Just when you thought it was unsafe….HES again!

A couple of weeks ago I announced the imminent death of colloid. Now it’s back with another “Safe” trial (known as CHEST) from our colleagues in Australia and New Zealand (here). The study enrolled a colossal number of patients (7000) to either isotonic saline (IS) or Voluven (R). This is a 130/0.4 tetrastarch in isotonic saline. I now understand the kerfuffle over the 6s trial (of tetraspan) that mislabeled 130.42 in balanced salt as 130/0.4 (read here). The paper should be subtitled: “ours – the starch that doesn’t kill!” Perhaps…
The authors randomly assigned 7000 patients who had been admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) in a 1:1 ratio to receive either 6% HES with a molecular weight of 130 kD and a molar substitution ratio of 0.4 (130/0.4, Voluven) in 0.9% sodium chloride or 0.9% sodium chloride (saline) for all fluid resuscitation until ICU discharge, death, or 90 days after randomization. The patients were permitted 50ml/kg HES per day and then were given saline. Similar to the SAFE (albumin) trial, clinicians were permitted to resuscitate patients according to their own goals and preferences.
The primary outcome was death within 90 days. Secondary outcomes included acute kidney injury and failure and treatment with renal-replacement therapy.
There was no mortality difference. A total of 597 of 3315 patients (18.0%) in the HES group and 566 of 3336 (17.0%) in the saline group died (relative risk in the HES group, 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96 to 1.18; P=0.26). There was no significant difference in mortality in six predefined subgroups. Renal-replacement therapy was used in 235 of 3352 patients (7.0%) in the HES group and 196 of 3375 (5.8%) in the saline group (relative risk, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.45; P=0.04).
HES was associated with less renal injury than saline, by RIFLE criteria, but post hoc creatinine and urinary output were worse for HES In the HES and saline groups, renal injury occurred in 34.6% and 38.0% of patients, respectively (P=0.005), and renal failure occurred in 10.4% and 9.2% of patients, respectively (P=0.12). There was a 1.2% absolute increase in the risk of needing renal replacement therapy (p<;0.5) in the HE’S group.
HES was associated with significantly more adverse events (5.3% vs. 2.8%, P<;0.001). These included itching, skin rash and “other” (not explained).

A few comments: the mortality rate for a critical care study was astonishingly low, suggesting that the addition of surgical patients (42%) and some entry restrictions may have biased the study [Of the 7000 patients 2,876 were admitted from the operating room]. Almost 10% of patients came from another hospital. Only 1 in 4 came from the emergency department. So there is likely lead-time bias (incidentally, this distribution is near identical to the 6S study. It is highly unlikely that the majority of patients received, exclusively, one of these investigation fluids prior to ICU admission. Patients were in the ICU for 10 or 11 hours prior to randomization: the “golden window”. The patients should have been resuscitated by this stage. This is suggested by the almost ludicrously small amount of fluid that patients received day 0 (see below).

As expected HES patients received less fluid early on, but this did not translate into better outcomes. What is surprising is how little fluid the patients received in the first 24 hours (1500ml to <;2000ml net fluid balance). Patients received between 1000ml (HES) and 1500ml (IS) in addition to study fluids. In fact they seem to have gotten a lot more non study fluid than study fluid. This is presumably due to the 50ml/kg limit (400ml for an 80kg patient). As the on study fluid of choice was IS, this was really a crystalloid plus colloid versus crystalloid study. Indeed patients almost exclusively received IS
It is remarkable how little fluid the patients accumulated over the first 3 days (by the end of day 3 the IS group appear to have a net negative balance). What ever way you look at it, patients received significantly less fluid than in the 6S study (nearly 6L day 1). I return to my previous observations: nearly 50% surgical patients, with resolving stress responses, patients probably already resuscitated before randomized to the study.

It would have useful to know the electrolyte and acid base status. These patients all received a lot of chloride: what proportion of the had hyperchloremic acidosis?

It is very hard to make anything of the renal function tests in this study. On first sight the 36% rate of renal dysfunction at baseline was similar to 6S. But Scandanavian patients were significantly sicker. They had a mortality rate of 43-50%, consistent with other sepsis trials (such as VISEP). RRT use in the 6S study was 16% in the Ringer’s acetate group versus 5.8% in the IS group in this study. So I would be inclined to ignore RIFLE numbers and consider “real” kidney injury to be represented by the need for RRT.

So, how to evaluate this study? Does this study demonstrate the safety of HES in critical illness? No, it just shows that HES doesn’t increase mortality versus isotonic saline. They may be equally bad. Does this paper conflict with the 6S study? Only 30% of patients in the study were septic, the mortality was substantially lower in this study and it is likely that HES worsens outcomes in patients that require more of it (i.e. sicker patients). The onus of proof is on the intervention: HES demonstrates no mortality advantage over crystalloid, it may worsen outcome, it may be associated with more organ (particularly kidney) dysfunction. I am less likely to use these products in ICU. However, there is still a small argument for colloid administration in the peri operative period based on a series of oesophageal Doppler studies (from the UK). It is highly unlikely that 500ml HE’S will harm a patient. However, I don’t quite see the point: HES is expensive compared with crystalloid and only appears to have a marginally better volume expanding effect: why take the risk without clear benefit.
I presume some clever scientist will take this, the 6S and other crystalloid-colloid studies and inform us about all of the residual questions in a nice meta-analysis. In the near future, it would be helpful if the CHEST investigators would give us data on chloride levels and acid-base status. Perhaps their next study should be to compare isotonic saline to balanced salt solutions.
Finally, congrats again to the ANZICS trial group for showing the rest of us what can be done.

Don’t Understand Balloon Pumps – don’t bother

Alas – another intervention bites the dust. For decades the intra-aortic balloon pump has been heralded as the great savior of the patient with cardiogenic shock. If you have always found these devices confusing (when to use, when to wean, what difference 1:1 versus 1:2 augmentation etc), then worry not: they are heading to the Swan Ganz junkyard. In this week’s NEJM the IABP-SHOCK II trial is published (read here). Six hundred patients were recruited in 37 locations in Germany in 3 years – randomized to IAB-counterpulsation at 1:1 or control, essentially catecholamine, therapy. Patients were eligible for the trial if they had had any form of myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock, or needed an emergency percutaneous coronary intervention. The majority of patients had PCIs and the IABP could be placed before or after.

There is a widespread belief that using IABP improves pump function, restoring cardiovascular health and preventing the development of multi-organ failure. The primary endpoint of the study was 30 day all cause mortality. This is a flawed measure in critical care, as many patients will still be alive at 30 days, awaiting withdrawal of life sustaining therapy. The authors are in the process of collecting 90 day and 6 month data. The authors also looked for evidence of multi-organ failure (using SAPS II), infectious and ischaemic (using lactate) complications.

Previous studies have reported mortality rates of 42-48% in cardiogenic shock. The authors reported 30 day mortality of 39.7% in the IABP group and 41.3% in the control group (not significant). There was no significant difference in any of the other endpoints either..

Criticisms and generalizability? The mortality rate was lower than expected, but this was a heterogenous German population, a single health system, with an average BMI of 27. So maybe the patients were less unhealthy than comparable North American Studies. More likely, the IABP can be added to a long list of devices that receive religious like devotion, but have little clinical benefit. Further data of interest would be whether or not IABP really benefits postoperative cardiac patients. In the meantime, it is likely that we will encounter these devices less frequently in the future.

