Free
Meeting Abstracts  |   December 2004
Intranasal Nicotine for Postoperative Pain Treatment
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Pamela Flood, M.D.
    *
  • Danette Daniel, M.D.
  • * Assistant Professor, † Research Associate, Department of Anesthesiology, Columbia University, New York, New York.
Article Information
Meeting Abstracts   |   December 2004
Intranasal Nicotine for Postoperative Pain Treatment
Anesthesiology 12 2004, Vol.101, 1417-1421. doi:
Anesthesiology 12 2004, Vol.101, 1417-1421. doi:
SEVENTY to eighty percent of the 23 million yearly surgical patients in the United States experience moderate to severe pain in the postoperative period despite pharmacological treatment.1–3 The opioid and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory medications that are commonly used to treat postoperative pain are limited by their side effects. As such, a novel effective analgesic strategy for the treatment of postoperative pain would be useful.
Antinociception from neuronal nicotinic receptor activation has been demonstrated in several animal models and is thought to result from activation of native descending inhibitory pain pathways.4,5 Studies in both smoking and nonsmoking human volunteers have shown that nicotine has a mild to moderate analgesic effect in experimental paradigms including heat induced pain,6 cold induced pain7,8 and pain induced by electrical shock.9 
Despite the evidence from studies in animals and human volunteers that nicotine has analgesic efficacy and the relative safety and efficacy of the nontobacco related nicotine administration systems that are currently available, the potential analgesic action of nicotine has not been studied in patients during the postoperative period. In this randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled study; we assessed the analgesic activity of nicotine administered in a nasal spray in women after uterine surgery.
Materials and Methods
This study was a randomized, double blind clinical trial with a 24-h data collection period. The study was approved by the institutional review board at Columbia University. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients. Women aged 18–50 yr scheduled to have uterine surgery (either myomectomy or hysterectomy) through a low transverse incision were eligible to be included. We chose to only study women in this preliminary study because animal studies have identified gender differences in the analgesic action of nicotine.10–12 Patients who had smoked during the past year or had preexisting pain syndromes, hypertension, or any history of cardiovascular disease were excluded. All patients were American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I or II. The patients were instructed before surgery that they would be asked about their pain with a numerical analog score, where 0 = no pain and 10 = the worst pain that they could imagine. All patients had access to morphine with patient-controlled analgesia after surgery and were instructed in its use in the preoperative period. No other medications were given in the preoperative period.
All patients were given a standardized anesthetic as follows: anesthetic premedication administered in the operating room consisted of 1–2 μg/kg fentanyl and 1 mg vecuronium. Anesthesia was induced with propofol 2 mg/kg and succinylcholine 2 mg/kg. After intubation of the trachea, anesthesia was maintained with a fentanyl infusion of 1–2 μg·kg−1·h−1and isoflurane was titrated to adequate anesthetic depth by the clinical anesthesiologist, who was not aware of the treatment group. Muscle relaxation was effected with vecuronium. All patients were given dolasetron 12.5 mg prophylactically to prevent nausea and vomiting. At the completion of surgery, the anesthesiologist was given an opaque sealed container with either a nicotine nasal spray (3 mg Nicotrol NS; Pharmacia, Peapack, NJ) or saline nasal spray prepared by the research pharmacy according to a random number table. The study drug was administered by the anesthesiologist as three jets in each nostril (3 mg nicotine or an equal volume of saline) at a 45 degree angle after the muscle relaxant was reversed and while the surgeon was closing the fascia.
