Free
Clinical Science  |   September 1995
Postoperative Pain Control with a New Transdermal Fentanyl Delivery System: A Multicenter Trial
Author Notes
  • (Miguel, Bowie) Assistant Professor, Department of Anesthesiology, University of South Florida College of Medicine.
  • (Kreitzer, Freedman) Assistant Professor, Department of Anesthesiology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine.
  • (Reinhart) Assistant Professor, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Texas.
  • (Sebel) Professor, Department of Anesthesiology, Emory University.
  • (Eisenkraft) Professor, Department of Anesthesiology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine.
  • Received from the Departments of Anesthesiology of the University of South Florida College of Medicine, Tampa, Florida; Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York; University of Texas, Dallas, Texas; and Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia. Submitted for publication November 5, 1992. Accepted for publication May 5, 1995. Supported by a grant from Anaquest. Presented in part at the annual meetings of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, San Francisco, California, October 1991 and New Orleans, Louisiana, October 1992 and at the meeting of the International Anesthesia Research Society, San Francisco, California, March 1992.
  • Address reprint requests to Dr. Miguel: Department of Anesthesiology, University of South Florida College of Medicine, 12901 N. Bruce B. Downs Boulevard, Box 59, Tampa, Florida 33612.
Article Information
Clinical Science
Clinical Science   |   September 1995
Postoperative Pain Control with a New Transdermal Fentanyl Delivery System: A Multicenter Trial
Anesthesiology 9 1995, Vol.83, 470-477.. doi:
Anesthesiology 9 1995, Vol.83, 470-477.. doi:
Methods: Both doses of the new transdermal fentanyl patches were evaluated for the relief of postoperative pain in 143 patients after gynecologic exploratory laparotomy. The study was conducted at four centers using a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind format. Patients were randomly assigned to one of three study groups: group 1 patients received two placebo patches; group 2 patients received a 40-cm2fentanyl patch and a 60-cm2placebo patch; and group 3 patients received a 60-cm2fentanyl patch and a 40-cm2placebo patch. Patient-controlled morphine use and pain, sedation, and comfort scores were assessed postoperatively every 4 h for 36 h after patch placement.
Results: Patients' assessment of their analgesia was significantly (P less or equal to 0.05) better in group 2 at 16 and 24 h and in group 3 at 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24 h postoperatively, compared with the patients in group 1. Patients in groups 2 and 3 required less supplemental morphine to maintain satisfactory analgesia than did the patients in group 1. Patients in groups 2 and 3 had greater incidences of pruritus, erythema, and respiratory depression than did those receiving placebo.
Conclusions: Concern exists regarding the side effects of this this new transdermal fentanyl patch. Therefore, this new patch will need further research before it can be recommended as an adjunct in controlling postoperative pain.
Key words: Analgesics, opioids: fentanyl. Anesthetic techniques: transdermal delivery.
THE control of postoperative pain has led to the development of increasingly invasive techniques. The use of opioids by the spinal route and intrapleural analgesia are two invasive modalities commonly used for the relief of postoperative pain. [1-4] These techniques have inherent risks (bleeding, infection, and pneumothorax) as well as risks related to the medication (pruritus, nausea, respiratory depression, and local anesthetic toxicity). The development of an effective, noninvasive, continuous analgesia delivery system would be an attractive alternative for the control of postoperative pain. Patient-controlled analgesia has been useful in that regard, but may provide inadequate analgesia during periods of extended sleep, requires the use of mechanical pumps and is an invasive technique.
Michaels et al. [5] were the first to describe the possibility of transdermal drug delivery. Transdermal administration of a variety of medications including nitroglycerin, clonidine and scopolamine have been reported. Transdermal administration results in consistent, stable concentrations of these medications in plasma. Transdermal fentanyl, originally described by Sebel et al. in 1987, [6] is the first opioid commercially available for transdermal delivery (Duragesic, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Piscataway, NJ). The Food and Drug Administration has limited approval for its use in patients with chronic cancer pain.
Because the Duragesic patch has a slow onset and long duration, the development of a patch with a faster onset and shorter duration of action would be more attractive for the control of postoperative pain.
