Oral ketamine and dexmedetomidine in adults' burns wound dressing--A randomized double blind cross over study

Antinociceptive and adverse effects of morphine:ketamine mixtures in rats

Prescription opioids are the gold standard for treating moderate to severe pain despite their well-documented adverse effects. Of all prescription medications, opioids are abused most widely, and fatal overdoses have reached epidemic levels. One strategy for improving the margin of safety of opioids is combining them with non-opioid drugs to decrease the opioid dose needed for pain relief, thereby reducing adverse effects that occur with larger doses. The N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist ketamine has been used safely as an analgesic but only under a very limited range of conditions. The current studies characterized the antinociceptive, behavioral suppressant, and gastrointestinal effects of morphine and ketamine alone and in mixtures to determine their interaction in 24 adult male Sprague-Dawley rats (n = 8 per assay). Given alone, both morphine and ketamine produced antinociception, decreased responding for food, and reduced gastrointestinal transit (i.e. produced constipation). The effects of morphine:ketamine mixtures generally were additive, except for the antinociceptive effects of 1:1 mixtures for which the difference in slope (i.e. non-parallel shift) between the observed and predicted effects suggested synergy at smaller doses and additivity at larger doses. The potency of morphine to produce constipation was not enhanced by administration of morphine:ketamine mixtures with antinociceptive effects. The nature of the interaction between morphine and ketamine for adverse effects such as dependence, withdrawal, abuse, or respiratory depression remains unknown but also might be related to the ratio of each drug in mixtures. It will be important to identify conditions that produce the largest potential therapeutic window in humans.

The Role of Ketamine as a Component of Multimodal Analgesia in Burns: A Retrospective Observational Study

Background: Burn wound dressing and debridement are excruciatingly painful procedures that call for appropriate analgesia-typically multimodal. Better post-procedural pain management, less opioid use, and consequently fewer side effects, which could prolong recovery and increase morbidity, are all benefits of this type of analgesia. Intravenously administered ketamine can be effective as monotherapy or in combination with opioids, especially with procedural sedation such as in burn wound dressing. Methods: This observational study investigated the effect of ketamine administered in subanesthetic doses combined with opioids during burn wound dressing. The study was conducted from October 2018 to October 2021. A total of 165 patients met the inclusion criteria. A total of 82 patients were in the ketamine group, while 83 patients were dressed without ketamine. The main outcome was the effect of ketamine on intraprocedural opioid consumption. The secondary outcome included the effect of ketamine on postprocedural pain control. Results: Patients dressed with ketamine were significantly older (p = 0.001), while the mean doses of intraoperatively administered propofol and fentanyl were significantly lower than in patients dressed without ketamine (150 vs. 220 mg, p < 0.001; and 0.075 vs. 0.150 mg, p < 0.001; respectively). Conclusions: Ketamine was an independent predictor of lower intraoperative fentanyl consumption, according to the multivariate regression analysis (p = 0.015). Contrarily, both groups of patients required postoperative tramadol treatment, while intraoperative ketamine administration had no beneficial effects on postoperative pain management.

Effects of dexmedetomidine in non-operating room anesthesia in adults: a systematic review with meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is an α2-adrenergic receptor agonist used for its sedative, analgesic, and anxiolytic effects. Non-Operating Room Anesthesia (NORA) is a modality of anesthesia that can be done under general anesthesia or procedural sedation or/and analgesia. In this particular setting, a level-2 sedation, such as the one provided by DEX, is beneficial. We aimed to study the effects and safety of DEX in the different NORA settings in the adult population.

METHODS

A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted. Interventions using DEX only or DEX associated with other sedative agents, in adults (18 years old or more), were included. Procedures outside the NORA setting and/or without a control group without DEX were excluded. MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Scopus, LILACS, and SciELO were searched. The primary outcome was time until full recovery. Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic and respiratory complications and other adverse events, among others.

RESULTS

A total of 97 studies were included with a total of 6,706 participants. The meta-analysis demonstrated that DEX had a higher time until full recovery (95% CI = [0.34, 3.13] minutes, a higher incidence of hypotension (OR = 1.95 [1.25, 3.05], p = 0.003, I2 = 39%) and bradycardia (OR = 3.60 [2.29, 5.67], p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%), and a lower incidence of desaturation (OR = 0.40 [0.25, 0.66], p = 0.0003, I² = 60%).

