Obstetric analgesia and anesthesia in Switzerland in 2007

Introduction: The last twenty years has witnessed important changes in the field of obstetric analgesia and anesthesia. In 2007, we conducted a survey to obtain information regarding the clinical practice of obstetric anesthesia in our country. The main objective was to ascertain whether recent developments in obstetric anesthesia had been adequately implemented into current clinical practice. Methodology: A confidential questionnaire was sent to 391 identified wiss obstetric anesthetists. The questionnaire included 58 questions on 5 main topics: activity and organization of the obstetric unit, practice of labor analgesia, practice of anesthesia for caesarean section, prevention of aspiration syndrome, and pain treatment after cesarean section. Results: The response rate was 80% (311/391). 66% of the surveyed anesthetists worked in intermediate size obstetric units (500-1500 deliveries per year). An anesthetist was on site 24/24 hours in only 53% of the obstetric units. Epidural labor analgesia with low dose local anesthetics combined with opioids was used by 87% but only 30% used patient controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA). Spinal anesthesia was the first choice for elective and urgent cesarean section for 95% of the responders. Adequate prevention of aspiration syndrome was prescribed by 78%. After cesarean section, a multimodal analgesic regimen was prescribed by 74%. Conclusion: When comparing these results with those of the two previous Swiss surveys [1, 2], it clearly appears that Swiss obstetric anesthetists have progressively adapted their practice to current clinical recommendations. But this survey also revealed some insufficiencies: 1. Of the public health system: a. Insufficient number of obstetric anesthetists on site 24 hours/24. b. Lack of budget in some hospitals to purchase PCEA pumps. 2. Of individual medical practice: a. Frequent excessive dosage of hyperbaric bupivacaine during spinal anesthesia for cesarean section. b. Frequent use of cristalloid preload before spinal anesthesia for cesarean section. c. Frequent systematic use of opioids when inducing general anesthesia for cesarean section. d. Fentanyl as the first choice opioid during induction of general anesthesia for severe preeclampsia. In the future, wider and more systematic information campaigns by the mean of the Swiss Association of Obstetric Anesthesia (SAOA) should be able to correct these points.

Undertreatment of acute pain (oligoanalgesia) and medical practice variation in prehospital analgesia of adult trauma patients: a 10 yr retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Prehospital oligoanalgesia is prevalent among trauma victims, even when the emergency medical services team includes a physician. We investigated if not only patients' characteristics but physicians' practice variations contributed to prehospital oligoanalgesia. METHODS: Patient records of conscious adult trauma victims transported by our air rescue helicopter service over 10 yr were reviewed retrospectively. Oligoanalgesia was defined as a numeric rating scale (NRS) >3 at hospital admission. Multilevel logistic regression analysis was used to predict oligoanalgesia, accounting first for patient case-mix, and then physician-level clustering. The intraclass correlation was expressed as the median odds ratio (MOR). RESULTS: A total of 1202 patients and 77 physicians were included in the study. NRS at the scene was 6.9 (1.9). The prevalence of oligoanalgesia was 43%. Physicians had a median of 5.7 yr (inter-quartile range: 4.2-7.5) of post-graduate training and 27% were female. In our multilevel analysis, significant predictors of oligoanalgesia were: no analgesia [odds ratio (OR) 8.8], National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics V on site (OR 4.4), NRS on site (OR 1.5 per additional NRS unit >4), female physician (OR 2.0), and years of post-graduate experience [>4.0 to ≤5.0 (OR 1.3), >3.0 to ≤4.0 (OR 1.6), >2.0 to ≤3.0 (OR 2.6), and ≤2.0 yr (OR 16.7)]. The MOR was 2.6, and was statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians' practice variations contributed to oligoanalgesia, a factor often overlooked in analyses of prehospital pain management. Further exploration of the sources of these variations may provide innovative targets for quality improvement programmes to achieve consistent pain relief for trauma victims.

