scholarly journals American Burn Association Guidelines on the Management of Acute Pain in the Adult Burn Patient: A Review of the Literature, a Compilation of Expert Opinion, and Next Steps

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 1129-1151
Author(s):  
Kathleen S Romanowski ◽  
Joshua Carson ◽  
Kate Pape ◽  
Eileen Bernal ◽  
Sam Sharar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pain Management ◽  
Pain Control ◽  
English Language ◽  
Pain Treatment ◽  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Expert Consensus ◽  
Medline Search ◽  
Burn Care ◽  
Burn Patient

Abstract The ABA pain guidelines were developed 14 years ago and have not been revised despite evolution in the practice of burn care. A sub-committee of the American Burn Association’s Committee on the Organization and Delivery of Burn Care was created to revise the adult pain guidelines. A MEDLINE search of English-language publications from 1968 to 2018 was conducted using the keywords “burn pain,” “treatment,” and “assessment.” Selected references were also used from the greater pain literature. Studies were graded by two members of the committee using Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine—Levels of Evidence. We then met as a group to determine expert consensus on a variety of topics related to treating pain in burn patients. Finally, we assessed gaps in the current knowledge and determined research questions that would aid in providing better recommendations for optimal pain management of the burn patient. The literature search produced 189 papers, 95 were found to be relevant to the assessment and treatment of burn pain. From the greater pain literature 151 references were included, totaling 246 papers being analyzed. Following this literature review, a meeting to establish expert consensus was held and 20 guidelines established in the areas of pain assessment, opioid medications, nonopioid medications, regional anesthesia, and nonpharmacologic treatments. There is increasing research on pain management modalities, but available studies are inadequate to create a true standard of care. We call for more burn specific research into modalities for burn pain control as well as research on multimodal pain control.

125 Management of Acute Pain in the Burn Patient: Reaching a New Guideline

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S84-S85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathleen S Romanowski ◽  
Joshua S Carson ◽  
Kate Pape ◽  
Eileen Bernal ◽  
Shelley A Wiechman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pain Management ◽  
Pain Control ◽  
Pain Treatment ◽  
Injured Patient ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Burn Care ◽  
Pain Medications ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Level 1

Abstract Introduction The most recent ABA pain guidelines were developed over 13 years ago and have not been revised despite the changing practice of burn care. Coupled with the nationwide opioid epidemic there is a need to examine the available literature and revise the ABA practice guidelines for pain management. Methods A committee of a professional association was created to revise the previously published pain guidelines and consisted of a wide range of burn care providers including burn surgeons, burn nurses, anesthesiologists, a pharmacist, and a psychologist. A MEDLINE search of English-language publications from 1968 to 2018 was conducted using the keywords “burn pain,” “treatment,” and “assessment”. Selected other references were also used based on our evaluation of the greater pain literature. Studies were graded by 2 members of the committee using Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine – Levels of Evidence (level 1 being the highest and level 5 the lowest). When there was a disagreement, a third member of the committee was used to resolve the disagreement. Our next step was to meet as a group and determine what our expert consensus was on a variety of topics related to treating pain in burn-injured patients. Finally, we assessed gaps in the knowledge that was available and determined research questions that would aid us in providing better recommendations for the care of the burn-injured patient. Results The literature search produced 189 papers, of which 95 were found to be relevant to the assessment and treatment of burn pain. From the greater pain literature, 115 references were included so a total of 210 papers were analyzed. The greatest number of papers were level 5 evidence (62, 29.5%) while only 30 (14.3%) were level 1. Following the review of the literature and meeting to establish consensus, 18 guidelines were established in the areas of pain assessment, opioid pain medications, non-opioid pain medications, regional anesthesia, and non-pharmacologic treatments. Conclusions While there is increasing research on various pain management modalities, the available studies are inadequate to create a true standard of care. Despite this, our committee reached a consensus using available literature from burn or other areas, expert experience and knowledge of pain physiology. Moving forward we call for more burn specific research into all modalities for burn pain control as well as research on multimodal pain control. Applicability of Research to Practice Burn pain is particularly difficult to manage and further study is needed to develop a standard of care for burn pain management.

