Infection rates associated with epidural indwelling catheters for seven days or longer: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: To determine infection rate with use of epidural catheters in place for seven days or more. METHODS: Systematic review and pooled analysis of observational studies. RESULTS: Twelve studies with 4,628 patients (median 197 patients) provided information, of which nine (4,334 patients) were published after 1990. Eight studies (3,893 patients) were retrospective, and four studies (735 patients) prospective. Electronic searches identified three studies and searching reference lists nine. There were 257 catheter-related infections in total, of which 211 were superficial and 57 deep, giving rates of 6.1%, 4.6% and 1.2% respectively. Ten of the 12 studies had deep infection rates of 2% or less. The incidence of deep infection was 1 per 2391 days of treatment, or 0.4 per 1000 catheter treatment days. In nine studies (1503 patients), predominantly in cancer, and with average catheter duration of 74 days, the deep infection rate was 2.8%. The proportion of patients with infection of any type was higher in cancer patients with longer catheter duration. Limited numbers of events meant that no reliable estimate of the impact of prospective and retrospective design could be made. There appeared to be a relationship between catheter duration and infection rate from this and other recent estimates. Four of 57 (7%) patients with deep infection died. CONCLUSION: The best estimate is that one person in 35 with an epidural catheter in place for 74 days for relief of cancer pain can be expected to have a deep epidural infection, and that about 1 in 500 may die of infection-related causes. This is a most uncertain estimate given the limited nature of the evidence

A theory-based educational intervention targeting nurses' attitudes and knowledge concerning cancer-related pain management: A study protocol of a quasi-experimental design

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Pain is one of the most frequent problems among patients diagnosed with cancer. Despite the availability of effective pharmacological treatments, this group of patients often receives less than optimal treatment. Research into nurses' pain management highlights certain factors, such as lack of knowledge and attitudes and inadequate procedures for systematic pain assessment, as common barriers to effective pain management. However, educational interventions targeting nurses' pain management have shown promise. As cancer-related pain is also known to have a negative effect on vital aspects of the patient's life, as well as being commonly associated with problems such as sleep, fatigue, depression and anxiety, further development of knowledge within this area is warranted.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>A quasi-experimental study design will be used to investigate whether the implementation of guidelines for systematic daily pain assessments following a theory-based educational intervention will result in an improvement in knowledge and attitude among nurses. A further aim is to investigate whether the intervention that targets nurses' behaviour will improve hospital patients' perception of pain. Data regarding nurses' knowledge and attitudes to pain (primary outcome), patient perception regarding pain (secondary outcome), together with socio-demographic variables, will be collected at baseline and at four weeks and 12 weeks following the intervention.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Nursing care is nowadays acknowledged as an increasingly complicated activity and "nursing complexity is such that it can be seen as the quintessential complex intervention." To be able to change and improve clinical practice thus requires multiple points of attack appropriate to meet complex challenges. Consequently, we expect the theory-based intervention used in our quasi-experimental study to improve care as well as quality of life for this group of patients and we also envisage that evidence-based guidelines targeting this patient group's pain will be implemented more widely.</p> <p>Trial Registration Number</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01313234">NCT01313234</a></p

Treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting: a quantitative systematic review

BACKGROUND: The relative efficacy of antiemetics for the treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is poorly understood. METHODS: Systematic search (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, bibliographies, any language, to 8.2000) for randomised comparisons of antiemetics with any comparator for the treatment of established PONV. Dichotomous data on prevention of further nausea and vomiting, and on side effects were combined using a fixed effect model. RESULTS: In seven trials (1,267 patients), 11 different antiemetics were tested without placebos; these data were not further analysed. Eighteen trials (3,809) had placebo controls. Dolasetron 12.5–100 mg, granisetron 0.1–3 mg, tropisetron 0.5–5 mg, and ondansetron 1–8 mg prevented further vomiting with little evidence of dose-responsiveness; with all regimens, absolute risk reductions compared with placebo were 20%–30%. The anti-nausea effect was less pronounced. Headache was dose-dependent. Results on propofol were contradictory. The NK(1) antagonist GR205171, isopropyl alcohol vapor, metoclopramide, domperidone, and midazolam were tested in one trial each with a limited number of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Of 100 vomiting surgical patients receiving a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist, 20 to 30 will stop vomiting who would not have done so had they received a placebo; less will profit from the anti-nausea effect. There is a lack of evidence for a clinically relevant dose-response; minimal effective doses may be used. There is a discrepancy between the plethora of trials on prevention of PONV and the paucity of trials on treatment of established symptoms. Valid data on the therapeutic efficacy of classic antiemetics, which have been used for decades, are needed

Design and validation of a medication assessment tool for cancer pain management

A clinical tool to examine prescribing in cancer pain management may provide a means to help establish acceptable standards of adherence to treatment guidelines. The study aim was to design and validate a Medication Assessment Tool for Cancer Pain Management (MAT-CP). The MAT-CP was designed from guideline criteria based on a previously developed method. The tool was validated by peer review before and during field-testing on a study sample of cancer patients experiencing pain. The final tool comprised 36 criteria covering six different aspects of cancer pain management: (1) pain assessment and information transfer, (2) start of strong opioid therapy; (3) current continuous analgesia; (4) current intermittent analgesia; (5) follow-up of therapy, and; (6) other care issues. The tool was tested on 109 cancer patients experiencing pain (57 males), mean (SD) age 60.8 (11.5) years. Guideline adherence overall was 61% (n = 1704 applicable criteria). The field-testing informed the modification of the MAT-CP to optimise its clarity and utility when applied to patients' clinical documentation. Good inter- and intra-rater reliability (Cohen's kappa κ = 0.86 and κ = 0.95, respectively) were demonstrated in the application. The preliminary application of the tool during field-testing has highlighted the following for further study: (a) Low adherence (75%) to standards of prescribing of continuous analgesia. A clinical tool to examine prescribing in cancer pain management has been designed. Face and content validity have been informed by field-testing. The tool requires further study among palliative care specialists as part of the validation required before it can be recommended for clinical use