Evaluation of antihyperalgesic and analgesic effects of 35% nitrous oxide when combined with remifentanil: A randomised phase 1 trial in volunteers

Remifentanil-induced hyperalgesia in healthy volunteers: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

ABSTRACT

Recent literature suggests that the withdrawal of remifentanil (RF) infusion can be associated with hyperalgesia in clinical and nonclinical settings. We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with cross-over design, to assess the effect of discontinuing RF infusion on pain intensity and areas of hyperalgesia and allodynia in healthy volunteers. Nine studies were included. The intervention treatment consisted in RF infusion that was compared with placebo (saline solution). The primary outcome was pain intensity assessment at 30 ± 15 minutes after RF or placebo discontinuation, assessed by any pain scale and using any quantitative sensory testing. Moreover, postwithdrawal pain scores were compared with baseline scores in each treatment. Secondary outcomes included the areas (% of basal values) of hyperalgesia and allodynia. Subjects during RF treatment reported higher pain scores after discontinuation than during treatment with placebo [standardized mean difference (SMD): 0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.03-0.97; P = 0.04, I 2 = 71%]. A significant decrease in pain scores, compared with baseline values, was found in the placebo treatment (SMD: -0.87, 95% CI: -1.61 to -0.13; P = 0.02, I 2 = 87%), but not in the RF treatment (SMD: -0.28, 95% CI: -1.18 to 0.62; P = 0.54, I 2 = 91%). The area of hyperalgesia was larger after RF withdrawal (SMD: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.27-0.84; P = 0.001; I 2 = 0%). The area of allodynia did not vary between treatments. These findings suggest that the withdrawal of RF induces a mild but nonclinically relevant degree of hyperalgesia in HVs, likely linked to a reduced pain threshold.

Perioperative analgesia in the elderly

The administration of analgesic drugs in elderly patients should take into account age-related physiological changes, loss of efficiency of homeostatic mechanisms, and pharmacological interactions with chronic therapies. Underestimation of pain in patients with impaired cognition is often linked to difficulties in pain assessment. In the preoperative phase, it is essential to assess the physical status, cognitive reserve, and previous chronic pain conditions to plan effective analgesia. Furthermore, an accurate pharmacological history of the patient must be collected to establish any possible interaction with the whole perioperative analgesic plan. The use of analgesic drugs with different mechanisms of action for pain relief in the intraoperative phase is a crucial step to achieve adequate postoperative pain control in older adults. The combined multimodal and opioid-sparing strategy is strongly recommended to reduce side effects. The use of various adjuvants is also preferable. Moreover, the implementation of non-pharmacological approaches may lead to faster recovery. High-quality postoperative analgesia in older patients can be achieved only with a collaborative interdisciplinary team. The aim of this review is to highlight the perioperative pain management strategies in the elderly with a special focus on intraoperative pharmacological interventions.

Efficacy and safety of flurbiprofen‑axetil combined with nalbuphine pretreatment on remifentanil‑induced postoperative hyperalgesia: A randomized clinical trial

Remifentanil-induced hyperalgesia (RIH) is a common and complicated issue in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), which significantly reduces patient satisfaction. The present trial was designed to clarify the individual and combined effects of flurbiprofen-axetil and nalbuphine on remifentanil-induced hyperalgesia. This randomized double-blind clinical trial included 120 adult patients who underwent LC at The Second People's Hospital of Wuhu. The individuals were randomized into a flurbiprofen-axetil group (F group), nalbuphine group (N group), flurbiprofen-axetil combined with nalbuphine group (FN group) and saline group (S group). The four groups were given flurbiprofen-axetil (50 mg, iv.), nalbuphine (0.1 mg/kg, iv.), flurbiprofen-axetil (50 mg, iv.) combined with nalbuphine (0.1 mg/kg, iv.) or normal saline respectively prior to skin incision. The primary outcome was the postoperative mechanical pain thresholds at the inner forearm and peri-incisional area. The secondary outcomes were the visual analog scale (VAS) and Ramsay sedation scale at 0.5, 1, 4 and 24 h after surgery, and any other adverse events. The pain threshold of the medial forearm in the FN group did not differ from that in the F and N groups at 24 h after surgery (P=0.310 and P=0.910, respectively). However, the pain threshold around the incision in FN group was significantly lower than that in F and N groups 24 h after surgery (P=0.001). The VAS of the F group, N group and FN group were all significantly lower than that in the S group at 0.5, 1 and 24 h after surgery (P<0.001). No significant differences were observed in the incidence of adverse events between the four groups. Single flurbiprofen-axetil and single nalbuphine effectively prevented RIH 24 h after surgery in LC. The combination of the two analgesic drugs, with different mechanisms of action, was not superior to single therapy. The present study was registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (registration no. ChiCTR2100045347).