Effect of Analgesic Low-Dose Ketamine Infusions on the Cardiovascular Response: A Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Low-dose ketamine infusion (LDKI) has shown effectiveness for treating acute pain associated with surgical and nonsurgical (traumatic, neuropathic, and acute cancer-related) origin as an adjuvant to opioids. The increasing use of LDKI as an opioid-sparing agent in multimodal analgesia requires a better understanding of its effects on the cardiovascular response, a known dose-dependent side effect of ketamine administration. We investigated the cardiovascular response of acute pain patients treated with LDKI. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of LDKI in hemodynamic variables (blood pressure [BP] and heart rate [HR]) during LDKI analgesia for up to 48 hours of treatment in an acute pain setting. Secondary objectives were to evaluate psychomimetic effects. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective unicentric cohort design. SETTING: The study was conducted at an academic university hospital. METHODS: We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort analysis of adult patients who underwent LDKI to treat surgical and nonsurgical acute pain. We obtained data from the Hospital San Vicente Fundación Health Documentation System database and evaluated the medical records of 318 patients with surgical and nonsurgical pain. Patients received a 0.1 mg/kg/h ketamine infusion as part of a multimodal analgesic plan. Baseline systolic BP (SBP), diastolic BP (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and HR values were compared with those measured after 24 and 48 hours of treatment. Pain level and psychomimetic effects were measured at 24 and 48 hours. Cardiovascular complications and treatment duration were also recorded. Patients with a history of psychiatric, cardiovascular, or cognitive disease were excluded from the study. This study was registered in the clinicaltrials.gov database (identifier: NCT03979105). RESULTS: No statistical differences in SBP, DBP, MAP, or HR were observed when baseline and post-LDKI treatment values were compared (P < 0.05). When comparing hemodynamic variables after exposure to LDKI in patients with and without hypertension, we did not observe statistically significant differences in mean HR, systolic arterial pressure, diastolic arterial pressure, or MAP values at 24 and 48 hours. The frequency of severe pain was reduced from 72% on day 0 to 4.4% on day 1 and 6.2% on day 2 post-LDKI. Observed psychomimetic effects were confusion 4.39%, hallucinations 2.51%, and nightmares 1.25%. No major cardiovascular events were observed. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its retrospective design, the lack of a comparative matching cohort, and the good general condition of the majority of patients included in the study. CONCLUSIONS: LDKI (0.1 mg/kg/h) was not associated with significant changes in baseline BP or HR. Our results suggest that as an adjuvant in multimodal analgesia for surgical and nonsurgical acute pain, LDKI has a low impact on the cardiovascular response. KEY WORDS: Ketamine, adverse effects, tachycardia, hypertension, postoperative pain, chronic postsurgical pain.

Evaluation of Sensory Mapping of Erector Spinae Plane Block.

BACKGROUND: Erector spinae plane (ESP) block is an effective regional analgesic technique for thoracic and abdominal pain. The volume of local anesthetic (LA) needed to produce sensory block in the spinal segment is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to examine the extent of dermatomal spread following ultrasound-guided administration of ESP block, with a fixed-volume dose of a LA at the midthoracic area for analgesia in acute thoracic pain patients. Secondary objectives were postprocedure analgesia and patient satisfaction. STUDY DESIGN: This research used a prospective unicentric exploratory cohort design. SETTING: The study was conducted at an academic university hospital. METHODS: A total of 18 patients with acute severe chest pain including rib fractures, thoracic postoperative rescue analgesia, zoster herpetic neuritis, and myofascial pain syndrome received ESP block under ultrasound guidance at the T5-T7 levels. Twenty mL of 0.5% plain bupivacaine was injected. Evaluation of the sensory block was carried out 60 minutes following the completion of the ESP block via a change in sensation to pinprick and cold methods. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain was recorded one hour after the procedure. Patient satisfaction was reported using a 4-point Likert scale. This study was registered with the clinicaltrials.gov database (identifier: NCT03831581). RESULTS: Sixteen patients had a successful ESP block; 2 patients were excluded for a failed block. The mean dermatomal spread was 9 (range, 8-11). VAS scores improved by at least 50% from baseline (P < .05), one hour after the ESP block. The degree of satisfaction reported by all patients on the Likert scale was 4 points. No major complications were observed. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its sample size. CONCLUSIONS: An ultrasound-guided ESP block with a single injection at the midthoracic level with 20 mL of 0.5% plain bupivacaine provides a mean dermatomal spread of 9 dermatomes (range, 8-11) with a high rate of analgesic efficacy and low incidence of adverse effects. KEY WORDS: Acute pain, dermatomal spread, erector spine plane nerve block, thoracic pain, thoracic postoperative analgesia.

