Medications which bind to opioid receptors are increasingly being prescribed for the treatment of multiple and diverse chronic painful conditions. Their use for acute pain or terminal pain is well accepted. Their role in the long-term treatment of chronic noncancer pain is, however, controversial for many reasons. One of the primary reasons is the well-known phenomenon of psychological addiction that can occur with the use of these medications. Abuse and diversion of these medications is a growing problem as the availability of these medications increases and this public health issue confounds their clinical utility. Also, the extent of their efficacy in the treatment of pain when utilized on a chronic basis has not been definitively proven. Lastly, the role of opioids in the treatment of chronic pain is also influenced by the fact that these potent analgesics are associated with a significant number of side effects and complications. It is these phenomena that are the focus of this review. Common side effects of opioid administration include sedation, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, constipation, physical dependence, tolerance, and respiratory depression. Physical dependence and addiction are clinical concerns that may prevent proper prescribing and in turn inadequate pain management. Less common side effects may include delayed gastric emptying, hyperalgesia, immunologic and hormonal dysfunction, muscle rigidity, and myoclonus. The most common side effects of opioid usage are constipation (which has a very high incidence) and nausea. These 2 side effects can be difficult to manage and frequently tolerance to them does not develop; this is especially true for constipation. They may be severe enough to require opioid discontinuation, and contribute to under-dosing and inadequate analgesia. Several clinical trials are underway to identify adjunct therapies that may mitigate these side effects. Switching opioids and/or routes of administration may also provide benefits for patients. Proper patient screening, education, and preemptive treatment of potential side effects may aid in maximizing effectiveness while reducing the severity of side effects and adverse events. Opioids can be considered broad spectrum analgesic agents, affecting a wide number of organ systems and influencing a large number of body functions. (+info)
Anticipation of distress after discontinuation of mechanical ventilation in the ICU at the end of life.
Feasibility and potential cost/benefit of routine isoflurane sedation using an anesthetic-conserving device: a prospective observational study.
BACKGROUND: Inhaled sedation is efficient and easily controllable; in low concentrations it causes minimal changes in the patient and very little interference with hemodynamics. Awakening after inhaled sedation is quick and predictable. The major reason inhaled sedation has not become widely used in intensive care is that no commercially available administration device has been available. METHODS: In our intensive care unit we conducted a prospective observational study to assess the feasibility, benefits, and costs of routine isoflurane sedation via the AnaConDa anesthetic-administration device. We included 15 adult patients who required > 24 hours of deep sedation. Conventional intravenous sedation (benzodiazepine and opioid) had been administered according to a sedation protocol that included a predetermined target Ramsay-scale sedation score. We then switched to inhaled isoflurane via the AnaConDa, and measured sedation efficacy, cumulative dose, and daily cost of sedation. Adverse events were prospectively defined and monitored. RESULTS: The sedation goal was reached with isoflurane in all 15 patients (P < .01, compared to the conventional sedation protocol). Hemodynamic changes were nonsignificant, and no renal or hepatic dysfunctions were observed. The frequency of meeting the sedation goal was significantly better with isoflurane than with our usual sedation protocol. With isoflurane, awakening from sedation was always +info)
Presence of electroencephalogram burst suppression in sedated, critically ill patients is associated with increased mortality.
Bispectral index-guided intraoperative sedation with dexmedetomidine and midazolam infusion in outpatient cataract surgery.
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the role of alfa-2 agonist infusion, with dexmedetomidine or midazolam, on hemodynamic and respiratory parameters while titrating the sedation level with the bispectral index (BIS) during cataract surgery. METHODS: Ninety consenting ASA class I-III patients who were electively undergoing cataract surgery were enrolled in the double blind study. A random infusion of 0.25 microg kg(-1) hr(-1) Dexmedetomidine (Group D), 25 microg kg(-1) hr(-1) midazolam (Group M), or saline for controls (Group C) was administered after mounting a BIS monitor and routine anesthetic care. The target BIS level was >85. An additional bolus dose in 1 mL increments of the study drug or cessation of the infusion was adjusted according to the BIS level. Changes in respiratory and vital parameters were noted and, in case of mild pain, 25 microg fentanyl was administered as a bolus. Pain and sedation were evaluated in the early postoperative period using visual analogue and four rating sedation scales. RESULTS: In Group D, heart rate decreased in the later periods of surgery (35-50 min) and in the early postoperative period (5(th) and 15(th) min). Dose adjustments were required in six and ten patients in Groups D and M, respectively. Pain scores were lower with dexmedetomidine infusion. CONCLUSIONS: Dexmedetomidine infusion mildly decreased heart rate in the later periods of surgery with better pain scores in the postoperative period. Dexmedetomidine should be an alternative for intraoperative sedation in outpatient cataract surgery. (+info)
Retrospective outcomes evaluation of 100 parenteral moderate and deep sedations conducted in a general practice dental residency.
Determination of a sedative protocol for use in California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) with neurologic abnormalities undergoing electroencephalographic examination.
Sedation in sea lions exhibiting abnormal neurologic signs may require modification of established sedatior protocols because of the likely interaction between effects of the sedative and physiologic changes in diseased animals The effects of two sedative combinations, 0.07 mg/kg medetomidine and 0.07 mg/kg medetomidine plus 0.2 mg/kg butorphanol, were compared between California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) with signs of neurologic dysfunctior (n=33) and without neurologic signs (n=8). Sedation depth was scored on a scale of 0 (no effect) to 4 (profound sedation) assessed by response to auditory, tactile, and visual stimuli at the time of perceived maximal sedative effect In the medetomidine-alone group, sea lions with neurologic signs attained a median sedation score of 4 compared to a median sedation score of 1 in the clinically normal sea lions. Sea lions with and without neurologic signs giver medetomidine-butorphanol attained a median sedation score of 4. No statistically significant difference in time to induction and respiratory rate was found between the two sedation protocols in all sea lions. In the sea lions with neurologic signs, the recovery time from medetomidine-butorphanol sedation was prolonged (P < 0.01) and minimum recorded heart rates, although remaining within normal physiologic limits, were lower (P = 0.02) when compared to the sea lions administered medetomidine alone. Muscle jerks were observed in many animals given medetomidine-butorphanol and were detrimental to the diagnostic quality of the electroencephalogram (EEG) recording. Medetomidine alone at a dose rate of 0.07 mg/kg thus provides adequate and safe sedation in sea lions with neurologic signs undergoing EEG evaluation. (+info)