Influence on number of top-ups after implementing patient controlled epidural analgesia: A cohort study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: van Samkar G
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5646815 | biostudies-literature | 2017
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Influence on number of top-ups after implementing patient controlled epidural analgesia: A cohort study.
van Samkar Ganapathy G Hermanns Henning H Lirk Philipp P Hollmann Markus W MW Stevens Markus F MF
PloS one 20171018 10
Postoperative epidural analgesia often needs rate readjustment using top-ups. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) is said to reduce the requirement of epidural top-ups when compared to continuous epidural analgesia (CEA). We compared CEA and PCEA in major thoracic and abdominal surgery, in a cohort study. The primary endpoint was the required number of epidural top-ups. Secondary endpoints were pain scores, side effects and workload differences. We analysed 199 patients with CEA and 187 ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionThis study aimed to compare the efficacy between patient-controlled caudal epidural analgesia (PCCA) and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) after perianal surgery, to provide a feasible solution to postoperative pain.MethodsThis was a prospective, randomized controlled trial comprising 100 patients who underwent caudal epidural block on perianal surgery at Chengdu Shang Jin Nan Fu Hospital of West China Hospital at Sichuan University between April and August 2020. Patients were randomly divided into the PCCA and PCIA groups. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores were recorded at 2, 4, 6, 24, 48, and 72 h after surgery, and at the first dressing change and first defecation. The lower limb mobility in the post-anesthetic recovery room (PACU) was determined. The analgesic effect, usage amount of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), usage amount and frequency of remedial analgesic measures, number of individuals who must be catheterized, and incidence of adverse reactions were recorded. Satisfaction of postoperative analgesic effect and convenience of PCA were also assessed.ResultsThe patients in the PCCA group had significantly lower VAS scores at 4, 6, 24, 48, 72 h, the first dressing change, and the first defecation compared with the PCIA group. There were more patients receiving postoperative remedial analgesics in the PCIA group than in the PCCA group. The outcome of the number of PCA and catheterization rates did not differ significantly between the groups. There were two cases of sensory numbness below the S3 plane. The major postoperative complications in the PCIA group were pruritus (3/47, 6.4%), nausea, and vomiting (6/47, 12.8%) (one case combined with pruritus). Patients in the PCCA group were more satisfied with the analgesic effect, while those in the PCIA group were more satisfied with the convenience.ConclusionIn the postoperative analgesia program of perianal surgery, PCCA may provide a better analgesic effect without increasing the incidence of complications.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry identifier, ChiCTR2000038425, September 2020, retrospectively registered.
| S-EPMC9314497 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To determine women's satisfaction with pain relief using patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil compared with epidural analgesia during labour. DESIGN:Multicentre randomised controlled equivalence trial. SETTING:15 hospitals in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS:Women with an intermediate to high obstetric risk with an intention to deliver vaginally. To exclude a clinically relevant difference in satisfaction with pain relief of more than 10%, we needed to include 1136 women. Because of missing values for satisfaction this number was increased to 1400 before any analysis. We used multiple imputation to correct for missing data. INTERVENTION:Before the onset of active labour consenting women were randomised to a pain relief strategy with patient controlled remifentanil or epidural analgesia if they requested pain relief during labour. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Primary outcome was satisfaction with pain relief, measured hourly on a visual analogue scale and expressed as area under the curve (AUC), thus providing a time weighted measure of total satisfaction with pain relief. A higher AUC represents higher satisfaction with pain relief. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity scores, mode of delivery, and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Analysis was done by intention to treat. The study was defined as an equivalence study for the primary outcome. RESULTS:1414 women were randomised, of whom 709 were allocated to patient controlled remifentanil and 705 to epidural analgesia. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Pain relief was ultimately used in 65% (447/687) in the remifentanil group and 52% (347/671) in the epidural analgesia group (relative risk 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.48). Cross over occurred in 7% (45/687) and 8% (51/671) of women, respectively. Of women primarily treated with remifentanil, 13% (53/402) converted to epidural analgesia, while in women primarily treated with epidural analgesia 1% (3/296) converted to remifentanil. The area under the curve for total satisfaction with pain relief was 30.9 in the remifentanil group versus 33.7 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference -2.8, 95% confidence interval -6.9 to 1.3). For who actually received pain relief the area under the curve for satisfaction with pain relief after the start of pain relief was 25.6 in the remifentanil group versus 36.1 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference -10.4, -13.9 to -7.0). The rate of caesarean section was 15% in both groups. Oxygen saturation was significantly lower (SpO2 <92%) in women who used remifentanil (relative risk 1.5, 1.4 to 1.7). Maternal and neonatal outcomes were comparable between both groups. CONCLUSION:In women in labour, patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil is not equivalent to epidural analgesia with respect to scores on satisfaction with pain relief. Satisfaction with pain relief was significantly higher in women who were allocated to and received epidural analgesia. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Netherlands Trial Register NTR2551.