CONCLUSION

DEX in NORA procedures in adults was associated with a lower incidence of amnesia and respiratory effects but had a long time to recovery and more hemodynamic complications.

Pharmacologic Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Burn Patients

The majority of hospitalized burn patients experience pain, agitation, and delirium. The development of each one of these conditions can also lead to, or worsen, the others. Providers, therefore, need to thoroughly assess the underlying issue to determine the most effective treatment. Multimodal pharmacologic regimens are often used in conjunction with non-pharmacologic strategies to manage pain, agitation, and delirium. This review focuses on the pharmacologic management of these complicated patients in a critical-care setting.

Sublingual dexmedetomidine (BXCL501) reduces opioid withdrawal symptoms: findings from a multi-site, phase 1b/2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Background: Like other alpha-2-adrenergic receptor agonists, dexmedetomidine may reduce the severity of opioid withdrawal but with fewer adverse cardiovascular effects.Objective: This study assessed the safety of sublingual dexmedetomidine (BXCL501) and its preliminary efficacy in treating opioid withdrawal (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04470050).Methods: Withdrawal was induced among individuals with physiological dependence on opioids via discontinuation of oral morphine (Days 1-5). Participants were randomized to receive placebo or active BXCL501: 30, 60, 90, 120, 180, and 240 μg twice daily (Days 6-12). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcomes included the Clinical and Subjective Opiate Withdrawal Scales (COWS and SOWS-Gossop, respectively), and the Agitation and Calmness Evaluation Scale (ACES).Results: Of 225 participants enrolled, 90 discontinued during morphine stabilization. Post-BXCL501 randomization (Day 6) data were available from 135 participants (73% male), with 33% completing thru Day 12. In total, 36 subjects reported 1 or more TEAE. Higher doses of BXCL501 (i.e. 180 and 240 µg, twice daily) increased the frequency of: hypotension, orthostatic hypotension, and somnolence. TEAEs related to BXCL501 were mild or moderate in severity, except for one participant in the 120 µg condition whose orthostatic hypotension and bradycardia were classified as severe. Higher BXCL501 dose conditions (120, 180, and 240 µg) resulted in statistically significant reductions in COWS & SOWS scores. Mean ratings on the ACES were between 3 (mild), 4 (normal), and 5 (mild calmness), with few significant differences as a function of dose.Conclusions: These findings support the continued development of BXCL501 for the management of opioid withdrawal.

Dexmedetomidine premedication increases preoperative sedation and inhibits stress induced by tracheal intubation in adult: a prospective randomized double-blind clinical study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this prospective randomized double-blind study is to evaluate whether oral dexmedetomidine (DEX) premedication could increase sedation in order to reduce preoperative anxiety and inhibit stress response during general anesthesia tracheal intubation.

MATERIALS

A total of 100 ASA I and II adult patients undergoing elective neurosurgery were randomly divided into the control group (C group, n = 50) and the oral DEX premedication (DEX group, n = 50). Patients were administrated 4 μg/kg dexmedetomidine orally pre-anesthesia 120 min. Hemodynamic variables were monitored and recorded from premedication to 10 min after tracheal intubation. The primary outcome, the sedation level of all participants, was evaluated by Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS), and Numerical Rating Scale was to measure their intensity of thirst and satisfaction of patients' family members. During general anesthesia induction, the total dosage of induction anesthetics and complications relative to anesthesia induction were recorded. After tracheal intubation, blood sample was drain from radial atrial line to measure levels of adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) and cortisol.

RESULTS

RASS scores at 60 min after premedication and on arrival in the operating room were significantly reduced in the DEX group (P < 0.001). Oral DEX premedication not only increased the intensity of thirst but also the satisfaction of their family members (P < 0.001). The cortisol level after tracheal intubation was deduced by oral DEX premedication (P < 0.05). Oral DEX premedication reduced heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) on arrival in the operating room, and HR when tracheal intubation (P < 0.05). During the whole process of anesthesia induction, although the lowest MAP in two groups were not significantly different, the lowest HR was significantly lower in the DEX group (P < 0.05). Oral DEX premedication might reduce HR from premedication to 10 min after tracheal intubation. However MAP was reduced just from premedication to on arrival in the operating room. Total induction dosages of propofol, midazolam, sulfentanil and rocuronium were similar in two groups (P > 0.05), as well as the complications relative to anesthesia induction and cases of rescue dopamine therapy were similar (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Oral DEX 4 μg/kg premedication was an efficient intervention to increase preoperative sedation and reduce stress reaction induced by general anesthesia tracheal intubation, but also it was with the stable hemodynamic during the process of general anesthesia tracheal intubation, and improved the satisfaction of patients' family members. In this study, the sparing-anesthetic effect of 4 μg/kg DEX oral premedication was not significant, and this would be needed to study in future.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trail was registered at Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( https://www.chictr.org.cn , Jie Gao) on 15/04/2021, registration number was ChiCTR2100045458.

