Yazar "Apfel, CC" seçeneğine göre listele

Listeleniyor 1 - 2 / 2
  • Küçük Resim Yok
    Öğe
    Effect of oral gabapentin on postoperative epidural analgesia
    (Elsevier Sci Ltd, 2006) Turan, A; Kaya, G; Karamanlioglu, B; Pamukçu, Z; Apfel, CC
    Background. Gabapentin has been used successfully as a non-opioid analgesic adjuvant for postoperative pain management. We hypothesized that gabapentin might be a useful adjuvant for postoperative analgesia provided with patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA). Methods. Forty patients undergoing lower extremity surgery procedures were randomly assigned to receive (i) placebo capsules (control) or (ii) gabapentin (1.2 g day(-1)) before and for 2 days after surgery. Anaesthetic technique was standardized. Postoperative assessments included verbal rating scale scoring for pain and sedation, PCEA usage, quality of recovery assessment, times of GI function recovery, and patient satisfaction scoring for pain management. Results. Pain scores at 1, 4, 8, 12, and 16 h (P < 0.001), PCEA bolus requirements (n) at 24 [21 (3), 14 (2)], 48 [15 (4), 10 (3)] and 72 [8 (5), 2 (3)] (P < 0.05) and paracetamol (mg) consumption [700 (523), 350 (400)]; P < 0.05), were significantly lower in the gabapentin-treated patients than in the control group. Patient satisfaction with postoperative pain management at 24 h was better in gabapentin-treated patients [85.5 (7.5), 66.5 (15)]; P < 0.001). Gabapentin-treated patients had less motor block when compared with control group. Times of return of bowel function, hospitalization, and resumption of dietary intake were similar in the groups. However, the incidence of dizziness was higher in the gabapentin group (35% vs 5%; P < 0.05). Conclusions. Oral gabapentin (1.2 g day(-1)) as an adjunct to epidural analgesia decreased pain and analgesic consumption. Despite an increased incidence of dizziness it also increased patient satisfaction.
  • Küçük Resim Yok
    Öğe
    A factorial trial of six interventions for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting
    (Massachusetts Medical Soc, 2004) Apfel, CC; Korttila, K; Abdalla, M; Kerger, H; Turan, A; Vedder, I; Zernak, C
    BACKGROUND Untreated, one third of patients who undergo surgery will have postoperative nausea and vomiting. Although many trials have been conducted, the relative benefits of prophylactic antiemetic interventions given alone or in combination remain unknown. METHODS We enrolled 5199 patients at high risk for postoperative nausea and vomiting in a randomized, controlled trial of factorial design that was powered to evaluate interactions among as many as three antiemetic interventions. Of these patients, 4123 were randomly assigned to 1 of 64 possible combinations of six prophylactic interventions: 4 mg of ondansetron or no ondansetron; 4 mg of dexamethasone or no dexamethasone; 1.25 mg of droperidol or no droperidol; propofol or a volatile anesthetic; nitrogen or nitrous oxide; and remifentanil or fentanyl. The remaining patients were randomly assigned with respect to the first four interventions. The primary outcome was nausea and vomiting within 24 hours after surgery, which was evaluated blindly. Results Ondansetron, dexamethasone, and droperidol each reduced the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting by about 26 percent. Propofol reduced the risk by 19 percent, and nitrogen by 12 percent; the risk reduction with both of these agents ( i.e., total intravenous anesthesia) was thus similar to that observed with each of the antiemetics. All the interventions acted independently of one another and independently of the patients' baseline risk. Consequently, the relative risks associated with the combined interventions could be estimated by multiplying the relative risks associated with each intervention. Absolute risk reduction, though, was a critical function of patients' baseline risk. CONCLUSIONS Because antiemetic interventions are similarly effective and act independently, the safest or least expensive should be used first. Prophylaxis is rarely warranted in low-risk patients, moderate-risk patients may benefit from a single intervention, and multiple interventions should be reserved for high-risk patients.