Five minutes after extubation and every 5 min thereafter for 60 min, the patient was asked to report the pain that they were experiencing with a numerical analog score. A pain report was also obtained at 2 and 24 h. A patient-controlled analgesia pump was inserted into the intravenous circuit before emergence from anesthesia. It was programmed to deliver a dose of 1 mg morphine when the button was pressed with a lockout interval of 6 min and a maximal dose during 1 h of 10 mg. The patient-controlled analgesia pump was also programmed to allow a rescue dose of 3 mg morphine to be administered by a nurse every 5 min with additional 12 mg morphine maximally by this route every 4 h, if the patient reported a pain score greater than 3 of 10. As such a patient could receive 24 mg of morphine as a maximal dose in the first hour. According to the standard patient-controlled analgesia orders at our institution, the rescue dose was not administered by the nurse if the patient had a respiratory rate less than 8 breaths per minute or was determined by the nurse to be oversedated (sedation scale ≤3, where 0 = reflexes not present, 1 = reflexes present, does not respond to verbal command, 2 = eyes open to verbal command or response to name, 3 = lightly asleep, eyes open intermittently, and 4 = fully awake, conversant). No other postoperative analgesic medications were used.
Blood pressure was measured with a noninvasive automatic oscillometric blood pressure cuff every 5 min for the first hour (Agilent Technologies, Andover, MA). Heart rate was monitored continuously with a pulse oximeter and electrocardiographic leads and recorded every 5 min for the first hour (Agilent Technologies). All testing was conducted by the same investigator (D.D.). Both the investigator recording data and the nurse administering medication were blinded to treatment group.
The data were analyzed per protocol. Two subjects from whom informed consent was obtained were not studied for postoperative pain. In one case because of a protocol violation in the standard anesthetic the patient was not randomized and in the second case, the anesthesiologist was not certain of the study drug dose. The decision to exclude these patients was made before the postoperative period and thus no data were obtained.
Statistical Analysis
In previous studies using analog pain scores the SD was approximately 2 numerical analog pain units.13 We calculated that to detect a difference of 2 numerical analog pain units with α= 0.05 and 80% power, we would need to enroll 17 patients per group (StatMate; GraphPad software, San Diego, CA). Ten patients were enrolled per group as a pilot study requested by our Institutional Review Board. The difference between groups in pain score, morphine utilization, and hemodynamic variables were compared with one-way analysis of variance. The change in pain scores over time was determined with a one-way analysis of variance for repeated measures, where time was considered a continuous variable (Analyze-it for Microsoft Excel; Analyze-it Software, ltd., Leeds, England). All values are reported as mean (SD).
Results
The patients did not differ in age, weight, or duration of surgery. Of note, there was no difference in intraoperative fentanyl utilization between groups (table 1).
Table 1. Demographic and Surgical Characteristics of Patients 
Image not available
Table 1. Demographic and Surgical Characteristics of Patients 
×
Patients in the placebo group had considerable postoperative pain. Despite treatment with morphine, the peak pain score in the placebo group was 7.6 (1.5) units and occurred 25 min after extubation of the trachea (zero time point, fig. 1a). Thereafter, pain scores in the placebo group were significantly reduced to a minimum of 6.4 (1.4) at 55 min after emergence (P  < 0.01). The mean dose of patient-controlled analgesia morphine used by the control group was 12 (6) mg in the first hour (fig. 1b).
Fig. 1. Mean (± SD) numerical analog pain score and morphine utilization in the first hour after surgery. Zero time is extubation. (  A  ) Patients treated with nicotine reported lower pain scores than those who received placebo during the first hour (  P  < 0.001). At 24 h pain was still reported to be less in the nicotine group (  P  < 0.01). (  B  ) Cumulative morphine utilization. Patients who were treated with placebo used twice as much morphine in the first hour as those who were given nicotine nasal spray (  P  < 0.05). There was no difference in morphine utilization at later time points. 
Fig. 1. Mean (± SD) numerical analog pain score and morphine utilization in the first hour after surgery. Zero time is extubation. (  A  ) Patients treated with nicotine reported lower pain scores than those who received placebo during the first hour (  P  < 0.001). At 24 h pain was still reported to be less in the nicotine group (  P  < 0.01). (  B  ) Cumulative morphine utilization. Patients who were treated with placebo used twice as much morphine in the first hour as those who were given nicotine nasal spray (  P  < 0.05). There was no difference in morphine utilization at later time points. 