Sedation With Dexmedetomidine in Critically Ill Burn Patients Reduced Delirium During Weaning From Mechanical Ventilation

INTRODUCTION

Weaning of mechanical ventilation while maintaining appropriate pain control and preventing delirium is one of the most challenging aspects of burn care. Dexmedetomidine, an α₂-adrenergic receptor agonist used for sedation may improve intensive care unit (ICU) patients' arousal status and enhance patient comfort.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of dexmedetomidine vs. standardized usual care (midazolam or propofol) in maintaining sedation and reducing delirium in burn patients while weaning off mechanical ventilation.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 56 mechanically ventilated patients who fulfilled the criteria for weaning were enrolled in the study. Group 1 (26 patients) received dexmedetomidine 1 mcg/kg over 15 minutes as a loading dose, followed by 0.4-0.1 mcg/kg/h. Group 2 (30 patients) received usual sedation with midazolam 0.08 mg/kg/h or propofol 15- 30 mcg /kg/min).

RESULTS

 Dexmedetomidine was not associated with a significantly shorter duration of mechanical ventilation (Mean {IQR}: 9.3 {4,12} versus 7.5 {4,10}, p=0.3). Patients who received dexmedetomidine had a lower delirium rate (38,4% on Day 1 to 7,7% on Day 5) in comparison with patients from the usual care group (53,3% on Day 1 to 20% on Day 5) during the five days after the onset of weaning process (p=0.02) and had less need for supplemental use of analgesia (23.1% versus 53.3%, p=0.045) and antipsychotic agents (15.4% versus 53.3%, p=0.01). The most notable adverse effect of dexmedetomidine was bradycardia.

CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine may provide effective light sedation and is associated with fewer sedation-related adverse effects in burn patients. Sedation with dexmedetomidine during the weaning process in adult burn patients was associated with lower delirium rates, a trend towards the earlier withdrawal of mechanical ventilation but did not seem to improve the total duration of mechanical ventilation.

Delayed Adverse Events after Procedural Sedation in Pediatric Patients with Hematologic Malignancies

Background and objectives: Procedural sedation for bone marrow examination (BME) and intrathecal chemotherapy (ITC) is necessary for pediatric patients with hematological malignancies. There has been no report on adverse events after discharge from the recovery room. This retrospective study evaluated the types and incidences of delayed adverse events among pediatric patients scheduled for BME or ITC under deep sedation in a single center for 3 years. Materials and Methods: The patients were divided into two groups: inpatients (group I) and outpatients (group O). All patients were managed during the procedures and the recovery period. In total, 10 adverse events were assessed; these occurred 2 h (T1, acute), 12 h (T2, early), and 24 h (T3, delayed) after the procedure. The duration of each adverse event was also recorded and was classified as 2 h (D1), 12 h (D2), or 24 h (D3). The data of 263 patients (147 inpatients and 116 outpatients) who met the inclusion criteria were analyzed. Results: The overall incidence of adverse events was statistically significant difference: 48.3% in group I and 33.6% in group O (p = 0.011). The rates of adverse events at T1 and T2 were significantly different between groups I and O (42.8% vs. 11.2% and 7.5% vs. 20.7%, respectively) (p < 0.001). The adverse events were mostly of D1 or D2 duration in both groups. Patients with a higher proportion of ketamine in a propofol−ketamine mixture had a significantly higher proportion of adverse events at T1 (34.6%), as compared with those with a mixture with a lower proportion of ketamine (21.1%) or propofol alone (17.9%) (p = 0.012). Conclusions: The most common adverse events were dizziness or headache; typically, they did not last longer than 12 h. The propofol-ketamine combination with a higher proportion of ketamine seems to produce more adverse events within 2 h after the procedure. Nevertheless, all sedative types appear safe to use without additional management.

