Analgesia in Kidney Transplant Recipients
Journal
BANTAO Journal
Date Issued
2021-01
Author(s)
Sasho Dohchev
Abstract
Introduction. To our knowledge, currently no consen sus or guidelines exist regarding perioperative and post operative analgesia management in renal transplant re cipients.
Methods. We conducted an observational prospective
clinical study to evaluate the analgesia management prac tice in kudney transplant recipients. All consecutive pa tients who underwent kidney transplant surgery were
enrolled in this observational clinical study. According
to current analgesia management practice in our insti tution, patients were divided in two groups: patients who
received general anesthesia and epidural analgesia we re group E, and patients who received general anesthesia
and i.v. analgesia were group G. The primary outcome
measure in this study was VAS score and 24 h analgesia
requirements. The second outcome measures were com plications and/or side effects related to analgesia treatment.
Results. Group E had lower VAS pain score both at
rest and on movement but only in the first 2 h, (VAS
at rest E. 3.1±0.3 vs. G. 4.0±0.3, VAS on movement E.
4.2±0.6 vs. G. 4.5±0.3, p<0.05). The pain score by VAS
scale did not differ between the groups at 6 h, 12 h and
24 h postoperatively, p=NS. Additionally, a small differ rence was noticed in side effects. Patients in group E had
reported more side effects than patients in group G.
Conclusion. The study highlighted the variety in clinical
practice regarding anesthesiologist preferences for pain
management in kidney transplant recipients. This eva luation did not show any difference between anesthetic
techniques and clinical results.
Methods. We conducted an observational prospective
clinical study to evaluate the analgesia management prac tice in kudney transplant recipients. All consecutive pa tients who underwent kidney transplant surgery were
enrolled in this observational clinical study. According
to current analgesia management practice in our insti tution, patients were divided in two groups: patients who
received general anesthesia and epidural analgesia we re group E, and patients who received general anesthesia
and i.v. analgesia were group G. The primary outcome
measure in this study was VAS score and 24 h analgesia
requirements. The second outcome measures were com plications and/or side effects related to analgesia treatment.
Results. Group E had lower VAS pain score both at
rest and on movement but only in the first 2 h, (VAS
at rest E. 3.1±0.3 vs. G. 4.0±0.3, VAS on movement E.
4.2±0.6 vs. G. 4.5±0.3, p<0.05). The pain score by VAS
scale did not differ between the groups at 6 h, 12 h and
24 h postoperatively, p=NS. Additionally, a small differ rence was noticed in side effects. Patients in group E had
reported more side effects than patients in group G.
Conclusion. The study highlighted the variety in clinical
practice regarding anesthesiologist preferences for pain
management in kidney transplant recipients. This eva luation did not show any difference between anesthetic
techniques and clinical results.