Chest Tube–Delivered Bupivacaine Improves Pain and Decreases Opioid Use After Thoracoscopy

GENERAL THORACIC

Chest Tube–Delivered Bupivacaine Improves Pain and Decreases Opioid Use After Thoracoscopy Todd L. Demmy, MD, Chukwumere Nwogu, MD, Patrick Solan, BS, Saikrishna Yendamuri, MD, Gregory Wilding, PhD, and Oscar DeLeon, MD Departments of Thoracic Surgery, Biostatistics, and Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Roswell Park Cancer Institute and State University of New York, Buffalo, New York

Background. This study compared a simplified method of intrapleural bupivacaine administration with traditional analgesic therapy to decrease postoperative pain and opioid usage in patients after thoracoscopy. Methods. Thirty patients who had non-rib-spreading thoracoscopic operations under general anesthesia were prospectively randomized to no local anesthetic infusion (control), intermittent bolus (30 mL every 6 hours), or continuous infusion (5 mL/h). Bupivacaine (0.25%) was delivered through the pleural infusion channel of a specially designed single silicone 28F chest tube. Total intravenous fentanyl patient-controlled analgesia (boluses with basal rate) infused in the first 24 hours postoperatively was the designated primary study end point. Escalations of analgesic therapy, including ketorolac administration, were standardized across all groups. Nurses assessed pain control at onset and every 6 hours by visual analog pain scales (VAPS, 100 mm). VAPS were repeated 10 min-

utes later to assess any opioid or bupivacaine bolus effects. Results. No study-related adverse events occurred. Compared with controls, pooled VAPS scores and 24hour fentanyl consumption were significantly lower for the intermittent and continuous administration groups (1753 vs 1180 vs 1177 ␮g/24 h, respective median; p ⴝ 0.04) Early (6-hour) VAPS analgesic responses were more certain for intermittent (10 of 10) and continuous (10 of 10) patients than controls (7 of 10, p ⴝ .04). Five continuous patients successfully maintained VAPS scores below 20 mm throughout the study vs 3 intermittent and 2 controls (p ⴝ .045). Conclusions. Intermittent or continuous intrapleural bupivacaine infused through the chest tube reliably reduces postoperative pain and 24-hour opioid usage in thoracoscopy patients. (Ann Thorac Surg 2009;87:1040 –7) © 2009 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

A

even in thoracotomy patients [4]. Therefore, this study was proposed to reevaluate the use of intrapleural bupivacaine as well as its focused delivery around a known pain stimulant, the intrapleural catheter.

bout 2 decades ago, prospective, randomized studies testing the efficacy of intrapleural bupivacaine began using a simple catheter placed before closure of a relatively large wound. This long-acting, local anesthetic reduced pain and increased respiratory function of patients undergoing open thoracic procedures as well as upper abdominal operations such as cholecystectomy [1–3]. Some studies showed inconsistent or conflicting results, however, leading to the emergence of other techniques like paravertebral nerve block or epidural anesthesia. Many thoracic surgeons have since increased their use of thoracoscopic techniques and have observed marked pain improvement after chest tube removal. Intuitively, the chest tube should account for large proportion of pain stimulation in video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) because smaller wounds made without rib spreading are less traumatic. Also supporting this hypothesis is the finding that the use of fewer chest tubes reduces pain

Accepted for publication Dec 30, 2008. Presented at the Fifty-fifth Annual Meeting of the Southern Thoracic Surgical Association, Austin, TX, Nov 5– 8, 2008. Address correspondence to Dr Demmy, Department of Thoracic Surgery, Roswell Park Cancer Institute, Elm and Carlton Sts, Buffalo, NY 14263; e-mail: [email protected].

© 2009 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Published by Elsevier Inc

Patients and Methods Patients This nonblinded, prospective, randomized controlled trial was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Roswell Park Cancer Institute (RPCI) on October 19, 2004, and individual consent was obtained for all participants. Candidates for VATS unlikely to require conversion to open thoracotomy were screened for the study (Fig 1). Exclusion criteria were allergies to bupivacaine or fentanyl, hepatic or renal insufficiency, current opioid use, inability to complete a visual analog pain scale (VAPS) measurement, medication use (eg, amiodarone) that adversely interacted with bupivacaine, pregnancy, recent thoracic infection, or weight less than 55 kg. For several years before initiation of the trial, VATS patients at RPCI routinely received intermittent intrapleural bupivacaine (IB) through a 28F Axiom intrapleural anesthesia catheter (Axiom Medical Inc, Torrance, CA). This created a nursing workforce accustomed 0003-4975/09/$36.00 doi:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2008.12.099

DEMMY ET AL CHEST TUBE–DELIVERED BUPIVACAINE

1041

Three port incisions were used, and 1 was enlarged to a 4-cm non-rib-spreading access incision for lobectomy. All patients received between 10 and 20 mL of intercostal 0.25% bupivacaine delivered by direct internal injection using an endoscopic 23-gauge needle to reduce pain during emergence from general anesthesia.

