Addition of intrathecal atropine for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients received intrathecal bupivacaine / morphine in lower limb surgeries

Background Intrathecal opioids administration is an attractive analgesic technique since the opioids is injected directly into the cerebrospinal fluid providing safe and effective postoperative analgesia for up to 24 hours. The most common adverse effects after intrathecal morphine are postoperative nausea, vomiting and pruritus. We evaluated the effect of intrathecal atropine on prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients receiving intrathecal hyperbaric bupivacaine and morphine in lower limb surgeries and on its effect on duration of postoperative analgesia. Methods 80 patients undergoing lower limb surgeries under spinal anesthesia were randomized into two groups. BM group Received spinal anesthesia with 15 mg of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine (3ml) + 200 mcg of preservative-free morphine sulphate (0.2ml) + Normal saline (0.1ml). BMA group received spinal anesthesia with 15 mg of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine (3ml) + 200 mcg of preservative-free morphine sulphate (0.2ml) + 100 mcg preservative-free atropine sulphate (0.1ml). Follow-up of both nausea and vomiting episodes was done during the first 24 hours postoperatively. Results Nausea and vomiting were noticed in 17 patients (42.5%) in group BM and 7 patients (17.5%) in group BMA, with significant differences (p = 0.015). As regards postoperative analgesia, there was no significant differences between BM and BMA group. Conclusions Intrathecal atropine has antiemetic effect after spinal anesthesia using bupivacaine and morphine for lower limb surgeries without affecting postoperative analgesia.

Triple-Blinded Randomized Study to Evaluate the Effect of Acetaminophen and Morphine Sulfate on Pain Relief in MI-patients

Background: Myocardial infarction is considered to be the most common symptom of cardiovascular diseases. Regarding the limitation of access to Morphine sulphate as a special drug and complications followed, this study aims to compare the treatment effects of intravenous acetaminophen and morphine sulphate on the reduction of pain in MI patients and to improve the cardiac performance. Methods: The present study is a triple-blind randomized control trial in which 70 patients were divided into two separated groups and the pain was measured using Visual Analogue Scale. All analysis was done using SPSS Software at the significance level of 5 percent. Results: 42 patients were male (60%) of whom 20 were in case group and 22 in control group. There were no significant difference between intervention group and control group in terms of VAS score (p = 0.520). The index change of VAS over the time was statistically significant (p=0.001) in intervention and control groups (intra group change). The results of variance analysis with repeated measurements showed that mean differences of Ejection Fraction over time in both groups of intervention and control was not statistically significant (p=0.28). Conclusion: The findings of this study demonstrate that although Acetaminophen does not have an improved effect on pain control and cardiac performance than Morphine sulphate, it can be still an appropriate alternative for Morphine sulfate due to the lack of destructive effects and its availability.

False-negative results in the immunoassay analysis of drugs of abuse: can adulterants be detected by sample check test?

Background The dilution or adulteration of urine is a serious problem in drugs of abuse testing. Tests to identify adulteration are currently available. This study investigated the ability of the CEDIA® sample check to detect adulteration. Methods Eight different drugs of abuse were added to a urine sample obtained from a healthy, drug-free subject: 2-ethylidene-1,5-dimethyl-3,3-diphenylpyrrolidine (EDDP), 3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine, benzoylecgonine, D-amphetamine sulphate, ethyl-D-glucuronide, morphine sulphate, oxazepam, (-)-11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol. Urine samples were diluted to yield three samples of drugs of abuse concentrations close to general cut-offs as used in methadone treatment centres, by health authorities for psychological tests and in traffic medicine. Aspirin, citric acid, CrO3, H2O2, soap, sodium metaborate, vitamin C were added in three, HCl and NaOH in one, and NaN3 in two concentrations. All samples were measured with commercially available immunological assays shortly after sample preparation and 24 h later. All samples were further analysed with the CEDIA® sample check reaction which may identify adulteration. Results Oxidizing reagents (H2O2 or CrO3) are most effective in interfering in the measurement of benzoylecgonine, EDDP, ethyl-D-glucuronide and morphine sulphate. The measurement of (-)-11-nor-9-carboxy-Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol is affected by many adulterants. Adulteration with HCl and NaOH was identified with the sample check reaction. NaN3 generated false negative results for a number of drugs of abuse. Conclusions Urine samples with drugs of abuse concentrations above cut-offs can be successfully tampered with adulterants in a way which cannot be detected with the CEDIA® sample check assay.