Analgesic Efficacy of Oral Aspirin/Ketamine Combination for Management of Acute Musculoskeletal Pain in the Emergency Department - A Proof of Concept Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

Musculoskeletal pain (MSK) affects one out of three adults and is the most common source of significant long-term pain, physical disability, and under-treatment in the emergency department (ED).

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the analgesic efficacy of a combination of oral VTS-Aspirin® (Vitalis Analgesics, New York, NY) and ketamine in managing acute MSK pain in adult ED patients.

METHODS

This was a prospective, proof-of-concept, single-arm, pilot study evaluating the analgesic efficacy of a single dose of oral combination of VTS-Aspirin and ketamine in adult ED patients with acute moderate-to-severe MSK pain. The primary outcome included the difference in pain scores on an 11-point numeric pain rating scale at 60 min. Secondary outcomes included the need for rescue analgesia, the occurrence of adverse events at 60 min, and a change in pain scores at 120 min.

RESULTS

We enrolled 25 subjects in the study. The mean baseline pain score was 8.6 and the mean pain score at 60 min decreased to 4.8. The oral ketamine dose ranged from 24 mg to 50 mg, with a mean dose of 37.8 mg. No clinically concerning changes in vital signs were noted. No serious adverse events occurred in any of the subjects. Majority of adverse effects were transient and weak in intensity.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated that administration of an oral combination of VTS-Aspirin and ketamine to adult ED patients with acute MSK pain resulted in clinically significant pain relief in 80% of enrolled subjects.

Patient-centred outcomes are under-reported in the critical care burns literature: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Developments in the care of critically ill patients with severe burns have led to improved hospital survival, but long-term recovery may be impaired. The extent to which patient-centred outcomes are assessed and reported in studies in this population is unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review to assess the outcomes reported in studies involving critically ill burns patients. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies on the topics of fluid resuscitation, analgesia, haemodynamic monitoring, ventilation strategies, transfusion targets, enteral nutrition and timing of surgery were included. We assessed the outcomes reported and then classified these according to two suggested core outcome sets.

RESULTS

A comprehensive search returned 6154 studies; 98 papers met inclusion criteria. There were 66 RCTs, 19 clinical studies with concurrent controls and 13 interventional studies without concurrent controls. Outcome reporting was inconsistent across studies. Pain, reported using the visual analogue scale, fluid volume administered and mortality were the only outcomes measured in more than three studies. Sixty-six studies (67%) had surrogate primary outcomes. Follow-up was poor, with median longest follow-up across all studies 5 days (IQR 3-28). When compared to the suggested OMERACT core outcome set, 53% of papers reported on mortality, 28% reported on life impact, 30% reported resource/economic outcomes and 95% reported on pathophysiological manifestations. Burns-specific Falder outcome reporting was globally poor, with only 4.3% of outcomes being reported across the 98 papers.

CONCLUSION

There are deficiencies in the reporting of outcomes in the literature pertaining to the intensive care management of patients with severe burns, both with regard to the consistency of outcomes as well as a lack of focus on patient-centred outcomes. Long-term outcomes are infrequently reported. The development and validation of a core outcome dataset for severe burns would improve the quality of reporting.

Efficacy of opioids and non-opioid analgesics in the treatment of post procedure pain of burned patients: a narrative review

Introduction

Burns are a common trauma that cause acute severe pain in up to 80% of patients. The objective of this narrative review is to evaluate the efficacy of opioids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, paracetamol, gabapentinoids, ketamine, and lidocaine in the treatment of acute pain in burn victims.

Methodology

The databases explored were PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials, and OpenGrey. The included randomized, controlled clinical trials assessed the analgesic efficacy of these drugs on hospitalized patients, had no age limit, patients were in the acute phase of the burn injury and were compared to placebo or other analgesic drugs. Studies describing deep sedation, chronic opioid use, chronic pain, and patients taken to reconstructive surgeries were excluded. The Jadad scale was used to evaluate quality.

Results

Six randomized controlled clinical trials (397 patients) that evaluated the analgesic efficacy of fentanyl (n = 2), nalbuphine (n = 1), ketamine (n = 1), gabapentin (n = 1), and lidocaine (n = 1) to treat post-procedural pain were included. Fentanyl, nalbuphine, and ketamine were effective, while lidocaine was associated with a slight increase in reported pain and gabapentin showed no significant differences. Two studies were of high quality, one was of medium high quality, and three were of low quality. No studies on the efficacy of NSAIDs or paracetamol were found.