Fentanyl-Only (Group F)

Fig 1. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) diagram shows enrollment, allocation, and study progression for volunteers. aFive failed inclusion criteria, 3 refused, and 1 was intubated after surgery. bReasons: Node metastasis on positron emission tomography, weight too low, positive mediastinoscopy, ventilator after operation (fentanyl-only group); bone metastases found, wrong chest tube used (intermittent); third-degree heart block before operation (continuous). cData not collected properly.

to delivering 30 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine without epinephrine every 6 hours through the side port of the intrapleural anesthesia catheter (Fig 2). This workforce collected the VAPS data and recorded fentanyl usage, along with clinical research nurses who oversaw protocol implementation. This dosage was found acceptable and safe by previous reports as well as institutional experience [5]. Although the IB patients seemed to frequently report relief from the injections, whether this effect lowered narcotic use was unknown. Therefore, a randomized trial was devised to compare this group with those receiving only intravenous (IV) patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with fentanyl (group F) and those receiving an equivalent dose of bupivacaine using continuous (C) infusion rather than intermittent bolus. Patients were randomized preoperatively and were aware of their treatment assignment. Patients underwent thoracoscopic operations, including nonanatomic lung resections and formal lobectomies, as described previously [6]. Single-lung ventilation was accomplished using a double-lumen endotracheal tube.

After the operation, the effects of the anesthesia gradually decreased until patients became alert and started to detect pain. At the first complaint of pain (time A) and request for additional analgesia, the initial VAPS measurement was taken to provide a baseline score. Immediately after, group F patients received IV fentanyl while the PCA device was connected; thereafter, it served as their primary source of narcotic analgesia. The initial PCA settings were 40-␮g/h basal rate, with 20 ␮g every 10 minutes as needed by the patient (160 ␮g/hour maximum). If the pain was not controlled within 4 hours of starting the fentanyl, a 50-␮g/h basal rate with 30 ␮g every 10 minutes as needed (230 ␮g/h maximum) was used. VAPS measurements were taken 10 times. Five occurred at times A, 6, 12, 18, and 24 hours after completion of the operation. The others occurred 10 minutes after A (to show the effect of fentanyl infusion) and 10 minutes after the other 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-hour times. The latter VAPS measurements were made to be directly comparable with the before and after bupivacaine bolus measurements in the IB arm (below). At each of these time points, the total amount of opioids used by each patient was recorded directly from the PCA device.

Intermittent Intrapleural Bolus Delivery of Bupivacaine (Group IB) At the first complaint of pain and request for additional analgesia (time A), the initial VAPS measurement was taken to provide a baseline score. Immediately after, group IB patients received an initial bolus of 0.25% bupivacaine intrapleurally. The initial bolus was reduced proportionally so that a full 30-mL dose could be given at 6 hours and then proceed normally thereafter. For in-

Fig 2. Intrapleural anesthesia catheter used in this study. Inset shows point of ingress for bupivacaine.

GENERAL THORACIC

Ann Thorac Surg 2009;87:1040 –7

GENERAL THORACIC

1042

DEMMY ET AL CHEST TUBE–DELIVERED BUPIVACAINE

Ann Thorac Surg 2009;87:1040 –7

stance, if the request occurred 3 hours before the 6-hour mark, 15 mL of bupivacaine was infused. These patients were also started on IV PCA fentanyl, exactly the same as patients in group F with the same escalation protocol.

Fentanyl Plus Continuous Intrapleural Delivery of Bupivacaine (Group C) The time point A, VAPS measurement occurred just like the other arms. Immediately after, the intrapleural chest tube was primed by a 5-mL loading dose of bupivacaine, and the clamp was released on an On-Q (I-Flow Corp, Lake Forest, CA) 5 mL/h continuous intrapleural infusion of bupivacaine already connected to the chest tube in the operating room. The 5-mL/h rate of bupivacaine administration continued through the entire 24-hour postoperative period. These patients were also started on IV PCA fentanyl and managed like group F.