Regional or General Anaesthhesia for Hip Fracture

A 78 year old female patient is brought to the operating room with a fractured hip. She tells you that she wants to “go asleep” for the operation. How do you advise her?
Two papers in July’s Anesthesiology have shed light on this issue. Both studies mine large databases and so care must be taken to avoid over interpretation of data.
Neuman and colleagues (read here) looked at data at 126 New York hospitals over 2 years. Surprisingly, of 18,158 patients only 5,254 (29%) received regional (neuraxial) anesthesia. One in 40 patients died in hospital and, unadjusted, there was no difference in the rates of mortality between GA and RA. Patients receiving regional anesthesia experienced fewer pulmonary complications (359 [6.8%] vs. 1,040 [8.1%], P <0.005). Regional anesthesia was associated with a lower adjusted odds of mortality (odds ratio: 0.710, 95% CI 0.541, 0.932, P = 0.014) and pulmonary complications (odds ratio: 0.752, 95% CI 0.637, 0.887, P<0.001). The benefits associated with regional anesthesia accrued to patients only with intertrochanteric fractures; regional did not benefit patients with femoral neck fractures.

Memtsoudis and colleagues (read here) mined a 530,000 national (USA) database of patients undergoing primary hip and knee arthroplasty. One in 30 patients utilized critical care services. Patients that underwent general anaesthesia, elderly patients and those that has cardiopulmonary complications, were significantly more likely to use critical care. As one would expect, admission to the ICU was associated with significantly increased mortality (2.5% versus 0.1%). Patients were also more likely to enter ICU if they were in smaller non teaching hospitals and if they had hip rather than knee surgery.

Interestingly, this study utilized the Deyo index (here) rather than ASA physical status score. The Deyo index appears to be a strong predictor of outcomes in patients having major orthopedic surgery (here). Co-morbidlty indexes are very useful in clinical practice to predict risk (here). Indeed, the Deyo index and ASA-PS score have been used together to demonstrate adverse outcomes (here).

EuSOS study published – and it’s not pretty!

46,539 patients from all over Europe were recruited to the The European Surgical Outcomes Study over 7 days in April 2011 (read here). Day cases, cardiac and neurosurgical patients were excluded. The overall mortality rate was 4% (nearly 1 in 20 patients). 8% of patients were admitted to ICU or HDU at some stage – but, astonishingly, 73% of those who died never saw a critical care practitioner.
For Ireland 856 patients were recruited into the study; 66 went to critical care beds postoperatively. Median hospital stay was 3 days (1.0-6.0). 6.4% died in hospital, with an unadjusted (for severity of illness) odds ratio of death (compared with the UK) of 1.86. When severity of illness was taken into account the OR of death was 2.61. This puts us down the scale of outcomes with Croatia, Slovakia (better), and Romania and Latvia (marginally worse).
What is truely frightening about these data – is that the reference country, the UK, aside from having a similar population to ours, had worse outcomes than they had expected (mortality 3.6% rather than the predicted 1.6%).
It could be argued that these data are skewed by relatively low numbers, recruitment exclusively in academic medical centers (private hospitals cherry pick the healthiest elective surgery patients), the significant limitations of the ASA physical status grade (between 2 and 3 there really should be 3 more grades – clinicians may have also reported patients as a ASA-PS 2 when they really were a 3), reporting bias etc. Alternatively, our patients might do badly because of  weaker nursing care at ward level and fewer critical care beds per head of population.
If the anaesthesia and critical care community in Ireland wants to look into this further, perhaps a worthwhile study would be an enthusiatic clinician to pull out the charts of all 856 patients and figure out why Ireland did so badly. Comments?

Hydroxy Ethyl Starches – are we nearing the end of the road?

When the VISEP study was published in 2008,1 proponents of colloid based resuscitation (myself included) argued that, since the study was conducted using old generation pentastarches, the data were not generalizable to all hydroxyl-ethyl fluids.2 Indeed there was an emerging body of evidence supporting the safety of newer, lower molecular weight starches; particularly those composed of balanced salt solutions. Since the mind boggling revelations about the potential scale of academic misconduct by Joachim Boldt,7 with a large number of his publications now expunged, we have all become somewhat anxious about the true safety of HES compounds. The answer is now here, following the publication of the 6S study from Scandanavia.6
       Colloid fluids have one purpose – to reduce the volume of fluid required to achieve hemodynamic goals. There is something of a transatlantic controversy – the majority of European clinicians have traditionally been colloids believers; the majority of North Americans are not. Colloids are more expensive than crystalloids, have known allergic and bleeding potential and the onus of proof is always on the intervention. Presumably, if colloids are effective, they restore the circulation rapidly, prevent organ failure, prevent fluid related morbidity (pulmonary edema, wound complications, ileus etc.), reduce the length of hospital stay and reduce mortality. If these results are not achieved then colloids are, essentially, intravenous “snake oils”. Previous literature, suggest the opposite – that HES products, in particular, are associated with allergy, renal dysfunction and bleeding. There is essentially no supportive evidence in the ICU, and evidence to support colloids in the operating room is more strongly associated with the use of devices such as esophageal Doppler to achieve resuscitation goals. 4 Nevertheless, there is an emerging consensus that fluid over-resuscitation is associated with medley complications, and that measures that restrict overall fluid volume, particularly from 8 to 72 hours following injury or surgery, may be associated with improved outcomes.3-5 Often fluid studies are single centred, compare one colloid against another, or use weak or surrogate endpoints. What we needed was a multicentre, international study, that looked at hard long term endpoints.

The Scandanavian group randomized 800 critically ill patients to a Ringer’s acetate solution that either contained 130/0.4 HES or did not.6 The patients were followed on an intention to treat basis for 90 days. Patients were enrolled if they met the criteria for severe sepsis within the previous 24 hours. Patients were given fluid by bedside clinicians in accordance with their clinical judgement (i.e. there was no fluid resuscitation protocol), and were blinded to the nature of the fluid administered. The quantity of study fluid was limited to the maximum daily dose of colloid (50ml/kg); open label Ringer’s acetate was administered if this volume was exceeded, and patients could receive saline, blood products and albumin.
This impressively simple study was conducted in 4 countries, with 50% of patients being cared for in academic medical centres and 50% in community hospitals. The study was powered to demonstrate a 10% reduction in mortality among 800 randomized patients at 90 days. What the authors demonstrated, however, was the opposite.
At 90 days following randomization, 201 of 398 patients (51%) assigned to HES 130/0.4 had died, as compared with 172 of 400 patients (43%) assigned to Ringer’s acetate (absolute risk increase of 8%, number needed to treat 12; P=0.03). In the 90-day period, 87 patients (22%) assigned to HES were treated with renal-replacement therapy versus 65 patients (16%) assigned to Ringer’s acetate (absolute risk increase of 6% NNT 16; P=0.04). The risk of bleeding did not reach statistical significance – although post hoc analysis following randomization suggests that the HES group had a greater incidence of bleeding.
Interestingly, the volume of fluid administered to each group was not different: there was not colloid-effect, no fluid sparing. This was consistent with the findings of the VISEP trial.2 Although a significant proportion of both groups received blood products or albumin, there was no statistical significance between the groups. In fact, the only difference between the groups was whether or not HES was administered; patients that received HES 130/0.4 were more likely to die or have kidney injury.

At this point in time the weight of evidence is now stacked up against the use of HES solutions in critical illness; the use of these agents in septic shock cannot be justified.

References

    1.    Brunkhorst FM, Engel C, Bloos F, Meier-Hellmann A, Ragaller M, Weiler N et al. Intensive Insulin Therapy and Pentastarch Resuscitation in Severe Sepsis. N Engl J Med 2008;358(2):125-139.

2.    Brunkhorst FM, Engel C, Bloos F, Meier-Hellmann A, Ragaller M, Weiler N et al. Intensive Insulin Therapy and Pentastarch Resuscitation in Severe Sepsis. N Engl J Med 2008;358(2):125-139.

3.    Kehlet H, Bundgaard-Nielsen M. Goal-directed Perioperative Fluid Management: Why, When, and How? Anesthesiology 2009;110(3).

4.    Lubarsky DA, Proctor KG, Cobas M. Goals Neither Validated Nor Met in Goal-directed Colloid versus Crystalloid Therapy. Anesthesiology 2009;111(4).

5.    Nisanevich V, Felsenstein I, Almogy G, Weissman C, Einav S, Matot I. Effect of Intraoperative Fluid Management on Outcome after Intraabdominal Surgery. Anesthesiology 2005;103(1).

