Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to H Breivik.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: Relieving pain during and after surgery and trauma has always been a basic duty of anaesthesiologists. With their skills and expertise in regional analgesia and pharmacological analgesia, anaesthesiologists have improved management of severe cancer pain. Will there be a place for anaesthesiologists in multidisciplinary pain clinics managing chronic non-cancer pain patients in the future? METHODS: This is a personal review of the development of pain management as a growing part of the responsibilities of anaesthesiologists during the past three decades and the importance of continued involvement of anaesthesiologists in this interesting and challenging aspect of clinical medicine. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Optimal management of pain during and after surgery is a prerequisite for successful short- and long-term rehabilitation after surgery. After surgery, reducing dynamic pain with prolonged optimal epidural analgesia and regional blocks facilitates mobilization and reduces chronic pain. The expertise of well-trained anaesthesiologists in skillfully using regional analgesia and pharmacological pain relief continues to be in demand in palliative care. Some interventional techniques are useful in relieving chronic non-cancer pain in selected patients. Well-trained anaesthesiologist-pain clinicians can perform interventional treatments safely. No doubt, anaesthesiologists will continue to have important roles in pain management in the future.
BACKGROUND: Post-operative urinary retention (PUR) is associated with a risk of over-distension and permanent detrusor damage. The prevention of PUR by routine catheterization may increase the risk of urinary tract infection. Post-operative monitoring of the bladder volume is a reliable method in adults, but has not been evaluated for reliability in children. METHODS: Forty-eight patients who, according to current clinical guidelines, required urinary bladder emptying were scanned before catheterization using the Bladderscan. Volumes estimated with ultrasound were compared with volumes measured after emptying the bladder with a catheter. Bladder emptying was controlled by concomitant fluoroscopy in 20 children. RESULTS: The mean difference between the ultrasound estimates and the catheter-emptied urine volumes was 4 ml [standard deviation (SD) = 25 ml] in 26 children above the age of 3 years and -18 ml (SD = 19 ml) in 22 younger children. In the subpopulation in whom complete bladder emptying could be confirmed by fluoroscopy (14 children; median age, 3 years; range, 1-11 years), the mean difference between the ultrasound estimates and the catheter-emptied volumes was -11 ml (SD = 24 ml). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms agreement between the ultrasound scanner estimates of urinary bladder volume and the urine volume measured by emptying the bladder. Reliability was good in children above the age of 3 years. The volume was underestimated in younger children. Thus, routine monitoring of urinary bladder volume with an ultrasound scanner is a non-invasive, pain-free and reliable way of preventing over-distension of the urinary bladder in children after surgery and other procedures under general anaesthesia.
BACKGROUND: In previous studies on glucocorticoids for postoperative pain, the test drug has been given perioperatively, usually before measurement of baseline pain. In order to evaluate the time course and magnitude of the analgesic effect of a glucocorticoid in well-established postoperative pain, we compared methylprednisolone with ketorolac and placebo, after assessment of baseline pain on the first postoperative day. METHODS: This was a double-blind, single dose, randomized, parallel comparison of intravenous (i.v.) methylprednisolone 125 mg, ketorolac 30 mg as an active control, and placebo in 75 patients with moderate to severe pain 1 day after orthopaedic surgery. Outcome variables were pain intensity (0-100 VAS), pain relief (0-4 PAR) and rescue opioid consumption. RESULTS: Methylprednisolone was not significantly different from ketorolac and gave significantly lower pain intensity from 1 h (0-6 h, P < 0.02), and more pain relief 2-6 h after test drugs (P < 0.05) compared with placebo. After 24 h, pain intensity was lower in both active drug groups compared with placebo (methylprednisolone, P < 0.0001; ketorolac, P < 0.007). Number needed to treat (NNT) calculated from patients having more than at least 50% of maximum obtainable total pain relief during the first 6 h (>50%maxTOTPAR(6 h)) was 3.6 for methylprednisolone and 3.1 for ketorolac. Number needed to treat calculated from the percentage reporting at least 50% pain relief for at least 4 h (>50%PAR(4 h)) was 2.8 for both groups. Opioid consumption was significantly reduced for 72 h after methylprednisolone compared with ketorolac (P < 0.02) and placebo (P < 0.003). CONCLUSION: Methylprednisolone 125 mg i.v. 1 day after surgery gave similar early reduction of pain as i.v. ketorolac 30 mg. Less pain than placebo 24 h after methylprednisolone, and lower opioid consumption for 72 h compared with ketorolac and placebo indicate sustained analgesic effects of methylprednisolone.