Recombinant Factor VIIa in the Treatment of Non-Hemophiliac Bleeding

2005 ◽  
Vol 39 (5) ◽  
pp. 885-891 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masha SH Lam ◽  
Rosalyn P Sims-McCallum
Keyword(s):  
English Language ◽  
Recombinant Factor Viia ◽  
Factor Viia ◽  
Pharmacoeconomic Analysis ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Close Monitoring ◽  
Medline Search ◽  
Increased Risk

OBJECTIVE: To review the clinical evidence for the use of recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa) in the prevention and/or treatment of bleeding in non-hemophiliac patients. DATA SOURCES: A MEDLINE search (1966–December 2004) was conducted to identify pertinent literature. Results were limited to English-language reports and clinical trials. References of relevant articles and selected abstracts presented at scientific meetings were also reviewed. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Human data from prospective and retrospective studies that examined the hemostatic effect of rFVIIa in non-hemophiliac patients were reviewed, with a focus on surgical prophylaxis, liver disease, intractable bleeding associated with trauma and surgery, and anticoagulation reversal. DATA SYNTHESIS: Results from limited controlled trials on the use of rFVIIa as an adjunct for prevention of bleeding in surgery and liver diseases have not been consistent. For treatment of intractable bleeding, earlier use of rFVIIa in one trauma trial was shown to decrease the number of blood transfusions, but no differences in terms of clinical outcomes were observed in all trials. Controlled trials do not suggest an increased risk of thrombotic events. Optimal dosing and timing of administration have yet to be defined. CONCLUSIONS: Until further prospective controlled data are available, it is recommended that conventional intervention for prevention and control of hemorrhage in non-hemophiliac patients should remain the standard of care. Close monitoring of coagulation parameters is recommended before, during, and after therapy, especially in high-risk patients. Pharmacoeconomic analysis may be useful to help control costs and maximize clinical benefits.

Chronic pain – the idea of mechanism orientated treatment

Ból ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-49
Author(s):  
Magdalena Kocot-Kępska ◽  
Renata Zajączkowska ◽  
Jan Dobrogowski ◽  
Anna Przeklasa-Muszyńska
Keyword(s):  
Chronic Pain ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Pain Treatment ◽  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Empiric Therapy ◽  
Pain Medicine ◽  
Significant Progress ◽  
Pain Syndromes ◽  
Pain Chronification ◽  
Rational Mechanism

Understanding the neurobiological mechanisms underlying chronic pain syndromes is a significant progress in modern pain medicine. Understanding the basic differences between acute and chronic pain processes, learning about the mechanisms of transition from acute to chronic pain, allows us to change the approach to pain management from commonly used empirical approach to more rational mechanism-oriented pain treatment. In many patients with chronic pain, empiric therapy, which does not consider the mechanisms of pain, is not fully effective. Often, when planning pharmacotherapy, current knowledge about the pain etiology and mechanisms of pain chronification is not considered. Management based on already known mechanisms of pain, using rational pharmacotherapy and non-pharmacological methods, may improve the quality and effectiveness of pain management.

Needle procedures

2021 ◽  
pp. 192-200
Author(s):  
Anna Taddio
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Medical Care ◽  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Routine Clinical Practice ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Health Providers ◽  
Routine Medical Care ◽  
Potential Benefits

All children undergo needle procedures as part of routine medical care. Numerous interventions are available for relieving pain from needle procedures. These interventions can be divided into four domains (4 Ps of pain management): Procedural, pharmacological, psychological, and physical. Treating needle pain reduces pain and distress and improves satisfaction with medical care. Other potential benefits include a reduction in the development of needle fear and subsequent healthcare avoidance behavior. Adoption of the 4 Ps into routine clinical practice is feasible and should become a standard of care in the delivery of health care for children. There are various effective approaches for translating the research evidence into practice that target different stakeholders involved in children’s health care, including children, parents, health providers, and educators. This chapter is a narrative review of the current knowledge about epidemiology, pain experience, practices and attitudes, evidence-based interventions, and knowledge translation for pain management during common needle procedures.

Needle procedures

2013 ◽  
pp. 184-193 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Taddio
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Medical Care ◽  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Routine Clinical Practice ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Pain Experience ◽  
Routine Medical Care ◽  
Potential Benefits

All children undergo needle procedures as part of routine medical care. Numerous interventions are available for relieving pain from needle procedures. These interventions can be divided into four domains (4 Ps of pain management): procedural, pharmacological, psychological, and physical. Treating needle pain reduces pain and distress and improves satisfaction with medical care. Other potential benefits include a reduction in the development of needle fear and subsequent health care avoidance behaviour. Adoption of the 4Ps into routine clinical practice is feasible and should become a standard of care in the delivery of health care for children. This chapter is a narrative review of the current knowledge about: epidemiology, pain experience, practices and attitudes, and evidence-based interventions for pain management during common needle procedures.