Conclusion

Evidence of efficacy is very limited. Fentanyl, nalbuphine, and ketamine seem to be effective for controlling acute pain in burn patients, whereas gabapentin and lidocaine did not show any efficacy.

Comparing the Effect of Gabapentin, Ketamine, Dexmedetomidine, and Entonox on Pain Control in Burn Wound Dressing

This study aimed to evaluate differences in the experience of pain, nausea, and vomiting, as well as the hemodynamic parameters including heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP) in burn patients across four pain treatment groups-i.e., gabapentin, ketamine, dexmedetomidine, and entonox. In a single blinded randomized comparative study, 25 burn patients with second- or third-degree burns between 20% and 50% of their body surface were assigned to different treatment groups by using block randomization, while keeping the investigator blind to the size of the block. We recorded demographics, the hemodynamics, adverse effects, and pain levels before the treatment and again 5, 10, 15, 30, 60, 120, 240, and 360 minutes postadministration of pain medication (after-treatment). Gabapentin ketamine, dexmedetomidine, and entonox had significant effects in treatment of pain in burn patients. Entonox had the best analgesic effect with the least adverse effects and hemodynamic changes. Gabapentin also had good pain management effects; however, it showed less desirable effects on hemodynamic variables. Entonox caused the least amount of hemodynamic changes and the least adverse reactions, but since the medication is delivered by a facemask it limited its application with our patients. Gabapentin offered good benefits but caused a gradual drop in BP and HR and had some unfavorable reactions. However, since it is administered orally and often is cheaper, it could be considered as the drug of choice.

American Burn Association Guidelines on the Management of Acute Pain in the Adult Burn Patient: A Review of the Literature, a Compilation of Expert Opinion, and Next Steps

The ABA pain guidelines were developed 14 years ago and have not been revised despite evolution in the practice of burn care. A sub-committee of the American Burn Association's Committee on the Organization and Delivery of Burn Care was created to revise the adult pain guidelines. A MEDLINE search of English-language publications from 1968 to 2018 was conducted using the keywords "burn pain," "treatment," and "assessment." Selected references were also used from the greater pain literature. Studies were graded by two members of the committee using Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine-Levels of Evidence. We then met as a group to determine expert consensus on a variety of topics related to treating pain in burn patients. Finally, we assessed gaps in the current knowledge and determined research questions that would aid in providing better recommendations for optimal pain management of the burn patient. The literature search produced 189 papers, 95 were found to be relevant to the assessment and treatment of burn pain. From the greater pain literature 151 references were included, totaling 246 papers being analyzed. Following this literature review, a meeting to establish expert consensus was held and 20 guidelines established in the areas of pain assessment, opioid medications, nonopioid medications, regional anesthesia, and nonpharmacologic treatments. There is increasing research on pain management modalities, but available studies are inadequate to create a true standard of care. We call for more burn specific research into modalities for burn pain control as well as research on multimodal pain control.

Dexmedetomidine in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Protocols for Postoperative Pain

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Effective acute pain management has evolved considerably in recent years and is a primary area of focus in attempts to defend against the opioid epidemic. Persistent postsurgical pain (PPP) has an incidence of up to 30-50% and has negative outcome of quality of life and negative burden on individuals, family, and society. The 2016 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) guidelines states that enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) forms an integral part of Perioperative Surgical Home (PSH) and is now recommended to use a multimodal opioid-sparing approach for management of postoperative pain. As such, dexmedetomidine is now being used as part of ERAS protocols along with regional nerve blocks and other medications, to create a satisfactory postoperative outcome with reduced opioid consumption in the Post anesthesia care unit (PACU).

RECENT FINDINGS

Dexmedetomidine, a selective alpha2 agonist, possesses analgesic effects and has a different mechanism of action when compared with opioids. When dexmedetomidine is initiated at the end of a procedure, it has a better hemodynamic stability and pain response than ropivacaine. Dexmedetomidine can be used as an adjuvant in epidurals with local anesthetic sparing effects. Its use during nerve blocks results in reduced postoperative pain. Also, local infiltration of IV dexmedetomidine is associated with earlier discharge from PACU. Perioperative use of dexmedetomidine has significantly improved postoperative outcomes when used as part of ERAS protocols. An in-depth review of the use of dexmedetomidine in ERAS protocols is presented for clinical anesthesiologists.