BACKGROUND: After head trauma, hypertonic saline lowers intracranial pressure (ICP) and preserves or increases cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP). Hypertonic saline has not been studied in patients with increased ICP due to subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH). The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects on elevated ICP and on CPP in patients critically ill from SAH. METHODS: Critically ill SAH-patients needing urgent treatment for an elevated ICP, but otherwise stable, were included in this study. We infused 7.2% saline in 6% hydroxyethyl starch (HyperHAES((R)) Fresenius Kabi AG, Bad Homburg v.d.h., Germany) 2 ml kg(-1) during 20 min in 10 episodes of ICP > 20 mmHg in seven patients with SAH. Our primary outcome variables were changes in ICP and CPP during and for 3 h after this infusion. RESULTS: All interventions resulted in decreased ICP and elevation of CPP. The mean value for maximum ICP decrease in percent of baseline was 58% (range 43-83%, P = 0.002), which occurred at mean 40 min (range 25-90 min) after start of infusion. The mean percent peak increase in CPP was 26% (range 16-32%, P = 0.002). After 210 min, ICP was 35% lower than baseline (range 19-39%, P = 0.008). Serum sodium increase was mean 6.6 mmol l(-1) (range 5-9 mmol l(-1)) 30 min after start of infusion. CONCLUSIONS: 7.2% saline in 6% hydroxyethyl starch is an effective and safe therapy for intracranial hypertension after SAH. We demonstrate that an infusion of 2 ml kg(-1) during 20 min has a predictable and clinically significant beneficial effect on ICP and CPP. The effect was still present 3 h after end of infusion. Rebound ICP-increase was not observed within 3 h.
BACKGROUND: We have documented that adrenaline 2.0 micro g.ml- 1 markedly improves relief of dynamic pain when added to a thoracic epidural analgesic infusion of bupivacaine 1 mg.ml- 1 and fentanyl 2 micro g.ml- 1. Concern about possible adverse effects on spinal cord blood flow, expressed by others, prompted us to find the lowest concentration of adrenaline needed to produce effective and reliable pain relief after major surgery. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel group study was carried out in 36 patients after major thoracic or upper abdominal surgery. Patients with only mild pain when coughing during titrated thoracic epidural infusion of approximately 9 ml per hour of bupivacaine 1 mg.ml- 1, fentanyl 2 micro g.ml- 1, and adrenaline 2.0 micro g.ml- 1 were included. The study was conducted as a dose-finding study comparing three different adrenaline concentrations in the epidural mixture (0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 micro g.ml- 1) with each other and with adrenaline 2.0 micro g.ml- 1 in our standard epidural mixture. On the 1st postoperative day, the patients were randomly allocated into three equal groups of 12 patients each, and given a double-blind epidural infusion at the same rate, but with different adrenaline concentrations (0.5, 1.0, or 1.5 micro g.ml- 1). The effects were observed for 4 h or until pain when coughing became unacceptable in spite of rescue analgesia. Rescue analgesia consisted of up to two patient-controlled epidural bolus injections per hour (4 ml) and subsequent i.v. morphine, if necessary. All patients received rectal paracetamol 1 g, every 6th hour. Main outcome measures were pain intensity at rest and when coughing, evaluated by a visual analogue scale and an overall quality of pain relief score. The extent of sensory blockade was evaluated by determining dermatomal hypaesthesia to cold. RESULTS: Pain intensity when coughing increased (P < 0.001) and the number of hypaesthetic dermatomal segments decreased (P < 0.002) when the concentration of adrenaline was reduced below 1.5 micro g.ml- 1 in the triple epidural mixture. This change started within two hours after reducing the concentration of adrenaline below 1.5 micro g.ml- 1. The differences in pain intensities at rest were less pronounced. After 4 h with adrenaline 0.5 or 1.0 micro g.ml- 1 pain intensity when coughing was unacceptable in spite of rescue analgesia. After restarting the standard epidural mixture with adrenaline 2.0 micro g.ml- 1, pain intensity was again reduced to mild pain when coughing and the sensory blockade was restored. Occurrence of pruritus increased with a decreasing adrenaline concentration. CONCLUSIONS: Adrenaline in a dose-related manner improves the pain-relieving effect and sensory blockade and decreases the occurrence of pruritus of a low-concentration thoracic epidural analgesic infusion of bupivacaine 1 mg. ml- 1 and fentanyl 2 micro g.ml- 1 after major thoracic or upper abdominal surgery. The minimally effective concentration of adrenaline, when added to bupivacaine 1 mg.ml- 1 and fentanyl 2 micro g.ml- 1, to maintain relief of dynamic pain is approximately 1.5 micro g.ml- 1. The data clearly document that dynamic, cough-provoked pain is a more sensitive outcome measure for postoperative pain relief than pain at rest.