Fig. 1. Mean (± SD) numerical analog pain score and morphine utilization in the first hour after surgery. Zero time is extubation. (  A  ) Patients treated with nicotine reported lower pain scores than those who received placebo during the first hour (  P  < 0.001). At 24 h pain was still reported to be less in the nicotine group (  P  < 0.01). (  B  ) Cumulative morphine utilization. Patients who were treated with placebo used twice as much morphine in the first hour as those who were given nicotine nasal spray (  P  < 0.05). There was no difference in morphine utilization at later time points. 
×
In contrast, patients who were treated with nicotine nasal spray just before emergence form the isoflurane anesthetic reported lower pain scores at all times during the first hour than patients who received placebo (fig. 1a; P  < 0.001). The peak pain score in the nicotine group was 5.3 (1.6) units and occurred 35 min after surgery. Both groups reported increasing pain scores in the first 20 min after emergence when the effect of the fentanyl administered intraoperatively would be expected to be dissipating. Twenty-four hours after emergence from the general anesthetic, the patients in the nicotine group still reported lower pain scores than did those in the placebo group (4.9 [1.4] placebo, 1.5 [0.5] nicotine; P  < 0.01). In conjunction with decreased pain experience in the nicotine group, cumulative morphine utilization was less in the nicotine group than in the placebo group during the first hour, with 12 (6) mg used by the control group compared with 6 (5) mg used by the nicotine group (fig. 1b; P  < 0.05). During the first 24 h after surgery, the patients who received placebo used 63 ± 11 mg of morphine and the patients in the nicotine group used 41 ± 9 mg morphine. The difference in morphine utilization at 24 h did not reach statistical significance.
Because nicotine nasal spray can cause increases in blood pressure and heart rate when used by unanesthetized subjects,14–18 we measured these hemodynamic variables over the first hour in both groups. Systolic blood pressure was actually lower in the nicotine group, possibly in association with their lower reported pain scores (fig. 2a; 117 [3]versus  122 [3]; P  < 0.001). There was no difference in heart rate or diastolic blood pressure over the first postoperative hour (fig. 2b).
Fig. 2. Mean (± SD) hemodynamic variables in the first hour after surgery. (  A  ) In the group treated with nicotine, the systolic blood pressure was lower than in the group treated with placebo (  P  < 0.001). There was no difference in diastolic blood pressure between groups. (  B  ) There was no difference in heart rate between groups. 
Fig. 2. Mean (± SD) hemodynamic variables in the first hour after surgery. (  A  ) In the group treated with nicotine, the systolic blood pressure was lower than in the group treated with placebo (  P  < 0.001). There was no difference in diastolic blood pressure between groups. (  B  ) There was no difference in heart rate between groups. 
Fig. 2. Mean (± SD) hemodynamic variables in the first hour after surgery. (  A  ) In the group treated with nicotine, the systolic blood pressure was lower than in the group treated with placebo (  P  < 0.001). There was no difference in diastolic blood pressure between groups. (  B  ) There was no difference in heart rate between groups. 
×
Discussion
In this randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled trial; nicotine nasal spray significantly improved analgesia and reduced morphine requirements in women after uterine surgery. In studies on volunteers, this nicotine dose resulted in a mean peak plasma nicotine concentration of 4.7 (3.2) ng/ml 10 min after administration.14 As such, a single dose of nicotine given under general anesthesia provided considerable analgesic benefit. Furthermore, pain reports remained significantly less in the patients 24 h after they received nicotine, although the distribution half-life of nicotine is only 2–3 h.14,19–21 The terminal half-life is longer, however, reflecting release from less vessel rich stores. The prolonged effect of a single dose of nicotine might be a result of the continued presence of low nicotine concentrations and potential synergy with morphine. Because all patients received morphine postoperatively, we do not know if the excellent analgesic properties of nicotine are attributable to an additive effect of nicotine or a result of synergy with morphine. Activation of nicotinic receptors increases sensitivity to cocaine but it is not known whether there is a similar interaction with morphine.22 Studies of analgesic synergy between the two agents can be undertaken in future studies in humans and other animals.