Oral Oxymorphone for Pain Management

2007 ◽  
Vol 41 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 1144-1152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin W Chamberlin ◽  
Mark Cottle ◽  
Rebecca Neville ◽  
Jennifer Tan
Keyword(s):  
Pain Management ◽  
Opioid Receptor ◽  
Severe Pain ◽  
English Language ◽  
Therapeutic Option ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Plasma Concentrations ◽  
Opioid Agonist ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Medline Search

Objective To describe the pharmacology, safety and efficacy, and rationale for use of oral oxymorphone for the management of acute and chronic moderate-to-severe pain. Data Sources A PubMed/MEDLINE search (1966-March 2007) was conducted using the following terms: oral oxymorphone, oxymorphone, EN 3202, EN 3203, Opana, and Opana ER. Manufacturer-provided data (package inserts) and abstracts presented at the American Pain Society meetings (2003–2006) were also reviewed. Study Selection and Data Extraction Human studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of oral oxymorphone in pain management were considered; animal and non–English-language data were excluded. Data Synthesis Oral oxymorphone is a semisynthetic opioid agonist that is specific for the μ-opioid receptor and approved to treat both acute and chronic pain. Unlike other opioids, such as oxycodone, oxymorphone does not bind to the κ-opioid receptor. Due to extensive liver metabolism, oral oxymorphone is contraindicated in patients with moderate-to-severe hepatic impairment; however, no clinically significant CYP3A4, 2C9, or 2D6 mediated drug-drug interactions have been noted. Elderly patients may experience a 40% increase in plasma concentrations, while renally impaired patients may have a 57–65% increase in bioavailability. Food can increase the rate of absorption by as much as 50%, necessitating dosing either 1 hour before or 2 hours after a meal. Oxymorphone's primary adverse effects are similar to those of other opioids: nausea, vomiting, pruritus, pyrexia, and constipation. Conclusions Oxymorphone is an oral therapeutic option approved for the treatment of acute and chronic moderate-to-severe pain. Oxymorphone has a safety and efficacy profile similar to that of other commonly used pure opioids (morphine, oxycodone, hydromorphone). Like oxycodone and morphine, oxymorphone also has immediate-release and extended-re lease formulations. Since cost alone is not yet favorable for oxymorphone over oxycodone or morphine, further studies of comparative efficacy targeting potential advantages of oxymorphone over other opioids are necessary before considering it for addition to a formulary.

Opiophobia in Cancer Biology- Justified? - The Role of Perioperative Use of Opioids in Cancer Recurrence

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (28) ◽  
pp. 3020-3027 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mir W. Sekandarzad ◽  
Chris Doornebal ◽  
Markus W. Hollmann
Keyword(s):  
Pain Management ◽  
Cancer Biology ◽  
Tumor Biology ◽  
Cancer Recurrence ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Cancer Surgery ◽  
Perioperative Pain Management ◽  
Tumor Growth And Metastasis

: Opioids remain the standard of care in the provision of analgesia in the patient undergoing cancer surgery preoperatively. : The effects of opioids on tumor growth and metastasis have been discussed for many years. In recent years their use as part of the perioperative pain management bundle in the patients undergoing cancer surgery has been thought to promote cancer recurrence and metastasis. : This narrative review highlights earlier and more recent in vitro, in vivo and human retrospective studies that yield conflicting results as to the immune-modulatory effects of morphine on tumor biology. The article examines and explains the discrepancies with regards to the seemingly opposite results of morphine in the tumor milieu. The results of both, earlier studies that demonstrated procarcinogenic effects versus the data of more recent refined rodent studies that yielded neutral or even anti-carcinogenic effects are presented here. : Until the results of prospective randomized controlled trials are available to clarify this important question, it is currently not warranted to support opiophobia and opioids continue to constitute a pivotal role in the pain management of cancer patients.