6.    Perner A, Haase N, Guttormsen AB, Tenhunen J, Klemenzson G, +àneman A et al. Hydroxyethyl Starch 130/0.42 versus Ringer’s Acetate in Severe Sepsis. N Engl J Med 2012;367(2):124-134.

7.    Shafer SL. Shadow of Doubt. Anesthesia & Analgesia 2011;112(3):498-500.

This article is copyrighted by Patrick Neligan 2012 please do not reproduce without permission

Ultrasound for central venous access

The ASA has published its guidelines for central venous access (see link below).  I am regularly amused by the slavish credence given by trainees to use of ultrasound as ‘mandatory’ for central  venous access.  Why I ask?  That ‘s what the NICE guideline says, they reply.  Do you work in the NHS I ask?

Yes ultrasound has undoubted utility for central venous access at times, and I have made good use of it.  But should it be a standard of care? Are landmark-based techniques worth learning in the modern age?  The ASA is much more luke-warm about ultrasound, as is the rest of the world! ‘Equivocal’ is the operative term throughout…

Studies show how useful US can be – but that is what the studies were meant to show!  They were performed by enthusiastic users of a new technology.

Maybe its our colonial heritage that makes us absorb NICE (and similar) admonitions as if they were coming from a high authority to which we owe allegiance.  Incidentally, the best informed UK anesthetists (several of whom with which I have worked) have many amusing things to say about the level of expertise that goes into NICE guidelines.  There has also been some thoughtful discussion in recent editions of anesthesia.

Here is the ASA link in Anesthesiology.

http://journals.lww.com/anesthesiology/Fulltext/2012/03000/Practice_Guidelines_for_Central_Venous_Access__A.13.aspx?WT.mc_id=HPxADx20100319xMP

NAP4 report on airway catastrophes

Have you had a highly challenging airway situation in the ICU or the emergency department?  Did it lead to a major adverse event?  If so you are not alone, as the NAP4 report demonstrates:

http://www.rcoa.ac.uk/index.asp?PageID=1089

Although there is no denominator, and a direct comparison with operating theatre events was not a purpose of the report, the message is clear:  airway catastrophes, often leading to death, occur time and again in out-of-theatre locations.  There seem to be many reasons, and we are left to speculate – suboptimal equipment, out-of-hours timing of the events, severely compromised patients, but perhaps simplest of all – poor patient positioning on soft beds rather than hard, adjustable operating tables.  Much is made of the fragmentary availability of EtCO2 in these locations.  Perhaps more importantly, lack of specialized airway training, and lack of continuing clinical practice in advanced airway management (i.e. clinical anesthesia) is also a proposed problem for some ED clinicians and intensivists.  Indeed, some experts are suggesting that the trend towards earlier specialisation into intensive care and the development of an ICU training scheme entirely independent of anesthesia will only lead to an increase in such airway events,

Whatever your views, this is essential reading for everyone in our speciality (and many others!).

Agitation and Pain in the Recovery Room (tutorial)

Problem:

A 43 year old male returns from the operating room following cholecystectomy. The operation had been originally planned using the laparoscopic approach. However it became necessary to convert to an open procedure. Intraoperatively the patient received fentanyl 300mic/g, propofol, vecuronium, oxygen and desflurane and cefazolin. At the end of surgery, neuromuscular blockade (sustained tetanus was demonstrated) was reversed, the patient opened his eyes and was extubated.

On arrival to the recovery room the patient is combative, thrashing around, incoherent, not obeying commands, attempting to remove has urinary catheter. His pulse rate is 120 beats per minute, blood pressure 170/100, temperature 37.0 degrees Celcius and his pulse oximeter is reading an SpO2 of 99%.

1. Identify the problem

What is the mechanism of injury and what are the treatment options?

This patient is agitated: the most common cause of postoperative agitation is pain. Pain is a neurohormonal and emotional response to a noxious stimulus, in this case surgical injury. Pain is the “fifth vital sign.”

Pain is known to worsen perioperative outcomes: it results in – increased protein catabolism – thereby reducing physiologic reserve, retention of salt and water, impaired wound healing, prolonged recumbent times (resulting in increased risk of deep venous thrombosis), and significant suffering and dissatisfaction on the part of the patient. Elevated adrenergic activity results in increased oxygen demand and may precipitate myocardial ischemia. In patients, such as in this case, that undergo upper abdominal surgery, the splinting effect of pain results in impaired coughing and lung derecruitment and increased risk of pulmonary complications including nosocomial pneumonia.

One of the major roles of perioperative clinicians is to minimize patient suffering. Patients universally report dissatisfaction with perioperative pain management.1 Modern approaches to preventing suffering in perioperative patients include a multimodal approach to pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting, anxiety, agitation and delirium.2-5

2. Understand the problem

What is pain (understanding the mechanisms)?

Table 1.  Inflammatory Mediators that amplify the pain response
Substance
Source
Norepinephrine Nerve endings & circulating
Epinephrine Circulating
Substance P Nerve endings
Glutamate Nerve endings
Bradykinin Plasma kininogen
Histamine Platelets, mast cells
Hydrogen Ions (acidity) Ischemia / Cell Damage
Protaglandins Arachidonic acid / damaged cells
Interleukins Mast Cells
Tumor necrosis factor alpha Mast Cells

Surgical incision is associated with tissue injury and release of inflammatory mediators, development of local edema and activation of nocioceptors. These are nerve endings of myelinated (A-delta) and unmyelinated (C) afferent nerve fibres that respond to noxious thermal, mechanical, or chemical stimulation. A-delta fibres are mechanothermal while the C fibres are polymodal.

When nociceptors are activated, a series of neurohormonal reflexes are activated, and a painful sensation is elicited.6 In the awake patient, this is apparent by an adverse emotional response, a sensation of “unpleasantness”. In a sedated patient this may result in hyperadrenergic activity, agitation or aggressiveness.

Figure 1: Pain Pathways

1. The nocioceptive response is activated at the level of the surgical incision; 2. release of inflammatory cytokines and vasodilator metabolites; 3 transmission of nocioceptor impulses along afferent A-delta and C fibers; 4. integration and amplification in the spinal cord – c”windup”; 5 transfer of impulses from doral horns to thalamus and post-central gyrus; 6. activation of hypothalmo-pituitary adrenal axis; 7 release of cortisol, epinephrine and norepinephrine; 8 central and peripheral sensitization .

Normally, there is a relatively high threshold for activating nocioceptors. However, tissue injury alters the activity of these neurones, due to the  local production of inflammatory mediators (an “inflammatory soup” table 1). These include substance P, glutamate, bradykinin, histamine and arachadonic acid metabolites, such as prostaglandins. Their impact is twofold, to directly activate nocioceptors, and to reduce the firing threshold of these receptors.7 This is traditionally known as peripheral sensitization: lower stimuli than usual result in pain sensation. This is amplified in part by the systemic production of catecholamines secondary to activation of the hypothalmo-pituitary-adrenal axis. Moreover, epinephrine and norepinephrine induce a state of anxiety and diaphoresis that worsens the emotional response (figure 1). In addition, tissue trauma activates inflammation, and inflammation causes pain. Inflammation causes pain through the up-regulation of stimulated nociceptors and the recruitment of nonstimulated or dormant receptors.8 Proinflammatory mediatiors such as interferons, tumor necrosis factor alpha, interleukin-1 and interleukin 6 decrease the threshold for impulse generation and increase the intensity of the nocioceptive response.7 A patient emerging from anesthesia with elevated levels of stress hormones (cortisol and catecholamines) that is experiencing significant pain, will frequently become agitated and inappropriate, as in this clinical scenario.