| S-EPMC4353278 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:The primary objective of this randomized trial was to compare thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) to intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) for pain control over the first 48 hours after hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) surgery. Secondary endpoints were patient-reported outcomes, total narcotic utilization, and complications. BACKGROUND:Although adequate postoperative pain control is critical to patient and surgeon success, the optimal analgesia regimen in HPB surgery remains controversial. METHODS:Using a 2.5:1 randomization strategy, 140 patients were randomized to TEA (N = 106) or intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (N = 34). Patient-reported pain was measured on a Likert scale (0-10) at standard time intervals. Cumulative pain area under the curve was determined using the trapezoidal method. RESULTS:Between the study groups key demographic, comorbidity, clinical, and operative variables were equivalently distributed. The median area under the curve of the postoperative time 0- to 48-hour pain scores was lower in the TEA group (78.6 vs 105.2 pain-hours, P = 0.032) with a 35% reduction in patients experiencing ?7/10 pain (43% vs 62%, P = 0.07). Patient-reported outcomes and total opiate use further supported the benefit of TEA on patient experience. Anesthesia-related events requiring change in analgesic therapy were comparable (12.2% vs 2.9%, respectively, P = 0.187). Grade 3 or higher surgical complications (6.6% vs 9.4%), median length of stay (6 days vs 6 days), readmission (1.9% vs 3.1%), and return to the operating room (0.9% vs 3.1%) were similar (all P > 0.05). There were no mortalities in either group. CONCLUSIONS:In major HPB surgery, TEA provides a superior patient experience through improved pain control and less narcotic use, without increased length of stay or complications.
| S-EPMC5784834 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Postoperative pain after major open gynecologic surgeries requires appropriate pain management.This study aimed at comparing perioperative patient controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) and patient controlled intravenous analgesia (PCA) after gynecologic oncology surgeries.In this clinical trial study, 90 patients with American society of anesthesiologists (ASA) class I or II scheduled for gynecologic oncologic surgeries were randomly allocated to two groups (45 patients each group) to receive: patient-controlled epidural analgesia with bupivacaine and fentanyl (PCEA group), or patient controlled intravenous analgesia (IV PCA group) with fentanyl, pethidine and ondansetron. Postoperative pain was assessed over 48 hours using the visual analog scale (VAS). The frequency of rescue analgesia was recorded. Occurrence of any concomitant events such as nausea, vomiting, ileus, purities, sedation and respiratory complications were recorded postoperatively.There were no statistically significant differences in demographic data including; age, weight, ASA physical status, duration of surgery, intraoperative bleeding, and the amount of blood transfusion (P > 0.05), between the two studied groups. Severity of postoperative pain was not significantly different between the two groups (P > 0.05); however, after first patient mobilization, pain was significantly lower in the epidural group than the IV group (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding the incidence of complications such as nausea, vomiting, purities or ileus (P > 0.05). Nevertheless, the incidence and severity of sedation was significantly higher in the IV group (P < 0.001). Respiratory depression was higher in the IV group than the epidural group; this difference, however, was not significant (P = 0.11). In the epidural group, only 10 patients (22.2%) had mild and transient lower extremities parenthesis.Both intravenous and epidural analgesic techniques with combination of analgesics provide proper postoperative pain control after major gynecologic cancer surgeries without any significant complications. Regarding lower sedative and respiratory depressant effects of epidural analgesia, it seems that this method is a safer technique for postoperative pain relief in these patients.
| S-EPMC4644303 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectivesEpidural analgesia is recommended for the provision of analgesia following major abdominal surgery. Continuous local anaesthetic wound infiltration may be an effective alternative. A prospective randomized trial was undertaken to compare these two methods following open liver resection. The primary outcome was length of time required to fulfil criteria for discharge from hospital.MethodsPatients undergoing open liver resection were randomized to receive either epidural (EP group) or local anaesthetic wound infiltration plus patient-controlled opiate analgesia (WI group) for the first 2 days postoperatively. All other care followed a standardized enhanced recovery protocol. Time to fulfil discharge criteria, pain scores, physical activity measurements and complications were recorded.ResultsBetween August 2009 and July 2010, 65 patients were randomized to EP (n = 32) or WI (n = 33). The mean time required to fulfil discharge criteria was 4.5 days (range: 2.5-63.5 days) in the WI group and 6.0 days (range: 3.0-42.5 days) in the EP group (P = 0.044). During the first 48 h following surgery, pain scores were significantly lower in the EP group both at rest and on movement. Resting pain scores within both groups were rated as mild (range: 0-3). There was no significant difference between the groups in time to first mobilization or overall complication rate (48.5% in the WI group vs. 58.1% in the EP group; P = 0.443).ConclusionsLocal anaesthetic wound infiltration combined with patient-controlled opiate analgesia reduces the length of time required to fulfil criteria for discharge from hospital compared with epidural analgesia following open liver resection. Epidural analgesia provides superior analgesia, but does not confer benefits in terms of faster mobilization or recovery.
