Aleksandra Kotlińska-Lemieszek

Lumbar paravertebral blockade as intractable pain management method in palliative care

Optimal symptoms control in advanced cancer disease, with refractory to conventional pain treatment, needs an interventional procedure. This paper presents coadministration of local anesthetic (LA) via paravertebral blockade (PVB) as the alternative to an unsuccessful subcutaneous fentanyl pain control in a 71-year old cancer patient with pathological fracture of femoral neck, bone metastases, and contraindications to morphine. Bupivacaine in continuous infusion (0.25%, 5 mL · hour−1) or in boluses (10 mL of 0.125%–0.5% solution), used for lumbar PVB, resulted in pain relief, decreased demand for opioids, and led to better social interactions. The factors contributing to an increased risk of systemic toxicity from LA in the patient were: renal impairment; heart failure; hypoalbuminemia; hypocalcemia; and a complex therapy with possible drug-drug interactions. These factors were taken into consideration during treatment. Bupivacaine’s side effects were absent. Coadministered drugs could mask LA’s toxicity. Elevated plasma α1-acid glycoprotein levels were a protective factor. To evaluate the benefit-risk ratio of the PVB treatment in boluses and in constant infusion, bupivacaine serum levels were determined and the drug plasma half-lives were calculated. Bupivacaine’s elimination was slower when administered in constant infusion than in boluses (t½ = 7.80 hours versus 2.64 hours). Total drug serum concentrations remained within the safe ranges during the whole treatment course (22.9–927.4 ng mL−1). In the case presented, lumbar PVB with bupivacaine in boluses (≤ 137.5 mg · 24 hours−1) was an easy to perform, safe, effective method for pain control. Bupivacaine in continuous infusion (≤150 mg · 12 hours−1) had an acceptable risk-benefits ratio, but was ineffective.

Bupivacaine administered intrathecally versus rectally in the management of intractable rectal cancer pain in palliative care

Background Unacceptable adverse effects, contraindications to and/or ineffectiveness of World Health Organization step III “pain ladder” drugs causes needless suffering among a population of cancer patients. Successful management of severe cancer pain may require invasive treatment. However, a patient’s refusal of an invasive procedure necessitates that clinicians consider alternative options. Objective Intrathecal bupivacaine delivery as a viable treatment of intractable pain is well documented. There are no data on rectal bupivacaine use in cancer patients or in the treatment of cancer tenesmoid pain. This study aims to demonstrate that bupivacaine administered rectally could be a step in between the current treatment options for intractable cancer pain (conventional/conservative analgesia or invasive procedures), and to evaluate the effect of the mode of administration (intrathecal versus rectal) on the bupivacaine plasma concentration. Cases We present two Caucasian, elderly inpatients admitted to hospice due to intractable rectal/tenesmoid pain. The first case is a female with vulvar cancer, and malignant infiltration of the rectum/vagina. Bupivacaine was used intrathecally (0.25–0.5%, 1–2 mL every 6 hours). The second case is a female with ovarian cancer and malignant rectal infiltration. Bupivacaine was adminstered rectally (0.05–0.1%, 100 mL every 4.5–11 hours). Methods Total bupivacaine plasma concentrations were determined using the high-performance liquid chromatography-ultraviolet method. Results Effective pain control was achieved with intrathecal bupivacaine (0.077–0.154 mg·kg−1) and bupivacaine in enema (1.820 mg·kg−1). Intrathecal bupivacaine (0.5%, 2 mL) caused a drop in blood pressure; other side effects were absent in both cases. Total plasma bupivacaine concentrations following intrathecal and rectal bupivacaine application did not exceed 317.2 ng·mL−1 and 235.7 ng·mL−1, respectively. Bupivacaine elimination was slower after rectal than after intrathecal administration (t½= 5.50 versus 2.02 hours, respectively). Limitations This study reports two cases only, and there could be inter-patient variation. Conclusion Bupivacaine in boluses administered intrathecally (0.25%, 2 mL) provided effective, safe analgesia in advanced cancer patients. Bupivacaine enema (100 mg·100 mL−1) was shown to be a valuable option for control of end-of-life tenesmoid cancer pain.

Pharmacotherapy of pain in cancer patients– recommendations of the Polish Association for the Studyof Pain, Polish Society of Palliative Medicine, Polish Societyof Oncology, Polish Society of Family Medicine, and PolishSociety of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy

Guidelines for the pharmacotherapy of pain in cancer patients were developed by a group of 21 experts of the Polish Association for the Study of Pain, Polish Society of Palliative Medicine, Polish Society of Oncology, Polish Society of Family Medicine, and Polish Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy. During a series of meetings, the experts carried out an overview of the available literature on the treatment of pain in cancer patients, paying particular attention to systematic reviews and more recent randomized studies not included in the reviews. The search was performed in the EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases using such keywords as “pain”, “cancer”, “pharmacotherapy”, “analgesics”, and similar. The overviewed articles included studies of pathomechanisms of pain in cancer patients, methods for the assessment of pain in cancer patients, and drugs used in the pharmacotherapy of pain in cancer patients, including non-opioid analgesics (paracetamol, metamizole, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), opioids (strong and weak), coanalgesics (glucocorticosteroids, α2-adrenergic receptor agonists, NMDA receptor antagonists, antidepressants, anticonvulsants, topical medications) as well as drugs used to reduce the adverse effects of the analgesic treatment and symptoms other than pain in patients subjected to opioid treatment. The principles of opioid rotation and the management of patients with opioidophobia were discussed and recommendations for the management of opioid-induced hyperalgesia were presented. Drugs used in different types of pain experienced by cancer patients, including neuropathic pain, visceral pain, bone pain, and breakthrough pain, were included in the overview. Most common interactions of drugs used in the pharmacotherapy of pain in cancer patients as well as the principles for the pharmacotherapy of pain in cancer patients with organ dysfunctions (circulatory failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease,