[Pain inhibition by opioids-new concepts]

Comparison of a single intravenous infusion of alfentanil or sufentanil combined with target-controlled infusion of propofol for daytime hysteroscopy: a randomized clinical trial

Background

The administration of either alfentanil or sufentanil as a single injection, combined with target-controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol, represents a frequently employed anesthetic regimen for daytime hysteroscopy.

Objectives

This study was designed to evaluate and compare the safety and efficacy of alfentanil and sufentanil in the context of daytime hysteroscopy.

Design

A total of 160 patients, scheduled for daytime hysteroscopy, were randomly allocated into two groups: Group A and Group S respectively received alfentanil 10 μg/kg or sufentanil 0.15 μg/kg as a single intravenous injection. Both groups were given propofol with TCI for sedation.

Methods

Monitoring of vital signs was conducted from pre-anesthesia through to 2 h postoperatively. The primary outcome measured was hypoxemia, defined as SpO2 levels below 92% for a duration of 30 s, which necessitated manual positive pressure ventilation. Secondary outcomes included various perioperative complications, such as postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) occurring 2 h after surgery, as well as hemodynamic indicators, NRS scores for pain, and other anesthesia-related data. This comprehensive dataset was meticulously documented and subsequently analyzed for comparative purposes.

Results

The analyses revealed that Group A had a significantly lower incidence of hypoxemia (p = 0.002) and PONV (p = 0.021). Additionally, group A demonstrated overall more stable blood pressure and heart rate, as well as higher SpO2 levels.

Conclusion

For daytime hysteroscopy, alfentanil at a dose of 10 μg/kg is safer than sufentanil at a dose of 0.15 μg/kg when combined with propofol TCI.

Trial registration

This study was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (The URL of registration is https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=177784; registration number: ChiCTR2200063939). The date of first registration was September 21, 2022.

[Practice of perioperative phantom limb pain prevention in Germany: a nationwide survey]

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of phantom limb pain after major amputation remains high and affected patients suffer from relevant impairments in the quality of life. Perioperative treatment strategies may prevent phantom limb pain. This study aims to assess the state of the perioperative anesthesiological pain management for major amputations. Furthermore, it analyzes potentials for optimization and barriers towards a better treatment of patients with amputations.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This online survey was distributed by the German Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI) mailing list of anesthesiological consultants. It was approved by the Charité ethics board.

RESULTS

Overall, 402 persons participated in this survey. Mostly, general anesthesia (85%), regional anesthesia (63%) and neuraxial anesthesia (49%) were performed in different combinations. Furthermore, 72% of participants reported using i.v. opioids postoperatively, mostly applied via patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). In contrast, preoperative regional anesthesia (74%) and gabapentinoids (67%) were seen as potential methods to improve treatment; however, barrier analysis revealed that treatment options are limited especially by organizational aspects and intrinsic patient factors.

CONCLUSION

This survey describes the current practice of phantom limb pain prevention in Germany. It shows an unmet need for specialized perioperative pain treatment. As the evidence regarding treatment recommendations is limited, further research questions can be deduced from this study.

Risikostratifizierung in der Rheumatologie: Analgetika-Therapie

Auch im Biologika-Zeitalter ist Schmerz ein häufiges Symptom bei Patienten mit rheumatischen Erkrankungen. NSAR sind dabei unverändert meist Mittel der ersten Wahl. Insbesondere aufgrund ihres gastrointestinalen, kardiovaskulären und renalen Nebenwirkungspotenzials erfordert ihr Einsatz eine individuelle Risikostratifizierung beim Patienten in Abhänggigkeit von der zugrundeliegenden Erkrankung, den Komorbiditäten und der Komedikation.

Bei NSAR-Versagen oder -Unverträglichkeit stehen nur wenige Nichtopioid-Analgetika als Alternative zur Verfügung. Paracetamol ist häufig nicht ausreichend effektiv und bedarf eines hepatischen Monitorings. Beim Einsatz von Metamizol ist bei meist guter Wirksamkeit und allgemein guter Verträglichkeit über die sehr seltene Möglichkeit einer Agranulozytose und deren Symptome aufzuklären. Sofern auch hiermit keine zufriedenstellende Schmerzkontrolle möglich ist, können Opioide zum Einsatz kommen. Die Risikostratifizierung erfordert hier ein leitliniengerechtes Abwägen des zu erwartenden Nutzens in Abhängigkeit von der Grunderkrankung einerseits und den Risiken andererseits, wobei v. a. psychische Effekte einschl. Missbrauchs- und Abhängigkeitspotenzial, Übelkeit, Obstipation und erhöhtes Sturzrisiko im Fokus stehen.

Für die nahe Zukunft sind keine wesentlichen Neuentwicklungen bei den Analgetika zu erwarten, sodass die individuelle Risikostratifizierung für die derzeit verfügbaren Präparate langfristig entscheidend für eine optimale Therapie des einzelnen Patienten bleiben wird.