-
Intensive Care Medicine Dec 2020Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is one of the most demanding conditions in an Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Management of analgesia and sedation in ARDS is... (Review)
Review
Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is one of the most demanding conditions in an Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Management of analgesia and sedation in ARDS is particularly challenging. An expert panel was convened to produce a "state-of-the-art" article to support clinicians in the optimal management of analgesia/sedation in mechanically ventilated adults with ARDS, including those with COVID-19. Current ICU analgesia/sedation guidelines promote analgesia first and minimization of sedation, wakefulness, delirium prevention and early rehabilitation to facilitate ventilator and ICU liberation. However, these strategies cannot always be applied to patients with ARDS who sometimes require deep sedation and/or paralysis. Patients with severe ARDS may be under-represented in analgesia/sedation studies and currently recommended strategies may not be feasible. With lightened sedation, distress-related symptoms (e.g., pain and discomfort, anxiety, dyspnea) and patient-ventilator asynchrony should be systematically assessed and managed through interprofessional collaboration, prioritizing analgesia and anxiolysis. Adaptation of ventilator settings (e.g., use of a pressure-set mode, spontaneous breathing, sensitive inspiratory trigger) should be systematically considered before additional medications are administered. Managing the mechanical ventilator is of paramount importance to avoid the unnecessary use of deep sedation and/or paralysis. Therefore, applying an "ABCDEF-R" bundle (R = Respiratory-drive-control) may be beneficial in ARDS patients. Further studies are needed, especially regarding the use and long-term effects of fast-offset drugs (e.g., remifentanil, volatile anesthetics) and the electrophysiological assessment of analgesia/sedation (e.g., electroencephalogram devices, heart-rate variability, and video pupillometry). This review is particularly relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic given drug shortages and limited ICU-bed capacity.
Topics: Analgesia; Guidelines as Topic; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Pain Management; Respiratory Distress Syndrome
PubMed: 33170331
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-020-06307-9 -
Hong Kong Medical Journal = Xianggang... Oct 2020Pain relief is an important component of modern obstetric care and can be produced by neuraxial, systemic, or inhalational analgesia or various physical techniques. We... (Review)
Review
Pain relief is an important component of modern obstetric care and can be produced by neuraxial, systemic, or inhalational analgesia or various physical techniques. We review the most recent evidence on the efficacy and safety of these techniques. Over the past decade, the availability of safer local anaesthetics, ultra-short acting opioids, combined spinal-epidural needles, patient-controlled analgesic devices, and ultrasound have revolutionised obstetric regional analgesia. Recent meta-analyses have supported epidural analgesia as the most efficacious technique, as it leads to higher maternal satisfaction and good maternal and fetal safety profiles. We examine the controversies and myths concerning the initiation, maintenance, and discontinuation of epidural analgesia. Recent evidence will also be reviewed to address concerns about the effects of epidural analgesia on the rates of instrumental and operative delivery, lower back pain, and breastfeeding. New developments in labour analgesia are also discussed.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Female; Humans; Labor Pain; Pain Management; Pregnancy
PubMed: 32943586
DOI: 10.12809/hkmj208632 -
Minerva Anestesiologica Dec 2018The demand for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is rising worldwide. Controversy persists in the literature regarding the benefits of general versus neuraxial anesthesia... (Review)
Review
The demand for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is rising worldwide. Controversy persists in the literature regarding the benefits of general versus neuraxial anesthesia and which anesthetic is associated with the best outcomes. Likewise, the abundance of analgesic options for post-TKA pain have led to debate regarding the safest, most effective regimens. In this paper, we evaluated a selection of recent publications regarding anesthetic and analgesic choices for TKA. High-quality studies and meta-analyses linking anesthetic agents and analgesic modalities to clinically important outcomes were chosen wherever possible. We included a range of clinical and population-based research, incorporating established and emerging techniques. Although not uniform, clinical and population-based data favor neuraxial anesthesia, and suggest less morbidity compared to general anesthesia. There is good evidence to support an opioid-minimizing, multimodal approach to post-TKA analgesia, featuring peripheral nerve blocks and/or peri-articular injection. The recently described IPACK (interspace between the popliteal artery and posterior capsule of the knee) block may address posterior knee pain after TKA. Ultrasound-guided regional analgesia techniques are cost and clinically effective. Liposomal bupivacaine represents an expanding topic of research in TKA-analgesia, but currently, data do not support routine use. Evidence to guide the creation of pathways of care for TKA abounds, but must be tailored to local practice to maximize chances of success. Recent data supports the use of neuraxial anesthesia and regional analgesia techniques for TKA. Recommendations for clinical practice and future research to improve the state of the art are provided.