Oral Administration of Injectable Ketamine During Burn Wound Dressing Changes

Providing adequate analgesia during burn wound care is essential to patient-centered care. Both oral and intravenous (IV) ketamine are often used for analgesia and sedation. Ketamine may improve analgesia and decrease opioid requirements for burn wound care. Oral ketamine wafers and tablets have been used as a safe alternative internationally but are unavailable in the United States. The purpose of this study was to compare opioid usage and patient satisfaction scores in patients with and without the use of oral injectable ketamine for burn wound care, with each patient serving as their own control. Ketamine, opioid, and benzodiazepine dosages recorded during dressing changes were compared to dressing changes without ketamine use that occurred before and after ketamine-associated sessions in each patient. Fourteen patients received oral ketamine at a median (interquartile range [IQR]) dose of 2.5 (2.2-2.7) mg/kg. Ketamine use significantly decreased opioid requirements when compared to wound care sessions that did not use ketamine both before (50 [IQR: 30-75] mg vs 75 [IQR: 46-91] mg median IV morphine equivalents, P = .0097) and after (50 [IQR: 30-75] mg vs 63 [IQR: 50-96] mg median IV morphine equivalents, P = .0042) the ketamine-associated sessions. One patient experienced hallucinations, and no adverse events were observed. Hence, oral administration of injectable ketamine was associated with a decrease in opioid requirements during dressing changes. Additionally, ketamine use improved patient satisfaction (P = .0034). Preliminary data suggest this promising analgesia method is safe and effective for burn wound care.

A Review of Adjunctive Therapies for Burn Injury Pain During the Opioid Crisis

Opioids are the mainstay of pain management after burn injury. The United States currently faces an epidemic of opioid overuse and abuse, while simultaneously experiencing a nationwide shortage of intravenous narcotics. Adjunctive pain management therapies must be sought and utilized to reduce the use of opioids in burn care to prevent the long-term negative effects of these medications and to minimize the dependence on opioids for analgesia. The purpose of this review was to identify literature on adjunctive pain management therapies that have been demonstrated to reduce pain severity or opioid consumption in adult burn patients. Three databases were searched for prospective studies, randomized controlled trials, and systematic reviews that evaluated adjunctive pain management strategies published between 2008 and 2019 in adult burn patients. Forty-six studies were analyzed, including 24 randomized controlled trials, six crossover trials, and 10 systematic reviews. Various adjunctive pain management therapies showed statistically significant reduction in pain severity. Only one randomized controlled trial on music therapy for acute background pain showed a reduction in opioid use. One cohort study on hypnosis demonstrated reduced opioid use compared with historical controls. We recommend the development of individualized analgesic regimens with the incorporation of adjunctive therapies in order to improve burn pain management in the midst of an abuse crisis and concomitant national opioid shortage.

Burn Pain: A Systematic and Critical Review of Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, and Treatment

Objective

This review aims to examine the available literature on the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and treatment of burn-induced pain.

Methods

A search was conducted on the epidemiology of burn injury and treatment of burn pain utilizing the database Medline, and all relevant articles were systemically reviewed. In addition, a critical review was performed on the pathophysiology of burn pain and animal models of burn pain.

Results

The search on the epidemiology of burn injury yielded a total of 163 publications of interest, 72 of which fit the inclusion/exclusion criteria, with no publications providing epidemiological data on burn injury pain management outcomes. The search on the treatment of burn pain yielded a total of 213 publications, 14 of which fit the inclusion/exclusion criteria, highlighting the limited amount of evidence available on the treatment of burn-induced pain.

Conclusions

The pathophysiology of burn pain is poorly understood, with limited clinical trials available to assess the effectiveness of analgesics in burn patients. Further studies are needed to identify new pharmacological targets and treatments for the effective management of burn injury pain.

