ABSTRACT
Background: Post-operative pain is an acute pain which if not adequately managed may lead to morbidity and complications. It can be controlled effectively by analgesics. It is essential to choose an analgesic with good efficacy and safety profile to avoid drug-related complications. Aims and Objectives: This study aims (i) to study the pattern of analgesic use for postoperative pain; (ii) to study the efficacy of the analgesic prescribed for post-operative pain; and (iii) to study the safety of the analgesics used for post-operative pain. Materials and Methods: A prospective observational study was conducted for 3 months period. The pattern of analgesic use for post-operative pain was studied in 110 patients. The influence of sociodemographic factors, surgery related factors on pain assessment score, and patient satisfaction score was assessed. The safety profile of analgesics used was studied. Results: Post-operative was seen equally in both the genders and mean age of patients was 41 years. Diclofenac was the most common analgesic prescribed and intramuscular route was most commonly used. About 64% of patients were satisfied with their treatment and 94.55% of patients did not encounter any adverse effects. However, there was no association between various factors and pain assessment score and patient satisfaction score. Conclusion: Post-operative pain can be effectively managed by non-opioid analgesics like diclofenac which provide cost-effective treatment. Analgesic for post-operative pain should be chosen judiciously by considering patient-related and surgery-related factors for better post-operative pain management and to prevent post-operative complications.
ABSTRACT
Background: The objective of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety of ketoprofen patch versus diclofenac patch as post-operative analgesic in hysterectomy patients.Methods: The study was a prospective, single blind, randomized, comparative interventional clinical study conducted in a tertiary care hospital. Sixty female patients were randomly allocated to receive either ketoprofen or diclofenac patch 1 hour prior to the hysterectomy. Pain was assessed postoperatively after an interval of every four hours for 24 hours using visual analogue scale (VAS) and verbal rating scale (VRS).Results: In ketoprofen group, mean VAS was (2.92�11) significantly low as compared to diclofenac group (3.25�14). The mean VRS score in group ketoprofen (1.62�22) was low as compared to group diclofenac (1.83�16). Safety analysis revealed no apparent serious adverse events. Inj. Paracetamol 1 gm i.v was given as rescue analgesic to the patients in whom VRS >2 and VAS >5 was noted. Data were analysed using unpaired student抯 t-test.Conclusions: Transdermal patches are very convenient to use and causes less discomfort as compared to traditional routes of drug delivery. Ketoprofen patch was found better in providing analgesia after hysterectomy as compared to diclofenac patch with lesser side effects.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Propofol is an anaesthetic drug which is given toinduce and maintain anaesthesia in adults undergoing surgery.This prospective, randomized, controlled study was designedto evaluate the efficacy of cisatracurium as a pretreatment drugin reducing incidence and severity of propofol injection pain.Material and methods: Patient undergoing generalanaesthesia were randomized in four groups of 25 patientseach. Group A received normal saline (control group), GroupB received Cisatracurium 0.05mg/kg IV, Group C receivedCisatracurium 0.1mg/kg IV, Group D received Cisatracurium0.15mg/kg IV. All drugs were administered into the largestdorsal vein of the hand with venous occlusion for 30 sec,followed by propofol (0.5mg/kg). Pain was evaluated usinga four point scale.Result: Cisatracurium 0.15mg/kg significantly lowers bothincidence and severity of propofol induced pain. Cisatracurium0.1mg/kg and cisatracurium 0.05mg/kg both significantlylower the severity of pain but not the incidence as comparedto control group.Conclusion: Cisatracurium is an effective drug in reducingpropofol induced pain. It reduces the incidence and severityboth of pain in 0.15mg/kg dose. Whereas only severityis decreased with 0.10 mg/kg and 0.05 mg/kg dose ofcisatracurium without any significant complications.
