N/V showed to have impact on workload of nurses and (to lesser extent) physicians and economic burden of €31 ± 22 for each N/V episode. In view of these results, the potential costs of strategies to minimize the incidence of N/V (use of antiemetics and/or the use of new analgesics) should be outweighed against the incurred costs of N/V.

Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) is one of the well established methods for the treatment of postoperative pain. A cochrane-review concluded that PCA is associated with better postoperative pain ratings and improved patient-satifaction compared to traditional way of administering opioids. Some prerequisites concerning patient selection, education of the patient and the medical staff, and supervision during PCA therapy are mandatory for a safe use of PCA. Current PCA modalities (intravenous and epidural routes of application) are expanded by newer, less invasive routes of drug administration, e.g. by the iontophoretic transdermal and the sublingual route. Their role in improving safety and the quality of pain therapy on the one hand side, and costs on the other hand side are discussion.

This review assesses four interrelating aspects of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), a long-standing and still widely used concept for postoperative pain management. Over the years, anaesthesiologists and patients have appreciated the benefits of PCA alike. The market has seen new technologies leveraging noninvasive routes of administration and, thus, further increasing patient and staff satisfaction as well as promoting safety aspects. Pharmaceutical research focuses on the reduction or avoidance of opioids, side effects, and adverse events although influence of these aspects appears to be minor. The importance of education is still eminent, and new educational formats are tested to train healthcare professionals and patients likewise. New PCA technology can support the implementation of efficient processes to reduce workload and human errors; however, these new products come with a cost, which is not necessarily reflected through beneficial budget impact or significant improvements in patient outcome. Although first steps have been taken to better recognize the importance of postoperative pain management through the introduction of value-based reimbursement, in most western countries, PCA is not specifically compensated. PCA is still an effective and valued technique for postoperative pain management. Although there is identifiable potential for future developments in various aspects, this potential has not materialized in new products.

Objective: Assessment and allocation of required staff time for postoperative pain management for two different patient-controlled technologies, sufentanil sublingual tablet system (SSTS) and intravenous analgesia (PCiA).Design: Activity-based evaluation.Setting: The study was conducted at four German hospitals based on the availability of the two technologies studied and their respective bed capacity broadly reflecting the German hospital landscape. Patients and participants: Staff activities were recorded for 162 SSTS and 154 PCiA procedures. Every hospital recorded around 40 procedures for each technology between December 2016 and July 2017.Interventions: Staff time was recorded if a patient received one of the two considered postoperative pain management technologies and was under treatment of a trained nurse. No further criteria were defined. Documentation of resource utilization covered all staff activities concerning the two technologies by detailed activity recording forms.Main outcome measure(s): Staff time for five identified process areas (preparation of therapy option, provisioning at patients’ bed, therapy, removal of therapy option, reprocessing, and storage) with significant impact on the entire process. Results: The average staff time required for SSTS to manage the entire process was 36 minutes whereas for PCiA it was 49 minutes (p 0.0001). In all process areas, SSTS showed significantly less staff time requirements.Conclusions: In comparison to PCiA, SSTS requires significantly less staff time to manage postoperative pain in the studied setting.

Background. For more than 60 years, the synthetic opioid fentanyl has been widely used in anaesthesia and analgesia. While the intravenous formulation is primarily used for general anaesthesia and intensive care settings, the drug’s high lipophilic properties also allow various noninvasive routes of administration. Published data suggest that intranasal administration is also attractive for use as intranasal patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). A newly developed intranasal fentanyl formulation containing 47 μg fentanyl, intravenous fentanyl, and oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate were characterised, and bioavailability was compared to assess the suitability of the intranasal formulation for an intranasal PCA product. Methods. 27 healthy volunteers were enrolled in a single-centre, open-label, randomised (order of treatments), single-dose study in a three-period crossover design. The pharmacokinetics of one intranasal puff of fentanyl formulation (47 μg, 140 mL per puff), one short intravenous infusion of 50 μg fentanyl, and one lozenge with an integrated applicator (200 μg fentanyl) were studied, and bioavailability was calculated. Blood samples were collected over 12 hours, and plasma concentrations of fentanyl were determined by HPLC with MS/MS detection. Results. 24 volunteers completed the study. The geometric mean of AUC0-tlast was the highest with oral transmucosal administration (1106 h  ∗  pg/ml, CV% = 32.86), followed by intravenous (672 h  ∗  pg/ml, CV% = 32.18) and intranasal administration (515 h  ∗  pg/ml, CV% = 30.10). Cmax was 886 pg/ml (CV% = 59.38) for intravenous, 338 pg/ml (CV% = 45.61) for intranasal, and 310 pg/ml (CV% = 29.58) for oral transmucosal administration. tmax was shortest for intravenous administration (0.06 h, SD = 0.056), followed by intranasal (0.21 h, SD = 0.078) and oral transmucosal administration (1.20 h, SD = 0.763). Dose-adjusted absolute bioavailability was determined to be 74.70% for the intranasal formulation and 41.25% for the oral transmucosal product. In total, 38 adverse events (AEs) occurred. Fourteen AEs were potentially related to the investigational items. No serious AE occurred. Conclusion. Pharmacokinetic parameters and bioavailability of the investigated intranasal fentanyl indicated suitability for its intended use as an intranasal PCA option.