Anesthesia and analgesia
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 2004
Cost drivers in patient-controlled epidural analgesia for postoperative pain management after major surgery.
In this retrospective study, we determined efficiency, treatment length, and resource use for postoperative pain management with patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) in 350 consecutive patients undergoing major abdominal, thoracic, gynecological, or orthopedic surgery. Average pain scores on a visual analog scale were 16 +/- 23 and 9 +/- 16 (visual analog scale range, 0 to 100) on postoperative Days 1 and 3, respectively, and were similar among groups. The treatment length was 4.9 +/- 2.2 days in general surgical, 5.2 +/- 3.1 days in gynecological, and 4.5 +/- 2.8 days in orthopedic patients. The total volumes of the mixture of local anesthetic and opioid received epidurally were 707 +/- 507 mL, 770 +/- 576 mL, and 593 +/- 456 mL in the general surgical, gynecological, and orthopedic groups, respectively. The average total costs for all groups for the full treatment course with PCEA were 447 +/- 218 per case (1 equals approximately US dollar 1). Fifty-one percent of these costs were staff costs, 20% were costs for the applied drugs, 15% were costs for PCEA pumps and pump material, and 13% were costs for the initial catheter insertion. In the light of these costs and the availability of less costly alternatives, measurements for cost containment by using PCEA are recommended. Because treatment length is the main cost driver both for drug and staff costs, close monitoring of treatment length and a predefined migration path to alternative techniques after PCEA should be considered. ⋯ Patient-controlled epidural analgesia is increasingly used as first-line treatment for postoperative pain management. In this study, costs and cost drivers are analyzed for the first time for this new technique, based on 350 cases of pain therapy after major surgery in a university hospital.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 2004
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical TrialDextromethorphan-associated epidural patient-controlled analgesia provides better pain- and analgesics-sparing effects than dextromethorphan-associated intravenous patient-controlled analgesia after bone-malignancy resection: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study.
Pain after bone malignancy surgery is intense and requires large amounts of analgesics. The augmented antinociceptive effects of dextromethorphan (DM), a N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist, were demonstrated previously. We assessed the use of postoperative patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) or IV patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) in patients undergoing surgery for bone malignancy under standardized combined general and epidural anesthesia with or without DM. Patients (n = 120) were randomly allocated to receive PCEA (ropivacaine 3.2 mg plus fentanyl 8 microg/dose) or IV-PCA (morphine 2 mg/dose) postoperatively, starting at subjective visual analog scale pain intensity >or=4 of 10 for up to 96 h. Placebo or DM 90 mg orally (30 patients/group/set) was given in a double-blinded manner before surgery and for 2 days afterwards. Diclofenac 75 mg IM was available as a rescue drug. DM patients used PCA and rated their pain >50% less than their placebo counterparts in each set, especially during the first 2 postoperative days (P < 0.01). Hourly and overall maximal pain intensity among PCEA patients was approximately 50% less than in the IV-PCA set (P < 0.01). Diclofenac was used 42% less (P < 0.01) by the PCA-DM patients compared with their placebo counterparts. Seven PCEA-DM and 11 IV-PCA-DM individuals reported having side effects compared with 44 in the PCEA-placebo and the IV-PCA-placebo groups (P < 0.01). Time to first ambulation was similar with both analgesia techniques but shorter among the DM-treated patients compared with the placebo recipients (1.5 +/- 0.8 versus 2.1 +/- 1.1 days, P = 0.02). Thus, DM afforded better pain control and reduced the demand for analgesics, augmented the PCEA effect versus IV-PCA, and was associated with minimal untoward effects in each analgesia set. DM patients ambulated earlier than placebo recipients. ⋯ Patients undergoing bone-malignancy surgery under combined general and epidural anesthesia received randomly patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) or IV patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) postoperatively and dextromethorphan (DM) 90 mg or placebo double-blindly for 3 days (n = 30/group/set). The DM effect was recorded with minimal untoward effects: it afforded better pain control and reduced the demand for analgesics compared with the placebo, especially when associated with PCEA. DM patients ambulated earlier than placebo recipients.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 2004
Comparative StudyLocal anesthetic properties of a novel derivative, N-methyl doxepin, versus doxepin and bupivacaine.
Among various tricyclic antidepressants, doxepin and amitriptyline are also long-acting local anesthetics. We synthesized a new compound, N-methyl doxepin, and investigated whether this derivative possesses local anesthetic properties. N-methyl doxepin and doxepin were tested in a rat sciatic nerve model at 2.5, 5.0, and 10 mM. Proprioceptive, motor, and nociceptive blockade were evaluated and compared with those induced by 0.5% bupivacaine. Block of Na(+) channels by N-methyl doxepin and doxepin was assessed in cultured pituitary tumor cells under voltage clamp conditions. N-methyl doxepin elicited complete nociceptive blockade that generally lasted longer than that caused by doxepin (e.g., approximately 7.4 h versus 5.3 h at 10 mM). Significant differences were observed for full recovery of function at all concentrations and for the duration of complete blockade except at 2.5 mM. Bupivacaine at 0.5% (15.4 mM) was less effective in producing complete blockade (approximately 1.5 h) than N-methyl doxepin and doxepin. Both doxepin and N-methyl doxepin were potent Na(+) channel blockers, although N-methyl doxepin displayed a slower wash-in rate. No morphological alterations were detected in cross-sectioned sciatic nerve specimens with these three drugs. We conclude that N-methyl doxepin is a potent Na(+) channel blocker and a long-acting local anesthetic for rat sciatic nerve blockade. ⋯ N-methyl doxepin and doxepin are both potent Na(+) channel blockers; they elicit rat sciatic nerve block lasting longer than that induced by bupivacaine and seem to be nontoxic to peripheral nerves at concentrations up to 10 mM.
-
Anesthesia and analgesia · Mar 2004
When to release allocated operating room time to increase operating room efficiency.
We studied when allocated, but unfilled, operating room (OR) time of surgical services should be released to maximize OR efficiency. OR time was allocated for two surgical suites based on OR efficiency. Then, we analyzed real OR schedules. We added new hypothetical cases lasting 1, 2, or 3 h into OR time of the service that had the largest difference between allocated and scheduled cases (i.e., the most unfilled OR time) 5 days before the day of surgery. The process was repeated using the updated OR schedule available the day before surgery. The pair-wise difference in resulting overutilized OR time was calculated for n = 754 days of data from each of the two surgical suites. We found that postponing the decision of which service gets the new case until early the day before surgery reduces overutilized OR time by <15 min per OR per day as compared to releasing the allocated OR time 5 days before surgery. These results show that when OR time is released has a negligible effect on OR efficiency. This is especially true for ambulatory surgery centers with brief cases or large surgical suites with specialty-specific OR teams. What matters much more is having the correct OR allocations and, if OR time needs to be released, making that decision based on the scheduled workload. ⋯ Provided operating room (OR) time is allocated and cases are scheduled based on maximizing OR efficiency, then whether OR time is released five days or one day before the day of surgery has a negligible effect on OR efficiency.