Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to M J Paech.
A lumbar epidural catheter inserted in a 24-year-old woman for labour analgesia, and subsequently used for post-caesarean epidural analgesia, proved difficult to remove. After multiple attempts, the entrapped catheter was dislodged intact, revealing a knot near its distal tip. Knotting of an epidural catheter leading to entrapment is a rare complication of epidural catheterization.
Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, including ketorolac, are widely used for postoperative analgesia. This randomized, double-blinded trial compared IV ketorolac or saline combined with meperidine patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) after cesarean delivery. Fifty healthy parturients scheduled for elective cesarean delivery under combined spinal-epidural anesthesia received PCEA plus either IV ketorolac (Group K) or saline (Group C) for 24 h. The ketorolac dose was modified, after six patients had been studied, based on new product information recommending a maximum of 120 mg ketorolac over 24 h. Group K (n = 24) and Group C (n = 20) were demographically similar. During the first 24 h, Group K used significantly less meperidine (P < 0.05). Postoperative pain at rest and with movement, and patient satisfaction, did not differ significantly between groups, except that worst pain at 12 h was less in Group K (P < 0.005). The two groups were similar with respect to patient recovery and side effects. IV ketorolac, as an adjunct to PCEA after cesarean delivery, produced a meperidine dose-sparing effect of approximately 30%, but did not significantly improve pain relief, reduce opioid-related side effects, or change patient outcome.
A randomised, blinded clinical trial was performed to evaluate intraspinal opioid analgesic techniques after caesarean section. Healthy term parturients having elective caesarean section under combined spinal-epidural anaesthesia were allocated to one of three groups. Postoperative analgesia, including non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, was provided using either pethidine patient-controlled epidural analgesia (group PCEA) or subarachnoid morphine 200 microg, the latter supplemented as required with patient-controlled intravenous pethidine (group SMPCIA) or oral paracetamol and codeine (group SMO). Maternal analgesia, side effects, recovery and satisfaction were assessed for 48 h. Of 144 parturients enrolled, 137 completed the study (PCEA n = 44, SMPCIA n = 45, SMO n = 48). The groups were demographically similar. All participants experienced good pain relief, including median visual analogue pain scores (0-100) with movement <40 between 0-24 h. However, pain scores were significantly lower at 8 and 12 h in those receiving subarachnoid morphine (P< 0.05). Women in groups receiving subarachnoid morphine experienced more severe pruritus (P<0.001), nausea (P< 0.001) and drowsiness (P< 0.05). Postoperative recovery of bowel function and ambulation occurred earlier in those using PCEA, although this did not appear to be of clinical significance. Patient satisfaction was similar, although women in group SMO were least likely to choose this approach again (P<0.05). We concluded that all three techniques provided effective analgesia for a prolonged period postoperatively. Better pain relief, but more opioid-related side effects, resulted from subarachnoid morphine 200 microg, and re-evaluation of reduced doses of subarachnoid morphine may be warranted.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether adverse effects in a premature neonate could be attributed to nefazodone exposure via breast milk. CASE SUMMARY: The breast-fed white infant (female, 2.1 kg, 36 weeks corrected gestational age) of a 35-year-old woman (60 kg) taking nefazodone 300 mg/d was admitted to the hospital because she was drowsy, lethargic, unable to maintain normal body temperature, and was feeding poorly. A diagnosis of exposure to nefazodone via breast milk was considered only after other more likely diagnoses had been excluded. After breast feeding was discontinued, the infant's symptoms resolved slowly over a period of 72 hours. The maternal plasma and milk concentration-time profiles for nefazodone and its metabolites, triazoledione, HO-nefazodone, and m-chlorphenylpiperazine, were quantified by HPLC. The calculated infant dose for nefazodone and its active metabolites (as nefazodone equivalents) via the milk was only 0.45% of the weight-adjusted maternal nefazodone daily dose. DISCUSSION: Our data suggest a putative association between maternal nefazodone ingestion and adverse effects in a premature breast-fed neonate. The measured amount of drug exposure would normally be considered safe in a full-term infant. However, there was a temporal relationship between resolution of adverse effects in the infant and cessation of breastfeeding. CONCLUSIONS: This case highlights the importance of individualizing the risk-benefit analysis for exposure to antidepressants in breast milk, especially when dealing with premature neonates.