Escalation Protocol If the fentanyl escalation described for group F was insufficient for any patient, additional 50-␮g boluses were prescribed as needed. If pain control remained insufficient, ketorolac (15 to 30 mg IV) was administered after approval by the study investigators.

Early Study Termination The chest tube and fentanyl infusions discontinued early in patients ready for hospital discharge before study completion. The following formula was used to adjust the value for the primary study endpoint to be consistent with the other patients in the group: Fentanyl consumed before chest tube removal ⫻ 1440/chest tube duration in minutes

Statistical Analysis The Kruskal-Wallis test indicated the sample of 30 subjects was predicted to achieve 80% power to correctly detect differences among the means at a significance level of 0.05 to allow detecting the difference incorrectly, if the standard deviation between treatments was 0.62 times of that within treatments under the normal distribution assumption. The predetermined primary end point analysis was the comparison of the overall amount of fentanyl delivered to patients by each treatment. Comparison of fentanyl total and F adjusted among the three arms was done using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Pairwise comparisons were done in conjunction with a Bonferroni correction. The second objective was the comparison of the rates

Table 1. Patient Demographics in the Three Treatment Groups Variable Age, mean ⫾ SD, y Sex, No. Male Female Side of lesion, No. Right Left Type of lesion, No. Malignant Primary Benign Comorbidity, No. Hypertension Other COPD FEV1 % predicted, mean ⫾ SD Dlco % predicted, mean ⫾ SD Wedge, No. Lobectomy, No. Biopsy, No. Mediastinoscopy, No. Hospital stay, mean ⫾ SD, da Chest tube, mean ⫾ SD, da No complications, No. Post-op atrial fibrillation, No. a

Fentanyl Only

Intermittent Bupivacaine

Continuous Bupivacaine

p Value

56 ⫾ 8

61 ⫾ 8

60 ⫾ 12

0.48 0.02

7 3

5 5

1 9

6 4

5 5

6 4

0.87 0.87

8 5 2

8 6 2

8 2 2

1.0 0.17 1.0

5 3 3 ⫾ ⫾ 6 4 0 2 ⫾ ⫾ 9 1

3 8 6 ⫾ ⫾ 7 3 0 3 ⫾ ⫾ 9 1

3 6 1 ⫾ ⫾ 7 2 1 4 ⫾ ⫾ 9 1

0.56 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.23 0.86 0.62 n/a 0.62 0.34 0.18 1.0 1.0

94 87

2.3 1.4

21 20

66 69

1.3 1.0

3.0 2.7

20 15

86 79

2.2 2.9

2.0 1.4

22 21

0.9 0.5

Range: 1– 8 days.

COPD ⫽ chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; Dlco ⫽ diffusion of the lung for carbon monoxide; second; n/a ⫽ statistical test not valid; SD ⫽ standard deviation.

FEV1 ⫽ forced expiratory volume in 1

DEMMY ET AL CHEST TUBE–DELIVERED BUPIVACAINE

of successful pain management among patients who received VATS by each treatment. The Fisher exact test was used to study the association between success rate and treatment groups. Success was defined as the value of each patient’s VAPS scores at time of 6, 12, 18 and 24 hours showing improvement (reduction) of at least 20 mm compared with their own VAPS score at time 0. Descriptive statistics such as frequencies and relative frequencies were computed for categoric variables. Failure to control pain was defined as the inability to reduce the VAPS to less than 40 mm. Numeric variables were summarized using simple descriptive statistics such as the mean, standard deviation, and range. A 0.05 nominal significance level was used in all testing. All statistical analyses were performed using SAS 9.1.3 software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

Results Table 1 summarizes the distribution characteristics for the three groups. Participants were relatively well matched by the randomization process with respect to age, operative procedure, and proportion of malignant cases. Curiously, there were more women in group C and more patients with a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease diagnosis in group IB that is also reflected by the somewhat lower mean percentage predicted pulmonary function tests. Patients did very well in this series, with only one complication per arm, a median hospital stay of 2 days, and median chest tube duration of 1 day. One patient in each group was discharged early, but each had completed more than 17 hours of data collection. Table 2 summarizes the differences in pain scores and total fentanyl consumptions among the groups. In addi-