BACKGROUND: Intra-articular (IA) morphine has given good and prolonged pain relief in some studies when given at the end of arthroscopic procedures in the knee joint. However, similar studies have not been able to document any local analgesic effect of morphine. A large number of the negative studies have not demonstrated any assay sensitivity. We have documented that around 40% of patients have only very mild or no pain after arthroscopic procedures in the knee joint. This obviously is a confounding factor, reducing assay sensitivity when all patients are included in IA morphine studies. METHOD: By leaving a soft catheter IA in 57 patients and including only patients who developed moderate-to-severe pain within 1 h after an arthroscopic procedure in the knee joint under general anaesthesia, we included 40 patients. These patients had a mean pre-treatment baseline pain of about 50/100 on a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain intensity. A randomized, double-blind controlled comparison of saline 10 ml with or without morphine 2 mg followed. Test drugs were administered through the IA catheter. Pain intensity and pain relief, consumption of rescue analgesics and global evaluation of effect and adverse effects were measured up to 36 h thereafter. RESULTS: Pain intensity decreased from about 50 to about 10-15/100 in both groups and the sum of pain intensity differences at 2 and 22 h was not significantly different between the two groups. Global evaluation of effects and adverse effects, as well as consumption of rescue analgesics during 36 h after arthroscopic procedures, were also similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Only 70% of 57 patients had pain of moderate-to-severe intensity within 1 h after an arthroscopic procedure of the knee joint under general anaesthesia. IA injection of saline 10 ml and saline 10 ml with morphine 2 mg were both associated with pain relief. These findings may have implications for interpretations of a majority of published studies on IA morphine.
BACKGROUND: Isoflurane has been a commonly used agent for neuroanesthesia, but newer agents, sevoflurane and desflurane, have a quicker onset and shorter emergence from anesthesia and are increasingly preferred for general pediatric anesthesia. But their effects on intracranial pressure (ICP) and cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP), especially in pediatric patients with already increased ICP, have not been well documented. METHODS: We studied 36 children scheduled for elective implantation of an intraparenchymal pressure device for 24 h monitoring for suspected elevated ICP. After a standardized intravenous anesthesia, the patients were moderately hyperventilated with 60% nitrous oxide (N2O) in oxygen. The patients were then randomized to receive 0.5 and 1.0 MAC of isoflurane (Group I, n = 12), sevoflurane (Group S, n = 12) or desflurane (Group D, n = 12) in 60% N2O in oxygen. Respiratory and hemodynamic variables, ICP and CPP were recorded at baseline and after exposure to a target level of test drug for 10 min or until CPP fell below 30 mmHg (recommended lower ICP level is 25 mmHg in neonates, rising to 40 mmHg in toddlers). RESULTS: When comparing baseline values with values at 1.0 MAC, mean arterial pressure (MAP) decreased (P < 0.001) in all groups, with no differences between the groups. ICP increased (P < 0.001) with all agents, mean +2, +5, and +6 mmHg in Group I, S and D, respectively, with no differences between the groups. Regression analyzes found no relationship between baseline ICP and the increases in ICP from baseline to 1.0 MAC for isoflurane or sevoflurane. However, increased baseline ICP tended to cause a higher ICP increase with 1.0 MAC desflurane; regression coefficient +0.759 (P = 0.077). The difference between regression coefficients for Group I and Group D were not significant (P = 0.055). CPP (MAP-ICP) decreased (P < 0.001) in all groups, mean -18, -14 and -17 mmHg in Group I, S and D, respectively, with no significant difference between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: 0.5 and 1.0 MAC isoflurane, sevoflurane and desflurane in N2O all increased ICP and reduced MAP and CPP in a dose-dependent and clinically similar manner. There were no baseline dependent increases in ICP from 0 to 1.0 MAC with isoflurane or sevoflurane, but ICP increased somewhat more, although statistically insignificant, with higher baseline values in patients given desflurane. The effect of MAP on CPP is 3-4 times higher than the effect of the increases in ICP on CPP and this makes MAP the most important factor in preserving CPP. In children with known increased ICP, intravenous anesthesia may be safer. However, maintaining MAP remains the most important determinant of a safe CPP.
