Assessing analgesia in single and repeated administrations of propacetamol for postoperative pain: comparison with morphine after dental surgery. Intravenous acetaminophen (paracetamol): comparable analgesic efficacy, but better local safety than its prodrug, propacetamol, for postoperative pain after third molar surgery. Analgesic efficacy and safety of intravenous paracetamol (acetaminophen) administered as a 2 g starting dose following third molar surgery. Clinical equivalence of IV paracetamol compared to IV dipyrone for postoperative analgesia after surgery for breast cancer. [Analgesic and opioid-sparing effects of intravenous paracetamol in the early period after aortocoronary bypass surgery]. [Comparison of propacetamol and morphine in postoperative analgesia]. Analgesic effect of i.v. paracetamol: possible ceiling effect of paracetamol in postoperative pain. Analgesic efficacy of parenteral paracetamol (propacetamol) and diclofenac in post-operative orthopaedic pain. Paracetamol versus metamizol in the treatment of postoperative pain after breast surgery: a randomized, controlled trial.
We conducted this double-blinded, randomized study to assess the analgesic effect of repeated administrations of paracetamol, administered as propacetamol, an injectable prodrug formulation of paracetamol, and to compare this with the analgesic effects of morphine. Patients experiencing moderate to severe pain after elective surgical removal of bone-impacted third-molar teeth under general anesthesia were randomly assigned to receive IV propacetamol 2 g (n = 31), IM morphine 10 mg (n = 30), or placebo (n = 34). Five hours later, the treatments were readministered at half of the previous dosages. Standard measures of analgesia were collected repeatedly for 10 h. Propacetamol and morphine were significantly more effective than placebo in all primary measures of analgesia over 5 h after the first administration and globally over 10 h (first and second administrations). After the first dose, 21 of the 34 patients in the placebo group required rescue medication, compared with 6 of the 31 in the propacetamol group (P < 0.0009) and 4 of the 30 in the morphine group (P < 0.0001). No statistically or clinically significant differences were found between propacetamol and morphine for any sum or peak measures of analgesia. No serious adverse events were reported; adverse events were significantly less frequent in the propacetamol group than in the morphine group (P < 0.027). Propacetamol administered IV in repeated doses (2 g followed by 1 g) has a significant analgesic effect that is indistinguishable from that of morphine administered IM (10 mg followed by 5 mg) after dental surgery, with better tolerability.
                After moderately painful surgical procedures, IV paracetamol, administered as propacetamol, may be an asset in the control of acute postoperative pain. We compared an acetaminophen (paracetamol) 1 g (n = 51) formulation for infusion with propacetamol 2 g (n = 51) and placebo (n = 50) in a randomized, controlled, double-blind, parallel group trial in patients with moderate-to-severe pain after third molar surgery. Treatment efficacy was assessed in house for 6 h after starting the 15-min infusion. Significant effects versus placebo (P < 0.01) were obtained with both active treatments on pain relief, pain intensity difference on a 100-mm visual analog scale, and on a categorical scale (except for propacetamol at 6 h). No significant differences were noted between active groups except at 1 h. Six-hour weighted sums of primary assessments showed significantly better efficacy than placebo (P < 0.0001) and no difference between active treatments. Median stopwatch time to onset of pain relief for active treatment was 6-8 min after infusion start. Active treatments showed comparable efficacy with a significantly longer duration of analgesia and better patients' global evaluation compared with placebo. The incidence of patients reporting local pain at the infusion site was significantly less frequent after IV acetaminophen or placebo (0%) in comparison with propacetamol (49%). In conclusion, acetaminophen 1 g and propacetamol 2 g were superior to placebo regarding analgesic efficacy, with a more frequent incidence of local pain at the infusion site for propacetamol. The recommended dose for intravenous (IV) paracetamol injection in adults is 1g, however pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic findings suggest that a better analgesia could be obtained with a 2 g starting dose.