Patients's satisfaction concerning postoperative analgesia after caesarean section: a comparison of 4 alternative analgesic regimen

Introduction: Different routes of postoperative analgesia may be used after cesarean section: systemic, spinal or epidural [1]. Although the efficacy of these alternative analgesic regimen has already been studied [2, 3], very few studies have compared patients' satisfaction between them. Methodology: After ethical committee acceptation, 100 ASA 1 patients scheduled for an elective cesarean section were randomized in 4 groups. After a standardized spinal anesthesia (hyperbaric bupivacaine 10 mg and fentanyl 20 μg), each group had a different postoperative analgesic regimen: - Group 1: oral paracetamol 4x1 g/24 h, oral ibuprofene 3x600 mg/24 h and subcutaneous morphine on need (0.1 mg/kg 6x/24 h) - Group 2: intrathecal morphine (100 μg) and then same as Group 1 - Group 3: oral paracetamol 4x1 g/24 h, oral ibuprofene 3x600 mg/24 h and PCEA with fentanyl 5 μg/ml epidural solution - Group 4: oral paracetamol 4x1g/24 h, oral ibuprofene 3x600 mg/ 24 h and PCEA with bupivacaine 0.1% and fentanyl 2 μg/ml epidural solution After 48 hours, a specific satisfaction questionnaire was given to all patients which permitted to obtain 2 different scores concerning postoperative analgesia: a global satisfaction score (0-10) and a detailed satisfaction score (5 questions scored 0-10 with a summative score of 0-50). Both scores, expressed as mean ± SD, were compared between the 4 groups with a Kruskall-Wallis test and between each group with a Mann-Whitney test. A P-value <0.05 was considered significant. Results: Satisfaction scores Gr. 1 (n = 25) Gr. 2 (n = 25) Gr. 3 (n = 25) Gr. 4 (n = 25) P-value global (0-10) 8.2 ± 1.2 9.0 ± 1.0 7.8 ± 2.1 6.5 ± 2.5 0.0006 detailed (0-50) 40 ± 6 43 ± 5 38 ± 6 34 ± 8 0.0002 Conclusion: Satisfaction scores were significantly better in patients who received a systemic postoperative analgesia only (Groups 1 and 2) compared to patients who received systemic and epidural postoperative analgesia (Groups 3 and 4). The best scores were achieved with the combination of intrathecal morphine and multimodal systemic analgesia (Group 2) which allowed early ambulation without significant pain. Patients treated with postoperative epidural analgesia with combined local anesthetics and opioids (Group 4) obtained the worse scores (more restrictive nursing with less mobility, frequent asymmetrical block with insufficient analgesia on one side and motor block on the other)

Influence of CYP2D6 activity on pre-emptive analgesia by the N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonist dextromethorphan in a randomized controlled trial of acute pain.

BACKGROUND: There is some evidence that dextromethorphan (DM) is effective as a pre-emptive analgesic agent.  DM is mainly metabolized to dextrorphan (DOR) by CYP2D6 whose activity can be inhibited by pharmacologic intervention. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy of DM as a pre-emptive analgesic agent and describe the population pharmacokinetics in the presence of normal and poor CYP2D6 metabolism in acute post-operative pain. STUDY DESIGN: Double blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial SETTING: Post-surgical analgesic consumption after knee ligament surgery, a setting of acute pain. METHODS: Forty patients were randomized to a single oral dose of 50 mg quinidine or placebo, administered 12 hours before 50 mg DM. Patients were genotyped for the major CYP2D6 and ABCB1 variants and phenotyped for CYP2D6 using urine DM/DOR metabolic ratios and blood samples for population pharmacokinetic modeling. RESULTS: Quinidine was effective in inhibiting CYP2D6 activity, with 2-fold reduction of DM to DOR biotransformation clearance, prolonged DM half-life, and increased DM systemic availability. Patients in the quinidine group required significantly less often NSAIDs than patients in the placebo group (35.3% vs. 75.0%, P = 0.022). The odds ratio for NSAID consumption in the placebo vs. quinidine group was 5.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3 - 22.7) at 48 hours after surgery. LIMITATIONS: While this study shows an impact of DM on pre-emptive analgesia and is mechanistically interesting, the findings need to be confirmed in larger trials. CONCLUSION: CYP2D6 inhibition by quinidine influenced the pre-emptive analgesic effectiveness of DM confirming that CYP2D6 phenotypic switch increases the neuromodulatory effect of oral dextromethorphan.

Effective temporary analgesia for severe painful blind eye.