We describe a 27-year-old woman with osteogenesis imperfecta who, over a period of 9 years, underwent five caesarean sections under regional anaesthesia without major complication. The first three operations were conducted under epidural and the last two under spinal anaesthesia. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section in a parturient with osteogenesis imperfecta.
The use of epidural analgesia (EA) during labour is increasing in Australasia. This highlights the need for improved educational and resource materials, current factual information about EA, and identification of consumer attitudes towards EA. In this survey, 350 parturients who had recently used EA for labour pain relief in a single maternity unit were asked to complete a questionnaire about their expectations and experience. The response rate was 90%. Prepartum information was most commonly derived from hearsay and least commonly from medical health professionals, 56% of respondents wanted pain to be made tolerable and 34% wanted complete pain relief. Almost half considered unrestricted mobility and delivery without obstetric assistance important. A minority were concerned about possible effects of EA on the baby or labour outcome. Anticipated pain during epidural placement was significantly greater than that experienced. Satisfaction with EA was high, although 36% described unpleasant or annoying effects associated with EA. Parent educators and epidural service providers should be aided by knowledge of where parturients obtain information and of consumer views about EA.
Although epidural anaesthesia and analgesia are widely used in obstetrics, there are no large contemporary prospective series detailing associated complications. Prospective data was collected on all obstetric epidural blocks performed for labour and delivery in a single institution between July 1989 and August 1994. A data entry sheet was compiled and entered onto a computer database. Confidence intervals for proportions were calculated using standard methods. Information from 10 995 epidural blocks was analysed. Epidural analgesia in labour was the primary indication in 7648, and anaesthesia for caesarean section in 3311. Minor complications included failed or abandoned insertion (incidence 0.5%), reinsertion of the epidural catheter (5%), and inadequate anaesthesia (1.7%) or analgesia (0.9%). Three percent were associated with venous puncture and 0.6% with accidental dural puncture. Maternal mortality was zero. Unexpectedly high blocks occurred on eight occasions (0.07%), two requiring intubation and ventilation. Three women (0.06%) experienced mild respiratory depression after postoperative epidural opioid. There was no major local anaesthetic toxicity or neurological deficit. The incidence of potentially life-threatening morbidity was thus 0.02% although in both cases outcome was good. The only persisting complication was neurological, an apparent epidural catheter-induced traumatic mononeuropathy.
Water intoxication during pregnancy is an uncommon event, usually associated with iatrogenic fluid overload, the prolonged administration of high doses of oxytocin or psychiatric disorder. This case report describes water intoxication presenting as the sudden onset of grand mal convulsions in the immediate postpartum period, after a normal delivery in a healthy parturient. The most likely explanation was an excessive voluntary ingestion of large quantities of water and hypotonic fluids during labour.
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is still an important and common problem. Despite the introduction of new antiemetic drugs, the management of PONV remains difficult. In this article we describe the development and evaluation of a management protocol for PONV, which consists of a treatment algorithm accompanied by a nursing education program. Implementation of this management protocol has been well-accepted by staff, appears to have reduced delay in patient treatment and improved patient care, and has significantly reduced staff workload. It is planned to use continuous quality improvement techniques to further refine the algorithm and continue assessment of its efficacy and of patient satisfaction.
A survey was conducted amongst labour ward midwives at our hospital to evaluate education, knowledge and attitudes toward the management of epidural analgesia in labour. Sixty of 80 distributed forms were returned, giving a 75% response rate. Forty-two per cent of respondents had more than ten years' practice experience. Only 51% achieved a predetermined pass score for knowledge about epidural analgesia. Though most had received formal education about epidural analgesia, 35% felt postgraduate education was insufficient. A majority of midwives supported epidural analgesia on demand (78%), during established labour (74%), or for women at increased risk of caesarean section (82%). Midwives with lower knowledge levels were more likely to recommend epidural analgesia early in labour to multiparous women (P = 0.001) and to women with either a small or a large baby (P = 0.06). The majority of midwives (93%, 70% and 65%) would "almost always" top-up women with cardiac or medical diseases, multiple pregnancy or hypertensive disease, respectively. A clear requirement for ongoing education, with input from the anaesthetic department, was identified, irrespective of personal experience. Practice patterns are discussed and recommendations made with respect to improvement of epidural analgesia management and continuing education.