The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy and side effects profile of a new transdermal fentanyl delivery system (TDFP-40 and -60, Anaquest, Liberty Corner, NJ) in controlling postoperative pain in female patients undergoing lower abdominal gynecologic surgery.
Materials and Methods
As part of a multicenter study, 144 women who were scheduled for gynecologic exploratory laparotomy were enrolled in the study. The protocol was approved by each institution's Scientific Review Board and written informed consent was obtained from each patient. Patients who had a history of recent opioid therapy or drug abuse, body weight exceeding 110 kg, or American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 3 or greater or who were older than 65 yr were excluded from the study.
The study was carried out in a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled fashion using three study groups. Each patient received two patches (40 and 60 cm2) placed on the upper torso, approximately 1 h before operation. The patients in group 1 received a 40- and a 60-cm2placebo patch. Patients in group 2 received a 40-cm2transdermal fentanyl patch (TDFP-40) and a 60-cm sup 2 placebo patch. Patients in group 3 received a 60-cm2transdermal fentanyl patch (TDFP-60) and a 40-cm2placebo patch. All patches remained in place for 24 h. One square centimeter of the active patch contained 0.16 mg fentanyl. All active patches were of the same composition per square centimeter*; therefore, the delivered dose was determined by the size (area) of the patch. After placement of the patches, patients received either diazepam 0.1 mg/kg orally, or midazolam 0.035 mg/kg intramuscularly. Baseline values for blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, and hemoglobin oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry (SpO2) were recorded.
Anesthetic technique was standardized for all patients as follows. Induction of anesthesia was achieved with sodium thiopental or thiamylal sodium, 1-5 mg/kg intravenously. Succinylcholine, 1.5 mg/kg intravenously, was used to facilitate tracheal intubation. Fentanyl was given to a total of 5 micro gram/kg intravenously. Maintenance of anesthesia was achieved with N2O-O2in a 3:2 ratio. Isoflurane was added as dictated by patient need, to as much as 1.3% end-tidal concentration. Intravenous vecuronium, 0.05 mg/kg initially followed by 0.01 mg/kg when needed, was used to maintain neuromuscular blockade. Intravenous neostigmine and glycopyrrolate were used for reversal of residual neuromuscular blockade.
Upon arrival to the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), patients were given morphine sulfate 110-150 micro gram/kg intravenously followed by an on-demand dose of 20-40 micro gram/kg intravenously with a 10-min lockout from a patient-controlled pump for supplemental analgesia. A maintenance infusion of morphine was not administered. Total cumulative morphine administered in the first 24 h postoperatively was recorded by a research assistant.
Patients were evaluated by a research assistant who was not a member of the anesthetizing team, upon entry into the PACU and at 10, 15, 30, and 60 min thereafter. Blood pressure, respiratory rate, SpO2, and pulse rate were recorded. Comfort and sedation scores were recorded (Table 1).
Table 1. Comfort and Sedation Scoring System
Image not available
Table 1. Comfort and Sedation Scoring System
×
All patients were continuously monitored by an observer for the entire time the patch was in place. All of the aforementioned variables were recorded at 2-h intervals for the first 12 h postoperatively, and then at 4-h intervals for the next 24 h. At these same times patients completed a global self-assessment of analgesia by answering the question: "How do you rate your pain relief?" Their response was graded on a scale of 0-3 (Table 2). Visual linear analogue scale (VAS) scores (0-100 mm) were also used to assess pain relief.
Table 2. Pain Relief Scoring Systems
Image not available
Table 2. Pain Relief Scoring Systems
×
All patches were removed 24 h after application. Patients were continuously monitored by the observer for an additional 12 h for erythema or edema at the patch site (scale of 0-4, where 0 = none, 4 = severe) at 4, 8, and 12 h after patch removal, and for nausea, vomiting, pruritus and respiratory depression (i.e., respiratory rate < 8 breaths/min or SpO2< 90%) at the same times.
Plasma fentanyl concentrations were measured before patch placement, upon the patient's arrival in the PACU, and 12 and 24 h after patch placement. Blood was placed on ice and, within 1 h of collection, was centrifuged and the plasma frozen at -20 degrees Celsius. Plasma was analyzed by radioimmunoassay to determine fentanyl concentration with a lower limit of sensitivity of 0.05 ng/ml. Fentanyl assays were performed at Harris Laboratories (Lincoln, NE).