Topics: Analgesia; Anesthesia; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Humans
PubMed: 29808972
DOI: 10.23736/S0375-9393.18.12383-2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2012The pain that women experience during labour is affected by multiple physiological and psychosocial factors and its intensity can vary greatly. Most women in labour... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The pain that women experience during labour is affected by multiple physiological and psychosocial factors and its intensity can vary greatly. Most women in labour require pain relief. Pain management strategies include non-pharmacological interventions (that aim to help women cope with pain in labour) and pharmacological interventions (that aim to relieve the pain of labour).
OBJECTIVES
To summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews on the efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions to manage pain in labour. We considered findings from non-Cochrane systematic reviews if there was no relevant Cochrane review.
METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 5), The Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 2 of 4), MEDLINE (1966 to 31 May 2011) and EMBASE (1974 to 31 May 2011) to identify all relevant systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of pain management in labour. Each of the contributing Cochrane reviews (nine new, six updated) followed a generic protocol with 13 common primary efficacy and safety outcomes. Each Cochrane review included comparisons with placebo, standard care or with a different intervention according to a predefined hierarchy of interventions. Two review authors extracted data and assessed methodological quality, and data were checked by a third author. This overview is a narrative summary of the results obtained from individual reviews.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 15 Cochrane reviews (255 included trials) and three non-Cochrane reviews (55 included trials) for inclusion within this overview. For all interventions, with available data, results are presented as comparisons of: 1. Intervention versus placebo or standard care; 2. Different forms of the same intervention (e.g. one opioid versus another opioid); 3. One type of intervention versus a different type of intervention (e.g. TENS versus opioid). Not all reviews included results for all comparisons. Most reviews compared the intervention with placebo or standard care, but with the exception of opioids and epidural analgesia, there were few direct comparisons between different forms of the same intervention, and even fewer comparisons between different interventions. Based on these three comparisons, we have categorised interventions into: " What works" ,"What may work", and "Insufficient evidence to make a judgement".WHAT WORKSEvidence suggests that epidural, combined spinal epidural (CSE) and inhaled analgesia effectively manage pain in labour, but may give rise to adverse effects. Epidural, and inhaled analgesia effectively relieve pain when compared with placebo or a different type of intervention (epidural versus opioids). Combined-spinal epidurals relieve pain more quickly than traditional or low dose epidurals. Women receiving inhaled analgesia were more likely to experience vomiting, nausea and dizziness.When compared with placebo or opioids, women receiving epidural analgesia had more instrumental vaginal births and caesarean sections for fetal distress, although there was no difference in the rates of caesarean section overall. Women receiving epidural analgesia were more likely to experience hypotension, motor blockade, fever or urinary retention. Less urinary retention was observed in women receiving CSE than in women receiving traditional epidurals. More women receiving CSE than low-dose epidural experienced pruritus. WHAT MAY WORKThere is some evidence to suggest that immersion in water, relaxation, acupuncture, massage and local anaesthetic nerve blocks or non-opioid drugs may improve management of labour pain, with few adverse effects. Evidence was mainly limited to single trials. These interventions relieved pain and improved satisfaction with pain relief (immersion, relaxation, acupuncture, local anaesthetic nerve blocks, non-opioids) and childbirth experience (immersion, relaxation, non-opioids) when compared with placebo or standard care. Relaxation was associated with fewer assisted vaginal births and acupuncture was associated with fewer assisted vaginal births and caesarean sections.INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCEThere is insufficient evidence to make judgements on whether or not hypnosis, biofeedback, sterile water injection, aromatherapy, TENS, or parenteral opioids are more effective than placebo or other interventions for pain management in labour. In comparison with other opioids more women receiving pethidine experienced adverse effects including drowsiness and nausea.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Most methods of non-pharmacological pain management are non-invasive and appear to be safe for mother and baby, however, their efficacy is unclear, due to limited high quality evidence. In many reviews, only one or two trials provided outcome data for analysis and the overall methodological quality of the trials was low. High quality trials are needed.There is more evidence to support the efficacy of pharmacological methods, but these have more adverse effects. Thus, epidural analgesia provides effective pain relief but at the cost of increased instrumental vaginal birth.It remains important to tailor methods used to each woman's wishes, needs and circumstances, such as anticipated duration of labour, the infant's condition, and any augmentation or induction of labour.A major challenge in compiling this overview, and the individual systematic reviews on which it is based, has been the variation in use of different process and outcome measures in different trials, particularly assessment of pain and its relief, and effects on the neonate after birth. This made it difficult to pool results from otherwise similar studies, and to derive conclusions from the totality of evidence. Other important outcomes have simply not been assessed in trials; thus, despite concerns for 30 years or more about the effects of maternal opioid administration during labour on subsequent neonatal behaviour and its influence on breastfeeding, only two out of 57 trials of opioids reported breastfeeding as an outcome. We therefore strongly recommend that the outcome measures, agreed through wide consultation for this project, are used in all future trials of methods of pain management.
