over the past decade. The impact of these interventions, either alone or in combination, on perioperative outcome was evaluated in cardiac surgical patients.

METHODS

We searched Medline for the period of 1980 to the present using the key terms analgesics, opioid, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, cardiac surgery, regional analgesia, spinal, epidural, fast-track cardiac anaesthesia, fast-track cardiac surgery, myocardial ischaemia, myocardial infarction, postoperative care, accelerated care programmes, postoperative complications, and we examined and discussed the articles that were identified to be included in this review.

RESULTS

Pain management in cardiac surgery is becoming more important with the establishment of minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery and fast-track management of conventional cardiac surgery patients. Advances have been made in this area and encompass specific techniques, such as central neuraxial blockade or selective nerve blocks, and drugs (opioids, sedative-hypnotics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs). Ideally, these therapies provide not only patient comfort but also mitigate untoward cardiovascular responses, pulmonary responses, and other inflammatory and secondary sympathetic responses. The introduction of these newer approaches to perioperative care has reduced morbidity, but not mortality, in cardiac surgical patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding perioperative pathophysiology and implementation of care regimes to reduce the stress of cardiac surgery, will continue to accelerate rehabilitation associated with decreased hospitalization and increased satisfaction and safety after discharge. Reorganization of the perioperative team (anaesthesiologists, surgeons, nurses and physical therapists) will be essential to achieve successful fast-track cardiac surgical programmes. Developments and improvements of multimodal interventions within the context of 'fast-track' cardiac surgery programmes represents the major challenge for the medical professionals working to achieve a 'pain and risk free' perioperative course.

Patient-controlledversus nurse-controlled analgesia after cardiac surgery — a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) has been advocated as superior to conventional nurse-controlled analgesia (NCA) with less risk to patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to determine whether PCA improves clinical and resource outcomes when compared with NCA.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was undertaken to identify all randomized controlled trials of PCA vs NCA. Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, and conference abstract databases were searched from the date of their inception to August 2005. The primary postoperative outcome was defined as mean visual analogue scale (VAS) scores. Secondary postoperative outcomes included cumulative morphine equivalents, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay, postoperative nausea and vomiting, sedation, respiratory depression, and all-cause mortality. Odds ratios or weighted mean differences (WMD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for discrete and continuous outcomes, respectively.

RESULTS

Ten randomized trials involving 666 patients were included. Compared to NCA, PCA significantly reduced VAS at 48 hr (WMD -0.73, 95% CI -1.19, -0.27), but not at 24 hr (WMD -0.19, 95% CI -0.61, 0.24). Cumulative morphine equivalents consumed were significantly increased at 24 hr (WMD 6.84 mg, 95% CI 0.97, 12.72 mg), and at 48 hr (WMD 10.46 mg 95% CI 2.02, 18.9 mg) for PCA compared with NCA. Ventilation times, length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, patient satisfaction scores, sedation scores, and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, respiratory depression, severe pain, discontinuations, and death were not significantly different between groups, but these outcomes were generally under-reported.

CONCLUSIONS

In postcardiac surgical patients, PCA increases cumulative 24 and 48 hr morphine consumption, and improves 48-hr VAS compared with NCA.

Differences in Postoperative Opioid Consumption in Patients Prescribed Patient-Controlled Analgesia Versus Intramuscular Injection

The purpose of this study was to examine differences in opioid consumption in patients prescribed patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) versus intramuscular injection (IMI) in the early postoperative period after open abdominal surgery. A retrospective audit of 115 patients elicited demographic and clinical data. No significant differences were found between the demographic variables of the PCA and IMI groups. There was a significant difference in the mean opioid dose used during the first 3 postoperative days (p < .01). Mean opioid consumption was 136.89 mg for the PCA group and 50.79 mg for the IMI group. Although there was a reduction in the amount of opioid consumed over the first 3 postoperative days, the PCA group consistently consumed more opioid analgesia compared with the IMI group. Furthermore, there was a disproportionate reduction in opioid consumption between the two groups from Day 1 (r = .34; p < .01) to Day 3 (r = .14; p = .14). This study shows that the amount of analgesia consumed during the postoperative period by patients who had abdominal surgery varied markedly depending on the mode of analgesia (PCA or IMI). The difference in analgesic consumption was also found to increase throughout the 3-day postoperative period. This divergence in the amount of opioid consumption between patients who were prescribed PCA and patients who were prescribed IM analgesia heightens the need for vigilance in assessment and management of pain during the early postoperative period, particularly in patients prescribed IM analgesia on an "as-needed" basis.

A background infusion of morphine enhances patient-controlled analgesia after cardiac surgery

PURPOSE

We compared the efficacy of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), with or without a background infusion of morphine, on postoperative pain relief in patients extubated in the operating room after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery.

