Median Visual Analog Scale Pain Research Articles

A Randomized Comparison of Three Methods of Analgesia for Chest Drain Removal in Postcardiac Surgical Patients

Sixty-six patients scheduled for coronary artery bypass graft and/or valve surgery were recruited in a prospective, randomized study designed to compare the effectiveness of three analgesic regimens for chest drain removal. Patients were randomized to receive 0.1 mg/kg IV morphine, 20 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine infiltrated subcutaneously, or inhaled 50% nitrous oxide in oxygen (Entonox) via a demand valve. We assessed pain by measuring visual analog scale pain scores before and during drain removal. Median (25th, 75th centile) visual analog scale pain scores associated with drain removal in the bupivacaine, Entonox, and morphine groups were 9.5 mm (3, 18 mm), 37.0 mm (13, 56 mm), and 15.0 mm (7, 27 mm), respectively. The pain scores were higher in the Entonox group compared with the bupivacaine group (P=0.005) and the morphine group (P=0.047). Differences between baseline and drain-removal scores were -0.5 mm (-13, 7 mm), +10 mm (1, 29 mm), and -3.0 mm (-11, 12 mm), respectively. There was no difference among groups in arterial blood pressure, heart rate, PaCO2, oxygenation, or sedation. Bupivacaine and morphine, unlike Entonox, produce lower pain scores associated with drain removal.

Anaesthetic gel to reduce pain during periodontal scaling and root planing

Design The study was a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT). Intervention A total of 130 patients received either the active or placebo gel in periodontal pockets in one quadrant of the mouth for 30 s, prior to periodontal debridement (scaling and root planing). Outcome measure Pain was measured using both a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) and a verbal rating scale (VRS). Results The median VAS pain score for people treated with the anaesthetic gel was 5 mm (range, 0–5 mm) as opposed to 13 mm (range, 0–9 mm) in the placebo-treated patients (P=0.015). There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients who reported no pain or mild pain (78% and 76% for the anaesthetic gel and placebo, respectively). Conclusions The VAS pain scores showed that the anaesthetic gel 5% was statistically more effective than the placebo in reducing pain during periodontal debridement. Acknowledgements The study was supported by Astra Zeneca Pain Control Sweden.

Comparison of continuous 3-in-1 and fascia Iliaca compartment blocks for postoperative analgesia: feasibility, catheter migration, distribution of sensory block, and analgesic efficacy

Background and Objectives: Efficacy and technical aspects of continuous 3-in-1 and fascia iliaca compartment blocks were compared. Methods: Forty-four patients scheduled for cruciate ligament repair or femur surgery were randomly divided into 2 groups. After surgery with the patient anesthetized, catheters were placed for continuous 3-in-1 blocks by means of a nerve stimulator (group 1). In group 2, the catheter was inserted for continuous fascia iliaca compartment block without the use of a nerve stimulator. In both groups, a 5-mg/kg bolus of 0.5% ropivacaine was administered followed by continuous infusion of 0.1 mL/kg/h of 0.2% ropivacaine for 48 hours. In the postoperative period, all the patients received parenteral propacetamol (6 g daily) and ketoprofen (200 mg daily) and 0.1 mg/kg of subcutaneous morphine as rescue analgesia if the visual analog scale (VAS) pain values were greater than 30 mm. We evaluated the technical difficulties relative to catheter placement, the location of the catheter, the analgesic efficacy, and the distribution of the sensory block at 1 hour, 24 hours, and 48 hours. Results: Catheter placement was faster in group 2, and the absence of nerve stimulation decreased material costs ( P < .05). No significant difference was observed between groups concerning location of the catheter tip under the fascia iliaca. In both groups, the distribution of the sensory block and its course were similar except for those of the obturator nerve (more sensory blocks in group 1, P < .05). No significant difference was noted between the groups regarding median VAS pain values and consumption of morphine during the 48-hour period. No major side effect was observed. Conclusions: The authors conclude that a catheter for continuous lumbar plexus block can be placed more quickly and at lesser cost using the fascia iliaca technique than the perivascular technique with equivalent postoperative analgesic efficacy.

Alvimopan (ADL 8-2698) Is a Novel Peripheral Opioid Antagonist

Alvimopan (ADL 8-2698; Adolor Corporation, Exton, PA, USA) is a novel, peripherally restricted opioid antagonist. After oral administration, it has activity specific to the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. ADL 8-2698 has low systemic absorption and a high affinity for μ-opioid receptors. In healthy subjects, ADL 8-2698 antagonized loperamide-induced changes in GI transit and prevented morphine-induced delays in oral-cecal transit time without antagonizing centrally mediated opioid effects, such as analgesia or pupillary constriction. In the treatment of opioid naive patients who underwent surgery and received opioids for acute pain, oral ADL 8-2698 (6.0 mg) improved the management of postoperative ileus (POI) by shortening the time to achieve normal bowel function and, ultimately, hospital stay. Postoperative nausea and vomiting and the overall incidence of all GI side effects were reduced in patients treated with ADL 8-2698 for POI. Analgesia was not compromised, because there were no changes in median opioid consumption or Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores in patients treated with ADL 8-2698 versus patients treated with placebo. No drug-related side effects were observed in acute pain postsurgical patients in the initial POI study. In patients treated with opioids for chronic pain or opioid addiction, lower doses of oral ADL 8-2698 (0.5 to 3.0 mg) reversed opioid bowel dysfunction (OBD) and normalized GI activity. These effects were evident without compromising opioid analgesia or inducing central nervous system symptoms of withdrawal. Some chronic opioid patients receiving apparently supramaximal doses of ADL 8-2698 (≥3.0 mg) reported localized GI side effects, possibly indicative of a localized GI withdrawal response. The most common side effects of ADL 8-2698 in chronic pain patients with OBD were abdominal pain, flatulence, and diarrhea. These effects were not observed in most OBD patients receiving lower doses of ADL 8-2698. Overall, ADL 8-2698 was well tolerated in clinical trials. Further studies to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ADL 8-2698 in clinical practice are in progress.