Statistical Methods
Parametric data (age, weight, morphine sulfate dosage, SpO2, VAS scores, intraoperative fentanyl total dose, plasma fentanyl concentrations) were compared using an analysis of variance (between groups design). When P less or equal to 0.05, a post hoc analysis was performed with Scheffe's test to identify specific differences.
Nonparametric data (sedation, comfort, and analgesia) were compared using Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance by ranks. When P less or equal to 0.05, Bonferroni's correction to the Mann-Whitney rank sum test was used to distinguish differences between groups. Intergroup incidence of respiratory depression was evaluated with Fisher's exact test. A P value of less or equal to 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
One hundred forty-three patients were studied (45 in group 1, 49 in group 2, and 49 in group 3). One patient with a history of asthma had severe bronchospasm in the immediate postoperative period and was withdrawn from the study. There were no differences among the groups with respect to mean age, mean weight, or ASA physical status (Table 3).
Table 3. Patient Demographics
Image not available
Table 3. Patient Demographics
×
All patients arrived at the PACU within 3-6 h after patch placement. The patients in group 1 demonstrated significantly lower plasma fentanyl concentration upon arrival to the PACU (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.8 to -0.03), at 12 h (95% CI, -2.1 to -1.3) and at 24 h (95% CI, -2.0 to -1.4) after patch placement compared with the patients in group 3 (Figure 1). Group 2 patients demonstrated higher plasma fentanyl concentrations than the patients in group 1 at 12 (95% CI, -1.4 to -0.8) and 24 h (95% CI, -1.5 to -1.0) after patch placement. No statistically significant differences in mean concentrations in plasma were found between the patients in groups 2 and 3.
Figure 1. Plasma fentanyl concentrations immediately before patch placement, at arrival in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and 12 and 24 h after patch placement. Significant differences were found between the low-dose patch and placebo 12 and 24 h after patch placement and between the high-dose patch and placebo at PACU arrival and 12 and 24 h after patch placement. Values expressed as mean plus/minus SD. *P less or equal to 0.001 compared with group 1; #P less or equal to 0.01 compared with group 1; (dagger)P less or equal to 0.05 compared with group 1.
Figure 1. Plasma fentanyl concentrations immediately before patch placement, at arrival in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and 12 and 24 h after patch placement. Significant differences were found between the low-dose patch and placebo 12 and 24 h after patch placement and between the high-dose patch and placebo at PACU arrival and 12 and 24 h after patch placement. Values expressed as mean plus/minus SD. *P less or equal to 0.001 compared with group 1; #P less or equal to 0.01 compared with group 1; (dagger)P less or equal to 0.05 compared with group 1.
Figure 1. Plasma fentanyl concentrations immediately before patch placement, at arrival in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and 12 and 24 h after patch placement. Significant differences were found between the low-dose patch and placebo 12 and 24 h after patch placement and between the high-dose patch and placebo at PACU arrival and 12 and 24 h after patch placement. Values expressed as mean plus/minus SD. *P less or equal to 0.001 compared with group 1; #P less or equal to 0.01 compared with group 1; (dagger)P less or equal to 0.05 compared with group 1.
×
Supplemental intravenous morphine use for the maintenance of satisfactory analgesia was less for patients in groups 2 and 3 than those in group 1 (P less or equal to 0.01; 95% CI, 6.3-29.3 and P less or equal to 0.001; 95% CI, 11.5-35.0, respectively). No difference was found between the patients in groups 2 and 3 with regard to their need for supplemental morphine (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Supplemental intravenous morphine received by the patients through their patient-controlled analgesia device. A significant opioid-sparing effect was seen in patients receiving active patches. Values are expressed as mean plus/minus SD. *P less or equal to 0.001 compared with group 1; #P less or equal to 0.01 compared with group 1.
Figure 2. Supplemental intravenous morphine received by the patients through their patient-controlled analgesia device. A significant opioid-sparing effect was seen in patients receiving active patches. Values are expressed as mean plus/minus SD. *P less or equal to 0.001 compared with group 1; #P less or equal to 0.01 compared with group 1.