METHODS

With Faculty Ethics approval, 60 consenting adults undergoing elective coronary artery surgery were randomly assigned to receive either morphine PCA alone (group PCA-A, n = 30) or morphine PCA plus a background infusion (group PCA-B, n = 30) for 24 hr postoperatively. Pain scores with verbal rating scale (VRS; from 0 to 10) at rest, sedation scores, morphine consumption and delivery/demand ratios were assessed at zero, one, two, four, six, 12 and 24 hr after surgery. Hemodynamic variables and arterial blood gases were also recorded in the same periods.

RESULTS

Sedation scores in the two groups were similar. At all study periods after the first postoperative hour, VRS remained below 5 in both groups. Pain scores were significantly lower in the background infusion group, which also had greater cumulative morphine consumption (61.7 +/- 10.9 mg vs 38.5 +/- 16.2 mg). There were no episodes of hypoxemia or hypertension.

CONCLUSION

Morphine PCA effectively controlled postoperative pain after cardiac surgery. The addition of a background infusion of morphine enhanced analgesia and increased morphine consumption.

Preoperative rofecoxib oral suspension as an analgesic adjunct after lower abdominal surgery: the effects on effort-dependent pain and pulmonary function

Rofecoxib is a selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor that reduces pain and inflammation without inhibiting platelet function. We examined its effects on effort-dependent pain, postoperative morphine requirements, and pulmonary function in 48 patients recovering from open abdominal surgery. Spirometric measurement of forced expiratory volume(1) and vital capacity (FVC) were assessed preoperatively. One hour before the induction of a standardized general anesthetic, patients were given either placebo oral suspension (Group A), or rofecoxib oral suspension (25 mg [Group B] or 50 mg [Group C]) in a double-blinded manner. Postoperative pain control was provided with IV morphine in the postanesthesia care unit and IV-patient-controlled analgesia morphine on the patient care unit. Morphine dose, pain intensity at rest, and pain after respiratory effort (postoperative spirometry) were assessed at 12 and 24 h after study drug administration. The patient-controlled analgesia morphine dose at 24 h was reduced 44% in Group B (30.3 +/- 17.5 mg) and 59% in Group C (22.1 +/- 16.5 mg) versus Group A (53.7 +/- 31.1 mg); P < 0.01 (A versus B). At 12 h, pain scores at rest and after spirometry were lower in Groups B and C than in A (P < 0.05). At 24 h, resting pain scores were lowest in Group C (P < 0.05). Twelve-hour FVC was best preserved in Group C (P < 0.03). There were no inter-group differences in adverse effects or perioperative blood loss. Rofecoxib oral suspension provided a morphine-sparing effect, as well as improvements in pain control and 12-h FVC in patients recovering from open abdominal surgery.

IMPLICATIONS

Rofecoxib belongs to class of analgesics known as cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors that reduce pain and inflammation with less risk of bleeding than standard nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs. We found that patients treated with rofecoxib 25 or 50 mg before open abdominal surgery required less IV morphine during the first day of recovery. Despite reductions in morphine requirements, rofecoxib-treated patients reported lower pain intensity scores at rest and after a vigorous cough. In the 50-mg group, improvements in pain control correlated with greater preservation of baseline cough effectiveness (vital capacity) at 12 h. These findings may offer clinical advantages in patients with preexisting pulmonary disease.

Propacetamol as adjunctive treatment for postoperative pain after cardiac surgery

Postoperative pain management after cardiac surgery has been mainly based on parenteral opioids. However, because opioids have numerous side effects, coadministration of non-opioid analgesics has been introduced as a method of reducing opioid dose. In this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study, we evaluated the efficacy of propacetamol, an IV administered prodrug of acetaminophen (paracetamol), as an adjunctive analgesic after cardiac surgery. Seventy-nine patients scheduled for elective coronary artery bypass grafting were randomized to receive either propacetamol 2 g (n = 40) or placebo (n = 39) IV in 6-h intervals for 72 h. From the time of extubation, patients had access to an opioid (oxycodone) via a patient-controlled analgesia device. Pain was evaluated on a visual analog scale four times daily, whereas respiratory function tests (forced vital capacity, forced expiratory volume in 1 s, peak expiratory flow, and arterial blood gas measurements) were performed once a day. The prespecified primary efficacy variable (cumulative oxycodone consumption at the end of the 72-h postoperative period) was 123.5 mg (51.3 mg) (mean [SD]) in the propacetamol group and 141.8 mg (57.5 mg) in the placebo group (difference in mean, 18.3 mg = 13%; 95% confidence interval, 6.1-42.7 mg; P = 0.15). Pain scores did not differ between the groups at rest (P = 0.65) or during a deep breath (P = 0.72). The groups were also similar in terms of pulmonary function tests, postoperative bleeding, and hepatic function tests, and no significant differences were noted in the incidences of adverse effects. After completion of the study, apost hoc analysis was also performed analyzing the first 24 h as split into 6-h intervals. This analysis showed a significantly (P = 0.036) smaller consumption of oxycodone in the propacetamol group at 24 h (47.1 mg [20.7 mg] versus 57.9 mg [23.9 mg]; difference in mean, 10.8 mg; 95% confidence interval, 0.7-20.9 mg). In conclusion, propacetamol did not enhance opioid-based analgesia in coronary artery bypass grafting patients, nor did it decrease cumulative opioid consumption or reduce adverse effects within 3 days after surgery. However, post hoc analysis showed that oxycodone requirement was reduced within the first 24 h in the propacetamol group.

