Biomedical subjects

F Aubrun

Publications and source records attributed to F Aubrun.

11 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Effects of a loading dose of morphine before i.v. morphine titration for postoperative pain relief: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-control study.

BACKGROUND: I.V. morphine titration (MT) allows adjustment of the dose needed for pain relief in the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU). However, MT has limitations such as a delay to achieve pain relief. We thus assessed the effect of a fixed intraoperative loading dose of morphine administered before titration. METHODS: One hundred patients who were undergoing major orthopaedic surgery were included in a double-blind, randomized study comparing a loading dose of morphine (0.15 mg kg(-1)) with placebo administered intraoperatively. MT was then administered in the PACU followed by patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) over 24 h. Data are expressed as mean (sd). RESULTS: The initial VAS [41 (36) vs 52 (35), NS] was not decreased in the morphine group. The VAS was lower in the morphine group in the PACU and PCA periods. The time to achieve effective pain relief was not decreased in the morphine group. The total dose of morphine administered in the PACU (including the loading dose) was significantly increased in the morphine group (+31% in mg kg(-1), P<0.05). Morphine requirements during the PCA period were not different between groups. The incidence of sedation was increased and a severe episode of ventilatory depression occurred in the morphine group. CONCLUSIONS: A loading dose of morphine administered at the end of surgery slightly decreased the VAS but did not reduce the time to pain relief or morphine consumption within the first 24 h. This slight improvement in analgesia was obtained at the expense of morphine-related adverse events.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2004

[Intravenous morphine titration].

OBJECTIVES: To describe principles of intravenous (i.v.) morphine titration. To analyse current knowledge based on the experimental and clinical studies. To describe clinical implications in the operating room, postanaesthesia care unit (PACU), prehospital care, emergency and intensive care units (ICU), and cancerology. To provide recommendations for clinical practice. DATA SOURCES: Search in the Medline database without limitation, using the following keywords: morphine titration. STUDY SELECTION: All types of articles were selected including prospective randomised (or not randomised) studies in adults and children, practice guidelines, reviews, editorials and case reports. DATA SYNTHESIS: Intravenous (i.v.) morphine titration is a pharmacological method which involves morphine boluses administration until pain relief, allowing a limitation in morphine side effects which are mainly dose dependent. I.v. morphine titration is widely used in prehospital care, emergency unit, PACU, ICU, and cancerology, in young and elderly patients. In the PACU, when the VAS (visual analogue scale) increases to more than 30 mm, i.v. morphine titration every five minutes with an unlimited number of 2 or 3 mg boluses provides an efficient analgesic regimen in adults. Titration is performed until pain relief (VAS < or =30), sedation that is the most frequent side effect during i.v. morphine titration (Ramsay score >1), severe side effects (like respiratory depression). CONCLUSION: Because of important pharmacological variability in morphine need, iv morphine titration is a simple method which allows a rapid and efficient pain relief notably in the postoperative care.

Analgesics, Opioid↗

PubMed2003

What pain scales do nurses use in the postanaesthesia care unit?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The visual analogue scale (VAS) is considered as the gold standard method for postoperative pain assessment. Nevertheless, in some clinical situations, this method may not be reliable. We performed an observational study to assess the use of the VAS and other pain scales by nurses in the postanaesthesia care unit. METHODS: We studied the reasons for not using the VAS and asked if it may be less appropriate in certain age groups. RESULTS: Among 600 patients included in the study (16% = 70 yr), nurses used the VAS in 53%, the numerical rating scale in 30%, the verbal rating scale in 12% and the behavioural scale in 5%. In 43% of the assessments, nursed did not use the VAS; the most frequently cited reason was related to their preference for other methods. In 54% of the assessments, the reason for not using the VAS was related to the patients, mainly when they were in too much pain to use it (22%). When the patient was in too much pain, the numerical rating scale was chosen in 54% and the behavioural scale in 27%. There was no difference between young patients and elderly patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although the VAS is the standard method to assess pain, the nurses preferred using the numerical rating scale, both spontaneously or when VAS assessment was not possible.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2003

Adjunctive analgesia with intravenous propacetamol does not reduce morphine-related adverse effects.

BACKGROUND: Propacetamol is widely used in the management of postoperative pain. It decreases morphine requirements but its effect on the incidence of morphine-related adverse effects remains unknown. METHODS: Patients (550) were randomly assigned to receive propacetamol or a placebo over the first 24 h after operation in a blinded study. Intravenous morphine titration was performed, after which morphine was administered s.c. every 4 h according to their pain score. Pain was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS). The primary end-point was the incidence of morphine-related adverse effects. The main secondary end-points were morphine requirements and VAS score. RESULTS: After morphine titration, the VAS score and the number of patients with pain relief did not differ between groups. Morphine requirements were decreased in the propacetamol group (21 vs 14.5 mg, P<0.001) but the incidence of morphine-related adverse effects did not differ between groups (42 vs 46%, not significant). In patients with moderate pain (n=395), morphine requirements decreased by 37% (P<0.001) and the percentage of patients requiring no morphine was greater (21 vs 8%, P=0.002) in the propacetamol group. In patients with severe pain (n=155), morphine requirements decreased by 18% (P=0.04) in the propacetamol group and the number of patients who did not require morphine (3 vs 8%) did not differ significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Although propacetamol induced a small morphine-sparing effect, it did not change the incidence of morphine-related adverse effects in the postoperative period. Moreover, no benefit could be demonstrated in patients with severe postoperative pain.

