Search

Objectives: To compared outcomes of regional nerve blocks with those of standard analgesics after hip fracture., Design: Multisite randomized controlled trial from April 2009 to March 2013., Setting: Three New York hospitals., Participants: Individuals with hip fracture (N = 161)., Intervention: Participants were randomized to receive an ultrasound-guided, single-injection, femoral nerve block administered by emergency physicians at emergency department (ED) admission followed by placement of a continuous fascia iliaca block by anesthesiologists within 24 hours (n = 79) or conventional analgesics (n = 82)., Measurements: Pain (0-10 scale), distance walked on Postoperative Day (POD) 3, walking ability 6 weeks after discharge, opioid side effects., Results: Pain scores 2 hours after ED presentation favored the intervention group over controls (3.5 vs 5.3, P = .002). Pain scores on POD 3 were significantly better for the intervention than the control group for pain at rest (2.9 vs 3.8, P = .005), with transfers out of bed (4.7 vs 5.9, P = .005), and with walking (4.1 vs 4.8, P = .002). Intervention participants walked significantly further than controls in 2 minutes on POD 3 (170.6 feet, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 109.3-232 vs 100.0 feet, 95% CI = 65.1-134.9; P = .04). At 6 weeks, intervention participants reported better walking and stair climbing ability (mean Functional Independence Measure locomotion score of 10.3 (95% CI = 9.6-11.0) vs 9.1 (95% CI = 8.2-10.0), P = .04). Intervention participants were significantly less likely to report opioid side effects (3% vs 12.4%, P = .03) and required 33% to 40% fewer parenteral morphine sulfate equivalents., Conclusion: Femoral nerve blocks performed by emergency physicians followed by continuous fascia iliaca blocks placed by anesthesiologists are feasible and result in superior outcomes., (© 2016, Copyright the Authors Journal compilation © 2016, The American Geriatrics Society.)

Pain during hospitalization and dissatisfaction with pain management are common. This project consisted of 4 phases: identifying a pain numeric rating scale (NRS) metric associated with patient satisfaction, identifying independent predictors of maximum NRS, implementing interventions, and evaluating trends in NRS and satisfaction. Maximum NRS was inversely associated with favorable pain satisfaction for both efficacy (n = 4062, χ(2) = 66.2, P < .001) and staff efforts (n = 4067, χ(2) = 30.3, P < .001). Independent predictors of moderate-to-severe maximum NRS were younger age, female sex, longer hospital stay, admitting department, psychoactive medications, and 10 diagnostic codes. After interventions, moderate-to-severe maximum NRS declined by 3.6% per quarter in 2010 compared with 2009. Satisfaction data demonstrated improvements in nursing units meeting goals (5.3% per quarter, r (2) = 0.67) and favorable satisfaction answers (0.36% per quarter, r (2) = 0.31). Moderate-to-severe maximum NRS was an independent predictor of lower likelihood of hospital discharge (likelihood ratio = 0.62; 95% confidence interval = 0.61-0.64). Targeted interventions were associated with improved inpatient pain management.

Background Breast cancer surgery is associated with side effects, including postsurgical pain, nausea, and fatigue. We carried out a randomized clinical trial to test the hypotheses that a brief presurgery hypnosis intervention would decrease intraoperative anesthesia and analgesic use and side effects associated with breast cancer surgery and that it would be cost effective. Methods We randomly assigned 200 patients who were scheduled to undergo excisional breast biopsy or lumpectomy (mean age 48.5 years) to a 15-minute presurgery hypnosis session conducted by a psychologist or nondirective empathic listening (attention control). Patients were not blinded to group assignment. lntraoperative anesthesia use (i.e., of the analgesics lidocaine and fentanyl and the sedatives propofol and midazolam) was assessed. Patient-reported pain and other side effects as measured on a visual analog scale (0-100) were assessed at discharge, as was use of analgesics in the recovery room. Institutional costs and time in the operating room were assessed via chart review. Results Patients in the hypnosis group required less propofol (means = 64.01 versus 96.64 pg; difference = 32.63; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.95 to 61.30) and lidocaine (means = 24.23 versus 31.09 mL; difference = 6.86; 95% Cl = 3.05 to 10.68) than patients in the control group. Patients in the hypnosis group also reported less pain intensity (means = 22.43 versus 47.83; difference = 25.40; 95% Cl = 17.56 to 33.25), pain unpleasantness (means = 21.19 versus 39.05; difference = 17.86; 95% Cl = 9.92 to 25.80), nausea (means = 6.57 versus 25.49; difference = 18.92; 95% Cl = 12.98 to 24.87), fatigue (means = 29.47 versus 54.20; difference = 24.73; 95% Cl = 16.64 to 32.83), discomfort (means = 23.01 versus 43.20; difference = 20.19; 95% Cl = 12.36 to 28.02), and emotional upset (means = 8.67 versus 33.46; difference = 24.79; 95% Cl = 18.56 to 31.03). No statistically significant differences were seen in the use of fentanyl, midazolam, or recovery room analgesics. Institutional costs for surgical breast cancer procedures were $8561 per patient at Mount Sinai School of Medicine. Patients in the hypnosis group cost the institution $772.71 less per patient than those in the control group (95% Cl = 75.10 to 1469.89), mainly due to reduced surgical time. Conclusions Hypnosis was superior to attention control regarding propofol and lidocaine use; pain, nausea, fatigue, discomfort, and emotional upset at discharge; and institutional cost. Overall, the present data support the use of hypnosis with breast cancer surgery patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]