Nocioceptor activation results in all-or-nothing depolarization of the afferent nerve. Painful impulses are transmitted to the dorsal horn spinal cord and subsequently to the thalamus and the post central gyrus.  In the spinal cord central sensitization may occur.9 A sufficiently strong stimulus may change the interpretation of painful impulses and subsequent stimuli are amplified. An area of hyperalgesia, composed of undamaged tissue, may appear adjacent to the injured site.10 This is due to “windup”, which results from repetitive C-fiber stimulation, mediated by glutamate via n methyl d aspartate (NMDA) receptors.11

Second order neurones synapse at the level of the spinal cord and transmit pain signals to the brain. Two predominant types of second order neurones have been identified: wide dynamic range (WDR) neurones and nociceptive specific (NS) neurones. Nociceptive signals ascend in the spinothalamic and spinoreticular tracts. These fibres project to multiple sites in the brain stem and midbrain, including the brain stem autonomic regulatory sites, hypothalmus and thalmus.

The body does have a pain regulating system that attenuates the response. This is modulated by a variety of neurotransmitters and inhibitory interneurones, that utilize endogenous encephalins and endophins and gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA). The binding of these endogenous opioids to central and peripheral receptors results in reduced presynaptic release of neurotransmitters, in particular substance P, and curtailed nocioceptor response.7

MANAGING PAIN – TREATMENT OPTIONS

Opioids

Opioids remain the mainstay of treatment for postoperative analgesia. Opioids exert their effects by binding to an array of receptors (“opioid receptors” μ, κ and δ) that exist in the central and peripheral nervous system and gastrointestinal tract. This results in analgesia and an array of characteristic side effects (table 2). In addition, opioids may have anti-inflammatory and immunomodulatory effects.7 A variety of naturally occurring, synthetic and semi-synthetic opioid agents are available for therapeutic use. These include full μ receptor agonists, partial agonists and agonists/antagonists (table 3). The choice of agent is dependent on the practice patterns of the clinician The majority of us use limited selection of full opioid receptor agonists, including morphine, hydromorphone, fentanyl, oxycodone, meperidine and methadone. Tramadol and codeine are weak receptor agonists.

Table 2: Side effects of Opioids
Pruritus
Nausea and Vomiting
Sedation
Dysphoria
Respiratory Depression
Urinary retention
Constipation
Hypotension
Bradycardia
Urticaria
Confusion

Physicochemical Properties of opioids

There are two physiochemical properties of opioids that determine their pharmacologic action (table 4): degree of ionization and lipid solubility.  Opioids are weak bases. When dissolved in solution, they are dissociated into protonated and free-base fractions, with the relative proportions depending on the pH and pKa. The more unionized the agent, the more rapid its onset of action (table 3): hence alfentanil, which is 80% unionized (it has a pKa of 6.1) and remifentanil which is 70% unionized (pKa 7.1,) have more rapid onset of action than fentanyl (<10% unionized, pKa 8.4).

Lipid solubility is determined by the chemical structure of the agent. The more lipid soluble the agent the more easily the agent passes thru the blood brain barrier to the site of action. This also impacts onset of action: hence fentanyl has a more rapid onset of action than sufentanil which is more rapid thanmorphine or hydromorphone. Lipid solubility also impacts the volume of distribution of the agent: the higher the lipid co-efficient, the greater the amount of the drug sequestered in fat stores in the body. This is important when opioids are used as continuous infusions, resulting in a complex pharmacologic process known as “context sensitive half time.”

After intravenous injection, arterial plasma concentrations of opioids rise to a peak within one circulation time. Thereafter, they exhibit a rapid redistribution phase and a slower elimination phase typical of drugs whose pharmacokinetics are described by multi-compartmental models. Drugs that are more lipid soluble, such as fentanyl and sufentanil, redistribute extensively to fat, including non receptor fatty tissue in the brain. Alfentanil and remifentanil, agents that are not lipid soluble, have low volume of distribution and are rapidly cleared from plasma. Morphine, hydromorphone and meperidine have relatively low lipid solubility and are extensively metabolized by the liver. They have relatively long duration of action. Fentanyl and similar agents are also extensively cleared by the lungs.

Table 3: Opioid Agents available of Postoperative Analgesia

Agent

Dose im/iv

Oral Dose

Morphine 10mg equal to:

Onset (min) iv

Peak Effect (min)

Duration

Alfentanil

500mg

NA

300mg

<1

1-2

10-20 min

Buprennorphine

0.3mg

0.5mg

2.5mg

15

60

5 hr

Butorphanol

1-4 mg

1 mg

2 mg

5-10

45

3-4 hr

Codeine

103 mg

200 mg

130 mg

30

60

3-4 hr

Dezocine

5-10mg

NA

10 mg

15-30

60-90

3-4 hr

Fentanyl

100 mg

NA

125 mg

0.5

5

1 hr

Hydromorphone

2 mg

4mg

1.3 mg

15-30

2-3

30-60 min

Levorphanol

2 mg

2-3 mg

2.3 mg

25

45

6-8 hr

Meperidine

50-100 mg

100mg

75 mg

1- 2

30-60

2-4 hr

Methadone

2.5-10 mg

2.5-10 mg

10 mg

30-60

30-60

4-6 hr

Morphine

10 mg

30-60 mg

10 mg

2-3

20

4 hr

Nalbuphine

10 mg

NA

12 mg

2-3

30

4-6 hr

Oxycodone

NA

5 mg

10 mg

15-30 (PO)

60

4 hr

Oxymorphine

1 mg

NA

1.1

1-2

30-60

4-6 hr

Pentazocine

30 mg

50 mg

60 mg

15-30

100

3-4 hr

Propoxyphene

NA

200 mg

200 mg

15-30 (PO)

120

4 hr

Sufentanil

20 mg

NA

12.5 mg

<1

2

30-45 min

 

Morphine

Morphine, a component of opium, has been used for analgesia and anxiolysis for millennia. If was first purified by Serturner, a German pharmacist, in 1803. He called this alkaloid “Morphia” after Morpheus, the Greek God of Dreams. Morphine is a phenanthrene opioid receptor agonist that exerts its major effects on the CNS and gastrointestinal tract. It is the prototype opioid analgesic agent, against which all other agents are compared. The majority of healthcare professionals are familiar with this drug in terms of its clinical effects, dosing and complications. This imparts a significant degree of safety; as a result I recommend morphine as the first line analgesic agent in PACU.

Following injection the onset of analgesic effect of morphine is 5 minutes with a peak effect at 20 minutes. Morphine is predominantly unionized (pKa 8.0) and has low lipid solubility: penetration into the brain is consequently relatively slow (table 4). Patients experience mild sedation prior to analgesia. This makes morphine an ideal analgesic agent for patients that are agitated and in pain, such as in this scenario, and patients requiring mild sedation for mechanical ventilation in the PACU or ICU. Conversely, the neurologic assessment of patients with brain injuries of following neurosurgery may be clouded by this effect.

Single boluses of morphine may be ineffective to establish adequate analgesia. Aggressive “loading” with the drug, to break the cycle of pain, may be required. This requires careful titration to analgesic and sedative response (figure 2).

Table 4 :  Physicochemical and pharmacokinetic data of commonly used opioid agonists
  Morphine Meperidine Fentanyl Sufentanil Alfentanil Remifentanil
pKa 8.0 8.5 8.4 8.0 6.5 7.1
% Un-ionized at pH 7.4 23 <10 <10 20 90 67
Partition Co-efficient 1 32 955 1727 129 16
% Bound to plasma protein 20–40 39 84 93 92 80?
Elimination half time (hours) 1.7-3.3 3.0-5.0 3.0-6.6 2.2-4.6 1.4-1.5 0.17-0.33

Morphine is known to have a direct histamine releasing effect. While the clinical implications of this are generally overstated, transient vasodilatation and hypotension may result. This is an unlikely problem in hyperadrenergic postoperative patients complaining of pain, but may be an issue in patients under general anesthesia or who are receiving concomitant propofol infusions. Morphine may cause euphoria. It alters the perception of pain: the patient knows that he/she is in pain, but is not bothered by it.