Adaptación colombiana de las guías de neuroestimulación espinal en el manejo del dolor crónico e isquémico / Colombian adaptation of guidelines for the use of neurostimulation in the management of chronic pain and ischemia

Introduction: Management of chronic pain by conventional means is usually insufficient, but the enhanced knowledge of the neurobiology of pain has led to the development of new treatments like spinal neurostimulation, with optimal short- and long-term results. Objectives: To integrate and update clinical practice guidelines on the effectiveness and safety of spinal neurostimulation in the management of chronic pain. Materials and methods: Search of practice guidelines, systematic reviews and clinical trials in the main databases (Cochrane, EMBASE, LILACS and MEDLINE), and assessment of their quality and level of evidence in order to propose recommendations for the management of chronic painful syndromes and cardiac and lower-limb ischemia. Results: Suficient evidence was found to support the use of spinal neurostimulation for pain relief in cases of persistent pain after back surgery and also for complex regional pain syndrome. Growing evidence was found for the use of spinal neurostimulation in refractory angina pectoris and in painful ischemic lower limbs. Conclusions: Neurostimulation is a minimally invasive technique useful for the management of persistent pain after back surgery and for complex regional pain syndrome.

Introducción: El manejo del dolor crónico por medios convencionales a menudo es insuficiente, es por eso que con el mayor conocimiento de la neurobiología del dolor se han desarrollado nuevos tratamientos como la neuroestimulación espinal, con resultados óptimos a corto y largo plazo por parte de los médicos tratantes. Objetivos: Integrar y actualizar guías de práctica clínica sobre la efectividad y seguridad de la neuroestimulación espinal en el manejo del dolor crónico. Materiales y métodos: Se realizó una búsqueda de guías de práctica, revisiones sistemáticas y ensayos clínicos en las principales bases de datos (Cochrane, EMBASE, LILACS y MEDLINE) evaluando su calidad y grado de evidencia para proponer recomendaciones en el manejo de síndromes dolorosos crónicos, y en isquemia cardiaca y de miembros inferiores. Resultados: Se encontró evidencia suficiente para soportar el uso de la neuroestimulación espinal para el alivio del dolor que persiste después de cirugía de espalda y también para síndrome doloroso regional complejo. Se encontró evidencia en ascenso para el uso en angina de pecho refractaria y en extremidad inferior isquémica dolorosa. Conclusiones: La neuroestimulación es una técnica mínimamente invasiva útil para el manejo de dolor persistente posterior a cirugía de columna y para síndrome regional complejo.

Tolerabilidad y eficacia de morfina versus hidromorfona en analgesia epidural posquirúrgica con bupivacaína: ensayo aleatorizado, doble ciego y controlado / Tolerability and efficacy of morphine vs. hydromorphone in postoperative epidural analgesia: double-blind randomized control trial

Introducción. La tolerabilidad a la analgesia epidural puede comprometerse por efectos adversos derivados del opioide usado. Este estudio compara la tolerabilidad y eficacia de hidromorfona o morfina en combinación con bupivacaína, en analgesia epidural postoperatoria. Métodos. Ensayo prospectivo, aleatorizado y doble ciego en el Hospital Universitario San Vicente de Paul; 147 pacientes fueron aleatorizadosen dos grupos: 73 pacientes del grupo MB recibieron 30 mcg/ml de morfina más bupivacaína 0,1 %, y 74 pacientes del grupo HB recibieron hidromorfona 10 mcg/ml más bupivacaína 0,1 %. Resultados. El desenlace principal fue tolerabilidad, definida por la frecuencia de náusea, vómito, sedación, retención urinaria y prurito entre los grupos a las 24 horas. Se analizaron 142 pacientes: 71 en el grupo MB y 71 en el grupo HB. La frecuencia de náusea fue de 36,6 % y 31 %, (p = 0,54); vómito, 19,7 % y 25,4 % (p = 0,42); sedación 15,5 % y 14,1 % (p = 0,81); retención urinaria 11,3 % y 7 % (p = 0,38); y prurito 43,7 % y 31 % (p = 0,11) para los grupos MB y HB, respectivamente. Cinco pacientes fueron retirados del estudio debido a migración o desconexión del catéter. No se hallaron diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre los grupos. La escala verbal numérica (EVN) de dolor dinámico a las 24 horas fue de 3,42 (+/- 2,8) y 2,82 (+/- 2,5) para los grupos MB y HB, respectivamente (p = 0,16). Conclusión. La escogencia entre morfina 30 mcg/ml o hidromorfona 10 mcg/ml no influye en la tolerabilidad o eficacia de esta técnica.