1043

tion, this table describes how supplemental fentanyl boluses and ketorolac escalations were used. For the early 6-hour time point, fentanyl requirements were less for the bupivacaine groups. For the 24-hour primary end point using the adjusted dosage, the differences were statistically significant between all three arms. When the fentanyl-only and continuous groups were compared, the difference was significant for both the adjusted and unadjusted amounts (p ⫽ 0.031 and 0.038, respectively). This separate analyses showed the intermittent group and the control group were similar (p ⫽ 0.2). The fentanyl-only intervention was not able to bring the pain to an acceptable level at 6-hour time points for all patients, although interventions that used both local anesthetic and narcotics were acceptable. There was a trend toward raising allowable PCA dosages and ketorolac infusions in the experimental groups, but these occurred, on average, later in the study, and patients did not cause a major change in fentanyl consumption. Figure 3 plots total fentanyl consumption and discrete VAPS pain scores over time for each group. These were similar with similar median VAPS scores at pain onset. Thereafter, pain scores generally fell below the acceptable pain threshold of 40, with the continuous group having the lowest VAPS score despite less fentanyl use. Successful pain control (⬍ 20 mm) was demonstrated best in the continuous group.

Comment This study shows that the use of a simple chest tube device to administer local anesthetic beside the catheter can reduce narcotic consumption and pain after thoraco-

Table 2. Pain Scores and Total Fentanyl Consumption Variable VAPS Median baseline, mm Improvement from baseline, No. Highest score, mm Improvement at 6 hours, No. Fentanyl Total dose, median ␮g Adjusted, median ␮g 6-hour extra bolus, No. First 6 hours dose, median, ␮g Bolus ineffective, No. Improvement w/o fentanyl, No.a Ketorolac given, No. Fentanyl PCA increase, No. Study hour of PCA increase, mean Any escalation, No. Failure to control pain, No. Success, No.b

Fentanyl Only

Intermittent Bupivacaine

Continuous Bupivacaine

p Value

62.5 5/10 76 2/10

62.6 5/9 79 5/10

56 2/9 70 3/10

0.89 0.31 0.33 0.35

1835 1753 7/10 455 5/10 0/10 2/10 2/10 17.5 3/10 3 3/10

1149 1179 3/10 319 1/10 3/10 1/10 4/10 9.8 5/10 0 2/10

1190 1176 4/10 343 1/10 0/10 3/10 5/10 8.4 8/10 0 5/10

0.07 0.046 0.18 0.01 0.05 0.036 0.84 0.37 0.35 0.08 0.04 0.045

a Refers to change of acute pain symptoms to acceptable VAPS score without use of fentanyl bolus. Only seen in patients receiving bolus of b All treatment time points after initiation with ⬍ 20 mm on VAPS. bupivacaine.

PCA ⫽ patient-controlled anesthesia;

VAPS ⫽ visual analog pain scale;

w/o ⫽ without.

GENERAL THORACIC

Ann Thorac Surg 2009;87:1040 –7

GENERAL THORACIC

1044

DEMMY ET AL CHEST TUBE–DELIVERED BUPIVACAINE

Fig 3. Amount of fentanyl used and visual analog scores (VAS) in control and experimental groups are shown. Open squares, triangles, and circles refer to pain scores for the fentanyl, intermittent, and continuous groups, respectively. Similar filled symbols show amounts of fentanyl given.

scopic operations. Although pain control was improved, additional adjustments were used in the experimental groups. Thoracic surgeons and anesthesiologists have tried various regional techniques to reduce postoperative discomfort. Several prospective, randomized studies showed benefits to intrapleural anesthetic deliveries [1–3; 7–9]. However, other investigators who attempted to replicate those results found that intrapleural bupivacaine alone could not lower the pain scores to acceptable levels, that a placebo effect was at play, and that the methodologies themselves were prone to considerable variations [10 –12]. In our literature review, we found variations in catheter types, placements, and potentials for migration in the pleural space. All could result in variable deliveries to the areas of pain causation as well as different losses of the local anesthetic through the chest tube system. Different dosing frequencies or concentrations of bupivacaine were also tested, with pleural deliveries of every 4 hours and higher doses (0.5%) sometimes yielding more effective results [13]. However, differences in pleural environment, such as infection or inflammation, can increase the systemic absorption of bupivacaine to toxic levels [14]. At RPCI we chose as an institutional standard a slightly lower dose and longer schedule to provide a wider range of safety for those at risk because of a smaller body size or unrecognized propensity for fast absorption. To achieve better clinical outcomes, more reproducible methods were established elsewhere, such as placement of anesthetic catheters in subpleural, perivertebral spaces and the elimination of wound delivery altogether by using epidural anesthesia [15, 16]. Because of rapid discharges of patients after VATS, however, we found that epidural anesthetics with their associated side effects could potentially lengthen the stay of patients. Accordingly, we sought a simple way

Ann Thorac Surg 2009;87:1040 –7

to control regional chest tube pain. We decided to reexamine intrapleural delivery, because many of the factors causing variability noted are not an issue with small wounds and a delivery device focused at a suspected site of major pain causation. It is important to note the advantage of routinely using a chest catheter like the one used in this study. Because it takes no more time to place, the option to use regional local anesthesia comes with little additional investment. Its cost is similar to other soft silicone tubes that may be more comfortable than the common stiff polyvinyl chloride tubes. Furthermore, the side port is a convenient sclerosant portal for the occasional patient with a prolonged air leak who requires pleurodesis. The cause of postoperative thoracic pain is complex and multifactorial, but still not well understood. Avoidance of trauma to the intercostal nerves is an important component. It is interesting that the degree of early thoracic pain may indicate the scope and duration of chronic pain after thoracotomy [17]. Our observations indicate that about two-thirds of VATS patients have dramatic reductions in chest pain after removal of the chest tube trigger, making it the target for this current research. It is reasonable to consider different designs such as release of the anesthetic at multiple sites along the catheter. Alternatively, the catheter could be made smaller, and in fact, the product used in this study comes in an 18F size that we use selectively. Cost is an important consideration, although the drugs used in this study are relatively inexpensive. If the median reduction in the amount of fentanyl infused in the study is attributed to the local anesthetic, this results in a 24-hour cost-savings of $15.00. However, the incremental fully loaded cost of the intermittent boluses was approximately $17.60, and the continuous infusion system cost about $10 for the local anesthetic and $200 for the disposable pump that was usually discarded with unused local anesthetic. Alternatively, a standard infusion pump could be used for about $5 but will require more nursing attention. Depending on nursing and disposable costs for continuous or intermittent anesthetic infusions, the return on investment will change but will probably be justified if reduced pain translates into faster discharge and fewer complications. The nurses at RPCI readily taught each other intermittent infusions because of the satisfaction of immediately reducing pain by infusing bupivacaine for their patients who were not responding to narcotic therapy. Intermittent therapy, however, tends to cause swings in drug levels that may be less effective for pain control than a continuous infusion. One limitation of this study is that there could be more effective applications of intrapleural bupivacaine, such as higher concentrations or shorter intervals between infusions. We chose a schedule unlikely to cause systemic toxicity, but certain patients were probably underdosed. This might have accounted for a tachyphylactic effect seen in the experimental groups, where a few subjects began to ask for additional pain control options midway through the study. Although not addressed in this research, it is reasonable to surmise that if bupivacaine

demonstrates to a patient that a lower pain sensation is attainable, then that patient will try to reach that level of analgesia should the effect of bupivacaine wear off. Patients in the continuous group may have asked for more adjustments because they did not have the distraction of bolus therapy. Another limitation is that the study did not test alternate methodologies for controlling postoperative pain, such as epidural anesthesia, cryoablation analgesia, perivertebral blockade, and preemptive anesthesia [9, 15, 18]. Unfortunately, many of these techniques require additional operative time, specialized equipment, modification of the intraoperative practices, and may have associated complications or prolonged effects. It was presumed (correctly for most subjects) that only a brief course of pain control was needed, so we chose this simplistic approach and brief study duration. The relatively brief stays in this group might have been because of careful case selection, and therefore, one might wonder whether the proposed method is actually durable beyond 24 hours or applicable to a broader population. Alternatively, we wonder whether the careful attention to pain management may have accounted for the excellent results of these cohorts. This was a relatively small study, powered to detect the large difference akin to great relief of pain that we observed after delivering bupivacaine boluses. The intermittent group did not have as significant change from control; however, it had more patients with poor lung function, which is a risk factor for chronic pain after thoracotomy [19]. Despite this potential disadvantage, the group performed well. A larger study would lead to more evenly balanced groups and better power to detect more subtle differences in pain control. We also do not know whether this method of bupivacaine delivery was optimal for all participants. Further study of delivery is warranted, in particular, whether bupivacaine adequately bathes the intercostal nerve below the tube insertion point or the subcutaneous tissues. Also, nonsteroidal drugs like ketorolac may have been used better as a routine medication for all patients rather than as part of an escalation protocol. We moved away from its routine use because of its occasional adverse effects on renal or platelet function. In addition, this study could be constructed differently in an attempt to determine the response to intrapleural bupivacaine early in order to titrate the dosage to an effective level or schedule. That way, patients would only undergo treatments that seem to have a measurable response. This might be useful before attaching a longer duration infusion system such as the On-Q product, which has a modest cost and potential wastage of drug in the reservoir if discarded early or ineffective. A crossover design could have been used to see if bupivacaine improved the pain scores for the fentanyl-only group, or the use of saline controls rather than bupivacaine could have determined whether there was a placebo effect in this trial. An extra open thoracotomy control arm, while interesting, was not included because of the disappointing earlier research cited, the bias of greater pain stimuli

DEMMY ET AL CHEST TUBE–DELIVERED BUPIVACAINE

1045

expected for these patients, and institutional selection bias (because VATS is attempted in more than 80% of pulmonary cases). Intermittent or continuous intrapleural bupivacaine infused by chest tubes was reliable enough to demonstrate a reduction in postoperative pain and 24-hour opioid usage in VATS patients in this modest clinical trial. Continuous therapy will become our preferred approach as a consequence of this study. Intrapleural anesthetic therapy should be considered as an adjunct to pain control after thoracoscopy but may increase patient requests for additional pain interventions because of tachyphylaxis, wider swings in pain stimulation, demonstrating that less pain is attainable, or unknown mechanisms.

We thank April Proefrock, Mark Lema, and Lynn Carlson for their efforts in preparing this manuscript. The efforts of Roswell Park Nursing Units and Clinical Research Service Staff are also deeply appreciated, especially Carol Siegel, John Syposs, Cyndi Nowadly, and Michelle Gorcheck. This work was supported by an award from the Roswell Park Clinical Practice Plan.

References 1. Mann LJ, Young GR, Williams JK, Dent OF, McCaughan BC. Intrapleural bupivacaine in the control of postthoracotomy pain. Ann Thorac Surg 1992;53:449 –53. 2. Symreng T, Gomez MN, Rossi N. Intrapleural bupivacaine v saline after thoracotomy– effects on pain and lung function–a double-blind study. J Cardiothorac Anesth 1989;3: 144 –9. 3. Vadeboncouer TR, Riegler FX, Gautt RS, Weinberg GL. A randomized, double-blind comparison of the effects of interpleural bupivacaine and saline on morphine requirements and pulmonary function after cholecystectomy. Anesthesiology 1989;71:339 – 43. 4. Alex J, Ansari J, Bahalkar P, et al. Comparison of the immediate postoperative outcome of using the conventional two drains versus a single drain after lobectomy. Ann Thorac Surg 2003;76:1046 –9. 5. van Kleef JW, Logeman EA, Burm AG, de Voogt JW, Mooren RA, Kleef-Mannot IM. Continuous interpleural infusion of bupivacaine for postoperative analgesia after surgery with flank incisions: a double-blind comparison of 0.25% and 0.5% solutions. Anesth Analg 1992;75:268 –74. 6. Demmy TL, James TA, Swanson SJ, McKenna RJ Jr, D’Amico TA. Troubleshooting video-assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy. Ann Thorac Surg 2005;79:1744 –52. 7. Kambam JR, Hammon J, Parris WC, Lupinetti FM. Intrapleural analgesia for post-thoracotomy pain and blood levels of bupivacaine following intrapleural injection. Can J Anaesth 1989;36:106 –9. 8. Karakaya D, Baris S, Ozkan F, et al. Analgesic effects of interpleural bupivacaine with fentanyl for post-thoracotomy pain. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2004;18:461–5. 9. Shafei H, Chamberlain M, Natrajan KN, Khan MA, Gandhi RG. Intrapleural bupivacaine for early postthoracotomy analgesia– comparison with bupivacaine intercostal block and cryofreezing. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1990;38:38 – 41. 10. Elman A, Debaene B, Magny-Metrot C, Murciano G. Interpleural analgesia with bupivacaine following thoracotomy: ineffective results of a controlled study and pharmacokinetics. J Clin Anesth 1993;5:118 –21. 11. Schneider RF, Villamena PC, Harvey J, Surick BG, Surick IW, Beattie EJ. Lack of efficacy of intrapleural bupivacaine

GENERAL THORACIC

Ann Thorac Surg 2009;87:1040 –7

GENERAL THORACIC

1046

12. 13.

14. 15.

DEMMY ET AL CHEST TUBE–DELIVERED BUPIVACAINE

for postoperative analgesia following thoracotomy. Chest 1993;103:414 – 6. Silomon M, Claus T, Huwer H, Biedler A, Larsen R, Molter G. Interpleural analgesia does not influence postthoracotomy pain. Anesth Analg 2000;91:44 –50. Stromskag KE, Reiestad F, Holmqvist EL, Ogenstad S. Intrapleural administration of 0.25%, 0.375%, 0.5% bupivacaine with epinephrine after cholecystectomy. Anesth Analg 1988; 67:430 – 4. Turner D, Williams S, Heavner J. Pleural permeability to local anesthetics–the influence of concentration, pH, and local anesthetic combinations. Reg Anesth 1989;14:128 –32. Brockmeier V, Moen H, Karlsson BR, Fjeld NB, Reiestad F, Steen PA. Interpleural or thoracic epidural analgesia for pain after thoracotomy. A double blind study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1994;38:317–21.

Ann Thorac Surg 2009;87:1040 –7

16. Richardson J, Sabanathan S, Mearns AJ, Shah RD, Goulden C. A prospective, randomized comparison of interpleural and paravertebral analgesia in thoracic surgery. Br J Anaesth 1995;75:405– 8. 17. Katz J, Jackson M, Kavanagh BP, Sandler AN. Acute pain after thoracic surgery predicts long-term post-thoracotomy pain. Clin J Pain 1996;12:50 –5. 18. Miguel R, Hubbell D. Pain management and spirometry following thoracotomy: a prospective, randomized study of four techniques. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 1993;7: 529 –34. 19. Pompeo E, De Dominicis E, Ambrogi V, Mineo D, Elia S, Mineo TC. Quality of life after tailored combined surgery for stage I non-small-cell lung cancer and severe emphysema. Ann Thorac Surg 2003;76:1821–7.

DISCUSSION DR JOHN A. HOWINGTON (Evanston, IL): Todd, I congratulate you on a nice presentation. I also applaud you and your team’s excellent results and outcomes in this group of patients and your efforts to continue to improve outcomes in thoracic surgical patients. Also I thank you for providing me the manuscript well in advance of the meeting. The manuscript is well written and your comments in the manuscript are very thoughtful and refreshingly candid. I have two questions for you. As you noted in the presentation, one of your exclusion criteria was opioid exposure, so your patients were opioid naive, and this was a relatively young group, mean age of 59 to 60. I would like your comments on the safety of a basal parenteral narcotic like fentanyl in the elderly, over-75-age-group patients. And secondly, you mentioned in your manuscript that you had previously used an intermittent bolus, but it appears in your outcomes that a continuous infusion provided the best results. How have the results from this study changed your practice and do you have any plans for future studies to answer some of your questions and contradictions in your study? I, again, appreciate you providing me the manuscript in advance, I look forward to your responses, and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss your paper. DR DEMMY: Thank you, John. I think opioids in the older population is a problem, and that is why I was interested in using this type of therapy. My interest in thoracoscopy started in the high-risk elderly population, so this seemed to help a lot by reducing the narcotic needs for these older patients. You can add epinephrine to reduce systemic absorption and increase the dose from 0.25% to 0.5% to improve efficacy based on data from the 1980s. If you increase dose, you do increase the risk of systemic bupivacaine toxicity. As far as changing, we are now going to try using continuous for all our patients. The tricky thing is if you use an On-Q pump [I-Flow Corp, Lake Forest, CA] and patients go home the next day, you are throwing away a $200 device full of bupivacaine. What we are wrestling with is how to decide who is going to need a longer stay, like a patient with an air leak, and perhaps start with a standard infusion pump, which is cheaper. We could then convert to an On-Q to improve patient mobility and require less nursing work. DR BRYAN FITCH MEYERS (St. Louis, MO): Regarding the use of bupivacaine, the main questions are how to deliver it and how long to deliver it, and you are comparing intrapleural versus the extrapleural with the On-Q. Can you describe briefly how you

