[Patient acceptance of patient-controlled intranasal analgesia (PCINA)].

UNLABELLED

Patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (i.v.-PCA) represents the gold standard in the management of acute postoperative pain. However, in many countries i.v.-PCA is rarely used. Recent clinical studies demonstrated that intranasal fentanyl titration provides a rapid and safe form and pain management. In the present study we investigated patients' acceptance and assessment of patient-controlled intranasal analgesia (PCINA) and compared it to intravenous PCA and the customarily prescribed pain therapy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

After approval by the local ethics committee and written informed consent, 79 ASA physical status I or II patients were investigated on the first postoperative day following orthopaedic surgery. The patients were allocated either to the PCINA group (a maximum of 0.025 mg fentanyl over 6 min), to the i.v.-PCA group (0.025 mg fentanyl bolus, lockout interval 6 min) or to a group of patients who received the customarily prescribed pain management. Following the 8-h investigation period, the patients were questioned regarding their satisfaction with the pain therapy using a 6-point rating scale (ranging from 1 = very good to 6 = not acceptable). The patients were furthermore asked to name the advantages and disadvantages of their pain management.

RESULTS

Three patients in the i.v.-PCA group had to be excluded due to pain at the injection site and one patient in the PCINA group because of a surgical complication. Seventy-five patients were finally included, 25 patients per group. No statistically significant intergroup differences regarding age, weight, height and initial pain intensity (evaluated by a 101-point numeric rating scale) were demonstrated. The patients' satisfaction with the mode of pain management was significantly higher in the PCINA (median "good") and in the i.v.-PCA group (median "good") than in the group who received the customarily prescribed pain management (median "satisfactory"). This difference was statistically significant (P = 0.0001). No statistically significant difference was demonstrated between the PCINA and i.v.-PCA groups. The patients in the PCINA and in the i.v.-PCA group stated as main advantages the rapid onset of action and good pain relief (n = 25 and n = 25, respectively), as well as their independence from the doctor or nurse (n = 12 and n = 13). The main disadvantages were pain on injection in the i.v.-PCA group and too frequent fentanyl administrations in the PCINA group (n = 6).

DISCUSSION

The results demonstrate that the patients' satisfaction with PCINA is comparable to that with i.v.-PCA. Both PCINA and i.v.-PCA were assessed as superior to the customarily prescribed pain management (P = 0.0001). Patients' acceptance of a given form of pain management is mainly related to its efficiency. However, side effects such as pain on injection with i.v.-PCA, or frequent opioid administration with PCINA, must be considered when assessing a method of pain control. Patients' global assessment includes both efficiency and side effects. PCINA represents an interesting alternative non-invasive method for postoperative pain management.