Figure 2: Effect of administration recurrent boluses of morphine on pain, and sedation in a typical postoperative patient in PACU. VAS = visual analog score; RASS = Richmond agitation sedation scale.

Morphine has an important side effect profile (table 2): it is a direct respiratory depressant, and acts by reducing the respiratory center’s responsiveness to carbon dioxide. Morphine induces nausea and vomiting by an effect on the chemoreceptor trigger zone. It induces miosis (pupillary constriction), causes constipation, may cause urinary retention and causes cutaneous vasodilatation. Morphine is a potent anti-tussive agent; again this may be beneficial in mechanically ventilated patients. Morphine is principally metabolized by conjugation in the liver, to morphine 3-glucuronide (M3G), which is inactive and  morphine 6-glucuronide (M6G), which is highly potent. There is also some extrahepatic metabolism in the kidney. Hence care should be taken when morphine is administered to patients with significant renal impairment, as delayed respiratory depression may follow.

Hydromorphone

Hydromorphone is structurally very similar to morphine. It differs from morphine by the presence of a 6-keto group and the hydrogenation of the double bond at the 7-8 position of the molecule.12 It principally acts at µ receptors, and thus shares a similar side effect profile. Hydromorphone is slightly more lipid soluble than morphine, and has a slightly quicker onset of action; its peak effect is at 20 minutes. Hydromorphone is less sedating than morphine and does not have active metabolites (although it is metabolized by the liver and metabolites accumulate in renal failure). Hydromorphone is widely used for patient controlled analgesia and for intravenous analgesia in the ICU. The major limitation of using hydromorphone is confusion regarding the appropriate bolus dose. Hydromorphone is roughly 7.5 times more potent than morphine; as a result one is more likely to encounter accidental (due to prescription error) overdose with this agent.

Fentanyl

Fentanyl, alfentanil, sufentanil and remifentanil are semi synthetic opioids that have rapid onset and relatively short duration of action. Only fentanyl is routinely used for postoperative analgesia. It may be administered intravenously as bolus or infusion, transdermally through a patch or novel transcutaneous delivery systems, transorally (fentanyl “lollipop”), intrathecally or epidurally.13

Fentanyl has relatively rapid onset of action (1-2 minutes peak effect 5 mins) and short duration of action (20 minutes). However its therapeutic window is relatively narrow. When fentanyl is administered in low to moderate dose (1-5 mic/kg) intraoperatively, there may be little or no residual drug effect by the time the patient arrives in PACU. The patient may experience severe pain.

Fentanyl is highly lipophilic and redistributes to fat stores in the body; this may result in significant accumulation if given in high dosage. Its context sensitive half time is relatively long if administered by infusion. The complex pharmacology of fentanyl limits its effectiveness for perioperative analgesia. For prolonged effect, high dosage (5-15mic/kg) need to be administered, risking significant respiratory depression. Tachyphylaxis develops rapidly resulting in reduced effectiveness with escalating dose. This may result in significant problems such as ileus and urinary retention.

Although fentanyl can be used for analgesia in PACU, its effectiveness is limited to short episodes of analgesia, for example if coverage is required during a procedure – such as placement of a chest tube or epidural. It is not an effective agent for significant visceral pain unless given as an infusion or thru a PCA (patient controlled analgesia device). Transcutaneous fentanyl patches have slow onset of action and have no role in acute pain management. Newer products that utilize iontophoresis (a non-invasive method of propelling high concentrations of a charged substance transdermally using a small electrical charge), may make patient controlled fentanyl administration popular for ambulatory surgery.

Meperidine (Pethedine)

Meperidine is a semi-synthetic opioid structurally similar to fentanyl. Meperidine is one-tenth as potent as morphine. Meperidine is an effective analgesic and, in equianalgesic dosage, produces as much sedation, euphoria, respiratory depression and nausea and vomiting as morphine. Meperidine is significantly different pharmacologically to morphine, and has effects on a medley of receptors (see chapter on shivering). Of interest, meperidine has atropine like effects. The majority of opioids cause bradycardia, presumably by a direct or indirect action on the hypothalmo-pituitary-adrenal axis. Meperidine induces tachycardia. It also causes papillary dilatation. Meperidine has no anti-tussive effects. It has smooth muscle relaxing effects, and was used traditionally as analgesic for heptobiliary and ureteric surgery. However there is no evidence that this agent is superior to morphine in these situations. Meperidine causes less constipation and urinary retention than morphine. It has been used for generations for intramuscular analgesia in labor. The major current clinical use of meperidine is for treatment of postoperative anesthesia related shivering.

The major limitation of meperidine is its active metabolites: normeperidine (norpethidine) and meperidinic acid. Normeperidine accumulates, particularly in renal failure and may cause CNS stimulation (seizures or myoclonus)

Tramadol

Tramadol is an atypical opioid which is a centrally acting analgesic, used for treating mild to moderate pain. It is a synthetic agent, as a 4-phenyl-piperidine analogue of codeine.It can be administered orally or intravenously.

Tramadol is approximately 10% as potent as morphine, when given intravenously. It has effects on opioid, GABAergic, noradrenergic, NMDA (antagonism) and serotonergic receptors. Analgesia with tramadol is not fully reversed with naloxone although it has weak affinity for the μ-opioid receptor (approximately 1/6th that of morphine). The major issue with this agent is the serotonin modulating properties that may lead to interaction with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and result in serotonin syndrome (see chapter on malignant hyperpyrexia).

Tramadol causes significantly less respiratory depression and bowel dysfunction than conventional opioid analgesics.14 It does cause nausea and vomiting and may reduce seizure threshold.

Patient Controlled Analgesia

There is tremendous inter-patient variability in postoperative analgesic requirements. Coupled with greater demands on, and reduced availability of, nurses on postoperative wards, patient controlled analgesia has emerged as the gold standard delivery system for postoperative pain relief.15 Patients prefer PCA to nurse administered analgesia.16 Dolin and colleagues17 collected pooled postoperative pain scores from 165 publications and concluded that the mean incidence of moderate to severe pain was 67.2% and that of severe pain 29.1% for intramuscular opioids. The corresponding values were 35.8% and 10.4% for PCA, and 20.9% and 7.8% for epidural analgesia, respectively. The superiority of epidural analgesia has been confirmed by other investigators.18 Nonetheless, PCA, compared with conventional opioid treatment, improves analgesia and decreases the risk of pulmonary complications.19 In a large meta-analysis of fifty-five studies with 2023 patients receiving PCA and 1838 patients assigned to a control (parenteral ‘as-needed’ analgesia), PCA provided better pain control and greater patient satisfaction.20 Patients using PCA consumed higher amounts of opioids than the controls and had a higher incidence of pruritus (itching) but had a similar incidence of other adverse effects. There was no difference in the length of hospital stay.

Surprisingly, these results were not seen in many studies. This probably relates to the tremendous variability in settings applied to PCA devices: bolus doses, lockout, background infusions, opioid agents used etc.21 PCA strategy should be titrated to patient requirements. The best available evidence suggests that the optimal bolus dose of morphine is 1mg.22 Initial IV-PCA bolus doses of other drugs that are commonly used for opioid-naive patients are hydromorphone, 0.2 mg; fentanyl, 20 to 40 μg.21 The lockout interval is used to limit the frequency of demands made by the patient within a certain time. Lockout periods between 5 and 10 minutes are commonly prescribed. If analgesia is inadequate with a certain lockout period, it is more effective to increase the bolus dose rather than reducing the lockout.23 The use of a background infusion with IV-PCA, in addition to bolus doses on demand, is targeted at improving patient comfort and sleep: the expectation is that the patient will not awaken in pain. However, studies report no benefit to pain relief or sleep and no decrease in the number of demands made but a marked increase in the risk of respiratory depression.21 Background infusions should be limited to use in chronic opioid users.

