Patient-controlled intravenous morphine analgesia combined with transcranial direct current stimulation for post-thoracotomy pain: A cost-effectiveness study and a feasibility for its future implementation

This prospective randomized study aims to evaluate the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of combining transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with patient controlled intravenous morphine analgesia (PCA-IV) as part of multimodal analgesia after thoracotomy. Patients assigned to the active treatment group (a-tDCS

Chronic Pain and Chronic Opioid Use After Intensive Care Discharge – Is It Time to Change Practice?

Almost half of patients treated on intensive care unit (ICU) experience moderate to severe pain. Managing pain in the critically ill patient is challenging, as their pain is complex with multiple causes. Pharmacological treatment often focuses on opioids, and over a prolonged admission this can represent high cumulative doses which risk opioid dependence at discharge. Despite analgesia the incidence of chronic pain after treatment on ICU is high ranging from 33–73%. Measures need to be taken to prevent the transition from acute to chronic pain, whilst avoiding opioid overuse. This narrative review discusses preventive measures for the development of chronic pain in ICU patients. It considers a number of strategies that can be employed including non-opioid analgesics, regional analgesia, and non-pharmacological methods. We reason that individualized pain management plans should become the cornerstone for critically ill patients to facilitate physical and psychological well being after discharge from critical care and hospital

Effect of transcranial direct current stimulation combined with patient-controlled intravenous morphine analgesia on analgesic use and post-thoracotomy pain. A prospective, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, proof-of-concept clinical trial

Background: Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) is used for various chronic pain conditions, but experience with tDCS for acute postoperative pain is limited. This study investigated the effect of tDCS vs. sham stimulation on postoperative morphine consumption and pain intensity after thoracotomy. Methods: This is a single-center, prospective, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial in lung cancer patients undergoing thoracotomy under general anesthesia. All patients received patient-controlled (PCA) intravenous morphine and intercostal nerve blocks at the end of surgery. The intervention group (a-tDCS, n = 31) received anodal tDCS over the left primary motor cortex (C3-Fp2) for 20 min at 1.2 mA, on five consecutive days; the control group (n = 31) received sham stimulation. Morphine consumption, number of analgesia demands, and pain intensity at rest, with movement and with cough were recorded at the following intervals: immediately before (T1), immediately after intervention (T2), then every hour for 4 h (Т3-Т6), then every 6 h (Т7-Т31) for 5 days. We recorded outcomes on postoperative days 1 and 5 and conducted a phone interview inquiring about chronic pain 1 year later (NCT03005548). Results: A total of 62 patients enrolled, but tDCS was prematurely stopped in six patients. Fifty-five patients (27 a-tDCS, 28 sham) had three or more tDCS applications and were included in the analysis. Cumulative morphine dose in the first 120 h after surgery was significantly lower in the tDCS [77.00 (54.00-123.00) mg] compared to sham group [112.00 (79.97-173.35) mg, p = 0.043, Cohen\u27s d = 0.42]. On postoperative day 5, maximum visual analog scale (VAS) pain score with cough was significantly lower in the tDCS group [29.00 (20.00-39.00) vs. 44.50 (30.00-61.75) mm, p = 0.018], and pain interference with cough was 80% lower [10.00 (0.00-30.00) vs. 50.00 (0.00-70.00), p = 0.013]. One year after surgery, there was no significant difference between groups with regard to chronic pain and analgesic use. Conclusion: In lung cancer patients undergoing thoracotomy, three to five tDCS sessions significantly reduced cumulative postoperative morphine use, maximum VAS pain scores with cough, and pain interference with cough on postoperative day 5, but there was no obvious long-term benefit from tDCS

Cost-effectiveness of the Perioperative Pain Management Bundle a registry-based study.