Figure 2. Supplemental intravenous morphine received by the patients through their patient-controlled analgesia device. A significant opioid-sparing effect was seen in patients receiving active patches. Values are expressed as mean plus/minus SD. *P less or equal to 0.001 compared with group 1; #P less or equal to 0.01 compared with group 1.
×
The mean VAS scores reported by patients in group 3 were significantly less on multiple occasions, compared with patients in groups 1 and 2 (Figure 3). The results of the patients' global self assessment of analgesia are shown in Figure 4. Patients' global self assessment of analgesia in group 3 demonstrated significantly better pain relief compared with patients in group 1 in five of the ten assessment periods. Patients in group 2 reported significantly improved pain relief in one of the ten assessment periods compared with the patients in group 1. Differences between the patients in groups 2 and 3 were not statistically significant.
Figure 3. The visual analogue scale scores reported by the patients in the high-dose patch group were significantly lower 8, 10, 16, and 20 h after patch placement compared with the patients receiving placebo and those receiving low-dose patches. Values are expressed as mean plus/minus SD. *P less or equal to 0.05 compared with groups 1 and 2.
Figure 3. The visual analogue scale scores reported by the patients in the high-dose patch group were significantly lower 8, 10, 16, and 20 h after patch placement compared with the patients receiving placebo and those receiving low-dose patches. Values are expressed as mean plus/minus SD. *P less or equal to 0.05 compared with groups 1 and 2.
Figure 3. The visual analogue scale scores reported by the patients in the high-dose patch group were significantly lower 8, 10, 16, and 20 h after patch placement compared with the patients receiving placebo and those receiving low-dose patches. Values are expressed as mean plus/minus SD. *P less or equal to 0.05 compared with groups 1 and 2.
×
Figure 4. Patient self-assessment of analgesia demonstrates improved pain relief by the patients with a high-dose patch in five of ten assessment periods compared with placebo. Patients with a low-dose patch reported a difference in one of ten assessment periods compared with placebo. Values are expressed as median (and range). *P less or equal to 0.001 compared with group 1; #P less or equal to 0.01 compared with group 1; (dagger)P less or equal to 0.05 compared with group 1.
Figure 4. Patient self-assessment of analgesia demonstrates improved pain relief by the patients with a high-dose patch in five of ten assessment periods compared with placebo. Patients with a low-dose patch reported a difference in one of ten assessment periods compared with placebo. Values are expressed as median (and range). *P less or equal to 0.001 compared with group 1; #P less or equal to 0.01 compared with group 1; (dagger)P less or equal to 0.05 compared with group 1.
Figure 4. Patient self-assessment of analgesia demonstrates improved pain relief by the patients with a high-dose patch in five of ten assessment periods compared with placebo. Patients with a low-dose patch reported a difference in one of ten assessment periods compared with placebo. Values are expressed as median (and range). *P less or equal to 0.001 compared with group 1; #P less or equal to 0.01 compared with group 1; (dagger)P less or equal to 0.05 compared with group 1.
×
Comfort scores were significantly better for the patients in group 3 at only one assessment point compared with the patients in group 1. Sedation scores were similar for patients in all groups at all times during the study period.
Significant differences in the incidence of side effects were observed between the patients in the three groups (Table 4). Pruritus occurred more commonly in the patients in group 3. Pruritus usually was mild but required treatment in three patients in group 1, ten patients in group 2, and six patients in group 3 (difference not statistically significant). Erythema was more common in patients in group 2 than in the other groups but was mild and did not require treatment. The incidence of nausea and vomiting was high in all groups and no significant differences between the groups was found.