| S-EPMC3461387 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:The use of patient-controlled epidural analgesia after various operations has been associated with an early return of bowel function, thus decreasing patients' length of stay (LOS). The primary aim of this study was to compare LOS after radical cystectomy between patients who received epidural analgesia versus those who received intravenous patient-controlled analgesia. Our secondary analysis included the assessment of other metrics such as total opioid requirements, pain scores, return of bowel function, and complication rates between the 2 groups. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective review using the electronic medical records of 308 patients who underwent radical cystectomies at Memorial Sloan Kettering between 2006 and 2011. We aimed to understand if epidural analgesia was associated with a reduced LOS compared with patient-controlled intravenous opioid analgesia. We also aimed to identify performance improvements as a function of epidural analgesia status using various metrics such as pain management, bowel function return, and complication rates. We used both univariate and multivariate analyses to identify if epidural analgesia was associated with meaningful differences in the aforementioned metrics. RESULTS:Median age at radical cystectomy, body mass index, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and T stage were similar for both groups. For our primary objective of LOS, we found no significant difference between the 2 cohorts (8 vs 7 days, P = 0.2). Analysis of our secondary outcome measures revealed that epidural analgesia use was associated with less total opioid requirement for the first 3 postoperative days (PODs) (P = 0.0001). In addition, epidural analgesia was found to be associated with improved postoperative pain scores compared with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia on PODs 1 (P = 0.0001) and 2 (P = 0.004), and there was a slight improvement on POD 3, but this was not significant (P = 0.77). In contrast, we found no difference between pain management types with regard to proportion of patients who experienced a delay in gastrointestinal recovery, fluid bolus requirements within the first 3 perioperative days, rates of infection, pulmonary complications, and grade 3 or greater complications. CONCLUSIONS:We have demonstrated that, despite significant improvements in initial pain control and less opioid requirement with patient-controlled epidural analgesia, there was no association between analgesic approach and LOS, return of bowel function, or complications.
| S-EPMC4916767 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Epidural analgesia is effective in relieving pain during labor. However, concerns as to compromised labor progress and outcomes arise. This study aimed to assess the effect of patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) with ropivacaine on uterine electromyography (EMG) activities and outcomes in labor. A total of 213 pregnant women were divided into three groups: the PCEA with ropivacaine group (n = 78), the PCEA with levobupivacaine group (n = 66), and a control group that did not receive PCEA (n = 69). Uterine EMG activities were recorded during the first stage of labor. Maternal and fetal outcomes also were assessed. The primary outcomes of this study were EMG activities. No significant differences were observed in patient demographics or neonatal weight among the three groups. Compared to the PCEA with levobupivacaine group, the control and PCEA with ropivacaine groups had lower rates of oxytocin administration (P < 0.05) and shorter durations of the first stage of labor (P < 0.05). For the EMG activities, the PCEA with ropivacaine group showed a higher power (P < 0.01) and higher peak frequency (P < 0.05) than the PCEA with levobupivacaine group. With ropivacaine, the EMG activities remained stable 30-120?min. Compared with levobupivacaine, the use of ropivacaine in PCEA has no suppressive effect on uterine EMG activities during the first stage of labor. In addition, ropivacaine leads to labor progress and delivery outcomes similar to those in the control group, as well as similar and favorable analgesic satisfaction with the use of levobupivacaine.