BACKGROUND: Retention of urine is a common postoperative problem associated with risk of overdistention and permanent detrusor damage. Prevention of urinary retention by insertion of indwelling catheter may increase the risk of urinary infection. We have performed a reliability test of an ultrasound scanner, implemented in the postoperative monitoring equipment. METHODS: Patients were monitored after different types of surgery under spinal anesthesia with an ultrasound scanner in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). PATIENTS: Patients who according to current guidelines required a urinary bladder catheter, were scanned before a catheter was inserted and urine volume was measured. These two urine volumes were compared and analyzed for agreement. RESULTS: Nineteen female and 17 male patients were included. The mean difference between ultrasound estimates and catheter urine volume measurements was - 21.5 mL, and limits of agreement, calculated as a 95% confidence interval, were - 147 and + 104 mL. This means that the urine volume estimated by ultrasound was on average 21.5 mL smaller than the urine volume when the bladder was emptied. CONCLUSION: This study confirms a good agreement between the ultrasound scanner estimates of urinary bladder volume and urine volume measured after emptying the bladder. Nurses in the PACU could operate the ultrasound scanner after a brief instruction and training period. Considering the potentially serious long-term consequences of undiagnosed postoperative urinary retention, introducing this equipment for routine monitoring of urinary bladder volume should be considered.
BACKGROUND: In May 2000, the Norwegian Medical Association appointed a working group to propose guidelines for the practice of palliative sedation to dying patients (terminal sedation). The present study is part of this work. The aim of the study was to register to what extent this form of palliation is used in Norwegian hospitals, on what indications, how decisions are reached, and whether the treatment is considered necessary. The definition of palliative sedation given was: induction and maintenance of sleep for the relief of pain or other types of suffering in a patient close to death. The intention is exclusively to relieve intractable pain, not to shorten the patient's life. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An anonymous questionnaire was sent to 364 Norwegian hospital departments that might have experience with palliative sedation. Results are reported partly as free text comments and partly as frequencies of predetermined response alternatives. RESULTS: 58% of the questionnaires were returned. 22% of the respondents had given palliative sedation to a dying patient during the last 12 months, and more than half of the physicians found this intervention sometimes necessary. Pain was the most frequent indication; none of the respondents claimed to haven given sedation exclusively based on depression/anxiety. Lack of resources still seems to be an obstacle to optimal palliative care in Norway. CONCLUSION: Though it has some methodological weaknesses, this study confirms the need for national guidelines.
BACKGROUND: The objectives of the present study were to evaluate the effects on postoperative pain intensity, pain relief, and side effects when removing fentanyl from an optimally titrated epidural infusion consisting of bupivacaine, fentanyl and adrenaline. METHODS: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, crossover study was carried out in 20 patients after major upper abdominal surgery requiring a large longitudinal incision. Patients with only mild pain when coughing during thoracic epidural infusion of about 10 ml per hour of bupivacaine 1 mg x ml(-1), fentanyl 2 microg x ml(-1), and adrenaline 2 microg x ml(-1) were included. On the 1st and 2nd postoperative days, each patient was given a double-blind epidural infusion, at the same rate, with or without fentanyl. The effects were observed for 6 h or until pain when coughing became unacceptable in spite of rescue analgesia. Rescue analgesia consisted of up to two patient-controlled epidural bolus injections (4 ml) per hour and intravenous morphine if necessary. RESULTS: Main outcome measures, i.e. pain intensity when coughing and at rest, increased (P<0.001) when fentanyl (19.2+/-5.2 microg x h(-1)) was omitted from the epidural infusion: after 6 h pain intensity when coughing had increased to unacceptable levels in spite of increased consumption of rescue bupivacaine and adrenaline (P<0.001). Within 15-20 min after restarting the triple epidural mixture with fentanyl, pain intensity was again reduced to mild pain when coughing. CONCLUSIONS: A low dose of epidural fentanyl (20 microg x h(-1)) markedly improved the pain-relieving effect of bupivacaine and adrenaline infused epidurally at a thoracic level after major upper abdominal surgery. This dose of fentanyl is much too small to relieve severe dynamic pain when given systemically. Therefore, this study indirectly supports the view that a low-dose thoracic epidural infusion of fentanyl has a spinal analgesic site of action.
Indications for strong opioids for cancer-related pain as well as for chronic non-cancer pain are that non-opioid drugs, and other less risky therapies, fail and that the pain is opioid-sensitive. The WHO analgesic ladder principle continues to serve as an excellent educational tool in the efforts by WHO in collaboration with the World Federation of Societies of Anaesthesiologists (WFSA) and The International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) to increase knowledge of pharmacological pain therapy and increase availability of essential opioid analgesics world-wide. Opioids differ in pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics, and patients have different pharmacogenetics and pain mechanisms. Sequential trials of the increasing numbers of available opioid drugs are therefore appropriate when oral morphine fails. Controversies continue concerning diagnosis and handling of opioid-insensitive pain in cancer and chronic non-cancer pain, opioid-induced neurotoxicities, risks of tolerance, addiction, pseudo-addiction, and methods for improving effectiveness and decreasing adverse effects of long-term opioid therapy, treating breakthrough pain with immediate release oral and transmucosal opioids. Consensus guidelines have recently been developed in the Nordic countries concerning the ethical practice of palliative sedation when opioids and other pain-relieving therapies fail in patients soon to die. Guidelines for long-term treatment with strong opioids of chronic non-cancer-related pain are also being developed in the Nordic countries, where very diverging traditions for the usage of such therapy still exist.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: Anaesthesia comprising remifentanil plus isoflurane, enflurane or propofol was randomly evaluated in 285, 285 and 284 patients, respectively, undergoing short-procedure surgery. METHODS: Anaesthesia was induced with propofol (0.5 mg x kg(-1) and 10 mg x 10 s(-1)), and a remifentanil bolus (1 microg x kg(-1)) and infusion at 0.5 microg x g(-1) x min(-1). Five minutes after intubation, remifentanil infusion was halved and 0.5 MAC of isoflurane or enflurane, or propofol at 100 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) were started and titrated for maintenance. RESULTS: Patient demography and anaesthesia duration were similar between the groups. Surgery was performed as daycases (52%) or inpatients (48%). The median times (5-7 min) to extubation and postoperative recovery were similar between the groups. Responses to tracheal intubation (15% vs 8%) and skin incision (13% vs 7%) were significantly greater in the total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) group (P<0.05). Fewer patients given remifentanil and isoflurane (21%) or enflurane (19%) experienced > or =1 intraoperative stress response compared to the TIVA group (28%) (P<0.05). Median times to qualification for and actual recovery room discharge were 0.5-0.6 h and 1.1-1.2 h, respectively. The most common remifentanil-related symptoms were muscle rigidity (6-7%) at induction, hypotension (3-5%) and bradycardia (1-4%) intraoperatively and, shivering (6-7%), nausea and vomiting postoperatively. Nausea (7%) and vomiting (3%) were significantly lower with TIVA compared with inhaled anaesthetic groups (14-15% and 6-8%, respectively; P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Anaesthesia combining remifentanil with volatile hypnotics or TIVA with propofol was effective and well tolerated. Times of extubation, postanaesthesia recovery and recovery room discharge were rapid, consistent and similar for all three regimens.
BACKGROUND: A low dose solution of adrenaline 2 microg x ml(-1), fentanyl 2 microg x ml(-1) and bupivacaine 1 mg x ml(-1) has been reported to give superior pain control when used for epidural analgesia after major surgery. The present paper describes the compounding and chemical stability of this triple-component solution during storage and use. METHODS: Sterile triple-component concentrates (11X) were diluted by the use of gas isolator technology to give ready-to-use infusion solutions. Eight solutions were analysed by reverse phase high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) methods, and assays were performed on 1, 45, 90 and 180 days after storage at 2-8 degrees C. After 180 days the solutions were subsequently stored at 22 degrees C for four days before they were reanalysed. HPLC quantification of adrenaline was also performed on samples from solutions given to 28 different patients. RESULTS: The concentration of adrenaline and fentanyl decreased approximately 3.5% from 1 to 180 days at 4 degrees C and four days at 22 degrees C. The corresponding figure for bupivacaine was an apparent increase by 2.4% in concentration. No absorption to the polypropylene plastic bags of fentanyl and bupivacaine was detected. None of the 28 samples derived from used infusion bags contained less than 95% of the declared content of adrenaline. CONCLUSIONS: The triple-component epidural analgesic solution remained stable during six months of cold storage, followed by four days of storage at room temperature. No significant degradation of adrenaline was observed in infusion solutions returned from the wards.
A previously described infraclavicular brachial plexus block may be modified by using a more lateral needle insertion point, while the patient abducts the arm 45 degrees or 90 degrees. In performing the modified block on patients abducting 45 degrees, we often had problems finding the cords of the brachial plexus. Therefore, we designed an anatomic study to describe the ability of the recommended needle direction to consistently reach the cords. Additionally, we assessed the risk of penetrating the pleura by the needle. Magnetic resonance images were obtained in 10 volunteers. From these images, a virtual reality model of each volunteer was created, allowing precise positioning of a simulated needle according to the modified block, without exposing the volunteers to actual needle placement. In both arm positions, the recommended needle angle of 45 degrees to the skin was too shallow to reach a defined target on the cords. Comparing the two arm positions, target precision and risk of contacting the pleura were more favorable with the greater arm abduction. We conclude that when the arm is abducted to 90 degrees, a 65 degrees -needle angle to the skin appears optimal for contacting the cords, still with a minimal risk of penetrating the pleura. However, this needs to be confirmed by a clinical study.
BACKGROUND: Peripheral opioid analgesia is well documented. But the clinical usefulness of intra-articular morphine after surgery is uncertain. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the analgesic effects of intra-articular morphine after knee arthroscopy. METHODS: In this parallel-group, double-blind study, 90 patients were randomised to receive either morphine 1 mg, morphine 2 mg or placebo in 5 ml saline intra-articularly at the end of arthroscopic knee surgery. Anaesthetic technique was local infiltration and intra-articular injection of lidocaine. Analgesic efficacy was evaluated by a global pain score, pain intensity (visual analogue scale), and analgesic requirements (paracetamol) during the first 48 h postoperatively. RESULTS: No significant differences between the groups were found for any of the efficacy variables. A majority of the patients had mild pain throughout the study, thus possibly compromising study sensitivity. In a subgroup with more intense pain early after arthroscopy, intra-articular morphine 2 mg reduced pain intensity (P < 0.05) and analgesic requirements (P < 0.05) compared with placebo. CONCLUSION: Postoperative analgesic effect of intra-articular morphine was found only in a subgroup of patients with higher pain intensity in the immediate postanaesthetic period. Possible reasons for our overall negative findings include low study sensitivity due to weak pain stimulus, lack of inflammation that may be a prerequisite for peripheral opioid analgesia, and the local anaesthetic, which impedes local inflammatory reaction and expression of peripheral opioid receptors. These factors may also explain the conflicting results in other studies.