Biomedical subjects

P J Duffy

Publications and source records attributed to P J Duffy.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed1999

The epidural blood patch. Resolving the controversies.

PURPOSE: To review the literature regarding epidural blood patch (EBP) to generate conclusions relating to the controversial issues surrounding its application. SOURCE: A Medline search was made for relevant publications using keywords epidural blood patch, prophylactic epidural blood patch, dural puncture, and postdural puncture headache. Bibliographies of retrieved articles were hand-searched for relevant articles. Case series and comparative trials were emphasized in the analyses. These were culled and those deemed relevant were reviewed. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The majority of the literature consists of observational reports: there are few comparative studies. Headache most likely results from cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) loss leading to intracranial content shift and traction on pain sensitive structures; cerebrovascular alterations may be implicated. An EBP with 10-15 ml blood is indicated and effective therapy for severe headache after dural puncture. There is conflicting evidence regarding larger volume blood injections or delaying EBP for 24 hr or more after the diagnosis of postdural puncture headache (PDPH). Efficacy of EBP is related to a "patch effect" as well as transmission of increased epidural space pressure to the CSF space. Previous estimates of EBP efficacy were overgenerous; persistent symptomatic relief can be expected in 61-75% of patients with initial EBP. Patching with non-blood solutions, although initially effective, is associated with a high incidence of headache recurrence. Prophylactic injection of saline or blood decreases the incidence of severe headache after dural puncture. CONCLUSION: Blood-patching is an effective treatment of PDPH but further research is required regarding its mechanisms and prophylaxis.

Anesthesia, Epidural↗

PubMed1997

Treatment of intrathecal morphine-induced pruritus following caesarean section.

PURPOSE: To compare both the efficacy and cost of nalbuphine and diphenhydramine in the treatment of intrathecal morphine-induced pruritus following Caesarean section. METHODS: Eighty patients, undergoing elective Caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia, were randomized, in a prospective, double-blind trial, to receive either nalbuphine (Group NAL) or diphenhydramine (Group DIP) for the treatment of SAB morphine-induced pruritus. All patients received an intrathecal injection of 10-12 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.75% and 200 micrograms preservative free morphine. Postoperative pruritus was assessed, using a visual analogue scale (VAS), for 24 hr. Pruritus treatment was administered upon patient request and by a nurse blinded to the treatment given. Patients who failed to respond to three doses of the study drug were deemed treatment failures. Patient satisfaction was assessed with a questionnaire given 24 to 48 hr after surgery. Direct drug costs were calculated based on the pharmacy provision costs as of April 1996. RESULTS: Eighty patients were enrolled and 45 requested treatment for pruritus. Patients treated with NAL (n = 24) were more likely to achieve a VAS score of zero with treatment (83% vs 43%, P < 0.01), had a higher delta VAS following treatment (4 +/- 2 vs 2 +/- 2, P < 0.003), and experienced fewer treatment failures (4% vs 29%, P < 0.04), than those treated with DIP (n = 21). Group NAL patients were also more likely to rate their pruritus treatment as being good to excellent (96% vs 57%, P < 0.004). Direct drug costs were higher for NAL than for DIP ($6.4 +/- 3.1 vs $1.7 +/- 0.7, respectively, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Nalbuphine is more effective than diphenhydramine in relieving pruritus caused by intrathecal morphine and the cost differences are small.

Adult↗

PubMed1996