Alternatively, the analgesic effect at 24 h after surgery could be the result of a reduction in central or peripheral sensitization. A reduction in inflammation could also contribute to the analgesic action of nicotine. Recently, nicotinic agonists that activate α7 subunit containing nicotinic acetylcholine receptors on macrophages have been shown to have an antiinflammatory action.23,24 
Nicotine has been approved for several years for over the counter use with transdermal administration, as a chewing gum, and as a nasal spray with a prescription. Its clinical safety profile has been found to be favorable.25–29 However, nicotine has the potential to increase heart rate and blood pressure because it activates autonomic as well as central nicotinic receptors. Increased blood pressure has been put forward as a potential mechanism for the analgesic effects of nicotine.9 In our study, however, we found no increase in blood pressure; in fact we found slightly lower systolic blood pressures in the patients treated with nicotine and no difference in diastolic blood pressure or heart rate. Signs of autonomic stimulation might be offset by the fact that the patients treated with nicotine had considerably less pain than did those treated with placebo. Also, isoflurane is a potent nicotinic antagonist and residual concentrations could blunt autonomic effects.30 In a meta-analysis that included 3752 patients participating in randomized trials of nicotine replacement therapy, there was no difference in the incidence of adverse cardiovascular outcomes (myocardial infarction, stroke, tachycardia, arrhythmia, and angina) in patients randomized to receive nicotine.31 However, the patients studied in the meta-analysis were all previous or current smokers. These patients might have been tolerant to the hemodynamic effects of nicotine.
In safety studies with the available modalities for nicotine administration, only mild nonhemodynamic side effects in smokers or nonsmokers were noted, including feelings of slight lightheadedness or dizziness.14 In some settings, acute nicotine exposure can cause nausea.31 Our study was not designed to detect changes in nausea, and we gave dolasetron prophylactically to all patients because of the high incidence of nausea after inhalation anesthesia for gynecological surgery.32 
There are some obvious limitations of the current study that should be addressed in future work. The ideal dose and administration paradigm for nicotinic analgesia in the postoperative period needs to be developed. As all of our patients were women, we do not know if this treatment will be equally effective in men. Studies in animals and one study in humans suggest that nicotine is effective in a broader range of experimental pain paradigms in males than in females.9,10,33 We do not know what type of nicotinic receptor mediates the analgesic action in our postoperative patients. Nicotinic receptors composed of α4β2 and α7 subunits have been implicated in antinociceptive effects in animals.34,35 Subtype selective nicotinic agonists might, in fact, produce superior therapeutic results.
Nicotine nasal spray had adjuvant analgesic activity after surgery in our study. The use of nicotine has the potential to spare opioid requirements and its use was apparently without side effects in our sample of healthy young, nonsmoking women. However, our study is small and was not designed to detect cardiovascular events that would be expected to have a low incidence in this population. In conclusion, we have demonstrated that nicotine nasal spray may be useful as an analgesic adjuvant in women after pelvic surgery. Until the side effect profile can be further addressed in larger studies, these findings should be considered preliminary.