A survey of all registered obstetrician/gynaecologists in Western Australia (n = 79) was conducted to obtain information regarding their level of knowledge about epidural analgesia (EA) in labour and its complications, their sources of information about EA, and their opinions regarding its role in labour and effect on progress of labour. Response rate was 68%. Most respondents had only received lectures about EA after specialist training and 20% did not achieve an adequate knowledge score. Those of less than five years' experience achieved significantly better scores. Over a third did not favour EA in labour until active labour was established, though 90% would recommend it by late first stage in those with a potentially complicated delivery. For women with cardiac or significant medical disease aggravated by labour, 18% would wait until the late first or second stage before suggesting EA. Seventy-seven per cent believed EA prolonged the second stage of labour, though opinion varied regarding EA effects on the duration and progress of first and third stages. Up to thirty minutes delay before epidural placement is acceptable to 87%. This survey suggests that there is both a demand and a need for greater education about EA in labour, particularly with respect to EA side-effects, complications and effects on labour, in the subgroup of obstetricians who have been in obstetric practice more than five years.
The aim of this randomized, double-blind trial of postoperative thoracic epidural analgesic infusions was to determine whether clonidine at 10 microg/h (group C10, n = 22), 15 microg/h (Group C15, n = 24), or 20 microg/h (Group C20, n = 24) improved postoperative analgesia in patients undergoing abdominal gynecologic surgery, without side effects or hemodynamic changes, when added to a 5-mL/h infusion of 0.125% bupivacaine and fentanyl 2 microg/mL (Group CO, n = 22). The 24-h study infusion was supplemented, as required, by patient-controlled epidural fentanyl. Groups were similar for age, weight, duration, and type of surgery. Clonidine produced a dose-dependent improvement in analgesia at rest. Only 20 microg/h significantly increased the percentage of patients who experienced no pain with coughing (relative risk 1.44, 95% confidence interval 1.24-1.94), reduced pain scores with coughing (P < 0.05), and significantly lowered supplementary fentanyl requirements (P < 0.05). Groups were similar for sedation, pruritus, nausea, time to ambulation, and satisfaction with analgesia. Clonidine produced a dose-dependent decrease in blood pressure and pulse rate and an increase in vasopressor requirement (P < 0.01). Epidural clonidine infused at 20 microg/h improves analgesia during coughing when combined with epidural bupivacaine-fentanyl in patients undergoing lower abdominal surgery but is associated with hemodynamic changes and increased vasopressor requirement.
UNLABELLED: Epidural anesthesia (EA) and combined spinal-epidural anesthesia (CSEA) are popular anesthetic techniques for elective cesarean section. A randomized, blind study was conducted to compare maternal experiences during these regional anesthetics. EA was established using alkalinized 2% lidocaine with epinephrine and fentanyl, whereas spinal anesthesia was performed using 2.5 mL hyperbaric 0.5% bupivacaine and fentanyl via a single-space CSEA approach. Both patients and observers were blinded to the anesthetic technique allocation. One hundred twenty patients were enrolled; 6 were withdrawn (Group EA, n = 55; Group CSEA, n = 59). Of the two techniques, CSEA was associated with earlier onset times (P < 0.001), more intense motor block (P < 0.05), and greater ephedrine use (P < 0.01). Anxiety was significantly lower (P < 0.05) and satisfaction was higher (P < 0.05) before starting surgery with CSEA. Pain scores were lower pre- and intraoperatively with CSEA, a difference that became significant during block placement and at delivery (P < 0.05). There were no differences between groups in the incidence or severity of hypotension and nausea or analgesic supplementation rate; or for postoperative assessments of intraoperative pain, anxiety and satisfaction, and postpartum backache and headache. We conclude that maternal conditions and experience were good with both methods, although CSEA conferred several minor advantages. IMPLICATIONS: Epidural and combined spinal-epidural anesthesia are often used for elective cesarean sections. Although the combined spinal-epidural anesthetic technique conferred minor advantages, both techniques were associated with low anesthetic failure rates, good operative conditions, and high maternal satisfaction levels.