Acetaminophen↗

PubMed2003

Randomized prospective study of the analgesic effect of nefopam after orthopaedic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Balanced postoperative analgesia combines non-narcotic drugs and opioids. We organized a large study to evaluate nefopam analgesia and tolerance in combination with morphine for patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) after orthopaedic surgery. METHODS: Two hundred and one patients scheduled to undergo hip arthroplasty were included in this multicentre (n=24), double-blind, randomized study comparing nefopam (20 mg every 4 h for 24 h) with placebo, the first dose being infused peroperatively. The primary outcome measure was the cumulative morphine dose received postoperatively by PCA over 24 h. Secondary outcome measures were the amount of morphine received as a loading dose in the postanaesthesia care unit (PACU) and during the 24-h observation period, and pain assessments using a visual analogue scale (VAS) and a verbal pain scale (VPS), patient's satisfaction with analgesia and treatment tolerance. RESULTS: The two groups were comparable with respect to their characteristics and preoperative pain assessment. PCA-administered morphine over 24 h was significantly less for the nefopam group than the control group (21.2 (15.3) and 27.3 (19.2) mg respectively; P=0.02). This morphine-sparing effect was greater (35.1%) for patients with severe preoperative pain (VAS>30/100). For the entire study period (loading dose and PCA), morphine use was less for the nefopam group (34.5 (19.6) vs 42.7 (23.6) mg; P=0.01). Pain VAS at PACU arrival and during the whole PACU period was significantly lower for the nefopam than for the placebo group (P=0.002 and 0.04 respectively). Patient satisfaction was similar for the nefopam and placebo groups. CONCLUSION: In combination with PCA morphine, nefopam gives significant morphine-sparing with lower immediate postoperative pain scores without major side-effects. This analgesic effect seems to be particularly notable for patients with intense preoperative pain.

Adult↗

PubMed2002

Is morphine-induced sedation synonymous with analgesia during intravenous morphine titration?

BACKGROUND: Postoperative morphine titration frequently induces sedation. The assumption is made that patients sleep when their pain is relieved. Some patients complain of persistent pain when they awake. We studied the time-course of sedation and analgesia to understand the determinants of patients' sleep during morphine titration. METHODS: Seventy-three patients requiring morphine titration in a post-anaesthetic care unit after major surgery, were studied. Fifty-two patients slept (Sleep group) and 21 did not (Awake group). When a patient slept during titration, morphine was discontinued. Visual analogue pain scale (VAS), Ramsay score (RS), and the bispectral index (BIS) were recorded at the beginning of titration (STonset), at sleep onset (STsleep), then 5, 10, 20, and 30 min afterwards (ST4). RESULTS: In the Sleep group, mean (SD) RS increased from 1.7 (0.4) to 2.4 (0.6) (P<0.05 vs STonset) and BIS decreased from 95 (5.0) to 89.8 (10.2) between STonset and STsleep (P<0.05), RS remained stable thereafter. Conversely, RS and BIS remained unaltered in the Awake group. The reduction in VAS was comparable between groups (from 78 (17) to 39 (21), and from 64 (16) to 30.4 (11), respectively). Even though mean (SD) VAS was 39 (21) at ST4 in the Sleep group, 13 patients (25%) maintained a VAS above 50 mm. CONCLUSION: We observed dissociated effects of morphine on the time-course of sedation and analgesia with sedation occurring first, followed by analgesia. Therefore, morphine-induced sedation should not be considered as an indicator of an appropriate correct level of analgesia during i.v. morphine titration.

Adult↗

PubMed2001

Postoperative titration of intravenous morphine.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Intravenous morphine titration is used to obtain postoperative pain relief, but few studies have assessed the appropriate regimen. In a quality programme, we performed a prospective non-randomized study of morphine titration in a postanaesthesia care unit (PACU). METHODS: Four regimens of morphine titration were studied: every 10 (group 1, n = 400) or 5 min (group 2, n = 400) with a maximum of five intravenous boluses; every 5 min, without any limitation in the number of boluses (groups 3 and 4, n = 400 each); in groups 1, 2, and 3, subcutaneous morphine was administered 4 h after titration. In group 4, administration of subcutaneous morphine was allowed only 2 h after titration. A visual analogue pain scale (VAPS) > 30 mm was required to administer morphine and pain relief was defined as a VAPS < or = 30 mm. RESULTS: After morphine titration, VAPS was lower and the number of patients with pain relief was greater in patients from groups 3 and 4. Patients from group 4 had the lowest VAPS (26 +/- 17 mm) and the highest percentage of pain relief (73%) at the end of the PACU period. The number of sedated patients increased in groups 3 (62%) and 4 (61%) compared with group 1 (27%). No significant differences in morphine-related adverse effects were observed. CONCLUSION: Intravenous morphine titration every 5 min with an unlimited number of boluses and early subcutaneous administration provided the best analgesic regimen.