References
Svensson I, Sjostrom B, Haljamae H: Assessment of pain experiences after elective surgery. J Pain Symptom Manage 2000; 20:193–201Svensson, I Sjostrom, B Haljamae, H
Owen H, McMillan V, Rogowski D: Postoperative pain therapy: A survey of patients’ expectations and their experiences. Pain 1990; 41:303–7Owen, H McMillan, V Rogowski, D
Thomas T, Robinson C, Champion D, McKell M, Pell M: Prediction and assessment of the severity of postoperative pain and of satisfaction with management. Pain 1998; 75:177–85Thomas, T Robinson, C Champion, D McKell, M Pell, M
Decker MW, Meyer MD, Sullivan JP: The therapeutic potential of nicotinic acetylcholine receptor agonists for pain control. Expert Opin Investig Drugs 2001; 10:1819–30Decker, MW Meyer, MD Sullivan, JP
Flores CM: The promise and pitfalls of a nicotinic cholinergic approach to pain management. Pain 2000; 88:1–6Flores, CM
Perkins K, Grobe J, Stiller R, Scierka A, Goettler J, Reynolds W, Jennings J: Effects of nicotine on thermal pain detection in humans. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 1994; 2:95–106Perkins, K Grobe, J Stiller, R Scierka, A Goettler, J Reynolds, W Jennings, J
Fertig JB, Pomerleau OF, Sanders B: Nicotine-produced antinociception in minimally deprived smokers and ex-smokers. Addict Behav 1986; 11:239–48Fertig, JB Pomerleau, OF Sanders, B
Pomerleau OF: Nicotine as a psychoactive drug: Anxiety and pain reduction. Psychopharmacol Bull 1986; 22:865–9Pomerleau, OF
Jamner LD, Girdler SS, Shapiro D, Jarvik ME: Pain inhibition, nicotine, and gender. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 1998; 6:96–106Jamner, LD Girdler, SS Shapiro, D Jarvik, ME
Damaj MI: Influence of gender and sex hormones on nicotine acute pharmacological effects in mice. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2001; 296:132–40Damaj, MI
Flood P, Daniel D: Pronociceptive actions of isoflurane: A protective role for estrogen. Anesthesiology 2003; 99:1–4Flood, P Daniel, D
Lavand’homme PM, Eisenach JC: Sex differences in cholinergic analgesia II: Differing mechanisms in two models of allodynia. Anesthesiology 1999; 91:1455–61Lavand’homme, PM Eisenach, JC
Goodman SR, Kim-Lo SH, Ciliberto CF, Ridley DM, Smiley RM: Epinephrine is not a useful addition to intrathecal fentanyl or fentanyl-bupivacaine for labor analgesia. Reg Anesth Pain Med 2002; 27:374–9Goodman, SR Kim-Lo, SH Ciliberto, CF Ridley, DM Smiley, RM
Fishbein L, O’Brien P, Hutson A, Theriaque D, Stacpoole PW, Flotte T: Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamic effects of nicotine nasal spray devices on cardiovascular and pulmonary function. J Investig Med 2000; 48:435–40Fishbein, L O’Brien, P Hutson, A Theriaque, D Stacpoole, PW Flotte, T
Perkins KA, Gerlach D, Broge M, Sanders M, Grobe J, Fonte C, Cherry C, Wilson A, Jacob R: Quitting cigarette smoking produces minimal loss of chronic tolerance to nicotine. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2001; 158:7–17Perkins, KA Gerlach, D Broge, M Sanders, M Grobe, J Fonte, C Cherry, C Wilson, A Jacob, R
Schneider NG, Lunell E, Olmstead RE, Fagerstrom KO: Clinical pharmacokinetics of nasal nicotine delivery: A review and comparison to other nicotine systems. Clin Pharmacokinet 1996; 31:65–80Schneider, NG Lunell, E Olmstead, RE Fagerstrom, KO
Sipe RV 3rd, Buck DC, Hollinger JO: Nicotine administration in rabbits using Habitrol nicotine patches and nicotine nasal spray. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 2000; 27:480–2Sipe, RV Buck, DC Hollinger, JO
Perkins KA, Grobe JE, Fonte C, Goettler J, Caggiula AR, Reynolds WA, Stiller RL, Scierka A, Jacob RG: Chronic and acute tolerance to subjective, behavioral and cardiovascular effects of nicotine in humans. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1994; 270:628–38Perkins, KA Grobe, JE Fonte, C Goettler, J Caggiula, AR Reynolds, WA Stiller, RL Scierka, A Jacob, RG