Table 4. Side Effects
Image not available
Table 4. Side Effects
×
Respiratory depression (defined in this study as persistent Sp sub O2< 90% or respiratory rate < 8 breaths/min) was found in all groups but was significantly more frequent in the patients in group 3 compared with the patients in group 1 (Table 4). The characteristics of all patients in whom respiratory depression developed are presented in Table 5. Two patients in group 1 (placebo) had respiratory depression, and one of these required mechanical ventilation in the PACU. This patient had a plasma fentanyl concentration of 0.48 ng/ml on arrival to the PACU. Three patients in group 2 and eight in group 3 had respiratory depression. Four of these patients (two in group 2 and four in group 3) required intravenous naloxone and four had their patches removed (all in group 3). There were no differences between the patients who received fentanyl patches and had respiratory depression and the others who received fentanyl patches but did not have respiratory depression with respect to age, ASA physical status, amount of intraoperative fentanyl used or plasma fentanyl concentrations. Compared with patients who did not have respiratory depression, patients who had respiratory depression weighed less and had higher plasma fentanyl concentrations upon arrival to the PACU (Table 6). Respiratory depression occurred at 24 h in all three patients in group 2. However, in the patients in group 3, respiratory depression occurred within 8 h in five patients and in only three patients thereafter.
Table 5. Data of Patients Developing Respiratory Depression
Image not available
Table 5. Data of Patients Developing Respiratory Depression
×
Table 6. Comparative Data of Patients Receiving Active Patches with and without Respiratory Depression
Image not available
Table 6. Comparative Data of Patients Receiving Active Patches with and without Respiratory Depression
×
Discussion
The patches used in the current study were developed with the more rapid attainment of stable analgesia as a goal. The TDFPs that we studied contain a supply of fentanyl in a saturated matrix weave, a backing, and a release liner. Propylene glycol monolaurate is added to facilitate fentanyl dispersion in the adhesive. After removal of the release liner and application to the skin, the flow of fentanyl into the body is controlled by the skin and surface contact area, without a rate-controlling membrane, in contrast with the ethylene copolymer membrane and reservoir of the longer-term patch (Duragesic). The absence of a rate-limiting adhesive membrane is primarily responsible for the rapid onset obtained with the Anaquest TDFP product.
Mean concentrations in plasma (plus/minus SD) of 1.34 plus/minus 0.94 ng/ml were achieved with TDFP-40 and 1.98 plus/minus 1.30 ng/ml with the TDFP-60 at 12 h after patch application. At 24 h, concentrations were 1.48 plus/minus 0.70 ng/ml with TDFP-40 and 1.90 plus/minus 1.00 ng/ml with TDFP-60. Therapeutic fentanyl concentrations were achieved 3-6 h after patch placement and significant differences between patients in group 3 and those in the placebo group were seen on arrival to the PACU. Despite fentanyl use intraoperatively, decay in plasma fentanyl concentration was significantly more rapid in the patients in group 1 compared with the patients in group 3 by the time of PACU arrival and compared with both active patch groups by 12 and 24 h. The biopharmaceutics of the patch are described in an accompanying article. [7] .
In contrast, the currently available patches (i.e., Duragesic) have demonstrated prolonged times until development of steady-state concentrations in plasma. [8-10] Furthermore, the time required for a 50% decrease in plasma fentanyl concentration after patch removal is approximately 16 h. [9,10] These qualities make the Duragesic patch less convenient for the relatively short-term analgesia usually required postoperatively. Attempts to use the Duragesic patch postoperatively have yielded mixed results. [10-13] On January 17, 1994, Janssen Pharmaceutica issued a letter to health care professionals to reinforce precautions for safe use and to alert them to revised product labeling, including its contraindication for use in acute or postoperative pain.**
Continuously administered fentanyl has been widely used for the control of postoperative pain by a variety of routes. [14,15] Transdermal fentanyl delivery systems should deliver and maintain stable concentrations in plasma within the therapeutic range. The relation between plasma fentanyl concentration and analgesia has been established. A plasma fentanyl concentration of 0.23-1.18 ng/ml offers analgesia with a minimum effective concentration (MEC) of 0.63 ng/ml for abdominal operations. [16] MEC is defined as the minimum concentration that produces consistent and constant pain relief if the blood opioid concentration is maintained in excess of the MEC value. Gourlay et al. [16] determined the MEC for fentanyl in patients undergoing abdominal operations by assaying blood samples taken immediately before patient requests for more pain medication. Plasma fentanyl concentrations greater than 2 ng/ml have been shown to cause a higher incidence of side effects. It is not surprising that there is such a wide range of analgesic concentrations in plasma, because analgesic requirements are influenced by pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, as well as by psychological and gender factors.
