[Comparison of different prediction models for the occurrence of nausea and vomiting in the postoperative phase : A systematic qualitative comparison based on prospectively defined quality indicators]. / Vergleich verschiedener Vorhersagemodelle für das Auftreten von Übelkeit und Erbrechen in der postoperativen Phase : Ein systematischer qualitativer Vergleich anhand prospektiv definierter Qualitätsindikatoren.

BACKGROUND: Various prognostic prediction models exist for evaluating the risk of nausea and vomiting in the postoperative period (PONV). So far, no systematic comparison of these prognostic scores is available. METHOD: A systematic literature search was carried out in seven medical databases to find publications on prognostic PONV models. Identified scores were assessed against prospectively defined quality criteria, including generalizability, validation and clinical relevance of the models. RESULTS: The literature search revealed 62 relevant publications with a total of 81,834 patients which could be assigned to 8 prognostic models. The simplified Apfel score performed best, primarily because it was extensively validated. The Van den Bosch score and Sinclair score tied for second place. The simplified Koivuranta score was in third place. CONCLUSION: The qualitative analysis highlights the strengths and weaknesses of each prediction system based on predetermined standardized quality criteria.

Pharmacokinetic Characterisation and Comparison of Bioavailability of Intranasal Fentanyl, Transmucosal, and Intravenous Administration through a Three-Way Crossover Study in 24 Healthy Volunteers.

BACKGROUND: For more than 60 years, the synthetic opioid fentanyl has been widely used in anaesthesia and analgesia. While the intravenous formulation is primarily used for general anaesthesia and intensive care settings, the drug's high lipophilic properties also allow various noninvasive routes of administration. Published data suggest that intranasal administration is also attractive for use as intranasal patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). A newly developed intranasal fentanyl formulation containing 47 µg fentanyl, intravenous fentanyl, and oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate were characterised, and bioavailability was compared to assess the suitability of the intranasal formulation for an intranasal PCA product. METHODS: 27 healthy volunteers were enrolled in a single-centre, open-label, randomised (order of treatments), single-dose study in a three-period crossover design. The pharmacokinetics of one intranasal puff of fentanyl formulation (47 µg, 140 mL per puff), one short intravenous infusion of 50 µg fentanyl, and one lozenge with an integrated applicator (200 µg fentanyl) were studied, and bioavailability was calculated. Blood samples were collected over 12 hours, and plasma concentrations of fentanyl were determined by HPLC with MS/MS detection. RESULTS: 24 volunteers completed the study. The geometric mean of AUC0-tlast was the highest with oral transmucosal administration (1106 h ∗ pg/ml, CV% = 32.86), followed by intravenous (672 h ∗ pg/ml, CV% = 32.18) and intranasal administration (515 h ∗ pg/ml, CV% = 30.10). C max was 886 pg/ml (CV% = 59.38) for intravenous, 338 pg/ml (CV% = 45.61) for intranasal, and 310 pg/ml (CV% = 29.58) for oral transmucosal administration. t max was shortest for intravenous administration (0.06 h, SD = 0.056), followed by intranasal (0.21 h, SD = 0.078) and oral transmucosal administration (1.20 h, SD = 0.763). Dose-adjusted absolute bioavailability was determined to be 74.70% for the intranasal formulation and 41.25% for the oral transmucosal product. In total, 38 adverse events (AEs) occurred. Fourteen AEs were potentially related to the investigational items. No serious AE occurred. CONCLUSION: Pharmacokinetic parameters and bioavailability of the investigated intranasal fentanyl indicated suitability for its intended use as an intranasal PCA option.

Quo Vadis PCA? A Review on Current Concepts, Economic Considerations, Patient-Related Aspects, and Future Development with respect to Patient-Controlled Analgesia.

This review assesses four interrelating aspects of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), a long-standing and still widely used concept for postoperative pain management. Over the years, anaesthesiologists and patients have appreciated the benefits of PCA alike. The market has seen new technologies leveraging noninvasive routes of administration and, thus, further increasing patient and staff satisfaction as well as promoting safety aspects. Pharmaceutical research focuses on the reduction or avoidance of opioids, side effects, and adverse events although influence of these aspects appears to be minor. The importance of education is still eminent, and new educational formats are tested to train healthcare professionals and patients likewise. New PCA technology can support the implementation of efficient processes to reduce workload and human errors; however, these new products come with a cost, which is not necessarily reflected through beneficial budget impact or significant improvements in patient outcome. Although first steps have been taken to better recognize the importance of postoperative pain management through the introduction of value-based reimbursement, in most western countries, PCA is not specifically compensated. PCA is still an effective and valued technique for postoperative pain management. Although there is identifiable potential for future developments in various aspects, this potential has not materialized in new products.

[Evaluation of 2 questionnaires with reference to their suitability for self-evaluation of patients with gonarthrosis. A contribution to quality assurance in rheumatology]. / Untersuchung von zwei Fragebogen hinsichtlich ihrer Eignung für die Selbstbewertung durch Patienten mit Gonarthrose. Ein Beitrag zur Qualitätssicherung in der Rheumatologie.

Questionnaires are useful instruments to evaluate disability and handicap in patients suffering from rheumatic diseases. Most of the used questionnaires require a time consuming interview with the attending physician or medical health personnel. Two (Larson and Lequesne) well established questionnaires are available for osteoarthritis(OA)-patients. Since it would be desirable to have reliable patients self reporting questionnaires, we have tested the utility and validity of these questionnaires by comparing the results of patients self reports with the results obtained by medical health personnel (4 occupational- and physiotherapists) in the same patients (n = 52). The analysis of the questionnaires revealed that results obtained by the Larson technique gave very different (p < 0.01) global and detail scores as assessed by patients or medical staff. This difference of assessments was not influenced by the stage of arthrosis as defined by x-ray. The Lequesne questionnaires gave essentially similar results, with a significant difference between assessment of disease severity by patients in comparison to results obtained by medical staff. The results obtained by the 4 members of the medical staff did not differ significantly from each other. From our study it is concluded that neither the Larson nor the Lequesne questionnaire can be recommended for scientific use as a reliable patients self reporting evaluation of disease severity in osteoarthritis.