place the On-Q? I have sent a few patients home with an On-Q pump in place if they get discharged on day one or two after either a VATS [video-assisted thorascopic surgery] wedge resection or a VATS lobe, and that is very similar to what other surgeons are doing after peripheral surgery, plastic surgeons and orthopedic surgeons, with the use of the On-Q. The portability of it and the self-regulated dosing of the flow rates makes it quite safe to send home with the patient. So you are actually decreasing narcotics on discharge as well, which you can’t really do with a chest tube infusion. DR DEMMY: I apologize for not making that clear. When you think On-Q, you may assume intraincisional or paravertebral. The pump was just hooked up to the side port of the same chest tube. My experience has been with VATS that most of the pain is from the chest tube, and just pulling the chest tube greatly reduces the patient’s pain. We use this type of chest tube routinely for every patient, because it gives you the option of starting intrapleural anesthetic therapy. The other neat thing about it is that you can use it to perform pleurodesis on patients with prolonged air leak. You just hook up the syringe and shoot in your sclerosant. So it is a nice little adjunct in that way as well. DR MEYERS: You don’t use a catheter and don’t use it in the way that the On-Q device is designed to be used? DR DEMMY: No. That chest catheter has a standard Luer lock connector, so it makes it real easy to hook the On-Q pump. DR MEYERS: Well, in that case I think a natural comparison would be using the On-Q the way it was designed to be used vs your system. DR STEPHEN C. YANG (Baltimore, MD): Todd, that was a great study. I have been using intrapleural bupivacaine since my training 15 years ago. Actually the easiest thing that I find is to just use an epidural catheter that I insert next to the chest tube and we do a continuous infusion. Anecdotally and from the same studies that you talked about from the ’80s, it has shown a great response in reducing pain and the need for parenteral narcotics. My question is, when do you do epidurals, because I am trying to get away from the anesthesiologist wasting their time in trying to get epidurals in, and then I just go straight through the intrapleural catheter that we use continuously. It costs a lot less than the On-Q system and it is very easy to manage because we

just set it at one rate and there is very minimal bupivacaine toxicity. DR DEMMY: We have gotten away from epidurals because it kept patients in the hospital longer, and we saw occasional hypotension from epidural local anesthetic sympathetic block-

DEMMY ET AL CHEST TUBE–DELIVERED BUPIVACAINE

1047

ade. The problem with placing the catheter at midwound like the trials from 20 years ago, is that sometimes it gets too close to the chest tube hole and the anesthetic gets sucked out immediately. That and other causes of delivery variability led to placing the catheter paravertebrally, which is the current preferred On-Q methodology.

Requirements for Maintenance of Certification in 2009 Diplomates of the American Board of Thoracic Surgery (ABTS) who plan to participate in the Maintenance of Certification (MOC) process which will begin in 2009 must hold an unrestricted medical license in the locale of their practice and privileges in a hospital accredited by the JCAHO (or other organization recognized by the ABTS). In addition, a valid ABTS certificate is an absolute requirement for entrance into the Maintenance of Certification process. If your certificate has expired, the only pathway for renewal of a certificate is to take and pass the Part I (written) and the Part II (oral) certifying examinations. The names of individuals who have not maintained their certificate will no longer be published in the American Board of Medical Specialties directories. Diplomates’ names will be published upon successful completion of the Maintenance of Certification process. The CME requirements are 30 Category I credits earned during each year prior to application. At least half of these CME hours need to be in the broad area of thoracic surgery. Category II credits are not allowed. Interested individuals should refer to the Booklet of Information for Maintenance of Certification for a complete description of acceptable CME credits. Diplomates in the Maintenance of Certification process will be required to complete all sections of the SESATS

© 2009 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Published by Elsevier Inc

self-assessment examination. It is not necessary for Diplomates to purchase SESATS individually because it will be sent to them after their application has been approved. Diplomates may apply for Maintenance of Certification in the year their certificate expires, or if they wish to do so, they may apply up to two years before it expires. However, the new certificate will be dated 10 years from the date of expiration of their original certificate or most recent recertification certificate. In other words, going through the Maintenance of Certification process early does not alter the 10-year validation. Diplomates certified prior to 1976 (the year that time-limited certificates were initiated) are also required to participate in MOC if they wish to maintain valid certificates. The deadline for submission of application for the Maintenance of Certification is May 10 of each year. All ABTS diplomates will receive a letter from the Board outlining their individual timeline and MOC requirements. A brochure outlining the rules and requirements for Maintenance of Certification in thoracic surgery is available upon request from the American Board of Thoracic Surgery, 633 North St. Clair St, Suite 2320, Chicago, IL 60611; telephone (312) 202-5900; fax (312) 202-5960; e-mail: [email protected]. This booklet is also published on the website: www.abts.org.

Ann Thorac Surg 2009;87:1047

•

0003-4975/09/$36.00

GENERAL THORACIC

Ann Thorac Surg 2009;87:1040 –7