Sutherland G, Russell MA, Stapleton J, Feyerabend C, Ferno O: Nasal nicotine spray: A rapid nicotine delivery system. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1992; 108:512–8Sutherland, G Russell, MA Stapleton, J Feyerabend, C Ferno, O
Guthrie SK, Zubieta JK, Ohl L, Ni L, Koeppe RA, Minoshima S, Domino EF: Arterial/venous plasma nicotine concentrations following nicotine nasal spray. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1999; 55:639–43Guthrie, SK Zubieta, JK Ohl, L Ni, L Koeppe, RA Minoshima, S Domino, EF
Benowitz NL, Zevin S, Jacob P 3rd: Sources of variability in nicotine and cotinine levels with use of nicotine nasal spray, transdermal nicotine, and cigarette smoking. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1997; 43:259–67Benowitz, NL Zevin, S Jacob, P
Schoffelmeer AN, De Vries TJ, Wardeh G, van de Ven HW, Vanderschuren LJ: Psychostimulant-induced behavioral sensitization depends on nicotinic receptor activation. J Neurosci 2002; 22:3269–76Schoffelmeer, AN De Vries, TJ Wardeh, G van de Ven, HW Vanderschuren, LJ
Wang H, Yu M, Ochani M, Amella CA, Tanovic M, Susarla S, Li JH, Yang H, Ulloa L, Al-Abed Y, Czura CJ, Tracey KJ: Nicotinic acetylcholine receptor alpha7 subunit is an essential regulator of inflammation. Nature 2003; 421:384–8Wang, H Yu, M Ochani, M Amella, CA Tanovic, M Susarla, S Li, JH Yang, H Ulloa, L Al-Abed, Y Czura, CJ Tracey, KJ
Bernik TR, Friedman SG, Ochani M, DiRaimo R, Ulloa L, Yang H, Sudan S, Czura CJ, Ivanova SM, Tracey KJ: Pharmacological stimulation of the cholinergic antiinflammatory pathway. J Exp Med 2002; 195:781–8Bernik, TR Friedman, SG Ochani, M DiRaimo, R Ulloa, L Yang, H Sudan, S Czura, CJ Ivanova, SM Tracey, KJ
Hjalmarson A, Franzon M, Westin A, Wiklund O: Effect of nicotine nasal spray on smoking cessation: A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study. Arch Intern Med 1994; 154:2567–72Hjalmarson, A Franzon, M Westin, A Wiklund, O
Kunze U, Schoberberger R, Schmeiser-Rieder A, Groman E, Kunze M: Alternative nicotine delivery systems (ANDS): Public health aspects. Wien Klin Wochenschr 1998; 110:811–6Kunze, U Schoberberger, R Schmeiser-Rieder, A Groman, E Kunze, M
Jorenby DE: New developments in approaches to smoking cessation. Curr Opin Pulm Med 1998; 4:103–6Jorenby, DE
Schneider NG, Olmstead R, Mody FV, Doan K, Franzon M, Jarvik ME, Steinberg C: Efficacy of a nicotine nasal spray in smoking cessation: A placebo-controlled, double-blind trial. Addiction 1995; 90:1671–82Schneider, NG Olmstead, R Mody, FV Doan, K Franzon, M Jarvik, ME Steinberg, C
Sutherland G, Stapleton JA, Russell MA, Jarvis MJ, Hajek P, Belcher M, Feyerabend C: Randomised controlled trial of nasal nicotine spray in smoking cessation. Lancet 1992; 340:324–9Sutherland, G Stapleton, JA Russell, MA Jarvis, MJ Hajek, P Belcher, M Feyerabend, C
Flood P, Ramirez-Latorre J, Role L: Alpha 4 beta 2 neuronal nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in the central nervous system are inhibited by isoflurane and propofol, but alpha 7-type nicotinic acetylcholine receptors are unaffected. Anesthesiology 1997; 86:859–65Flood, P Ramirez-Latorre, J Role, L
Greenland S, Satterfield MH, Lanes SF: A meta-analysis to assess the incidence of adverse effects associated with the transdermal nicotine patch. Drug Saf 1998; 18:297–308Greenland, S Satterfield, MH Lanes, SF
Kenny GN: Risk factors for postoperative nausea and vomiting. Anaesthesia 1994; 49 Suppl:6–10Kenny, GN