CE: Original Research: The Efficacy and Safety of an RN-Driven Ketamine Protocol for Adjunctive Analgesia During Burn Wound Care

: Objective: Traditional analgesic regimens often fail to control the severe pain patients experience during burn wound care, and the drugs are frequently administered at doses that can cause oversedation and respiratory depression. Ketamine may be an ideal agent for adjunctive analgesia in such patients because of its unique mechanism of action and lack of association with respiratory depression. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of a critical care RN-driven protocol for IV ketamine administration during burn wound care.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study examined all adult burn patients who received ketamine as part of a critical care RN-driven ketamine protocol for burn wound care from September 2011 through September 2013. Efficacy outcomes were opioid and benzodiazepine requirements (expressed as fentanyl and midazolam equivalents, respectively) four hours after ketamine administration compared with four hours before such administration. Safety parameters assessed were neurologic, hemodynamic, and respiratory effects.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients received 56 ketamine doses as part of this protocol; the mean (SD) dose was 0.75 (0.35) mg/kg. Twenty patients (74%) were male and seven (26%) were female; mean age was 39 years. The average percentage of total body surface area burned was 23.4%. With the protocol, opioid and benzodiazepine requirements were reduced by 29% and 20%, respectively. One patient experienced an episode of oversedation after concomitant administration of ketamine and fentanyl. No patients experienced neurologic or hemodynamic complications following ketamine administration.

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of ketamine during burn wound care using a critical care RN-driven protocol was associated with reduced opioid and benzodiazepine requirements and few adverse effects. Prospective studies are needed to investigate additional patient outcomes and the independent administration of ketamine by critical care RNs.

Exploring Opioid-Sparing Multimodal Analgesia Options in Trauma: A Nursing Perspective

Challenges with opioids (e.g., adverse events, misuse and abuse with long-term administration) have led to a renewed emphasis on opioid-sparing multimodal management of trauma pain. To assess the extent to which currently available evidence supports the efficacy and safety of various nonopioid analgesics and techniques to manage trauma pain, a literature search of recently published references was performed. Additional citations were included on the basis of authors' knowledge of the literature. Effective options for opioid-sparing analgesics include oral and intravenous (IV) acetaminophen; nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs available via multiple routes; and anticonvulsants, which are especially effective for neuropathic pain associated with trauma. Intravenous routes (e.g., IV acetaminophen, IV ketorolac) may be associated with a faster onset of action than oral routes. Additional adjuvants for the treatment of trauma pain are muscle relaxants and alpha-2 adrenergic agonists. Ketamine and regional techniques play an important role in multimodal therapy but require medical and nursing support. Nonpharmacologic treatments (e.g., cryotherapy, distraction techniques, breathing and relaxation, acupuncture) supplement pharmacologic analgesics and can be safe and easy to implement. In conclusion, opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia addresses concerns associated with high doses of opioids, and many pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic options are available to implement this strategy. Nurses play key roles in comprehensive patient assessment; administration of patient-focused, opioid-sparing, multimodal analgesia in trauma; and monitoring for safety concerns.

Ketamine: 50 Years of Modulating the Mind

Ketamine was introduced into clinical practice in the 1960s and continues to be both clinically useful and scientifically fascinating. With considerably diverse molecular targets and neurophysiological properties, ketamine’s effects on the central nervous system remain incompletely understood. Investigators have leveraged the unique characteristics of ketamine to explore the invariant, fundamental mechanisms of anesthetic action. Emerging evidence indicates that ketamine-mediated anesthesia may occur via disruption of corticocortical information transfer in a frontal-to-parietal (“top down”) distribution. This proposed mechanism of general anesthesia has since been demonstrated with anesthetics in other pharmacological classes as well. Ketamine remains invaluable to the fields of anesthesiology and critical care medicine, in large part due to its ability to maintain cardiorespiratory stability while providing effective sedation and analgesia. Furthermore, there may be an emerging role for ketamine in treatment of refractory depression and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. In this article, we review the history of ketamine, its pharmacology, putative mechanisms of action and current clinical applications.

Clinically Relevant Concentrations of Ketamine Inhibit Osteoclast Formation In Vitro in Mouse Bone Marrow Cultures