Multimodal Analgesia

The concept of multimodal analgesia is based on the observation that pain is a multifactorial phenomenon – amplified and modulated at different sites both peripherally and centrally, and is therefore not amenable to control by opioid monotherapy alone.2;4;5

Figure 3: Multimodal Analgesia: a balanced approach to analgesia – different agents are combined to reduce pain transmission at different sites, targeting local nerves and neurotransmitters, the CNS and the neuroendocrine system.

The multimodal approach to perioperative pain management involves attenuating nociceptive activity at many different levels (Figure 3), including:

  • Reducing nocioception output at the surgical site, by superficial and deep wound infiltration.
  • Treating and preventing peripheral inflammation using nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).
  • Blocking afferent nerve activity by regional blockade using local anesthetics with or without other agents (opioids, tramadol, and ketamine). This blockade may be involve peripheral nerves (inguinal field block) neural plexuses (brachial or lumbar plexus block) or  spinal level (subarachnoid or epidural block)
  • Modulating central pain processes at the level of the brain or spinal cord (e.g., opioids, tramadol, NMDA antagonists, alpha-agonists). Some agents, such as opioids, have been shown to work at a number of levels (peripheral, spinal, cerebral).
  • Reducing adrenergic activity by direct or indirect actions using opioids or alpha-2 adrenoceptor agonists.

Wound infiltration with local anesthetic

Patients recurrently complain of pain at the site of superficial injury, i.e. at the skin incision site. Local anesthetic infiltration of the surgical site may reduce this.  A number of approaches have been shown reduce postoperative analgesia requirements including: infiltration into the subfacial parietal peritoneum, subcutaneous infiltration and field block, intraarticular injection, drains lavage etc.    Wound infiltration is a safe, simple, effective and under-utilized postoperative analgesic technique.

Non Steroidal Anti-inflammatory Agents (NSAIDS).

Non steroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDS) have been used for some time in ambulatory surgery to reduce the dose of opioid required for pain relief, with the potential for less nausea, vomiting and sedation. NSAIDS act peripherally to inhibit the cyclo-oxygensase enzymes responsible for production of pro-inflammatory mediators at the site of injury. The major therapeutic limitation of using these agents is the delay between application and onset time, because of peripheral action, as compared with opioids.  In order to attain full efficacy, it is essential to give NSAIDS at induction or early during the procedure.  NSAIDS, whether COX-1 or COX-2 inhibitors, are equally efficacious in terms of pain relief but their clinical applications are limited by concerns relating to gastric bleeding, renal impairment and platelet dysfunction.2 In general NSAIDS should be avoided in patients that have undergone mucosal surgery (such as resection of the nasal mucosa), intracranial surgery, some spinal surgeries and operations in which a cross-clamp has been placed on the aorta (abdominal aortic aneurysm repair for example). In addition, patients with known renal dysfunction are at risk of acute renal failure, and NSAIDS should be withheld.

NSAIDS may be administered by a variety of routes including oral, intravenous, intramuscular, and rectal.  Agents routinely utilized in the operating room and PACU include ketoralac, diclofenac and tenoxicam. There is a considerable body of evidence supporting the use of NSAIDS as adjunct analgesic agents.2;8;24  For example, ketoralac 30mg has equipotent analgesic effect to morphine 10mg. Where possible patients should be administered NSAIDS in the operating room or PACU.

Regional anesthetic techniques

A multitude of different regional anesthetic techniques has been used for surgery. These are frequently combined with general anesthesia to ensure absence of pain in the postoperative period. For example, paravertebral block has emerged as an effective option for breast surgery in addition to general anesthesia.25 Combinations of ileoinguinal and ileohypogastric nerve blockade and caudal block, have been shown to significantly reduce postoperative pain in children and adults following inguinal hernia repair.26 The commonly used regional nerve blocks are featured in Table 5.

Table 5   Regional Blocks that may reduce Postoperative Pain
Block Type Indication
Upper-limb blocks:
Bier’s block Surgery to hand or wrist (e.g. Colles’ Fracture)
Digital Nerve Block Surgery to finger
Wrist Block: median, ulnar and radial nerves Surgery to hand
Elbow Block: median, ulnar and radial nerves Surgery to hand or wrist
Brachial Plexus Block:
Axillary Approach Surgery to hand, wrist or lower arm
Supra-calvicular Approach Surgery to hand, wrist, upper and lower arm
Interscalene Approach Surgery to upper limb and shoulder
Neuraxial Blocks:
Spinal Surgery to lower extremities
Epidural Surgery to lower extremities, abdomen, thorax
Caudal Surgery to perinuem (e.g. hemmoroidectomy)
Paravertebral Block Thoracic and abdominal surgery (e.g. breast surgery, herniorrhaphy).
Lower-limb Blocks:
Sciatic Nerve Block Surgery to lower limb
Obturator Nerve Block Surgery to lower limb
3-in-1 (Lumbar Plexus) Block Surgery to lower limb
Knee Block: common peroneal, tibeal & saphenous Surgery to lower leg
Ankle Block Surgery to foot
Truncal Blocks
Intercostal Blocks Thoracic surgery
Inguinal Field Blockade Surgery in lower abdomen (e.g. hernia repair)
Penile Block Surgery to penis (e.g. circumcision)

Alpha-2 receptor agonists.

The alpha2 -agonists clonidine and dexmedetomidine have been reported to provide effective analgesia following a variety surgical procedures and when given by oral, intrathecal and intravenous routes of administration.

In general, alpha 2 -agonists are best used as adjuncts with other analgesics to minimize the side effects of sedation and hypotension. Clonidine, when given orally as a premedication (5 mg/kg), reduces morphine PCA requirements by 37% and significantly reduces the incidence of nausea and vomiting.27 When added to local anaesthetics, clonidine has been shown to augment the effectiveness and duration of action of peripheral nerve blocks.28

Paracetamol/Acetaminophen

Paracetamol is an agent commonly used in multimodal techniques, due to its wide availability and low side effect profile in therapeutic dosage. Oral and rectal acetaminophen, as an adjunct to opioids, reduces pain scores by 20% – 30%.29 It has analgesic and antipyretic, but not anti-inflammatory, activity. Although the mechanism of action of acetaminophen is poorly understood, it is believed to act by the inhibition of the COX-3 isoenzyme and subsequent reduced prostanoid release in the central nervous system. In addition, there is some suggestion that it acts on the opioidergic system and NMDA receptors. Acetaminophen is a weak analgesic agent and has little or no anti-inflammatory activity. Thus it has no role as monotherapy-analgesia following major surgery. Nevertheless, there is abundant evidence that acetaminophen significantly enhances analgesia when combined with opioids and NSAIDS. It has little or no impact on the gastrointestinal tract or kidney. However, in high dosage acetaminophen may cause irreversible liver damage. This agent is strongly recommended for balanced analgesia in perioperative patients.

3. Differential diagnosis / Work the problem

What is the differential diagnosis?

An agitated patient, emerging from anesthesia, is in pain until otherwise proven (figure 4). It is imperative to assess the patient’s respiratory status to ensure that he is oxygenating and ventilating as hypoxemia and hypercarbia may manifest as agitation. The patient’s agitation should also be assessed in terms of their total physical status: in general agitation plus tachycardia and hypertension suggests hyperadrenergic activity (stress), and agitation associated with bradycardia suggests increased vagal activity. This can result, for example, from distress associated with a full bladder.

Postoperative patients that are agitated and tachycardic may have partial neuromuscular blockade (chapter 4: hypertension and tachycardia). Other potential diagnoses include drug withdrawal (beta blockers, clonidine, alcohol, cocaine and amphetamines), drugs (atropine, neostigmine, naloxone or flumazenil) and pathologic processes (neurologic injury, electrolyte abnormalities and endocrinopathy). Neurologic injuries include ermergence delirium, stroke, intracranial bleed, raised intracranial pressure and transcranial herniation. Electrolyte abnormalities that may cause agitation include hypernatremia, hyponatremia, hypokalemia, hypophosphatemia, hypercalcemia and hypomagnesemia). Endocrinopathies that may cause agitation include thyrotoxicosis, diabetic ketoacidosis, hypoglycemia, pheochromocytoma and carcinoid syndrome.