Carstens E, Anderson KA, Simons CT, Carstens MI, Jinks SL: Analgesia induced by chronic nicotine infusion in rats: Differences by gender and pain test. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2001; 157:40–5Carstens, E Anderson, KA Simons, CT Carstens, MI Jinks, SL
Marubio LM, del Mar Arroyo-Jimenez M, Cordero-Erausquin M, Lena C, Le Novere N, de Kerchove d’Exaerde A, Huchet M, Damaj MI, Changeux JP: Reduced antinociception in mice lacking neuronal nicotinic receptor subunits. Nature 1999; 398:805–10Marubio, LM del Mar Arroyo-Jimenez, M Cordero-Erausquin, M Lena, C Le Novere, N de Kerchove d’Exaerde, A Huchet, M Damaj, MI Changeux, JP
Damaj MI, Meyer EM, Martin BR: The antinociceptive effects of alpha7 nicotinic agonists in an acute pain model. Neuropharmacology 2000; 39:2785–91Damaj, MI Meyer, EM Martin, BR
Fig. 1. Mean (± SD) numerical analog pain score and morphine utilization in the first hour after surgery. Zero time is extubation. (  A  ) Patients treated with nicotine reported lower pain scores than those who received placebo during the first hour (  P  < 0.001). At 24 h pain was still reported to be less in the nicotine group (  P  < 0.01). (  B  ) Cumulative morphine utilization. Patients who were treated with placebo used twice as much morphine in the first hour as those who were given nicotine nasal spray (  P  < 0.05). There was no difference in morphine utilization at later time points. 
Fig. 1. Mean (± SD) numerical analog pain score and morphine utilization in the first hour after surgery. Zero time is extubation. (  A  ) Patients treated with nicotine reported lower pain scores than those who received placebo during the first hour (  P  < 0.001). At 24 h pain was still reported to be less in the nicotine group (  P  < 0.01). (  B  ) Cumulative morphine utilization. Patients who were treated with placebo used twice as much morphine in the first hour as those who were given nicotine nasal spray (  P  < 0.05). There was no difference in morphine utilization at later time points. 
Fig. 1. Mean (± SD) numerical analog pain score and morphine utilization in the first hour after surgery. Zero time is extubation. (  A  ) Patients treated with nicotine reported lower pain scores than those who received placebo during the first hour (  P  < 0.001). At 24 h pain was still reported to be less in the nicotine group (  P  < 0.01). (  B  ) Cumulative morphine utilization. Patients who were treated with placebo used twice as much morphine in the first hour as those who were given nicotine nasal spray (  P  < 0.05). There was no difference in morphine utilization at later time points. 
×
Fig. 2. Mean (± SD) hemodynamic variables in the first hour after surgery. (  A  ) In the group treated with nicotine, the systolic blood pressure was lower than in the group treated with placebo (  P  < 0.001). There was no difference in diastolic blood pressure between groups. (  B  ) There was no difference in heart rate between groups. 
Fig. 2. Mean (± SD) hemodynamic variables in the first hour after surgery. (  A  ) In the group treated with nicotine, the systolic blood pressure was lower than in the group treated with placebo (  P  < 0.001). There was no difference in diastolic blood pressure between groups. (  B  ) There was no difference in heart rate between groups. 
Fig. 2. Mean (± SD) hemodynamic variables in the first hour after surgery. (  A  ) In the group treated with nicotine, the systolic blood pressure was lower than in the group treated with placebo (  P  < 0.001). There was no difference in diastolic blood pressure between groups. (  B  ) There was no difference in heart rate between groups. 
×
Table 1. Demographic and Surgical Characteristics of Patients 
Image not available
Table 1. Demographic and Surgical Characteristics of Patients 
×