INTRODUCTION The Perioperative Pain Management Bundle was introduced in 10 Serbian PAIN OUT network hospitals to improve the quality of postoperative pain management. The Bundle consists of 4 elements: informing patients about postoperative pain treatment options; administering a full daily dose of 1-2 non-opioid analgesics; administering regional blocks and/or surgical wound infiltration; and assessing pain after surgery. In this study, we aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the Bundle during the initial 24 h after surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS The assessment of cost-effectiveness was carried out by comparing patients before and after Bundle implementation and by comparing patients who received all Bundle elements to those with no Bundle element. Costs of postoperative pain management included costs of the analgesic medications, costs of labor for administering these medications, and related disposable materials. A multidimensional Pain Composite Score (PCS), the effectiveness measurement, was obtained by averaging variables from the International Pain Outcomes questionnaire evaluating pain intensity, interference of pain with activities and emotions, and side effects of analgesic medications. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as the incremental change in costs divided by the incremental change in PCS and plotted on the cost-effectiveness plane along with the economic preference analysis. RESULTS The ICER value calculated when comparing patients before and after Bundle implementation was 181.89 RSD (1.55 EUR) with plotted ICERs located in the northeast and southeast quadrants of the cost-effectiveness plane. However, when comparing patients with no Bundle elements and those with all four Bundle elements, the calculated ICER was -800.63 RSD (-6.82 EUR) with plotted ICERs located in the southeast quadrant of the cost-effectiveness plane. ICER values differ across surgical disciplines. CONCLUSION The proposed perioperative pain management Bundle is cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness varies depending on the number of implemented Bundle elements and fluctuates across surgical disciplines

Patient-Controlled Intravenous Morphine Analgesia Combined with Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation for Post-Thoracotomy Pain: A Cost-Effectiveness Study and A Feasibility for Its Future Implementation

This prospective randomized study aims to evaluate the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of combining transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with patient controlled intravenous morphine analgesia (PCA-IV) as part of multimodal analgesia after thoracotomy. Patients assigned to the active treatment group (a-tDCS, n = 27) received tDCS over the left primary motor cortex for five days, whereas patients assigned to the control group (sham-tDCS, n = 28) received sham tDCS stimulations. All patients received postoperative PCA-IV morphine. For cost-effectiveness analysis we used data about total amount of PCA-IV morphine and maximum visual analog pain scale with cough (VASP-Cmax). Direct costs of hospitalization were assumed as equal for both groups. Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed with the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as the incremental cost (RSD or US$) per incremental gain in mm of VASP-Cmax reduction. Calculated ICER was 510.87 RSD per VASP-Cmax 1 mm reduction. Conversion on USA market (USA data 1.325 US$ for 1 mg of morphine) revealed ICER of 189.08 US$ or 18960.39 RSD/1 VASP-Cmax 1 mm reduction. Cost-effectiveness expressed through ICER showed significant reduction of PCA-IV morphine costs in the tDCS group. Further investigation of tDCS benefits with regards to reduction of postoperative pain treatment costs should also include the long-term benefits of reduced morphine use

Updates on Wound Infiltration Use for Postoperative Pain Management: A Narrative Review

Local anesthetic wound infiltration (WI) provides anesthesia for minor surgical procedures and improves postoperative analgesia as part of multimodal analgesia after general or regional anesthesia. Although pre-incisional block is preferable, in practice WI is usually done at the end of surgery. WI performed as a continuous modality reduces analgesics, prolongs the duration of analgesia, and enhances the patient’s mobilization in some cases. WI benefits are documented in open abdominal surgeries (Caesarean section, colorectal surgery, abdominal hysterectomy, herniorrhaphy), laparoscopic cholecystectomy, oncological breast surgeries, laminectomy, hallux valgus surgery, and radical prostatectomy. Surgical site infiltration requires knowledge of anatomy and the pain origin for a procedure, systematic extensive infiltration of local anesthetic in various tissue planes under direct visualization before wound closure or subcutaneously along the incision. Because the incidence of local anesthetic systemic toxicity is 11% after subcutaneous WI, appropriate local anesthetic dosing is crucial. The risk of wound infection is related to the infection incidence after each particular surgery. For WI to fully meet patient and physician expectations, mastery of the technique, patient education, appropriate local anesthetic dosing and management of the surgical wound with “aseptic, non-touch” technique are needed

The Perioperative Pain Management Bundle is Feasible: Findings from the PAIN OUT Registry.

