Biomedical subjects

Juan M Africano

Publications and source records attributed to Juan M Africano.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2003

Agreement between percentage pain reductions calculated from numeric rating scores of pain intensity and those reported by patients with acute or cancer pain.

The use of percentage pain reduction is increasingly used to evaluate the effectiveness of pain treatments, but the degree of agreement between calculated percentage pain reduction (CPPR) as calculated from pre- and post-treatment levels of pain intensity and those reported directly by patients is unknown. Lack of agreement between these two measures could lead to errors in the determination of treatment effectiveness. We aimed to determine the agreement between CPPR and patient-reported percentage pain reduction (PRPPR). Patients with acute or cancer pain were asked to rate their pain intensity on a 0-10 verbal numerical rating scale (NRS) and to estimate the percent pain reduction from baseline pain after analgesic administration. They then received analgesics every 10 min until pain intensity declined to 4/10 or less. To evaluate agreement between CPPR and PRPPR, we computed the concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), which measures both accuracy and precision, and estimated the 95% limits of agreement for the differences between these two measures. 761 adult patients were enrolled. Female, healthy patients with acute pain of severe intensity and high levels of education predominated in the sample. The mean difference between CPPR and PRPPR was -2.6% (95% limits of agreement -12 to 17%). The CCC was 0.56 (accuracy was 0.9 and precision was 0.6). Although CPPR appeared to underestimate PRPPR in the higher range, this trend was not clinically important. The agreement between percentage pain reductions calculated from NRS scores and those estimated by patients did not vary according to gender or age. The good overall agreement between percentage pain reductions calculated from NRS scores and those estimated by patients suggests that these indices may be used interchangeably. The findings of this study extend existing patient-centered pain research and may be applied for the evaluation and comparison of pain treatments.

Acute Disease↗

PubMed2003

What decline in pain intensity is meaningful to patients with acute pain?

Despite widespread use of the 0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS) of pain intensity, relatively little is known about the meaning of decreases in pain intensity assessed by means of this scale to patients. We aimed to establish the meaning to patients of declines in pain intensity and percent pain reduction. Upon arrival to the postanesthesia care unit, postsurgical patients rated their baseline pain intensity on both a 0-10 NRS and on a 4-point verbal scale. Patients whose NRS was higher than 4/10 received intravenous opioids until their pain intensity declined to 4/10 or lower. During opioid titration, patients were asked every 10 min to rate pain intensity on a NRS and to indicate the degree of pain improvement on a 5-point Likert scale from 'no improvement' to 'complete pain relief'. Seven hundred adult patients were enrolled. For patients with moderate pain, a decrease of 1.3 units (20% reduction) corresponded to 'minimal' improvement, a decrease of 2.4 (35% reduction) to 'much' improvement, a decrease of 3.5 units (45% reduction) corresponded to 'very much' improvement. For patients with severe pain, the decrease in NRS pain score and the percentage of pain relief had to be larger to obtain similar degrees of pain relief. The change in pain intensity that is meaningful to patients increases as the severity of their baseline pain increases. The present findings are applicable in the clinical setting and research arena to assess treatment efficacy.

Acute Disease↗

PubMed2002

The combination of low dose of naloxone and morphine in PCA does not decrease opioid requirements in the postoperative period.

The continuous infusion of low doses of naloxone has been reported to decrease postoperative opioid requirements and opioid side effects. However, there is no study that evaluates the effectiveness of the combination of a low dose of naloxone and morphine using patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). This prospective, randomized double-blind controlled study sought to determine if the combination of a low dose of naloxone and morphine in a PCA solution decreases postoperative opioid requirements and pain intensity. One hundred sixty-six patients (18-65 years old) undergoing operations of less than 3 h duration with an American Society of Anesthesiologist physical status I or II were randomized to receive PCA morphine 1 mg/cc plus normal saline or PCA morphine 1 mg/cc plus naloxone 6 microg/cc. Initial PCA settings were 0.5 cc per demand with a lockout time of 10 min. The numbers of 2.5 cc supplemental rescue doses and the cumulative dose of each solution were recorded in the first 24 h after the surgical procedure. Pain intensity and opioid side effects were evaluated every 10 min in the post-anesthesia care unit and every 4 h afterwards. Patient satisfaction was assessed at the end of the 24 h of observation. The morphine+naloxone group had more treatment failures (P=0.0001), higher opioid requirements (P=0.0097), greater pain intensity (P=0.04), less pain relief (P=0.004), and less satisfaction (P=0.01) than the morphine group. The incidence of side effects was similar in both groups (P=0.3). Contrary to previous reports, adding low doses of naloxone to a morphine PCA solution increases opioid requirements and pain.

Adult↗