Intravenous Paracetamol in Adjunct to Intravenous Ketoprofen for Postoperative Pain in Children Undergoing General Surgery: A Double-Blinded Randomized Study

Background and objectives: The combination of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and paracetamol is widely used for pediatric postoperative pain management, although the evidence of superiority of a combination over either drug alone is insufficient. We aimed to find out if intravenous (i.v.) paracetamol in a dose of 60 mg kg^-1 24 h^-¹, given in addition to i.v. ketoprofen (4.5 mg kg^-1 24 h^-¹), improves analgesia, physical recovery, and satisfaction with postoperative well-being in children and adolescents following moderate and major general surgery. Materials and Methods: Fifty-four patients were randomized to receive either i.v. paracetamol or normal saline as a placebo in adjunct to i.v. ketoprofen. For rescue analgesia in patients after moderate surgery, i.v. tramadol (2 mg kg^-¹ up two doses in 24 h), and for children after major surgery, i.v. morphine-patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) were available. The main outcome measure was the amount of opioid consumed during the first 24 h after surgery. Pain level at 1 and over 24 h, time until the resumption of normal oral fluid intake, spontaneous urination after surgery, and satisfaction with postoperative well-being were also assessed. Results: Fifty-one patients (26 in the placebo group and 25 in the paracetamol group) were studied. There was no difference in required rescue tramadol doses (n = 11 in each group) or 24-h morphine consumption (mean difference (95% CI): 0.06 (⁻0.17; 0.29) or pain scores between placebo and paracetamol groups. In patients given morphine-PCA, time to normal fluid intake was faster in the paracetamol than the placebo subgroup: median difference (95% CI): 7.5 (1.3; 13.7) h, p = 0.02. Parental satisfaction score was higher in the paracetamol than the placebo group (mean difference: ⁻1.3 (⁻2.5; ⁻0.06), p = 0.04). Conclusions: There were no obvious benefits to opioid requirement or analgesia of adding regular intravenous paracetamol to intravenous ketoprofen in used doses. However, intravenous paracetamol may contribute to faster recovery of normal functions and higher satisfaction with postoperative well-being.

Comparison of two continuous non-invasive haemodynamic monitoring techniques in the perioperative setting

BACKGROUND

The aim of the study was to identify the accuracy of and agreement between two non-invasive haemodynamic monitoring techniques in the perioperative setting - thoracic electrical bioimpedance (TEB) and Edwards Lifesciences ClearSight system (CS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included ten patients. Parametric quantitative data were expressed as mean ± SD. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to test the normality of the distributions. A linear regression model was used to measure the strength of the linear relationship between TEB and CS. Bland-Altman analysis was performed to assess the mean difference, precision, and the limits of agreements (LOA). The Critchley and Critchley method was used to calculate the percentage error (PE), and if <30%, it was considered clinically acceptable.

RESULTS

Ten patients were involved in our study. The mean cardiac output (CO) with TEB was 6.15 ± 1.14 L/min vs. 4.78 ± 1.40 L/min with CS (p < 0.01). The relationship was significant (n = 144; r 2 = 0.7; p < 0.01). The mean bias, LOA, and PE were 1.37 ± 1.01 L/min, 3.35 L/min and -0.61 L/min and 36.22%, respectively. The mean stroke volume index (SVI) with TEB was 48.64 ± 9.8 ml/beat/m2 vs. 37.12 ± 9.14 ml/beat/m2 with CS (p < 0.01). The relationship was significant (n = 144; r 2 = 0.65; p < 0.01). The mean bias, LOA, and PE were 11.52 ± 7.92 ml/beat/m2, 27.04 ml/beat/m2 and -4 ml/beat/m2 and 36.19%.

CONCLUSIONS

The two methods of non-invasive haemodynamic monitoring are not compatible in the perioperative setting. However, the CS system has more advantages in terms of continuity and simplicity of monitoring, while measurements of TEB are interrupted by electrocautery.

Anaesthetic challenges in cancer patients: current therapies and pain management

THE OBJECTIVE

The aim is to present the major effects of cancer treatment (chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgery) that the anaesthesiologist should consider preoperatively, and to review techniques of the analgesic management of the disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To summarize the major challenges that cancer patients present for the anaesthesiologists, a literature review was conducted. Articles presenting evidence or reviewing the possible effects of anaesthetics on cancer cells were also included. Online databases of Science Direct, PubMed, and ELSEVIER, as well as reference lists of included studies were searched. Articles published from 2005 to 2016 were selected.

RESULTS

Anaesthesiologists should pay attention to patients receiving chemotherapy and its side effects on organ systems. Bleomycin causes pulmonary damage, anthracyclines are cardiotoxic, and platinum-based chemotherapy agents are nephrotoxic. A lot of chemotherapy agents lead to abnormal liver function, vomiting, diarrhoea, etc. Surgery itself is suspected to be associated with an increased risk of metastasis and recurrence of cancer. Regional anaesthesia and general anaesthesia with propofol should be used and volatile agents should be avoided to prevent cancer patients from perioperative immunosuppression that leads to increased risk of cancer recurrence. Pain management for palliative patients remains a major problem.

CONCLUSIONS

To provide the best treatment for cancer patients, cooperation of anaesthesiologists with oncologists and surgeons becomes imperative. It has been established that anaesthetic techniques and drugs could minimize the perioperative inflammation. However, further research of the perioperative "onco-anaesthetic" is needed.

Haemodynamic effects of central neural blocks

Haemodynamic effects are the most important physiological responses to central neural blocks. This article is focused on the etiology of hypotension, bradycardia and asystole understanding of which is essential for the anesthesiologist for successful management in the perioperative period. The main causes of cardiovascular changes are decreased cardiac output, systemic vascular resistance and reflexes related to baroreceptors. Hypotension and / or bradycardia are usually of short duration and easily treatable. However, haemodynamic changes in hypovolaemic, elderly patients with comorbidity, and patients with increased catecholamine production, due to excessive alcohol intake, emergency situation, can be significant with worse outcomes. Therefore it is essential to correct hypovolaemia before surgery. Timely notification, identification and appropriate treatment of haemodynamic changes caused by already performed central neural blockade remain important in the perioperative period as well. Vital functions must be monitored throughout surgery so that adverse cardiovascular reactions could be managed with timely and adequate treatment including elevation of the legs, oxygen and infusion therapy, vasoactive and anticholinergic drugs.