Topics: Acupuncture Analgesia; Administration, Inhalation; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Analgesics; Cesarean Section; Female; Humans; Immersion; Labor Pain; Massage; Patient Satisfaction; Pregnancy; Relaxation Therapy; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 22419342
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009234.pub2 -
NeuroImage Jul 2019Pain inhibition by additional somatosensory input is the rationale for the widespread use of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) to relieve pain. Two main... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
Pain inhibition by additional somatosensory input is the rationale for the widespread use of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) to relieve pain. Two main types of TENS produce analgesia in animal models: high-frequency (∼50-100 Hz) and low-intensity 'conventional' TENS, and low-frequency (∼2-4 Hz) and high-intensity 'acupuncture-like' TENS. However, TENS efficacy in human participants is debated, raising the question of whether the analgesic mechanisms identified in animal models are valid in humans. Here, we used a sham-controlled experimental design to clarify the efficacy and the neurobiological effects of 'conventional' and 'acupuncture-like' TENS in 80 human volunteers. To test the analgesic effect of TENS we recorded the perceptual and brain responses elicited by radiant heat laser pulses that activate selectively Aδ and C cutaneous nociceptors. To test whether TENS has a long-lasting effect on brain state we recorded spontaneous electrocortical oscillations. The analgesic effect of 'conventional' TENS was maximal when nociceptive stimuli were delivered homotopically, to the same hand that received the TENS. In contrast, 'acupuncture-like' TENS produced a spatially-diffuse analgesic effect, coupled with long-lasting changes both in the state of the primary sensorimotor cortex (S1/M1) and in the functional connectivity between S1/M1 and the medial prefrontal cortex, a core region in the descending pain inhibitory system. These results demonstrate that 'conventional' and 'acupuncture-like' TENS have different analgesic effects, which are mediated by different neurobiological mechanisms.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Analgesia; Brain; Electroencephalography; Female; Humans; Male; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation; Young Adult
PubMed: 30946953
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.03.077 -
Journal of Anesthesia Aug 2022
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Female; Humans; Labor, Obstetric; Pregnancy
PubMed: 35122532
DOI: 10.1007/s00540-022-03043-w -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2012Traditional epidural techniques have been associated with prolonged labour, use of oxytocin augmentation and increased incidence of instrumental vaginal delivery. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Traditional epidural techniques have been associated with prolonged labour, use of oxytocin augmentation and increased incidence of instrumental vaginal delivery. The combined spinal-epidural (CSE) technique has been introduced in an attempt to reduce these adverse effects. CSE is believed to improve maternal mobility during labour and provide more rapid onset of analgesia than epidural analgesia, which could contribute to increased maternal satisfaction.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the relative effects of CSE versus epidural analgesia during labour.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (28 September 2011) and reference lists of retrieved studies. We updated the search on 30 June 2012 and added the results to the awaiting classification section.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving a comparison of CSE with epidural analgesia initiated for women in the first stage of labour. Cluster-randomised trials were considered for inclusion. Quasi RCTs and cross-over trials were not considered for inclusion in this review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently assessed the trials identified from the searches for inclusion, assessed trial quality and extracted the data. Data were checked for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-seven trials involving 3274 women met our inclusion criteria. Twenty-six outcomes in two sets of comparisons involving CSE versus traditional epidurals and CSE versus low-dose epidural techniques were analysed.Of the CSE versus traditional epidural analyses five outcomes showed a significant difference. CSE was more favourable in relation to speed of onset of analgesia from time of injection (mean difference (MD) -2.87 minutes; 95% confidence interval (CI) -5.07 to -0.67; two trials, 129 women); the need for rescue analgesia (risk ratio (RR) 0.31; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.70; one trial, 42 women); urinary retention (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95; one trial, 704 women); and rate of instrumental delivery (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.97; six trials, 1015 women). Traditional epidural was more favourable in relation to umbilical venous pH (MD -0.03; 95% CI -0.06 to -0.00; one trial, 55 women). There were no data on maternal satisfaction, blood patch for post dural puncture headache, respiratory depression, umbilical cord pH, rare neurological complications, analgesia for caesarean section after analgesic intervention or any economic/use of resources outcomes for this comparison. No differences between CSE and traditional epidural were identified for mobilisation in labour, the need for labour augmentation, the rate of caesarean birth, incidence of post dural puncture headache, maternal hypotension, neonatal Apgar scores or umbilical arterial pH.For CSE versus low-dose epidurals, three outcomes were statistically significant. Two of these reflected a faster onset of effective analgesia from time of injection with CSE and the third was of more pruritus with CSE compared to low-dose epidural (average RR 1.80; 95% CI 1.22 to 2.65; 11 trials, 959 women; random-effects, T² = 0.26, I² = 84%). There was no significant difference in maternal satisfaction (average RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.05; seven trials, 520 women; random-effects, T² = 0.00, I² = 45%). There were no data on respiratory depression, maternal sedation or the need for labour augmentation. No differences between CSE and low-dose epidural were identified for need for rescue analgesia, mobilisation in labour, incidence of post dural puncture headache, known dural tap, blood patch for post dural headache, urinary retention, nausea/vomiting, hypotension, headache, the need for labour augmentation, mode of delivery, umbilical pH, Apgar score or admissions to the neonatal unit.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There appears to be little basis for offering CSE over epidurals in labour, with no difference in overall maternal satisfaction despite a slightly faster onset with CSE and conversely less pruritus with low-dose epidurals. There was no difference in ability to mobilise, maternal hypotension, rate of caesarean birth or neonatal outcome. However, the significantly higher incidence of urinary retention, rescue interventions and instrumental deliveries with traditional techniques would favour the use of low-dose epidurals. It is not possible to draw any meaningful conclusions regarding rare complications such as nerve injury and meningitis.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Anesthesia, Epidural; Anesthesia, Spinal; Female; Humans; Labor, Obstetric; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 23076897
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003401.pub3 -
Best Practice & Research. Clinical... Mar 2023Providing pain relief during labour is a fundamental human right and can benefit both mother and foetus. Epidural analgesia remains the 'gold standard', providing... (Review)
Review
Providing pain relief during labour is a fundamental human right and can benefit both mother and foetus. Epidural analgesia remains the 'gold standard', providing excellent pain relief, as well as the facility to convert to anaesthesia should operative intervention be required. While maternal well-being remains the primary focus, epidural analgesia may also have implications for the foetus. Data from meta-analyses finds that epidural compared with systemic opioids in labour is associated with reduced neonatal respiratory depression. Clinically relevant neonatal outcomes such as Apgar score <7 at 5 min, neonatal resuscitation and need for admission to a neonatal unit are reassuring, with the benefits of epidural analgesia for both mother and neonate outweighing any potential risks. Recent concerns regarding an association of epidural with the development of autism spectrum disorder in childhood appear to be unfounded, with several large observational studies refuting this association. This review discusses the evidence relating to maternal neuraxial analgesia in labour, implications for the foetus in utero, and childhood outcomes both in the immediate peripartum period and longer term.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Infant, Newborn; Humans; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Labor Pain; Resuscitation; Analgesia, Epidural; Fetus
PubMed: 37295856
DOI: 10.1016/j.bpa.2023.02.005 -
Anaesthesia Aug 2021If an accidental dural puncture occurs, one option is to insert a catheter and use it as an intrathecal catheter. This avoids the need for a further injection and can... (Review)