A Multimodal Pain Management Regimen for Open Treatment of Distal Radius Fractures: A Randomized Blinded Study

Hand ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 155894472097514
Author(s):  
Julian Zangrilli ◽  
Nura Gouda ◽  
Armen Voskerijian ◽  
Mark L. Wang ◽  
Pedro K. Beredjiklian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pain Management ◽  
Distal Radius ◽  
Bone Healing ◽  
Pain Control ◽  
Distal Radius Fractures ◽  
Study Group ◽  
Radius Fractures ◽  
Multimodal Pain Management ◽  
Regional Block ◽  
Rebound Increase

Background Adequate pain control is critical after outpatient surgery where patients are not as closely monitored. A multimodal pain management regimen was compared to a conventional pain management method in patients undergoing operative fixation for distal radius fractures. We hypothesized that there would be a decrease in the amount of narcotics used by the multimodal group compared to the conventional pain management group, and that there would be no difference in bone healing postoperatively. Methods Forty-two patients were randomized into 2 groups based on pain protocols. Group 1, the control, received a regional block, acetaminophen, and oxycodone. Group 2 received a multimodal pain regimen consisting of daily doses of pregabalin, celecoxib, and acetaminophen up until postoperative day (POD) #3. They also received a regional block with oxycodone for breakthrough pain. Results From POD#3 to week 1, there was a significant increase in oxycodone use in the study group correlating with the point in time when the multimodal regimen was discontinued. The shortened Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand Questionnaire (QuickDASH) scores taken at 2 weeks postoperation showed a significantly lower average score in the study group compared to the control. There was no difference in bone healing. Conclusions The 2 regimens yielded similar pain control after surgery. The rebound increase in narcotic use after the multimodal regimen was discontinued, and significant difference in QuickDASH scores seen at 2 weeks postoperatively supported that multimodal regimens may not necessarily lead to decreased narcotic use in outpatient upper extremity surgery, but in the short term are shown to improve functional status.

scholarly journals Protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing a non-opioid prescription to the standard of care for pain control following arthroscopic knee and shoulder surgery

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron Gazendam ◽  
◽  
Seper Ekhtiari ◽  
Nolan S. Horner ◽  
Nicole Simunovic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Pain Control ◽  
Shoulder Arthroscopy ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Arthroscopic Surgery ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Opioid Prescription ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Secondary Outcomes ◽  
Arthroscopic Knee

Abstract Background Opioids continue to be the analgesic of choice for postoperative pain control following arthroscopic knee and shoulder surgery. Despite their widespread use, there are limited evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for postoperative opioid prescribing. The Non-Opioid Prescriptions after Arthroscopic Surgery in Canada (NO PAin) Trial is a randomized controlled trial (RCT) designed to determine whether a non-opioid analgesia approach to postoperative pain, compared to usual care, reduces oral morphine equivalents (OME) consumed in patients undergoing outpatient knee and shoulder arthroscopy. Methods This is a multi-centre, RCT with a target sample size of 200 patients. Adult (18+ years of age) patients undergoing outpatient knee and shoulder arthroscopy will be randomized to a non-opioid postoperative protocol (intervention) or the current standard of care (control). The intervention will consist of a standardized non-opioid analgesic prescription, a limited rescue opioid prescription, and a patient education infographic. The control is defined as the treating surgeons’ pre-trial postoperative analgesic regimen. Exclusion criteria include chronic opioid use, concomitant open surgery, contraindications to the prescribed analgesics or ongoing workers compensation/litigation. The primary outcome is OMEs consumed at 6 weeks postoperatively. Secondary outcomes will include patient-reported pain and satisfaction, quantity of OMEs prescribed, number of opioid refills, and any adverse events up to 6 weeks postoperatively. Utilizing the intention to treat principle for all analyses, independent samples t-test and presented with a p-value as well as a mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) will be performed for primary and secondary outcomes. Discussion The ongoing opioid epidemic and overprescribing of opioids in orthopaedics serve as the rationale for this trial. There is a lack of evidence upon which to develop post-operative pain management guidelines for patients undergoing arthroscopic surgery. A prospective evaluation of this relatively inexpensive intervention will demonstrate whether an explicit effort to reduce the number of opioids prescribed results in a reduction in the amount of opioids consumed and help to inform future studies and guidelines. Trial registration The NO PAin trial has been prospectively registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04566250).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document