A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study of Outpatient Premedication for Bone Marrow Biopsy in Adults with Lymphoma

The outpatient bone marrow biopsy and aspiration (BMBA) procedure performed with local anesthetic is often poorly tolerated in adults. This prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial was designed to determine whether oral (p.o.) lorazepam and hydromorphone reduces pain and anxiety during BMBA. Eligible patients had lymphoma, had no prior BMBA, and were ≥ 18 years old. Since patients had bilateral BMBA, each served as their own control. Patients were stratified by anxiety level using the Spielberger Trait Anxiety Scale and randomized to: A) placebo for the first BMBA and 2 mg lorazepam and 2 mg hydromorphone p.o. for the contralateral BMBA, or B) placebo for both BMBAS. Changes in pain and anxiety experienced between the first and second BMBA were measured by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the Spielberger State Anxiety Scale at the time of the BMBA and 24 hours later. Twenty-seven patients were enrolled and 25 were evaluable; there were 17 males and eight females. The median age was 57 years (range, 28-79 years). Overall, BMBA was reported as painful in both arms, with a median VAS pain score after the second BMBA of 3.9 (scale, 0-10) for arm A and 5.8 for arm B (P = 0.21). There was no difference in the change in pain, anxiety, or recalled anxiety between treatment arms (all P values > 0.05). The difference in the change in recalled pain was of borderline significance (P = 0.07) and consistent with benzodiazepine-induced anterograde amnesia.

Can local anesthesia be recommended for routine use in elective knee arthroscopy? A comparison between local, spinal, and general anesthesia

Local anesthesia (LA) for outpatient knee arthroscopy is not a standard procedure at most hospitals. To evaluate the LA technique for knee arthroscopy on medically healthy patients, this study compared 3 anesthesia techniques. Four hundred patients were randomized to either local (n = 200), general (n = 100), or spinal (n = 100) anesthesia. Evaluated outcomes included the patient's subjective view of the procedure, and nausea and pain at rest and during active movement. All variables were recorded perioperatively and postoperatively. In addition, the performing surgeon's opinion of the degree of patient pain and the technical difficulty of the procedure were noted. Three hundred forty-two patients completed the study. In the group receiving local anesthesia (n = 180) the median visual analog scale pain score during surgery was 6 mm (mean, 17.5; SD, 23.2; range, 0 to 100 mm). Twenty-one LA patients would have preferred another form of anesthesia. In 29 patients, LA was not considered as the optimal anesthesia by the performing surgeon. Eight LA patients agreed with the surgeon that the anesthesia method used was not optimal, of these patients, 5 had synovitis (3%). In 5% of the LA patients there were technical problems. Thus, this study shows that elective knee arthroscopy can be performed under local anesthesia in 92% of the patients from a technical point of view. Excluding patients who do not choose local anesthesia and those who have hypertrophic synovitis preoperatively, knee arthroscopies can be performed as safely and effectively under local anesthesia as under any other form of anesthesia. For most patients, local anesthesia can be recommended as the standard procedure for outpatient knee arthroscopy.

Combined spinal–epidural analgesia in labour: comparison of two doses of intrathecal bupivacaine with fentanyl

We have compared intrathecal bupivacaine 1.25 mg and fentanyl 25 micrograms (group A) with bupivacaine 2.5 mg and fentanyl 25 micrograms (group B), for combined spinal-epidural analgesia in 49 labouring parturients in a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. Onset and quality of analgesia were similar in both groups, with median visual analogue scale pain scores of 0 achieved in 5-10 min. Median duration of analgesia was longer in group B (median 120 (range 90-120) min) compared with group A (75 (75-105) min) (P = 0.013). Median upper sensory level was higher in group B compared with group A at 15 min (T6-7 vs T11, P = 0.003) and at 30 min (T6 vs T11-12; P = 0.001). Motor block was greater in group B: seven patients had a modified Bromage score > or = 1 compared with none in group A at 15 min (P = 0.017). Group B also had a greater decrease in arterial pressure. Patient-midwife satisfaction scores and other side effects were similar. We conclude that intrathecal bupivacaine 1.25 mg with fentanyl 25 micrograms provided analgesia of similar onset and quality compared with bupivacaine 2.5 mg and fentanyl 25 micrograms. Although the duration of analgesia was shorter, the incidences of motor block and hypotension were less with the smaller dose.

