Search

BACKGROUND: The management of persistent symptoms during acid suppression therapy in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease or dyspepsia might be improved if patient-physician communication regarding the presence and character of these persistent symptoms were facilitated.AIM: To validate a short, simple questionnaire (the Proton pump inhibitor [PPI] Acid Suppression Symptom [PASS] test), in English and French, to identify patients with persistent acid-related symptoms during PPI therapy and document their response to a change in therapy.METHODS: Patients with persistent acid-related symptoms on PPI therapy were interviewed to produce a draft, five-item questionnaire; content validity was evaluated by focus groups comprising English- and French-speaking patients. Psychometric validity was subsequently evaluated in a multicentre, family practice-based study of English- and French-speaking patients with persistent acid-related upper gastrointestinal symptoms despite PPI therapy. The PASS test, Global Overall Symptom scale, Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS), Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia questionnaire and Reflux Disease Questionnaire were completed at baseline and repeated after one week while patients continued their original PPI therapy. All patients then received esomeprazole 40 mg once daily for four weeks, after which all questionnaires and an evaluation of overall treatment effect were completed.RESULTS: Content validity was established in 20 English- and 16 French-speaking patients. Psychometric validation in 158 English- and 113 French-speaking patients revealed good-to-excellent test-retest reliability coefficients: 0.76 for English; 0.68 for French. For construct validity, the PASS test showed moderate-to-high correlation with the GSRS scale (0.51 for English; 0.43 for French). After four weeks of therapy, the PASS test score fell to zero in 30% of English- and 33% of French-speaking patients, while the Global Overall Symptom score fell to one (no symptoms) in 32% of patients (English- and French-speaking); the PASS test demonstrated good responsiveness in comparison with the GSRS, Reflux Disease Questionnaire and Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia questionnaire.CONCLUSION: The five-item PASS test is a valid tool for the evaluation of persistent acid-related symptoms in patients receiving PPI therapy. It demonstrates good content validity, test-retest reliability, responsiveness and construct validity in both English and French forms. The PASS test is a simple, clinically applicable tool for the identification of patients with persistent acid-related symptoms during therapy and the assessment of their responses to a change in therapy.

We evaluated the safety and efficacy of a 72-h epidural infusion of ropivacaine and measured the impact of adding fentanyl 2 microg/mL to the required infusion rate, on the quality of postoperative pain relief and the incidence of side effects, after colonic surgery. One hundred fifty-five patients scheduled for elective colonic surgery were randomized in this trial. Epidural infusions of ropivacaine 2 mg/mL with fentanyl 2 microg/mL (R + F) and without fentanyl (R) were commenced during surgery and continued for 72 h postoperatively. This was a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, multi-center trial. The median infusion rate required was less in the R + F group (9.3 vs 11.5 mL/h, P0.001). Median pain scores at rest and on coughing were lower in the R + F group (P0.0001). The incidence of hypotension was more in the R + F group (P = 0.01). Time to readiness for discharge was delayed in the R + F group (median 6.6 vs 5.5 days, P = 0.012). The addition of fentanyl to ropivacaine resulted in decreased infusion rates and enhanced pain control; however, adverse effects were increased and readiness to discharge was delayed.Epidural infusions of ropivacaine with and without fentanyl were administered to patients to control pain after colonic surgery. Patients who received ropivacaine with fentanyl had better pain control, increased side effects, and delayed readiness to discharge. This study questions the value of adding opioids to epidural infusions of local anesthetics.

To test the hypothesis that the addition of a preincisional femoral 3-in-1 block to intra-articular instillation with ropivacaine 0.2% at the end of surgery improves postoperative pain control in patients undergoing arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) under general anesthesia.In a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial, we studied 44 patients scheduled for inpatient ACLR. Prior to incision, the treatment group (n = 22) received a femoral 3-in-1 block with 40 ml ropivacaine 0.2%, augmented by infiltrations of the lateral and anteromedial incisions with 20 ml ropivacaine 0.2% at the end of the procedure. The control group (n = 22) received saline 0.9% instead of ropivacaine. All patients received an intra-articular instillation with 30 ml ropivacaine 0.2% at the end of surgery. The primary efficacy variable was 24 hr morphine consumption postoperatively standardized by weight, administered intravenously via a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) pump.There was no difference between both groups in 24 hr PCA morphine consumption postoperatively (control, 0.45 +/- 0.44 [mean +/- SD] mg x kg(-1); treatment, 0.37 +/- 0.50 mg x kg(-1); p = 0.55). No difference was found in postoperative visual analog scale pain scores, adverse events, or vital signs. In the treatment group, R = 10/22 patients did not require postoperative morphine compared with R = 6/22 in the control group (P = 0.35).We found no effect of a femoral 3-in-1 block with ropivacaine 0.2% on postoperative analgesic consumption, compared to intra-articular instillation with ropivacaine 0.2% alone, in patients undergoing ACLR under general anesthesia.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a single-unt-dose package of the EMLA® Patch for dermal analgesia during intravenous cannulation in adult outpatients and in preventing vaso-vagal side effects. After giving consent. 51 ASA I–III adult outpatients participated in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group tnal to receive either an EMLA* or placebo patch applied to the intravenous cannula site for 60 to 90 mm. Following cannula insertion, patients and investigators rated the pain using a 100 mm VAS ruler. The incidence and seventy of vaso-vagal responses, local skin reactions, and willingness to pay for the patch were also evaluated. The median VAS pain score by patient assessment in the EMLA® patch group was lower (8 mm; range: 0–92) than in the placebo group (25 mm; range: 0–98, P < 0.05). The median VAS pain score by Investigator assessment was also lower in the EMLA® patch group (15 mm; range 1–79) than in the placebo group (23 mm; range 3–81. P < 0.05). There was a notable difference in the number of vaso-vagal reactions (17 placebo vs 4 EMLA®, P < 0.05). Eighty-eight percent of patients who received the EMLA® patch would be willing to pay for the patch in the future compared with 69% of the placebo patch patients. This study showed that the EMLA® patch, applied for 60–90 min before venous cannulation reduced the pain of venepuncture and vaso-vagal side effects in adult outpatients.