A similar incidence of adverse events was reported in the three groups with the exception of pruritus, erythema, and respiratory depression. Although pruritus was reported more frequently in the active patch groups, the severity of itching was relatively mild and rarely required intervention. Localized erythema at the patch site was reported more frequently in patients receiving the TDFP-40 (low-dose) patch than in those receiving a placebo or TDFP-60 (high-dose) patch. This may indicate that other factors, such as patient sensitivity or hydration status, are more significant for the development of local irritation than the fentanyl in the patch. The incidence of nausea and vomiting was not different among the groups and was comparable to that reported elsewhere. [10-12] .
Respiratory depression was more common in the active patch groups. Although respiratory depression developed in two patients in the placebo group, its occurrence in the PACU with a documented therapeutic plasma fentanyl concentration indicates its probable relation to intraoperative fentanyl administration. In three patients in group 2 respiratory depression developed approximately 24 h after patch placement. This 6% incidence compares favorably with the recent report by Sevarino et al., [13] who found incidences of 6% and 9% of respiratory depression (defined in her study as respiratory rate < 8 breaths/min) with significantly lower-dose fentanyl patches (25 and 50 micro gram/h, respectively). Respiratory depression developed in eight patients (16%) in group 3, but in five of those (63%) it occurred during the early postoperative period. It is during this early postoperative phase that intraoperative fentanyl use could have contributed to its occurrence. This is supported by finding significantly higher plasma fentanyl concentrations in the PACU in patients in whom respiratory depression developed compared with those in whom it did not. Decreasing or eliminating intraoperative opioid administration entirely could conceivably decrease the incidence of respiratory depression. However, concern may exist that inadequate pain relief in the immediate postoperative period may occur. The achievement of rapid (i.e., 3-4 h after patch placement), therapeutic plasma fentanyl concentrations, as seen with TDFP-40 and TDFP-60, may reduce this concern. However, even when no other opioids are given, respiratory depression can occur. In the accompanying article on the biopharmaceutics of patch administration, [7] the TDFP-60 patch was prematurely removed from 2 of 14 subjects because of significant respiratory depression. Plasma fentanyl concentrations at time of patch removal were 2.9 and 3.22 ng/ml.
Improved postoperative analgesia was found in the patients who received active patches. A difference in VAS pain scores was not found more often because of the patients' ability to dose themselves with morphine. The ability of the patients to autotitrate morphine to achieve acceptable pain relief resulted in finding significant differences in pain relief only occasionally. The significant morphine-sparing effect of the active patches underscores their effectiveness in the relief of postoperative pain.
In summary, a new transdermal fentanyl delivery system was investigated in patients undergoing abdominal gynecologic operations to determine its safety and efficacy for postoperative pain management. Patients who received active patches reported lower VAS pain scores and required less supplemental morphine to provide adequate analgesia compared with patients who received placebo patches. The new fentanyl patch shows promise as an adjunct in the control of postoperative pain. As with any continuous drug delivery system, limitations of the patch include the inability to titrate dosage. Although use of the patch resulted in a decrease in supplemental morphine use and better pain control, this potential benefit was accompanied by significantly increased plasma fentanyl concentrations and an increased incidence of respiratory depression. The high-dose (60-cm2) patch and possibly the low-dose (40-cm2) patch appear to be excessive for use in postoperative pain management. Further research will be needed to determine whether a safe and effective patch dose can be found and to determine the influence of the intraoperative anesthetic technique on the side effects profile.
The authors acknowledge the significant contributions made by the following persons: Colette Bradford, R.N. (Mount Sinai School of Medicine); Michael Johnson, D.O., Kevin Sheahan, M.D., Michael Finan, M.D., Raymond Toscano, M.D., Diane Dombrowski, B.S., and Connie Farrell, R.N. (University of South Florida); and Todd Tyson, M.D., Rhonda K. Mullins, M.D., Penelope K. Duke, M.D., Robert Zane, M.D., Kenneth Hiller, B.S., and Adolph Giesecke, M.D. (University of Southwestern Texas).
* Shafer SL: Personal communication. 1993.
** Clausner MA: Letter to medical professionals. Medical Affairs, Janssen Pharmaceutica, January 17, 1994.
REFERENCES
Cousins MJ, Mather LE: Intrathecal and epidural administration of opioids. ANESTHESIOLOGY 61:276-310, 1984.