IMPLICATIONS

This is the first placebo-controlled study to investigate the efficacy of propacetamol as a complementary analgesic to opioids after cardiac surgery. Propacetamol did not enhance analgesia, nor did it decrease cumulative opioid consumption or reduce adverse effects in a dose of 2 g given every sixth hour for 3 days after surgery.

Efficacy and safety of patient-controlled opioid analgesia for acute postoperative pain. A quantitative systematic review

BACKGROUND

The usefulness of intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with opioids for postoperative analgesia is not well defined.

METHODS

We systematically searched (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, bibliographies, any language, to January 2000) for randomised trials comparing opioid-based PCA with the same opioid given intramuscularly, intravenously, or subcutaneously. Weighted mean differences (WMD) for continuous data, relative risks (RR) and numbers-needed-to-treat (NNT) for dichotomous data were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using fixed and random effects models.

RESULTS

Data from 32 trials were analysed: 22 (1139 patients) were with morphine, five (682) with pethidine, three (184) with piritramide, one (47) with nalbuphine and one (20) with tramadol. In three morphine and one pethidine trial (352 patients), more patients preferred PCA (89.7% vs. 65.8%, RR 1.41 (95%CI 1.11 to 1.80), NNT 4.2). Combined dichotomous data on pain intensity and relief, and the need for rescue analgesics from eight morphine, one pethidine, one piritramide, and one nalbuphine trial (691 patients), were in favour of PCA (RR 1.22 (1.00 to 1.50), NNT 8). In two morphine trials (152), pulmonary complications were more frequently prevented with PCA (100% vs. 93.3%, RR 1.07 (1.01 to 1.14), NNT 15). There was equivalence for cumulative opioid consumption, pain scores, duration of hospital stay, and opioid-related adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

These trials provide some evidence that in the postoperative pain setting, PCA with opioids, compared with conventional opioid treatment, improve analgesia and decrease the risk of pulmonary complications, and that patients prefer them.

Role of endogenous opioids in ischemic preconditioning but not in short-term hibernation in pigs

Endogenous opioids are involved in ischemic preconditioning (IP) in several species. Whether or not opioids are important for IP and short-term myocardial hibernation (STMH) in pigs is currently unknown. In 34 enflurane-anesthetized pigs, the left anterior descending coronary artery was flow constantly perfused. Subendocardial blood flow (Endo), infarct size (IS; percent area at risk), and the free energy change of ATP hydrolysis (DeltaG) were determined. After 90-min severe ischemia and 120-min reperfusion, IS averaged 28.3 +/- 5.4% (means +/- SE) (n = 8; Endo: 0.047 +/- 0.009 ml. min(-1) x g(-1)). IP by 10-min ischemia and 15-min reperfusion reduced IS to 9.9 +/- 3.8% (P < 0.05, n = 8; Endo: 0.044 +/- 0.009 ml. min(-1) x g(-1)). After naloxone (1 mg/kg iv followed by 2 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1)), IS averaged 25.8 +/- 7.0% (n = 6; Endo: 0.039 +/- 0.008 ml x min(-1) x g(-1)) without and 24.7 +/- 4.7% (n = 6; Endo: 0.044 +/- 0.006 ml x min(-1) x g(-1)) with IP. At 5-min moderate ischemia in the presence of naloxone, Endo decreased from 0.90 +/- 0.07 to 0.28 +/- 0.03 ml x min(-1) x g(-1)and DeltaG decreased from -58.6 +/- 1.0 to -52.6 +/- 0.4 kJ/mol. Prolongation of ischemia to 90 min did not alter Endo, but DeltaG recovered toward control values (57.7 +/- 1.1 kJ/mol), and the myocardium remained viable. These responses are identical to those of nonnaloxone-treated pigs. Endogenous opioids are involved in IP but not in STMH in pigs.