There are various methods of providing pain relief for painful blind eyes. We wish to recommend this effective method of providing temporary analgesia in patients suffering from a severe painful blind eye before undergoing enucleation.

Sedation and analgesia for colonoscopy: patient tolerance, pain, and cardiorespiratory parameters.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is generally performed with the patient sedated and receiving analgesics. However, the benefit of the most often used combination of intravenous midazolam and pethidine on patient tolerance and pain and its cardiorespiratory risk have not been fully defined. METHODS: In this double-blind prospective study, 150 outpatients undergoing routine colonoscopy were randomly assigned to receive either (1) low-dose midazolam (35 micrograms/kg) and pethidine (700 micrograms/kg in 48 patients, 500 micrograms/kg in 102 patients), (2) midazolam and placebo pethidine, or (3) pethidine and placebo midazolam. RESULTS: Tolerance (visual analog scale, 0 to 100 points: 0 = excellent; 100 = unbearable) did not improve significantly more in group 1 compared with group 2 (7 points; 95% confidence interval [-2-17]) and group 3 (2 points; 95% confidence interval [-7-12]). Similarly, pain was not significantly improved in group 1 as compared with the other groups. Male gender (p < 0.001) and shorter duration of the procedure (p = 0.004), but not amnesia, were associated with better patient tolerance and less pain. Patient satisfaction was similar in all groups. Oxygen desaturation and hypotension occurred in 33% and 11%, respectively, with a similar frequency in all three groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the combination of low-dose midazolam and pethidine does not improve patient tolerance and lessen pain during colonoscopy as compared with either drug given alone. When applying low-dose midazolam, oxygen desaturation and hypotension do not occur more often after combined use of both drugs. For the individual patient, sedation and analgesia should be based on the endoscopist's clinical judgement.

Effects of epidural analgesia on pelvic floor function after spontaneous delivery : a longitudinal retrospective study

Abstract: The aim of the study was to assess the effects of epidural analgesia on pelvic floor function. Eighty- two primiparous women (group 1, consisting of 41 given an epidural, and group 2 of 41 not given an epidural) were investigated during pregnancy and at 2 and 10 months after delivery by a questionnaire, clinical examination, and assessment of bladder neck behavior, urethral sphincter function and intravaginal/intra-anal pressures. The prevalence of stress urinary incontinence was similar in both groups at 2 months (24% vs. 17%, P = 0.6) and 10 months (22% vs. 7%, P = 0.1), as was the prevalence of decreased sexual vaginal response at 10 months (27% vs. 10%, P= 0.08). Bladder neck behavior, urethral sphincter function and intravaginal and intra-anal pressures showed no significant differences between the two groups. Ten months after spontaneous delivery, there were no significant differences in the prevalence of stress urinary incontinence and decreased sexual vaginal response, or in bladder neck behavior, urethral sphincter function and pelvic floor muscle strength between women who had or had not had epidural analgesia.

Intrathecal analgesia and restrictive perioperative fluid management within enhanced recovery pathway: hemodynamic implications.

BACKGROUND: Intrathecal analgesia and avoidance of perioperative fluid overload are key items within enhanced recovery pathways. Potential side effects include hypotension and renal dysfunction. STUDY DESIGN: From January 2010 until May 2010, all patients undergoing colorectal surgery within enhanced recovery pathways were included in this retrospective cohort study and were analyzed by intrathecal analgesia (IT) vs none (noIT). Primary outcomes measures were systolic and diastolic blood pressure, mean arterial pressure, and heart rate for 48 hours after surgery. Renal function was assessed by urine output and creatinine values. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-three consecutive colorectal patients (127 IT and 36 noIT) were included in the analysis. Both patient groups showed low blood pressure values within the first 4 to 12 hours and a steady increase thereafter before return to baseline values after about 24 hours. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure and mean arterial pressure were significantly lower until 16 hours after surgery in patients having IT compared with the noIT group. Low urine output (<0.5 mL/kg/h) was reported in 11% vs 29% (IT vs noIT; p = 0.010) intraoperatively, 20% vs 11% (p = 0.387), 33% vs 22% (p = 0.304), and 31% vs 21% (p = 0.478) for postanesthesia care unit and postoperative days 1 and 2, respectively. Only 3 of 127 (2.4%) IT and 1 of 36 (2.8%) noIT patients had a transitory creatinine increase >50%; no patients required dialysis. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative hypotension affects approximately 10% of patients within an enhanced recovery pathway and is slightly more pronounced in patients with IT. Hemodynamic depression persists for <20 hours after surgery; it has no measurable negative impact and therefore cannot justify detrimental postoperative fluid overload.