Figure 4: Managing the Agitated Patient

Common things are common – once life threatening causes of agitation have been outruled, one must address pain.

The clinical assessment of pain, analgesia, anxiety and sedation require quantification, hence the use of scoring systems. The behavioral pain score was discussed in chapter 4; it allows the bedside clinician determine whether or not the sedated patient is in pain. In this scenario the patient is agitated, and the level of agitation should be assessed using an alternative system, such as the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS table 6).30 This tool allows the clinician to assess whether the patient is agitated or sedated using a + (plus) score for agitation and a minus (-) score for sedation. It then allows for titration of sedative drugs. The scale scores the patient from -5 (comatose) to +4 (combative, as in this case).

Visual Analog Scale for Pain

 No Pain           Mild Pain             Moderate Pain              Severe  Pain                  Worst

_____________________________________________________________________

0         1             2            3          4        5          6            7          8          9            10

Figure 5: Visual Analog Scale

Once the patient is co-operative, pain should be assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS figure 6).31;32 This is a 0-10 scoring system in which 0 is no pain and 10 is the worst pain the patient has ever experienced. The goal is to obtain a pain score of 3 or less or pain that is considered acceptable by the patient.33 Occasionally the patient may report a higher score than would be suspected by physiologic data, and the bedside nurse is required to make an objective decision about the need for further analgesia.

Table 6    Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale

Clinical Status

RASS

Combative (violent dangerous to staff)

4

Very agitated (pulling on or removing catheters)

3

Agitated (fighting ventilator)

2

Anxious

1

Spontaneously alert calm and not agitated

0

Able to maintain eye contact >= 10 seconds

-1

Able to maintain eye contact < 10 seconds

-2

Eye opening but no eye contact

-3

Eye opening or movement with physical or painful stimuli

-4

Unresponsive to physical or painful stimuli (deeply comatose)

-5

4. Solve or resolve the problem  

Step 1: Ensure that the airway is patent and that the patient is breathing spontaneously. Apply supplemental oxygen. Ensure that the patient has iv access and that intravenous fluid is running. Check the patient’s pulse and blood pressure. Position the patient in the semi-recumbent position.

Step 2: Score the patient’s agitation/pain using RASS and VAS

Step 3: Commence the opioid titration protocol (figure 6).34;35 The choice of agent, morphine or hydromorphone is determined by the clinician – if the patient is to receive a morphine PCA they should receive bolus morphine, a hydromorphone PCA – bolus hydromorphone etc. The dose should be adjusted for the patient’s weight.

Step 4: The goal of the opioid titration protocol is to aggressively treat pain by assessing the patient’s pain score,33 and to prevent oversedation by using the RASS score.

Step 5: If the patient remains agitated despite significant opioid administration, consideration should be given to anxiety and delirium. Delirium is defined as an acute disturbance of consciousness (reduced clarity of awareness of the environment) and cognition with reduced ability to focus, sustain or shift attention. The patient may be disorientated in time, place or person. If the patient is orientated, anxiety may be a problem, and this can be managed with judicious administration of midazolam 1-2mg iv. Anxiolytics should not be administered before analgesics in the agitated postoperative period unless the significant consideration has been given to pain as the etiology of the problem.

Step 6: If the patient is complaining of severe intractable pain, out of proportion to the injury and unresponsive to analgesia and anxiolysis, consideration should be given to an surgical problem. For example, in a patient that has had orthopedic surgery to the leg, severe pain may signal a compartment syndrome: the patient has ischemic pain. If a surgical cause had been discounted, consideration should be given to a regional anesthetic approach (epidural, brachial plexus catheter etc) or to the addition of ketamine to the PCA.

Step 7: If the patient becomes oversedated (RASS -3 or below) as a result of narcosis (associated with bradypnea), opioid administration should be discontinued until the RASS score is -2 or above. In extreme cases, where the patient is comatose and hypoventilating, naloxone should be administered in aliquots of 40mic/g, until the RASS is -2 or above. It is essential that the clinician consider alternative causes of coma, such as stroke, brain hemorrhage or intracranial hypertension).

Figure 6: Management of Patient in Pain or Agitated

Conclusions

  1. Pain is now considered the “fifth vital sign”.
  2. Postoperative patients that are agitated should be considered to be in pain until otherwise proven.
  3. Pain is a multisystem problem that manifests as an emotional response to a noxious stimulus. Pain starts at the nocioceptor and is amplified by local inflammatory mediators and spinal cord windup leading to central and peripheral sensitization. In addition, pain activates the hypothalmo-pituitary-adrenal axis leading to anxiety and diaphoresis.
  4. Pain should be managed by a multimodal approach that addressed the problem at different levels in the pain pathways.
  5. Opioid agents remain the mainstays of management of pain. Of these morphine and hydromorphone are the most popular and effective agents for managing visceral pain in PACU.
  6. Opioids should be titrated using an opioid titration protocol, that scores both pain and sedation.
  7. Anxiety, delirium and surgical problems may worsen pain, and should be addressed by the clinician.
  8. Pain that is unresponsive to aggressive and analgesic therapy should prompt the clinician to consider a surgical cause.

This PBLD was written by Patrick Neligan Version 1.3 September 2007

 

References

1.    Myles PS, Williams DL, Hendrata M, Anderson H, Weeks AM: Patient satisfaction after anaesthesia and surgery: results of a prospective survey of 10,811 patients. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2000; 84: 6-10

2.    Joshi GP: Multimodal analgesia techniques and postoperative rehabilitation. Anesthesiol.Clin.North America. 2005; 23: 185-202

3.    Kehlet H, Dahl JB: The value of “multimodal” or “balanced analgesia” in postoperative pain treatment. Anesth.Analg. 1993; 77: 1048-56

4.    Kehlet H: Multimodal approach to control postoperative pathophysiology and rehabilitation. Br.J.Anaesth. 1997; 78: 606-17

5.    White PF, Kehlet H, Neal JM, Schricker T, Carr DB, Carli F, the Fast-Track Surgery Study Group: The Role of the Anesthesiologist in Fast-Track Surgery: From Multimodal Analgesia to Perioperative Medical Care. Anesthesia Analgesia 2007; 104: 1380-96

6.    Brennan TJ, Zahn PK, Pogatzki-Zahn EM: Mechanisms of incisional pain. Anesthesiol.Clin.North America. 2005; 23: 1-20

7.    Cohen MJ, Schecter WP: Perioperative pain control: a strategy for management. Surg Clin.North Am. 2005; 85: 1243-57, xi

8.    Siddall PJ, Cousins MJ: Pain mechanisms and management: an update. Clin.Exp.Pharmacol.Physiol 1995; 22: 679-88

9.    Woolf CJ: Central sensitization: uncovering the relation between pain and plasticity. Anesthesiology 2007; 106: 864-7

10.    Wolpaw JR, Tennissen AM: Activity-dependent spinal cord plasticity in health and disease. Annu.Rev.Neurosci. 2001; 24: 807-43

11.    Herrero JF, Laird JM, Lopez-Garcia JA: Wind-up of spinal cord neurones and pain sensation: much ado about something? Prog.Neurobiol. 2000; 61: 169-203

12.    Murray A, Hagen NA: Hydromorphone. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 2005; 29: 57-66

13.    Stanley TH: Fentanyl. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 2005; 29: 67-71

14.    Desmeules JA: The tramadol option. Eur.J Pain 2000; 4 Suppl A: 15-21

15.    Lehmann KA: Recent Developments in Patient-Controlled Analgesia. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 2005; 29: 72-89

16.    Ballantyne JC, Carr DB, Chalmers TC, Dear KB, Angelillo IF, Mosteller F: Postoperative patient-controlled analgesia: meta-analyses of initial randomized control trials. J Clin.Anesth 1993; 5: 182-93

17.    Dolin SJ, Cashman JN, Bland JM: Effectiveness of acute postoperative pain management: I. Evidence from published data. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2002; 89: 409-23