PCEA is an attractive concept with special benefits in the obstetric population. It provides a safe and valuable alternative to other approaches to labour analgesia, with demonstrable advantages when used appropriately by motivated women. It also appears to be useful for management of pain after caesarean section. It may occasionally be of benefit in other acute and chronic pain settings in the obstetric population. Despite promising initial results, the full potential of PCEA remains to be explored, and this may be encouraged by ongoing developments in PCA pump technology. Comprehensive comparative studies and large prospective clinical series, further defining its role and safety in various settings, are awaited.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
A randomized double-blind study was conducted in 83 women scheduled for elective caesarean section to determine the efficacy of EMLA and lignocaine infiltration for epidural insertion. The patients were randomly allocated to one of three groups: Group A (EM/LIG) received EMLA and intradermal and subdermal 1% lignocaine infiltration, Group B (EM/SAL) EMLA and saline while Group C (PL/LIG) received placebo cream and 1% lignocaine. Assessments using a 100 mm pain score were performed on skin infiltration and after subsequent insertion of a 16 gauge Tuohy needle into the supraspinous ligament. Skin changes under the applied cream and nursing rating of patients' response were also noted. Statistical analyses were performed using Kruskal-Wallis and Fisher's Exact Tests. Groups were comparable for age, weight, parity and EMLA application time (interquartile range 105-150 minutes). There were significantly higher pain scores for skin infiltration in Group C (PL/LIG) (P < 0.01) and for epidural needle insertion in Group B (EM/SAL) (P < 0.05). We concluded that in this patient population, the application of EMLA cream for at least 90 minutes plus 1% lignocaine infiltration optimized patient comfort for epidural insertion.
A prospective, randomized study was performed to detail clinical experience with both patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) and midwife-administered intermittent bolus (IB) epidural analgesia during labour, under the conditions pertaining in a busy obstetric delivery unit. Both methods used 0.125% bupivacaine plus fentanyl, and similar rescue supplementation, although management decisions related to epidural analgesia were made principally by attending midwives. One hundred and ninety-eight women were recruited and data analysed from 167 (PCEA n = 82, IB n = 85). The groups were demographically similar. Median hourly pain scores, ratings of analgesia and satisfaction did not differ. Maximum pain scores were significantly higher in those receiving IB epidural analgesia (P < 0.05). The PCEA group had a significantly higher rate of supplementation and bupivacaine use (P < 0.01), and a longer duration of the second stage of labour (P < 0.03). The relative risk of instrumental delivery with PCEA versus the IB method was 1.57 (CI 1.07-2.38). Experience within our unit with PCEA is contrasted with that of IB epidural analgesia, the method most commonly used; and with that of controlled trials comparing these two methods.
The new antiemetic ondansetron is effective for the prophylaxis and treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), but has been subject to limited comparative evaluation in surgical inpatients. Two hundred and seventy women having abdominal gynaecological surgery were investigated for 24 hours postoperatively in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of intraoperative intravenous ondansetron 8 mg (n = 83), droperidol 2.5 mg (n = 89) or saline placebo (n = 87). Patients receiving either ondansetron or droperidol remained likely to vomit, although the incidence was significantly reduced compared with placebo (72% and 83% versus 91%, P < 0.01). Both drugs also resulted in significantly fewer vomiting episodes (P < 0.001), lower nausea scores (P < 0.05) and a lower incidence of patients requiring treatment for PONV (P < 0.01). Compared with droperidol, the risk of vomiting after ondansetron was less (odds ratio 0.5, CI 0.3-1.0). Ondansetron resulted in fewer vomiting episodes (P < 0.05) and a higher percentage of patients free of nausea after six hours postoperatively (P < 0.05). In patients with a past history of PONV, both drugs had a similar short-lived antiemetic effect, reducing the incidence of vomiting and the need for treatment while in the recovery room, but not thereafter. Droperidol was associated with significantly less headache (P < 0.05), but higher early sedation scores (P < 0.05). Although, compared to placebo, both droperidol and ondansetron administered intraoperatively reduced vomiting after major abdominal gynaecological surgery, the incidence during the first 24 postoperative hours was very high in all groups. Ondansetron reduced the risk of experiencing nausea after six hours postoperatively and the risk of vomiting, with respect to the total number of episodes, in the first 24 hours. It was no better than droperidol, however, in reducing the incidence of vomiting or the need for antiemetic treatment during the first postoperative day, whether or not patients had a past history of PONV. It was no better than droperidol, however, in reducing the incidence of vomiting or the need for antiemetic treatment during the first postoperative day, whether or not patients had a past history of PONV.