ABSTRACT
Objective@#To observe the analgesic and sedative effect and safety of application of dexmedetomidine combined with remifentanil in dressing change of conscious patients with non-intubation in burn intensive care unit.@*Methods@#Forty patients conforming to the study criteria hospitalized in our burn intensive care unit from April 2015 to April 2017 were selected. Prospective, randomized, and double-blind method was used for the design. Patients were divided into dexmedetomidine group and dexmedetomidine+ remifentanil group according to the random number table, with 20 cases in each group. Patients in the two groups were respectively given corresponding drugs during dressing change. The frequency and time of dressing change, Verbal Rating Scale (VRS) score of patients during dressing change (at drug administration for 25 minutes) and after dressing change (25 min after dressing change), Ramsay Sedation Score (RSS) during dressing change, satisfaction level for anesthesia of the patients and physicians after dressing change, dosage of remifentanil, and various adverse effects during and after dressing change were recorded. The heart rate, mean arterial blood pressure (MAP), respiratory rate, and pulse oxygen saturation (SpO2) before drug administration and at 10, 15, and 25 minutes after drug administration were also recorded. Data were processed with analysis of variance for repeated measurement, t test, chi-square test, and Fisher′s exact probability test.@*Results@#(1) Totally 38 patients completed the trial. There were no statistically significant differences between patients in two groups in gender, American Association of Anesthesiologist Grading, age, weight, and total burn area (χ2=0.230, 0.146, t=0.224, 0.351, 0.367, P>0.05). (2) The frequency of dressing change of patients in two groups were both 48 times. The time of dressing change and VRS scores during dressing change of patients in two groups were similar (t=0.821, 1.522, P>0.05). The VRS score of patients in dexmedetomidine+ remifentanil group after dressing change was (3.1±0.4) points, obviously lower than (3.8±0.8) points in remifentanil group (t=2.213, P<0.05). The RSS, satisfaction level scores for anesthesia of the patients and physicians after dressing change in dexmedetomidine+ remifentanil group were (3.13±0.32), (3.44±0.41), and (3.13±0.25) points, respectively, obviously better than (1.82±0.24), (2.71±0.23), (2.53±0.41) points in remifentanil group (t=2.226, 2.684, 7.702, P<0.01). The dosage of remifentanil of patients in dexmedetomidine+ remifentanil group was (282±19) μg, obviously less than (340±31) μg in remifentanil group (t=9.896, P<0.01). There were no statistically significant differences between patients in two groups in rates of respiratory inhibition and hypotension (χ2=0.211, 0.154, P>0.05). Compared with those in remifentanil group, the rates of nausea, vomiting, and other gastrointestinal symptoms of patients in dexmedetomidine+ remifentanil group were obviously reduced (P<0.05), but the rate of bradycardia was obviously increased (χ2=6.008, P<0.05). (3) There were no statistically significant differences between patients in two groups in heart rate, MAP, respiratory frequency, and SpO2 before drug administration (t=0.444, 0.892, 1.059, 1.039, P>0.05). The heart rates of patients in dexmedetomidine+ remifentanil group at 10, 15, and 25 minutes after drug administration were (83±11), (78±10), and (82±14) times per minute, respectively, significantly lower than (95±10), (87±12), and (89±12) times per minute in remifentanil group (t=5.592, 3.992, 2.630, P<0.05 or P<0.01). The MAP of patients in dexmedetomidine+ remifentanil group at 15 and 25 minutes after drug administration were (69.4±3.1) and (73.8±2.2) mmHg (1 mmHg=0.133 kPa), respectively, significantly lower than (75.4±3.0) and (78.1±3.5) mmHg in remifentanil group (t=9.181, 7.206, P<0.01). There were no statistically significant differences between patients in two groups in respiratory frequency at each time point after drug administration (t=1.489, 1.862, 1.963, P>0.05). The SpO2 of patients in dexmedetomidine+ remifentanil group at 15 minutes after drug administration was 0.972±0.018, obviously lower than 0.979±0.015 in remifentanil group (t=2.070, P<0.05).@*Conclusions@#Application of remifentanil with small dosage has effective analgesia for conscious burn patients with non-intubation during dressing changes, however, adverse effects such as nausea and vomiting are likely to occur. Remifentanil combined with dexmedetomidine not only guarantee the analgesic effect, but also reduce the dosage of analgesics, improve the sedative effect and satisfaction of the patients for anesthesia, and reduce various adverse effects. However, it will increase the incidence of bradycardia and has some inhibition effect on circulation at the same time.
ABSTRACT
Purpose： In this study, we aimed to investigate the discrepancy between interview by medical personnel using 3‒point verbal rating scale (VRS) and patient complaints using numerical rating scale (NRS) in nausea diary for chemotherapy‒induced nausea. Patients and Method： In this study, we targeted patients who received chemotherapy at the gynecology department in our hospital and who recorded information in nausea diary. The discrepancy was estimated from NRS in nausea diary and the degree of nausea obtained by medical interview at approximately the same time period. We classified it into overvaluation, undervaluation or non‒discrepancy. Result： A total of 663 cases was analyzed, and 54 patientswere enrolled. The discrepancy was 25.2％ (undervaluation 5.4%; overvaluation 19.8％), and mostly overvaluation was observed. NRS in nausea diary had a significant correlation with the degree of nausea obtained by medical interview（P<0.001, r=0.66） , and the kappa statistic was 0.36. Conclusion： Ratio of non‒undervaluation is approximately 95%; hence, we conclude that interview by medical personnel using VRS accurately reflects the degree of nausea.