Reiestad F, Stromskag KE: Interpleural catheter in the management of postoperative pain. Reg Anesth 11:89-91, 1986.
Ready LB, Loper KA, Nessly M, Wild L: Postoperative epidural morphine is safe on surgical wards. ANESTHESIOLOGY 75:452-456, 1991.
Ferrante FM, Chan VWS, Arthur GR, Rocco AG: Interpleural analgesia after thoracotomy. Anesth Analg 72:105-109, 1991.
Michaels AS, Chandrasekaran SK, Shaw JE: Drug permeation through human skin: Theory and in vitro experimental measurement. AlChE Journal 21:985-996, 1975.
Sebel PS, Barrett CW, Kirk CJC, Heykants J: Transdermal absorption of fentanyl and sufentanil in man. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 32:529-531, 1987.
Fiset P, Cohane C, Browne S, Brand SC, Shafer SL: Biopharmaceutics of a new transdermal fentanyl device. ANESTHESIOLOGY 83:459-469, 1995.
Gourlay GK, Kowalski SR, Plummer JL, Cherry DA, Szekely SM, Mather LE, Owen H, Cousins MJ: The efficacy of transdermal fentanyl in the treatment of postoperative pain: A double blind comparison of fentanyl and placebo systems. Pain 40:21-28, 1990.
Varvel JR, Shafer SL, Hwang SS, Coen PA, Stanski DR: Absorption characteristics of transdermally administered fentanyl. ANESTHESIOLOGY 70:928-934, 1989.
Gourlay GK, Kowalski SR, Plummer JL, Cherry DA, Gaukroger P, Cousins MJ: The transdermal administration of fentanyl in the treatment of postoperative pain: Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamic effects. Pain 37:193-202, 1989.
Caplan RA, Ready LB, Oden RL, Matsen FA, Nessly ML, Olsson GL: Transdermal fentanyl for postoperative pain management: a double-blind placebo study. JAMA 261:1036-1039, 1989.
Holley FO, Van Steennis C: Postoperative analgesia with fentanyl: Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of constant-rate IV and transdermal delivery. Br J Anaesth 60:608-613, 1988.
Sevarino FB, Naulty JS, Sinatra R, Chin ML, Paige D, Conry K, Silverman DG: Transdernmal fentanyl for postoperative pain management in patients recovering from abdominal gynecologic surgery. ANESTHESIOLOGY 77:463-466, 1992.
Nimmo WS, Todd JG: Fentanyl by constant rate I.V. infusion for postoperative analgesia. Br J Anaesth 57:250-254, 1985.
Kreitzer JM, Kirschenbaum LB, Eisenkraft JB: Epidural fentanyl by continuous infusion for the relief of postoperative pain. Clin J Pain 5:283-290, 1989.
Gourlay GK, Kowalski SR, Plummer JL, Cousins MJ, Armstrong PJ: Fentanyl blood concentration-analgesic response relationship in the treatment of postoperative pain. Anesth Analg 67:329-337, 1988.
Figure 1. Plasma fentanyl concentrations immediately before patch placement, at arrival in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and 12 and 24 h after patch placement. Significant differences were found between the low-dose patch and placebo 12 and 24 h after patch placement and between the high-dose patch and placebo at PACU arrival and 12 and 24 h after patch placement. Values expressed as mean plus/minus SD. *P less or equal to 0.001 compared with group 1; #P less or equal to 0.01 compared with group 1; (dagger)P less or equal to 0.05 compared with group 1.
Figure 1. Plasma fentanyl concentrations immediately before patch placement, at arrival in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and 12 and 24 h after patch placement. Significant differences were found between the low-dose patch and placebo 12 and 24 h after patch placement and between the high-dose patch and placebo at PACU arrival and 12 and 24 h after patch placement. Values expressed as mean plus/minus SD. *P less or equal to 0.001 compared with group 1; #P less or equal to 0.01 compared with group 1; (dagger)P less or equal to 0.05 compared with group 1.
