Search

Purpose: Current labour analgesia practices are evidence-based; however, such evidence often originates in controlled trials, the results of which may not be readily applicable in the context of day-to-day clinical practice. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of and maternal satisfaction with the neuraxial labour analgesia regimen provided at a tertiary care teaching hospital., Methods: All women with a viable pregnancy who requested neuraxial analgesia for labour during November 2011 at our institution were approached to participate in this prospective study. Patients were managed as per departmental routine based on a patient-controlled epidural analgesia regimen with a maintenance solution of 0.0625% bupivacaine and fentanyl 2 μg·mL(-1). Demographic and obstetric data, characteristics of the neuraxial analgesia, pain scores, side effects, and complications were recorded. After delivery, patients completed a satisfaction questionnaire., Results: All 332 eligible women were approached, and 294 completed the study. Most women received epidural analgesia and considered its placement comfortable. A large number of women reported having experienced pain during the first or second stages of labour (38% and 26%, respectively). Although 24.4% of women required top-ups both by nurses and physicians, adjustment in the local anesthetic maintenance concentration was made in only 7.8% of the cases. Most women (92%) were satisfied with the quality of analgesia. Unintentional dural puncture occurred in three (1%) cases, and there were no cases of intravascular catheter insertion or systemic local anesthetic toxicity. Overweight women (body mass index 25-30 kg·m(-2)) (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.56; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1 to 5.97), those undergoing induced labour (AOR = 2.4; 95% CI: 1.2 to 5.2), and those requiring top-ups by the anesthesiologist (AOR = 5.08; 95% CI: 2.31 to 11.11) were associated with more dissatisfaction with pain control during the first stage of labour., Conclusion: Although our technique with dilute local anesthetic-opioid infusion was considered effective in previous randomized clinical trials, it did not provide sufficient labour analgesia for a large proportion of women. Nevertheless, most women were satisfied with their pain management and childbirth experience. Strategies to individualize care for labour and delivery should be readily available while providing labour analgesia.

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.

Purpose: We previously established that a 5 mg x kg(-1) intraoperative dose can reduce the nausea/vomiting associated with tramadol patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). This study was conducted to identify the most appropriate initial dose to improve the quality of tramadol PCA., Methods: During general anesthesia, 60 patients undergoing knee arthroplasty were randomly allocated to receive 1.25 mg x kg(-1) (Group I), 2.5 mg x kg(-1) (Group II), 3.75 mg x kg(-1) (Group III), or 5 mg x kg(-1) (Group IV) tramadol. The emergence condition was recorded. The titration of additional tramadol 20 mg + metoclopramide 1 mg doses by PCA every five minutes was performed in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) until the visual analogue scale (VAS) score was < or = 3. An investigator blinded to study group recorded the VAS and side effects every ten minutes., Results: In the PACU, significantly more tramadol (8.4 +/- 3.1 vs 4.3 +/- 2.1, 2.5 +/- 1.8, and 0.4 +/- 0.3, P < 0.05), and a higher incidence (15/15 vs 5/15, 3/15, and 2/15, P < 0.05) of PCA use was observed in Group I compared to Groups II-IV. VAS was significantly higher in Group I than in Groups II-IV at zero and ten minutes (P < 0.05). Unexpected delayed emergence anesthesia (> 30 min) was observed in Group III (n = 1) and in Group IV (n = 2). Sedation was more important in Groups III and IV than in Groups I and II (P < 0.05)., Conclusion: When considering efficacy and side-effect profile, 2.5 mg x kg(-1) of tramadol is the optimal intraoperative dose of this drug to provide effective postoperative analgesia with minimal sedation.

Purpose: To evaluate the adverse effect profile of tramadol by patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with administration of the loading dose either intraoperatively or postoperatively., Methods: Sixty adult patients scheduled for elective abdominal surgery were enrolled into this prospective, randomized, double blind study. The patients were anesthetized in a similar manner. At the beginning of wound closure, the patients were randomly allocated to receive 5 mg x kg(-1) tramadol (Group 1) or normal saline (Group 2). In the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), when patients in either group complained of pain, 30 mg x ml(-1) tramadol i.v. were given every three minutes until visual analogue scale (VAS) 3, followed by tramadol PCA with bolus dose of 30 mg and five minute lockout interval. Pain control and adverse effect assessments were done in the PACU and every six hours for 48 hr post drug by an independent observer., Results: The loading dose was 290 +/- 45 mg in Group 1 and 315 +/- 148 mg in Group 2. In PACU, more nausea/vomiting both in terms of incidence (13/30, 43% vs 2/30, 6.6%, P < 0.05) and severity (nausea/vomiting score 2.5 +/- 2.0 vs 0.2 +/- 0.6, P < 0.05) was observed in patients with postoperative loading than in those with intraoperative loading of tramadol., Conclusion: Administering the loading dose of tramadol during surgery decreases the nausea/vomiting associated with high dose of tramadol and improves the quality of tramadol PCA in the relief of postoperative pain.

Patient-controlled iv delivery of opioids for postoperative pain management is a popular alternative to the traditional im route of administration. However, occasional patients receiving opioids in this manner develop severe respiratory depression. The purpose of this paper is to determine the incidence of, and factors contributing to, the development of this complication. To do this, the Office of Medical Quality Improvement retrospectively searched for reports of respiratory depression in a database compiled from the charts of approximately 1600 patients who had received PCA at the University of Alberta Hospitals in 1992. Eight cases of serious respiratory depression were detected. Factors associated with the occurrence of respiratory depression included the concurrent use of a background infusion, advanced age, concomitant administration of sedative/hypnotic medications, and pre-existing sleep apnoea syndrome. No cases were attributed to operator error or equipment malfunction. In conclusion, the risk of respiratory depression with patient-controlled opioid administration is similar to that observed when opioids are delivered by the traditional im or spinal routes. The safe and effective use of patient-controlled analgesia depends upon knowledgeable medical and nursing staff, clearly defined nursing policy and procedures, and frequent patient follow-up.

The authors conducted a randomized, prospective study comparing epidural morphine with patient-controlled intravenous (iv) morphine in 30 patients recovering from total hip or total knee arthroplasty. Six, 18, and 24 hr postoperatively, patients used a 10 cm visual-analogue scale to indicate both their current degree of discomfort and the maximum discomfort they had experienced since the previous evaluation. Pain at the time of evaluation did not differ between patients receiving epidural (2.6 +/- 0.4 cm, mean +/- SEM) and patient-controlled iv morphine (3.4 +/- 0.3 cm). However, patients who received epidural morphine recalled less pain during the period preceding evaluation (4.2 +/- 0.5 cm) than did those receiving patient-controlled analgesia (5.5 +/- 0.4 cm, P less than 0.05). Patients receiving epidural morphine were more likely to require treatment for pruritus (4 of 15) than patients who received patient-controlled iv morphine (none of 15, P less than 0.05). Minimum respiratory rates were lower in patients receiving epidural morphine (15.0 +/- 0.3) than in those receiving patient-controlled analgesia (16.5 +/- 0.4, P less than 0.05), but no patients required treatment for respiratory depression. The authors conclude that epidural morphine may provide more consistent analgesia following joint replacement surgery than patient-controlled morphine; however, there is a higher incidence of side-effects with the epidural technique.