18.    Werawatganon T, Charuluxanun S: Patient controlled intravenous opioid analgesia versus continuous epidural analgesia for pain after intra-abdominal surgery. Cochrane.Database.Syst.Rev. 2005; CD004088

19.    Walder B, Schafer M, Henzi I, Tramer MR: Efficacy and safety of patient-controlled opioid analgesia for acute postoperative pain. A quantitative systematic review. Acta Anaesthesiol.Scand. 2001; 45: 795-804

20.    Hudcova J, McNicol E, Quah C, Lau J, Carr DB: Patient controlled opioid analgesia versus conventional opioid analgesia for postoperative pain. Cochrane.Database.Syst.Rev. 2006; CD003348

21.    Macintyre PE: Intravenous patient-controlled analgesia: one size does not fit all. Anesthesiol.Clin.North America. 2005; 23: 109-23

22.    Owen H, Plummer JL, Armstrong I, Mather LE, Cousins MJ: Variables of patient-controlled analgesia. 1. Bolus size. Anaesthesia 1989; 44: 7-10

23.    Macintyre PE: Safety and efficacy of patient-controlled analgesia. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2001; 87: 36-46

24.    White PF: The Changing Role of Non-Opioid Analgesic Techniques in the Management of Postoperative Pain. Anesthesia Analgesia 2005; 101: S5-22

25.    Karmakar MK: Thoracic paravertebral block. Anesthesiology 2001; 95: 771-80

26.    Nehra D, Gemmell L, Pye JK: Pain relief after inguinal hernia repair: a randomized double-blind study. Br.J.Surg. 1995; 82: 1245-7

27.    Park J, Forrest J, Kolesar R, Bhola D, Beattie S, Chu C: Oral clonidine reduces postoperative PCA morphine requirements. Can.J.Anaesth. 1996; 43: 900-6

28.    Eisenach JC, De Kock M, Klimscha W: alpha(2)-adrenergic agonists for regional anesthesia. A clinical review of clonidine (1984-1995). Anesthesiology. 1996; 85: 655-74

29.    Schug SA, Sidebotham DA, McGuinnety M, Thomas J, Fox L: Acetaminophen as an adjunct to morphine by patient-controlled analgesia in the management of acute postoperative pain. Anesthesia Analgesia 1998; 87: 368-72

30.    Ely EW, Truman B, Shintani A, Thomason JW, Wheeler AP, Gordon S, Francis J, Speroff T, Gautam S, Margolin R, Sessler CN, Dittus RS, Bernard GR: Monitoring sedation status over time in ICU patients: reliability and validity of the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS). JAMA 2003; 289: 2983-91

31.    Bodian CA, Freedman G, Hossain S, Eisenkraft JB, Beilin Y: The Visual Analog Scale for Pain: Clinical Significance in Postoperative Patients. Anesthesiology 2001; 95: 1356-61

32.    Aubrun F, Hrazdilova O, Langeron O, Coriat P, Riou B: A high initial VAS score and sedation after iv morphine titration are associated with the need for rescue analgesia. Can.J Anaesth. 2004; 51: 969-74

33.    Aubrun F, Langeron O, Quesnel C, Coriat P, Riou B: Relationships between measurement of pain using visual analog score and morphine requirements during postoperative intravenous morphine titration. Anesthesiology 2003; 98: 1415-21

34.    Aubrun F, Monsel S, Langeron O, Coriat P, Riou B: Postoperative titration of intravenous morphine. Eur.J Anaesthesiol. 2001; 18: 159-65

35.    Aubrun F, Monsel S, Langeron O, Coriat P, Riou B: Postoperative titration of intravenous morphine in the elderly patient. Anesthesiology 2002; 96: 17-23

 This Article Copyright Patrick Neligan MA MB FCAI DIBICM 2007-2012. Neither text nor illustrations are to be used without permission. 


Perioperative Visual Loss

Nothing terrifies an anaesthetist as much as the prospect of a patient waking up blind. It happens, but very infrequently. Who is at risk? What surgeries? What are the risk factors? Is there anything we can do to prevent and treat visual loss?

Perioperartive visual loss is associated with posterior ischemic optic neuropathy (ION), anterior ION, and central retinal artery occlusion (CRAO).

In the February 2012 issue of Anesthesiology (click here), the ASA has issued a practice advisory for the prevention of preoperative visual loss. Below is a summary of the article.

1. Preoperative Patient Evaluation and Preparation

  • There are no clear preoperative patient characteristics that predispose patients to perioperative ION.
  • However – prolonged procedures, particularly with the head elevated, with substantial blood loss (44.7%) appears to identify high risk patients. Spine surgery in the prone position that goes on for several hours (>6.5 hours) appears to be the highest risk operation.
    • So Risks:
      • Anaemia
      • Large volume blood loss
      • Prolonged surgery
      • Prolonged surgery with significant blood loss.
      • There is no evidence that an ophthalmic or neuro-ophthalmic evaluation would be useful in identifying patients at risk for perioperative visual loss (PVL).
      • Anaesthetists should consider informing patients in whom prolonged procedures, substantial blood loss, or both are anticipated that there is a small, unpredictable risk of perioperative visual loss.
      • Because the frequency of visual loss after spine surgery of short duration is very low, it is probably unnecessary to inform all spine surgery patients of this risk.

2. Intraoperative Management

Blood Pressure Management

  • Systemic blood pressure should be monitored continually in high-risk patients.
  • The use of deliberate hypotensive techniques during spine surgery has not been shown to be associated with the development of  PVL (perioperative visual loss).
  • The use of deliberate hypotension for these patients should be determined on a case-by-case basis.
  • Blood pressure should be maintained within 24% of baseline, and the systolic blood pressure should not fall below 84mmHg. In addition, extreme care should be taken with patients that have chronic hypertension.

Management of Intraoperative Fluids

  • Central venous pressure monitoring should be considered in high-risk patients (I disagree with this recommendation as I believe that there is no evidence that CVP is an accurate measure of blood volume or anything else for that matter).
  • Colloids should be used along with crystalloids to maintain intravascular volume in patients who have substantial blood loss.

Management of Anemia

  • Haemoglobin values should be monitored periodically during surgery in high-risk patients who experience substantial blood loss.
  • However, there is no documented lower limit of hemoglobin concentration that has been associated with the development of perioperative visual loss. Experts suggest keeping HgB >9.4g/dL.
  • Thus there is no clear transfusion threshold to prevent PVL.

Use of Vasopressors

  • There is insufficient evidence to provide guidance for the use of α-adrenergic agonists in high-risk patients during spine surgery. There is concern that prolonged use of vasopressors may precipitate optic nerve ischaemia (although I don’t believe that there is any published evidence on this point).

Patient Positioning

  • Prone positioned patients often emerge with significant facial oedema. There is no pathophysiologic mechanism by which facial oedema can cause perioperative ION.
  • There is no evidence that ocular compression causes isolated perioperative anterior ION or posterior ION.
  • Direct pressure on the eye should be avoided to prevent CRAO.
  • The high-risk patient should be positioned so that the head is level with or higher than the heart when possible.
  • The high-risk patient’s head should be maintained in a neutral forward position (e.g., without significant neck flexion, extension, lateral flexion, or rotation) when possible.

3. Staging of Surgical Procedures

  • Staged spine surgery procedures may decrease the risk of PVL in some patients and should be considered.

4. Postoperative Management

  • A high-risk patient’s vision should be assessed when the patient becomes alert (e.g., in the recovery room, intensive care unit, or ward).
  • If there is concern regarding potential visual loss, an urgent ophthalmologic consultation should be obtained to determine its cause.
  • Additional management may include optimizing blood pressure, haemoglobin and oxyhaemoglobin saturation.
  • To rule out intracranial causes of visual loss, consider magnetic resonance imaging.
  • There is no role for antiplatelet agents, steroids, or intraocular pressure-lowering agents in the treatment of perioperative PVL.