Figure 1. Plasma fentanyl concentrations immediately before patch placement, at arrival in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), and 12 and 24 h after patch placement. Significant differences were found between the low-dose patch and placebo 12 and 24 h after patch placement and between the high-dose patch and placebo at PACU arrival and 12 and 24 h after patch placement. Values expressed as mean plus/minus SD. *P less or equal to 0.001 compared with group 1; #P less or equal to 0.01 compared with group 1; (dagger)P less or equal to 0.05 compared with group 1.
×
Figure 2. Supplemental intravenous morphine received by the patients through their patient-controlled analgesia device. A significant opioid-sparing effect was seen in patients receiving active patches. Values are expressed as mean plus/minus SD. *P less or equal to 0.001 compared with group 1; #P less or equal to 0.01 compared with group 1.
Figure 2. Supplemental intravenous morphine received by the patients through their patient-controlled analgesia device. A significant opioid-sparing effect was seen in patients receiving active patches. Values are expressed as mean plus/minus SD. *P less or equal to 0.001 compared with group 1; #P less or equal to 0.01 compared with group 1.
Figure 2. Supplemental intravenous morphine received by the patients through their patient-controlled analgesia device. A significant opioid-sparing effect was seen in patients receiving active patches. Values are expressed as mean plus/minus SD. *P less or equal to 0.001 compared with group 1; #P less or equal to 0.01 compared with group 1.
×
Figure 3. The visual analogue scale scores reported by the patients in the high-dose patch group were significantly lower 8, 10, 16, and 20 h after patch placement compared with the patients receiving placebo and those receiving low-dose patches. Values are expressed as mean plus/minus SD. *P less or equal to 0.05 compared with groups 1 and 2.
Figure 3. The visual analogue scale scores reported by the patients in the high-dose patch group were significantly lower 8, 10, 16, and 20 h after patch placement compared with the patients receiving placebo and those receiving low-dose patches. Values are expressed as mean plus/minus SD. *P less or equal to 0.05 compared with groups 1 and 2.
Figure 3. The visual analogue scale scores reported by the patients in the high-dose patch group were significantly lower 8, 10, 16, and 20 h after patch placement compared with the patients receiving placebo and those receiving low-dose patches. Values are expressed as mean plus/minus SD. *P less or equal to 0.05 compared with groups 1 and 2.
×
Figure 4. Patient self-assessment of analgesia demonstrates improved pain relief by the patients with a high-dose patch in five of ten assessment periods compared with placebo. Patients with a low-dose patch reported a difference in one of ten assessment periods compared with placebo. Values are expressed as median (and range). *P less or equal to 0.001 compared with group 1; #P less or equal to 0.01 compared with group 1; (dagger)P less or equal to 0.05 compared with group 1.
Figure 4. Patient self-assessment of analgesia demonstrates improved pain relief by the patients with a high-dose patch in five of ten assessment periods compared with placebo. Patients with a low-dose patch reported a difference in one of ten assessment periods compared with placebo. Values are expressed as median (and range). *P less or equal to 0.001 compared with group 1; #P less or equal to 0.01 compared with group 1; (dagger)P less or equal to 0.05 compared with group 1.
Figure 4. Patient self-assessment of analgesia demonstrates improved pain relief by the patients with a high-dose patch in five of ten assessment periods compared with placebo. Patients with a low-dose patch reported a difference in one of ten assessment periods compared with placebo. Values are expressed as median (and range). *P less or equal to 0.001 compared with group 1; #P less or equal to 0.01 compared with group 1; (dagger)P less or equal to 0.05 compared with group 1.
×
Table 1. Comfort and Sedation Scoring System
Image not available
Table 1. Comfort and Sedation Scoring System
×
Table 2. Pain Relief Scoring Systems
Image not available
Table 2. Pain Relief Scoring Systems
×
Table 3. Patient Demographics
Image not available
Table 3. Patient Demographics
×
Table 4. Side Effects
Image not available
Table 4. Side Effects
×
Table 5. Data of Patients Developing Respiratory Depression
Image not available
Table 5. Data of Patients Developing Respiratory Depression
×
Table 6. Comparative Data of Patients Receiving Active Patches with and without Respiratory Depression
Image not available
Table 6. Comparative Data of Patients Receiving Active Patches with and without Respiratory Depression
×