Review
If an accidental dural puncture occurs, one option is to insert a catheter and use it as an intrathecal catheter. This avoids the need for a further injection and can rapidly provide labour analgesia and anaesthesia for caesarean section. However, there are no recommendations for managing intrathecal catheters and, therefore, significant variation in clinical practice exists. Mismanagement of the intrathecal catheter can lead to increased motor block, high spinal anaesthesia, drug error, hypotension and fetal bradycardia. Care must be taken with an intrathecal catheter to adhere to strict aseptic technique, meticulous labelling, cautious administration of medications and good communication with the patient and other staff. Every institution considering the use of intrathecal catheters should establish a protocol. For labour analgesia, we recommend the use of dilute local anaesthetic agents and opioids. For caesarean section anaesthesia, gradual titration to the level of the fourth thoracic dermatome, with full monitoring, in a facility equipped to manage complications, should be performed using local anaesthetics combined with lipophilic opioids and morphine or diamorphine. Although evidence of the presence and duration of intrathecal catheters on the development of post-dural puncture headache and need for epidural blood patch is limited, we suggest considering leaving the intrathecal catheter in for 24 hours to reduce the chance of developing a post-dural puncture headache while maintaining precautions to avoid drug error and cerebrospinal fluid leakage. Injection of sterile normal saline into the intrathecal catheter may reduce post-dural puncture headache. The level of evidence for these recommendations was low.
Topics: Adult; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Anesthesia, Epidural; Anesthesia, Obstetrical; Catheters; Cesarean Section; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Spinal Puncture
PubMed: 33476424
DOI: 10.1111/anae.15390 -
Anaesthesia Dec 2020The programmed intermittent epidural bolus technique has shown superiority to continuous epidural infusion techniques, with or without patient-controlled epidural... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Randomized Controlled Trial
The programmed intermittent epidural bolus technique has shown superiority to continuous epidural infusion techniques, with or without patient-controlled epidural analgesia for pain relief, reduced motor block and patient satisfaction. Many institutions still use patient-controlled epidural analgesia without a background infusion, and a comparative study between programmed intermittent epidural bolus and patient-controlled epidural analgesia without a background infusion has not yet been performed. We performed a randomised, two-centre, double-blind, controlled trial of these two techniques. The primary outcome was the incidence of breakthrough pain requiring a top-up dose by an anaesthetist. Secondary outcomes included: motor block; pain scores; patient satisfaction; local anaesthetic consumption; and obstetric and neonatal outcomes. We recruited 130 nulliparous women who received initial spinal analgesia, and then epidural analgesia was initiated and maintained with either programmed intermittent epidural bolus or patient-controlled epidural analgesia using ropivacaine 0.12% with sufentanil 0.75 µg·ml . The programmed intermittent epidural bolus group had a programmed bolus of 10 ml every hour, with on-demand patient-controlled epidural analgesia boluses of 5 ml with a 20 min lockout, and the patient-controlled epidural analgesia group had a 5 ml bolus with a 12 min lockout interval; the potential maximum volume per hour was the same in both groups. The patients in the programmed intermittent epidural bolus group had less frequent breakthrough pain compared with the patient-controlled epidural analgesia group, 7 (10.9%) vs. 38 (62.3%; p < 0.0001), respectively. There was a significant difference in motor block (modified Bromage score ≤ 4) frequency between groups, programmed intermittent epidural bolus group 1 (1.6%) vs. patient-controlled epidural analgesia group 8 (13.1%); p = 0.015. The programmed intermittent epidural bolus group had greater local anaesthetic consumption with fewer patient-controlled epidural analgesia boluses. Patient satisfaction scores and obstetric or neonatal outcomes were not different between groups. In conclusion, we found that a programmed intermittent epidural bolus technique using 10 ml programmed boluses and 5 ml patient-controlled epidural analgesia boluses was superior to a patient-controlled epidural analgesia technique using 5 ml boluses and no background infusion.
Topics: Adult; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Pregnancy
PubMed: 32530518
DOI: 10.1111/anae.15149