Le syndrome douloureux abdominal (SDA) aux urgences: quelle analgésie [Acute abdominal pain: what about analgesia]

Acute abdominal pain tends not to be treated by surgeons and emergency physicians. However, literature has become clear that analgesics are effective and do not disturb clinical examination, diagnostic process and do not delay surgery. Thus, early treatment of acute abdominal pain is recommended. In the absence of scientific evidence, protocols must be established by each institution and validated by quality process.

Impact of restrictive intravenous fluid replacement and combined epidural analgesia on perioperative volume balance and renal function within a Fast Track program.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Key factors of Fast Track (FT) programs are fluid restriction and epidural analgesia (EDA). We aimed to challenge the preconception that the combination of fluid restriction and EDA might induce hypotension and renal dysfunction. METHODS: A recent randomized trial (NCT00556790) showed reduced complications after colectomy in FT patients compared with standard care (SC). Patients with an effective EDA were compared with regard to hemodynamics and renal function. RESULTS: 61/76 FT patients and 59/75 patients in the SC group had an effective EDA. Both groups were comparable regarding demographics and surgery-related characteristics. FT patients received significantly less i.v. fluids intraoperatively (1900 mL [range 1100-4100] versus 2900 mL [1600-5900], P < 0.0001) and postoperatively (700 mL [400-1500] versus 2300 mL [1800-3800], P < 0.0001). Intraoperatively, 30 FT compared with 19 SC patients needed colloids or vasopressors, but this was statistically not significant (P = 0.066). Postoperative requirements were low in both groups (3 versus 5 patients; P = 0.487). Pre- and postoperative values for creatinine, hematocrit, sodium, and potassium were similar, and no patient developed renal dysfunction in either group. Only one of 82 patients having an EDA without a bladder catheter had urinary retention. Overall, FT patients had fewer postoperative complications (6 versus 20 patients; P = 0.002) and a shorter median hospital stay (5 [2-30] versus 9 d [6-30]; P< 0.0001) compared with the SC group. CONCLUSIONS: Fluid restriction and EDA in FT programs are not associated with clinically relevant hemodynamic instability or renal dysfunction.

Randomized clinical trial on epidural versus patient-controlled analgesia for laparoscopic colorectal surgery within an enhanced recovery pathway.

OBJECTIVE: To compare epidural analgesia (EDA) to patient-controlled opioid-based analgesia (PCA) in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery. BACKGROUND: EDA is mainstay of multimodal pain management within enhanced recovery pathways [enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS)]. For laparoscopic colorectal resections, the benefit of epidurals remains debated. Some consider EDA as useful, whereas others perceive epidurals as unnecessary or even deleterious. METHODS: A total of 128 patients undergoing elective laparoscopic colorectal resections were enrolled in a randomized clinical trial comparing EDA versus PCA. Primary end point was medical recovery. Overall complications, hospital stay, perioperative vasopressor requirements, and postoperative pain scores were secondary outcome measures. Analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: Final analysis included 65 EDA patients and 57 PCA patients. Both groups were similar regarding baseline characteristics. Medical recovery required a median of 5 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3-7.5 days) in EDA patients and 4 days (IQR, 3-6 days) in the PCA group (P = 0.082). PCA patients had significantly less overall complications [19 (33%) vs 35 (54%); P = 0.029] but a similar hospital stay [5 days (IQR, 4-8 days) vs 7 days (IQR, 4.5-12 days); P = 0.434]. Significantly more EDA patients needed vasopressor treatment perioperatively (90% vs 74%, P = 0.018), the day of surgery (27% vs 4%, P < 0.001), and on postoperative day 1 (29% vs 4%, P < 0.001), whereas no difference in postoperative pain scores was noted. CONCLUSIONS: Epidurals seem to slow down recovery after laparoscopic colorectal resections without adding obvious benefits. EDA can therefore not be recommended as part of ERAS pathways in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.