Adult↗

PubMed2000

Randomised, placebo-controlled study of the postoperative analgesic effects of ketoprofen after spinal fusion surgery.

BACKGROUND: The additive effect of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs administered with propacetamol after major orthopaedic surgery has not been studied. Thus, we performed a prospective, placebo-controlled study to assess the analgesic effects of ketoprofen in patients undergoing spinal fusion surgery and receiving propacetamol. METHODS: Fifty patients undergoing spinal fusion surgery received either 100 mg of ketoprofen every 8 h or a placebo, postoperatively. All patients received propacetamol and morphine (intravenous titration followed by patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) over 24 h). Pain was assessed using a visual analogue pain scale (VASpi). Data are mean+/-SD. RESULTS: During morphine titration, ketoprofen did not significantly reduce the dose of morphine (8+/-6 vs 11+/-4 mg, NS) whereas it significantly decreased VASpi (P<0.001). During PCA, ketoprofen significantly reduced morphine consumption (25+/-17 vs 38+/-20 mg, P=0.04) and VASpi (P=0.002). The total postoperative morphine consumption was significantly (33%) reduced with ketoprofen. CONCLUSION: Ketoprofen reduced morphine requirements and improved postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing major spinal surgery and receiving propacetamol.

Acetaminophen↗

PubMed1998

[How is postoperative pain evaluated?].

The assessment of postoperative pain and analgesic efficacy is essential as pain levels and morphine requirements are not predictable. Self-assessment with unidimensional methods (such as the visual analogue pain scale, the numerical rating scale and the verbal rating scale) is the rule for adults and children more than 5 years of age. The former is a validated method and the most accurate and reproducible scale. Assessment of pain is difficult in children less than 5 years old. Only the scales for hetero-assessment with behavioural assessment (CHEOPS and OPS) are used. Finally, morphine consumption with PCA is also an indirect pain assessment method. Postoperative pain should be assessed several times a day in every patient, starting in the recovery room and prolonged during hospital stay. Pain should be measured at rest and in dynamic conditions by the medical and paramedical team.

Age Factors↗

PubMed1998

Evaluation of early motor and sensory evoked potentials in cervical spinal cord injury.

To determine the efficacy of motor evoked potentials (MEP) and sensory evoked potentials (SEP) in the assessment of severe cervical injury, 17 subjects with severe cervical injury were studied. During the 1st week post-injury and post-surgical treatment, all subjects were submitted to electromyogram (EMG) recordings, dermatomal somatosensory evoked potentials (D.SEP), posterior tibial nerve somatosensory evoked potentials (PTN.SEP), MEP and bilateral cervical electrical stimulations with recording of the diaphragm. For the D.SEP, the latencies of the N9 and N20 responses and the conduction time (N9-N20) were measured in the upper limbs; the latencies of the P40 and P60 responses were measured in the lower limbs. MEP were recorded from distal upper and lower limb muscles following transcranial electrical stimulation of the cortex. (Magnetic stimulation was not indicated because of implanted metallic material in the cervical skull of many patients.) A SEP and MEP grading system was used to improve the assessment of different root neurological levels. In patients with incomplete lesions PTN.SEP, D.SEP and MEP responses could be recorded in territories that were clinically deficient. Patients with complete lesions and absent SEP and MEP responses had a poor outcome. A good correlation was found between the severity of the spinal cord injury and SEP grading. For MEP, the presence or absence of intercostal responses (C4) to cervical and cortical stimulation was the best prognostic indicator. The combined electrophysiological exploration of MEP and SEP proved to be a useful tool for monitoring patients with severe spinal cord injury.

Adolescent↗

PubMed1997

[Assessment of a new light guide (Trachlight) for tracheal intubation].

OBJECTIVE: To assess the learning curve of a new lighwand device, Trachlight (Laerdal), for blind orotracheal intubation in patients without foreseen difficulty in airway management. STUDY DESIGN: Open, prospective, clinical study. USERS: Twelve persons practicing anaesthesia (specialists, trainees, nurses) underwent videotape learning and manikin training with ten successful intubation manoeuvres required with the device. METHODS: Each person had to carry out a tracheal intubation in ten consecutive patients undergoing scheduled surgery and without history or clinical sign of difficults airway management. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty patients were included. The overall success rate with the Trachlight was 87%. An easy learning curve was obtained as demonstrated by the low failure rate in the first three patients, and by the success rate on the first or second attempt in the last four patients. There was no significant difference in failure rate with or without muscle relaxation (10 vs 20%, NS). Finally, all failures with the Trachlight were followed by successful intubation using direct laryngoscopy, and no traumatic complications were recorded with the device. CONCLUSION: Trachlight is a new lightwand device enabling blind tracheal intubation with a easy learning curve in patients without difficulty in airway management, even for non-selected operators.

Adult↗