P. Van der Linden

Obstetric analgesia: a comparison of patient-controlled meperidine, remifentanil, and fentanyl in labour

BACKGROUND To compare the analgesic efficacy of remifentanil with meperidine and fentanyl in a patient-controlled setting (patient-controlled analgesia, PCA). METHODS Parturients (n=159) were randomly assigned to receive remifentanil (n=52), meperidine (n=53), or fentanyl (n=54). Pain scores and an observer sedation scores were assessed hourly. Fetal outcome was evaluated with Apgar score, cord blood gas analysis and the Neurologic and Adaptive Capacity Score. RESULTS Pain scores decreased in all groups, the decrease varying from mild to moderate, average pain scores remaining above 4.5 cm in all groups. Remifentanil PCA was associated with the greatest decrease in pain scores, but the difference was significant only at 1 h. Pain scores returned towards baseline over time; 3 h after the initiation of treatment, pain scores no longer differed significantly from baseline values in any of the groups. Significantly more parturients receiving meperidine crossed over to epidural analgesia. Overall satisfaction scores were higher with remifentanil, but remifentanil produced more sedation and itching. More periods of desaturation (Sa(o(2)) <95%) were observed during administration of remifentanil and fentanyl. There were no significant differences in fetal outcome between the three groups. CONCLUSIONS The efficacy of meperidine, fentanyl, and remifentanil PCA for labour analgesia varied from mild to moderate. Remifentanil PCA provided better analgesia than meperidine and fentanyl PCA, but only during the first hour of treatment. In all groups, pain scores returned to pre-treatment values within 3 h after the initiation of treatment.

Chirurgies et actes invasifs chez les patients traités au long cours par un anticoagulant oral anti-IIa ou anti-Xa direct: Propositions du Groupe d’intérêt en hémostase périopératoire (GIHP) et du Groupe d’études sur l’hémostase et la thrombose (GEHT)

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOAs), inhibitors of factor IIa or Xa, are expected to replace vitamin K antagonists in most of their indications. It is likely that patients on long-term treatment with DOAs will be exposed to elective or emergency surgery or invasive procedures. Due to the present lack of experience in such conditions, we cannot make recommendations, but only propose perioperative management for optimal safety as regards the risk of bleeding and thrombosis. DOAs may increase surgical bleeding, they have no validated antagonists, they cannot be monitored by simple, standardised laboratory assays, and their pharmacokinetics vary significantly from patient to patient. Although DOAs differ in many respects, the proposals in the perioperative setting need not be specific to each. For procedures with low risk of haemorrhage, a therapeutic window of 48 h (last administration 24h before surgery, restart 24h after) is proposed. For procedures with medium or high haemorrhagic risk, we suggest stopping DOAs 5 days before surgery to ensure complete elimination of the drug in all patients. The treatment should be resumed only when the risk of bleeding has been controlled. In patients with a high risk of thrombosis (e.g. those in atrial fibrillation with an antecedent of stroke), bridging with heparin (low molecular weight, or unfractionated if the former is contraindicated) is proposed. In emergency, the procedure should be postponed for as long as possible (minimum 1-2 half-lives) and non-specific anti-haemorrhagic agents, such as recombinant human activated factor VIIa, or prothrombin concentrates, should not be given for prophylactic reversal, due to their uncertain benefit-risk.

Chirurgies et actes invasifs chez les patients traités au long cours par un anticoagulant oral anti-IIa ou anti-Xa direct

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOAs), inhibitors of factor IIa or Xa, are expected to replace vitamin K antagonists in most of their indications. It is likely that patients on long-term treatment with DOAs will be exposed to elective or emergency surgery or invasive procedures. Due to the present lack of experience in such conditions, we cannot make recommendations, but only propose perioperative management for optimal safety as regards the risk of bleeding and thrombosis. DOAs may increase surgical bleeding, they have no validated antagonists, they cannot be monitored by simple, standardised laboratory assays, and their pharmacokinetics vary significantly from patient to patient. Although DOAs differ in many respects, the proposals in the perioperative setting need not be specific to each. For procedures with low risk of haemorrhage, a therapeutic window of 48 h (last administration 24h before surgery, restart 24h after) is proposed. For procedures with medium or high haemorrhagic risk, we suggest stopping DOAs 5 days before surgery to ensure complete elimination of the drug in all patients. The treatment should be resumed only when the risk of bleeding has been controlled. In patients with a high risk of thrombosis (e.g. those in atrial fibrillation with an antecedent of stroke), bridging with heparin (low molecular weight, or unfractionated if the former is contraindicated) is proposed. In emergency, the procedure should be postponed for as long as possible (minimum 1-2 half-lives) and non-specific anti-haemorrhagic agents, such as recombinant human activated factor VIIa, or prothrombin concentrates, should not be given for prophylactic reversal, due to their uncertain benefit-risk.

Impact of balanced tetrastarch raw material on perioperative blood loss: a randomized double blind controlled trial

BACKGROUND As 6% hydroxyethyl starch (HES) 130/0.40 or 130/0.42 can originate from different vegetable sources, they might have different clinical effects. The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind controlled trial was to compare two balanced tetrastarch solutions, one maize-derived and one potato-derived, on perioperative blood loss in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). METHODS We randomly assigned 118 patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery into two groups, to receive either a maize- or a potato-derived HES solution. Study fluids were administered perioperatively (including priming of CPB) until the second postoperative day (POD#2) using a goal directed algorithm. The primary outcome was calculated postoperative blood loss up to POD#2. Secondary outcomes included short-term incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI), and long-term effect (up to one yr) on renal function. RESULTS Preoperative and intraoperative characteristics of the subjects were similar between groups. Similar volumes of HES were administered (1950 ml [1250-2325] for maize-HES and 2000 ml [1500-2700] for potato-HES; P=0.204). Calculated blood loss (504 ml [413-672] for maize-HES vs 530 ml [468-705] for potato-HES; P=0.107) and the need for blood components were not different between groups. The incidence of AKI was similar in both groups (P=0.111). Plasma creatinine concentration and glomerular filtration rates did vary over time, although changes were minimal. CONCLUSIONS Under our study conditions, HES 130/0.4 or 130/0.42 raw material did not have a significant influence on perioperative blood loss. Moreover, we did not find any effect of tetrastarch raw material composition on short and long-term renal function. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION EudraCT number: 2011-005920-16.

Spinal fentanyl vs. sufentanil for post-operative analgesia after C-section: a double-blinded randomised trial

Fentanyl and sufentanil are the most commonly administered intrathecal lipophilic opioids worldwide, although their relative efficacy when given by this route is not well characterised.