Labour pain treated with cutaneous injections of sterile water: a randomised controlled trial

To evaluate the relief of pain in labour with subcutaneous and intracutaneous injections of sterile water, compared with placebo. Randomised controlled trial. Labour ward with approximately 3000 deliveries annually in a suburban area near Gothenburg, Sweden. Ninety-nine pregnant women at term, requiring pain relief for severe lower back pain during the first stage of labour. The women were randomised to receive four injections of 0.1 mL sterile water (without salt) intracutaneously (n = 33), four injections of 0.5 mL sterile water subcutaneously (n = 33) or placebo treatment (n = 33). Reduction of labour pain measured by visual analogue scale. The median visual analogue scale pain score for labour pain was significantly lower compared with initial values in the two study groups and compared with placebo at 10 and 45 minutes after treatment. The median reductions in visual analogue scores after 10 minutes were 5.0 cm and 4.5 cm in the intracutaneous and subcutaneous injection groups, respectively; women in the placebo group scored a median reduction of 1.7 cm. After 45 minutes the median reductions in the visual analogue scores were 4.9 cm and 4.0 cm in the intracutaneous and subcutaneous injection groups, respectively, compared with 1.0 cm for women in the placebo group. No significant differences in analgesic effect or pain experienced during administration were found between the two study groups. The new subcutaneous method of administering sterile water, as well as the earlier described intracutaneous injection method, were effective for the relief of pain in labour.

Dexamethasone prevents relapse after emergency department treatment of acute migraine: a randomized clinical trial

To determine whether the addition of intravenous dexamethasone to standard emergency department (ED) migraine therapy would decrease the incidence of severe recurrent headache 24 to 48 hours after initial treatment. Patients aged 19 to 65 years whose headache was severe enough to require parenteral therapy and who met International Headache Society migraine criteria were eligible for this randomized, double-blind trial. The study was conducted in the ED of 2 community hospitals, 1 of which was a tertiary referral centre. Exclusion criteria included pregnancy, focal findings, fever, meningismus, allergy to the study drug, active peptic ulcer disease and diabetes mellitus. Demographic and clinical data, including headache severity, were recorded. After abortive therapy (antiemetics, intravenous nonsteroidal agents, dihydroergotamine or opioids), blinded nurses administered dexamethasone (24 mg intravenously) or placebo. Patients recorded headache severity on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at time T = 0, T = 30 minutes and T = 60 minutes and at discharge. They were contacted 48 to 72 hours later and asked whether they had suffered a recurrence of their headache, categorized as class A (severe, provoking another physician visit), class B (severe, interfering with daily activity but not provoking a physician visit), class C (mild, requiring self-medication but not limiting activity) or class D (mild, requiring no treatment). Two of 100 patients were lost to follow-up, leaving 98 in the study sample. Placebo recipients were more likely to be female; other baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Median VAS pain score was 83 mm on ED arrival, 35 mm after initial treatment and 12 mm on discharge. At follow-up, 65 of 98 patients had suffered headache recurrence. In the placebo versus dexamethasone groups, respectively, the results were 11 versus 0 in class A, 11 versus 9 in class B, 7 versus 11 in class C and 4 versus 12 in class D. Regarding the primary outcome, 9 of 49 dexamethasone patients (18%) and 22 of 49 placebo patients (45%) had severe (classes A and B) recurrent headache (odds ratio 0.28; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.69; p = 0 .005). Migraine recurrence is common after "successful" ED treatment. Inflammation may be a critical factor in migraine genesis. Intravenous dexamethasone decreases the incidence of severe recurrent headache after ED treatment and should be offered to patients thought to be at risk of recurrent headache.

Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Trial Comparing Room-Temperature and Heated Lidocaine for Digital Nerve Block

Study objective: To determine whether warming of lidocaine decreases the pain of its injection during digital nerve block. Design: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. Interventions: Twenty healthy volunteers received bilateral digital nerve blocks of their middle finger. They were first randomly assigned to receive either room-temperature (21°C) or heated (42°C) 2% lidocaine in their first block. They were then randomly assigned to receive the first block in either the right or left hand. The blocks were performed in a standardized fashion by a single physician, who was blinded to which solution was being used. The volunteers rated the pain of each digital block on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS). Efficacy of each digital block was tested at 5 minutes. Results: Heating of the lidocaine was associated with a significantly lower median VAS pain score (31.5 versus 25.0; P<.05). There was no difference in pain score between the two solutions in relation to which hand was used ( P =.29) or whether the injection was the first or the second ( P =.37). When all factors (temperature, order, and hand) were considered in the ANOVA with respect to VAS pain score, the only significant relation found was that between the temperature of the solution and the VAS pain score ( P =.028). Conclusion: Heating of lidocaine decreases the pain of injection during digital nerve block. [Waldbillig DK, Quinn JV, Stiell IG, Wells GA: Randomized double-blind controlled trial comparing room-temperature and heated lidocaine for digital nerve block. Ann Emerg Med December 1995;26:677-681.]