Ketamine has been used safely in clinics for decades for analgesia and anesthesia. It is increasingly popular in clinical practice due to its new uses and importance for emergency procedures. It is known that ketamine is sequestered in the bone marrow and the major receptors for ketamine, noncompetitive N-methyl-d-aspartate receptors (NMDARs), are expressed in osteoclasts (OCs) and osteoblasts. However, the impact of ketamine on OCs or osteoblasts is unknown. In this study, we investigated the effects of ketamine on osteoclastogenesis and regulation of NMDARs expression in vitro. Bone marrows (BMs) or bone marrow macrophages (BMMs) were cultured in the presence of macrophage colony-stimulating factor (M-CSF) and receptor activator of nuclear factor kappa-B ligand (RANKL) with or without ketamine for up to 6 days. OC formation peaked at day 5. On day 5 of culture, ketamine inhibited OC formation from both BM and BMM cultures at clinically relevant concentrations (3-200 µM). Ketamine inhibited RANKL-induced expression of nuclear factor of activated T-cells, cytoplasmic, calcineurin-dependent 1 (NFATc1) in BMM cultures. Inhibition of ketamine on RANKL-induced osteoclastogenesis is associated with down-regulation of NMDARs. In addition, ketamine significantly inhibited the M-CSF induced migration of BMMs, inhibited cell fusion and significantly increased mature OC apoptosis. We conclude that clinically relevant concentrations of ketamine inhibit OC formation in both BM and BMM cultures in vitro through inhibiting migration and fusion process and enhancing mature OC apoptosis. It is likely that ketamine regulates osteoclastogenesis, at least in part, via its effects on NMDAR expression. J. Cell. Biochem. 118: 914-923, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Comparative evaluation of dexmedetomidine and midazolam-ketamine combination as sedative agents in pediatric dentistry: A double-blinded randomized controlled trial

Background:

Pharmacological methods have been used as an adjunct to enhance child cooperativeness and facilitate dental treatment.

Objective:

Purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the effect of sedation by intranasal dexmedetomidine and oral combination drug midazolam–ketamine in a group of children with uncooperative behavior requiring dental treatment.

Materials and Methods:

This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind study that included patients 3–9 years old with American Society of Anesthesiologists-I status. About 36 children presenting early childhood caries were randomly assigned to one of three groups studied: Group MK received intranasal saline and oral midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) with ketamine (5 mg/kg) mixed in mango juice; Group DX received intranasal dexmedetomidine (1 μg/kg) and oral mango juice; and Group C received intranasal saline and oral mango juice. Patients' heart rate, blood pressure, and oxygen saturation were recorded before, during, and at the end of the procedure. Patients' behavior, sedation status, and wake up behavior were evaluated with modified observer assessment of alertness and sedation scale. Ease of treatment completion was evaluated according to Houpt scale.

Results:

Hemodynamic changes were statistically insignificant in Group MK and Group DX. About 75% patients in Group MK were successfully sedated as compared to 53.9% Group DX and none of the patients in Group C. Ease of treatment completion was better with Group MK as compared to Group DX and least with Group C. Around 50% patients in Group MK had postoperative complications.

Conclusion:

Oral midazolam–ketamine combination and intranasal dexmedetomidine evaluated in the present study can be used safely and effectively in uncooperative pediatric dental patients for producing conscious sedation.

Burns management in ICU: Quality of the evidence: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to assess the quality of readily available evidence regarding critical care aspects of the management of patients with severe burn injuries.

METHOD

PUBMED, EMBASE, Cochrane Databases and bibliographies of included studies and burns review articles were searched from inception of databases to end of February 2015. We included systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies with concurrent controls on the topics of (a) fluid resuscitation (b) analgesia (c) haemodynamic monitoring and targets (d) ventilation (e) blood transfusion. The quality of the studies was assessed using validated tools.

RESULTS

Fifty six studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Twenty three on fluid resuscitation, 22 on analgesia, nine on haemodynamic monitoring and two on ventilation. No studies were found on blood transfusion practice. There were ten systematic reviews, 38 RCTs and eight cohort studies with concurrent controls. The majority of studies were single centre trials with small numbers of patients, surrogate outcomes and high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

There is very little high quality evidence to guide clinical practice in early management of the severely burnt patient. Eleven of 56 studies found in our search of critical care topics were of good methodological quality with low risk of bias.

The year in burns 2013

Approximately 3415 research articles were published with burns in the title, abstract, and/or keyword in 2013. We have continued to see an increase in this number; the following reviews articles selected from these by the Editor of one of the major journals (Burns) and colleagues that in their opinion are most likely to have effects on burn care treatment and understanding. As we have done before, articles were found and divided into the following topic areas: epidemiology of injury and burn prevention, wound and scar characterization, acute care and critical care, inhalation injury, infection, psychological considerations, pain and itching management, rehabilitation and long-term outcomes, and burn reconstruction. The articles are mentioned briefly with notes from the authors; readers are referred to the full papers for details.