| S-EPMC6247703 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMorbidity is still high in pancreatic surgery, driven mainly by gastrointestinal complications such as pancreatic fistula. Perioperative thoracic epidural analgesia (EDA) and patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) are frequently used for pain control after pancreatic surgery. Evidence from a post hoc analysis suggests that PCIA is associated with fewer gastrointestinal complications.ObjectiveTo determine whether postoperative PCIA decreases the occurrence of gastrointestinal complications after pancreatic surgery compared with EDA.Design, setting, and participantsIn this adaptive, pragmatic, international, multicenter, superiority randomized clinical trial conducted from June 30, 2015, to October 1, 2017, 371 patients at 9 European pancreatic surgery centers who were scheduled for elective pancreatoduodenectomy were randomized to receive PCIA (n = 185) or EDA (n = 186); 248 patients (124 in each group) were analyzed. Data were analyzed from February 22 to April 25, 2019, using modified intention to treat and per protocol.InterventionsPatients in the PCIA group received general anesthesia and postoperative PCIA with intravenous opioids with the help of a patient-controlled analgesia device. In the EDA group, patients received general anesthesia and intraoperative and postoperative EDA.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was a composite of pancreatic fistula, bile leakage, delayed gastric emptying, gastrointestinal bleeding, or postoperative ileus within 30 days after surgery. Secondary end points included 30-day mortality, other complications, postoperative pain levels, intraoperative or postoperative use of vasopressor therapy, and fluid substitution.ResultsAmong the 248 patients analyzed (147 men; mean [SD] age, 64.9 [10.7] years), the primary composite end point did not differ between the PCIA group (61 [49.2%]) and EDA group (57 [46.0%]) (odds ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.71-1.95 P = .54). Neither individual components of the primary end point nor 30-day mortality, postoperative pain levels, or intraoperative and postoperative substitution of fluids differed significantly between groups. Patients receiving EDA gained more weight by postoperative day 4 than patients receiving PCIA (mean [SD], 4.6 [3.8] vs 3.4 [3.6] kg; P = .03) and received more vasopressors (46 [37.1%] vs 31 [25.0%]; P = .04). Failure of EDA occurred in 23 patients (18.5%).Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that the choice between PCIA and EDA for pain control after pancreatic surgery should not be based on concerns regarding gastrointestinal complications because the 2 procedures are comparable with regard to effectiveness and safety. However, EDA was associated with several shortcomings.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00007784.
| S-EPMC7254441 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe use of epidural analgesia (EA) in pancreatic surgery remains under debate. This study compares patients treated with EA versus non-EA after open pancreatectomy in a tertiary referral center.MethodsAll patients undergoing open pancreatectomy from 2013 to 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. (Non-)EA was terminated on postoperative day (POD) 3 or earlier if required.ResultsIn total, 190 (72.5%) patients received EA and 72 (27.5%) patients received non-EA (mostly intravenous morphine). EA was terminated prematurely in 32.6% of patients and non-EA in 10.5% of patients. Compared with non-EA patients, EA patients had significantly lower pain scores on POD 0 (1.10 (0-3.00) versus 3.00 (1.67-5.00), P?<?0.001) and POD 1 (2.00 (0.50-3.41) versus 3.00 (2.00-3.80), P?=?0.001), though significantly higher pain scores on POD 3 (3.00 (2.00-4.00) versus 2.33 (1.50-4.00), P?<?0.001) and POD 4 (2.50 (1.50-3.67) versus 2.00 (0.50-3.00), P?=?0.007). EA patients required more vasoactive medication perioperatively and had higher cumulative fluid balances on POD 1-3. Postoperative complications were similar between groups.ConclusionsIn our cohort, patients with EA experienced significantly lower pain scores in the first PODs compared with non-EA, yet higher pain scores after EA had been terminated. Although EA patients required more vasoactive medication and fluid therapy, the complication rate was similar.
| S-EPMC6877489 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Intravenous remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia (RPCA) is an alternative for epidural analgesia (EA) in labor pain relief. However, it remains unknown whether RPCA is superior to EA in decreasing the risk of intrapartum maternal fever during labor. METHODS:According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed by searching PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to April 2019. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the risk of intrapartum maternal fever with RPCA compared with EA alone or EA in combination with spinal analgesia during labor were included. RESULTS:A total of 825 studies were screened, and 6 RCTs including 3341 patients were identified. Compared with EA, RPCA was associated with a significantly lower incidence of intrapartum maternal fever (risk ratio [RR] 0.48, P?=?0.02, I2?=?49%) during labor analgesia. After excluding 2 trials via the heterogeneity analysis, there was no difference in the incidence of intrapartum fever between patients receiving RPCA and those receiving EA. Satisfaction with pain relief during labor was lower in the RPCA group than that in the EA group (-?10.6 [13.87, -?7.44], P?<?0.00001, I2?=?0%). The incidence of respiratory depression was significantly greater in the RPCA group than that in the EA group (risk ratio 2.86 [1.65, 4.96], P?=?0.0002, I2?=?58%). The incidence of Apgar scores <?7 at 5?min in the RPCA group was equivalent to that in the EA group. CONCLUSION:There is no solid evidence to illustrate that the incidence of intrapartum maternal fever is lower in patients receiving intravenous RPCA than in patients receiving EA.
| S-EPMC7069013 | biostudies-literature