Introduction. The acceptance (tolerability) of epidural analgesia can be compromised by the side effects of opioids. This study compares theside effects and efficacy of hydromorphone or morphine combined with bupivacaine in postoperativeepidural analgesia. Methods. Double-blind prospective randomizedcontrolled trial at Hospital Universitario San Vicente de Paul; 147 patients were randomized in two groups: 73 patients of the MB Group received 30 μg per ml of morphine with bupivacaine 0.1 % and 74 patients of the HB group received10 μg per ml of hydromorphone with bupivacaine 0.1 %. Results. The main outcome was the tolerability defined by the frequency of nausea and vomitingsedation urinary retention and pruritus between the groups at 24 hours. 142 patients were analyzed: 71 in group MB and 71 in group HB. The incidence of nausea was 36.6 % and 31 % (p = 0.54); vomiting 19.7 % and 25.4 % (p = 0.42); sedation 15.5 % and 14.1 % (p = 0.81); urinary retention 11.3 % and 7 % (p = 0.38); and pruritus 43.7 % and 31 % (p = 0.11) for groups MB and HB respectively. Five patients were excluded either because of catheter migration or disconnection. No statistically significant differences werefound between the groups. The verbal numerical scale (VNS) of dynamic pain at 24 hours was 3.42 (+/- 2.8) y 2.82 (+/- 2.5) for groups MB and HBrespectively (p = 0.16) Conclusions. The choice between 30 μg per ml of morphine or 10 mcg per ml of hydromorphone does not influence the incidence of side effects or the efficacy of this technique.

Prevalencia de dolor agudo posoperatorio y calidad de la recuperación en el Hospital Universitario San Vicente de Paúl, Medellín, Colombia, 2007 / Prevalence of acute postoperative pain and quality of recovery at a university-affiliated hospital in Medellín, Colombia, 2007

Objetivo: determinar la prevalencia de dolor agudo posoperatorio moderado o severo y la calidad de la recuperación en pacientes atendidos en un hospital universitario. Diseño: estudio prospectivo, observacional, de corte transversal, en el Hospital Universitario San Vicente de Paúl (HUSVP), Medellín, Colombia. Muestra: 112 pacientes hospitalizados, mayores de 18 años, en posoperatorio de cirugía ortopédica, torácica o abdominal. Métodos y resultados: se evaluaron el dolor posoperatorio dinámico y en reposo mediante la Escala Numérica Verbal (ENV) y la Calidad de la Recuperación por medio de una encuesta para determinar el bienestar y la funcionalidad física y mental de los pacientes. También se tuvieron en cuenta los efectos adversos asociados a la analgesia. La tasa de prevalencia del dolor moderado en reposo fue de 31,3% y la del dolor severo, 22,3%. Para el dolor dinámico moderado y severo, las tasas de prevalencia fueron de 27,6% y 48,2%, respectivamente. La calidad de la recuperación fue buena en el 80,4% de los pacientes. Se halló relación entre el dolor severo y la peor calidad de la recuperación. Los efectos adversos reportados fueron somnolencia (44,6%), náuseas (25%), epigastralgia (17%), retención urinaria (17%) y vómito (13,4%). Conclusiones: la tasa de prevalencia del dolor posoperatorio severo en el grupo de pacientes estudiado fue elevada y se asoció con resultados desfavorables en la calidad de la recuperación, lo cual motiva a poner en práctica estrategias que optimicen su control.

Objective: To determine the prevalence of acute moderate or severe postoperative pain and the quality of recovery at a university-affiliated hospital. Design: Prospective, observational, cross-sectional study at Hospital Universitario San Vicente de Paúl in Medellín, Colombia. Patients: 112 hospitalized patients, older than 18 years, in the postoperative period of orthopedic, thoracic or abdominal surgery. Methods and results: The static and dynamic postoperative pains were evaluated by means of a Verbal Numeric Rate Pain scale. The Quality of Recovery was measured with an instrument to determine the well-being and mental and physical functionality of the patients during the postoperative period. The adverse effects associated with analgesia were also taken into account. The prevalence rates of moderate and severe static postoperative pain were, respectively, 31.3% and 22.3%. For moderate and severe dynamic postoperative pain, the prevalence rates were 27.6% and 48.2%, respectively. The Quality of Recovery was good in 80.4% of the patients. An increase in the intensity of postoperative pain was correlated with a decrease in the quality of recovery. Adverse effects of analgesia were as follows: somnolence (44.6%), nausea (25%) epigastralgia (17%), urinary retention (17%) and vomit (13.4%). Conclusions: The prevalence rate of severe postoperative pain was high in this group of patients and it correlated with a decrease in the quality of recovery. Strategies to improve control of postoperative pain should be implemented in our milieu.