OBJECTIVES The quality of postoperative pain management is often poor. A 'bundle', a small set of evidence-based interventions, is associated with improved outcomes in different settings. We assessed whether staff caring for surgical patients could implement a 'Perioperative Pain Management Bundle' and whether this would be associated with improved multi-dimensional pain-related Patient-Reported-Outcomes (PROs). METHODS PAIN OUT, a perioperative pain registry, offers tools for auditing pain-related PROs and obtaining information about perioperative pain management during the first 24 hours after surgery. Staff from 10 hospitals in Serbia used this methodology to collect data at baseline. They then implemented the 'perioperative pain management bundle' into the clinical routine and collected another round of data. The bundle consists of four treatment elements: (1) a full daily dose of 1-2 non-opioid analgesics (e.g. paracetamol, NSAIDs); (2) at least one type of local/regional anesthesia; (3) pain assessment by staff; (4) offering patients information about pain management. The primary endpoint was a multi-dimensional pain composite score (PCS), evaluating pain intensity, interference and side-effects: It was compared between patients who received the full bundlevs.not. RESULTS Implementation of the complete bundle was associated with a significant reduction in the PCS (P<0.001, small-medium effect size [ES]). When each treatment element was evaluated independently, non-opioid analgesics were associated with a higher PCS (i.e. poorer outcome; negligible ES); the other elements were associated with a lower PCS (all negligible-small ES). Individual PROs were consistently better in patients receiving the full bundle compared to 0-3 elements. The PCS was not associated with surgical discipline. DISCUSSION We report findings from using a bundle approach for perioperative pain management in patients undergoing mixed surgical procedures. Future work will seek strategies to improve the effect. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov identified NCT02083835

Improving perioperative pain management: a preintervention and postintervention study in 7 developing countries

CITATION: Zaslansky, R. et al. 2019. Improving perioperative pain management: a preintervention and postintervention study in 7 developing countries. PAIN Reports, 4(1). doi:10.1097/PR9.0000000000000705The original publication is available at https://journals.lww.com/painrpts/pages/default.aspxIntroduction: The burden of untreated postoperative pain is high. Objective: This study assessed feasibility of using quality improvement (QI) tools to improve management of perioperative pain in hospitals in multiple developing countries. Methods: The International Pain Registry and Developing Countries working groups, from the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP), sponsored the project and PAIN OUT, a QI and research network, coordinated it, and provided the research tools. The IASP published a call about the project on its website. Principal investigators (PIs) were responsible for implementing a preintervention and postintervention study in 1 to 2 surgical wards in their hospitals, and they were free to choose the QI intervention. Trained surveyors used standardized and validated web-based tools for collecting findings about perioperative pain management and patient reported outcomes (PROs). Four processes and PROs, independent of surgery type, assessed effectiveness of the interventions. Results: Forty-three providers responded to the call; 13 applications were selected; and PIs from 8 hospitals, in 14 wards, in 7 countries, completed the study. Interventions focused on teaching providers about pain management. Processes improved in 35% and PROs in 37.5% of wards. Conclusions: The project proved useful on multiple levels. It offered PIs a framework and tools to perform QI work and findings to present to colleagues and administration. Management practices and PROs improved on some wards. Interpretation of change proved complex, site-dependent, and related to multiple factors. PAIN OUT gained experience coordinating a multicentre, international QI project. The IASP promoted research, education, and QI work.https://journals.lww.com/painrpts/Fulltext/2019/02000/Improving_perioperative_pain_management__a.5.aspxPublisher’s versio

Protective ventilation with high versus low positive end-expiratory pressure during one-lung ventilation for thoracic surgery (PROTHOR): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC) may result in longer duration of in-hospital stay and even mortality. Both thoracic surgery and intraoperative mechanical ventilation settings add considerably to the risk of PPC. It is unclear if one-lung ventilation (OLV) for thoracic surgery with a strategy of intraoperative high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and recruitment maneuvers (RM) reduces PPC, compared to low PEEP without RM. Methods: PROTHOR is an international, multicenter, randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded, two-arm trial initiated by investigators of the PROtective VEntilation NETwork. In total, 2378 patients will be randomly assigned to one of two different intraoperative mechanical ventilation strategies. Investigators screen patients aged 18 years or older, scheduled for open thoracic or video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery under general anesthesia requiring OLV, with a maximal body mass index of 35 kg/m2, and a planned duration of surgery of more than 60 min. Further, the expected duration of OLV shall be longer than two-lung ventilation, and lung separation is planned with a double lumen tube. Patients will be randomly assigned to PEEP of 10 cmH2O with lung RM, or PEEP of 5 cmH2O without RM. During two-lung ventilation tidal volume is set at 7 mL/kg predicted body weight and, during OLV, it will be decreased to 5 mL/kg. The occurrence of PPC will be recorded as a collapsed composite of single adverse pulmonary events and represents the primary endpoint. Discussion: PROTHOR is the first randomized controlled trial in patients undergoing thoracic surgery with OLV that is adequately powered to compare the effects of intraoperative high PEEP with RM versus low PEEP without RM on PPC. The results of the PROTHOR trial will support anesthesiologists in their decision to set intraoperative PEEP during protective ventilation for OLV in thoracic surgery. Trial registration: The trial was registered in clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02963025) on 15 November 2016