                A single-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 3-parallel group study was performed to demonstrate the analgesic efficacy and safety of IV paracetamol 2 g. Following third molar surgery, patients reporting moderate to severe pain received a single 15-min infusion of either IV paracetamol 2 g, IV paracetamol 1g or placebo. Efficacy and safety were evaluated over 8 h. Laboratory tests were performed before and 48 h after drug administration.
                Two hundred and ninety seven patients (132 = IV paracetamol 2g; 132 = IV paracetamol 1g; 33 = placebo) were randomised and completed the study. The summed pain relief over 6h (TOTPAR6) was significantly superior with IV paracetamol 2 g as compared to IV paracetamol 1g and placebo (p < 0.0001). Pain relief scores of IV paracetamol 2g were significantly superior to IV paracetamol 1g and to placebo from T30' to T8h (p < 0.0001). Median duration of analgesia was significantly longer following IV paracetamol 2 g compared to IV paracetamol 1g and placebo (p < 0.0001). Adverse events occurred with the same frequency in the 3 treatment groups. No clinically significant changes from baseline were observed for vital signs or laboratory tests.
                The analgesic efficacy of a 2 g starting dose of IV paracetamol was superior over the recommended dose of 1g in terms of magnitude and duration of analgesic effect for postoperative pain following third molar surgery, with no significant difference between groups regarding safety. To assess clinical efficacy of IV paracetamol 1 g and IV dipyrone 1 g on a 24-h dosing schedule in this randomised, double-blinded study of 40 ASA I-III (American Society of Anesthesiologists classification of physical status) patients undergoing surgery for breast cancer.
                General anaesthesia using remifentanil and propofol was performed for surgery. The patients were randomly allocated to two groups, receiving infusions of paracetamol 1 g/100 mL (Para Group) or of dipyrone 1 g/100 mL (Dipy Group) 30 min before arrival in the recovery area and every 6 h up to 24 h postoperatively. All patients had unrestricted access to opioid rescue medication via an IV patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device.
                The primary variables for clinical equivalence were the differences between the mean values for pain scores at rest and pain scores on coughing over 30 h postoperatively. The equivalence margin was determined as +/-10 mm on the visual analogue scale (VAS).
                Regarding pain scores at rest, the 90% CI of the mean differences between the treatment groups over 30 h postoperatively was found to be within the predefined equivalence margin [+7.5/-6.2], and the CI values for pain scores on coughing [+7.3/-9.0] were similar. The two groups did not differ in cumulative opioid rescue consumption (Dipy-Group 14.8 +/- 17.7 mg vs. Para Group 12.1 +/- 8.8 mg, p = 0.54) nor in piritramide loading dose (Dipy Group 0.95 +/- 2.8 mg vs. Para Group 1.3 +/- 2.8 mg, p = 0.545). Five patients in the Dipy Group experienced hypotension in contrast to none in the Para Group (p = 0.047). There were no significant between-treatment differences for other adverse events, patient satisfaction scores (p = 0.4) or quality of recovery scores (p = 0.3).
                IV paracetamol 1 g is clinically equivalent to IV dipyrone 1 g for postoperative analgesia after surgery for breast cancer. The study was to evaluate the analgesic and opioid-sparing effect of intravenous paracetamol injections in cardiosurgical patients in the early postoperative period. Adequate analgesia within the first 12-18 hours of the early postoperative period is very important for a good prognosis of the further course of pain syndrome and for the reduction of a risk for its progression to its chronic form. In early studies, propacetamol lowered morphine use after orthopedic and gynecological operations. The efficacy of paracetamol used in cardiac surgery has been little studied and the results of the studies are conflicting. The randomized, blind, placebo-controlled study included patients after aortocoronary bypass surgery, of them 22 patients received paracetamol and 23 had placebo. The test drug (perfalgan 100 ml or placebo) was intravenously injected 30 min before extubation and then every 6 hours within succeeding 18 hours. The intensity of the pain syndrome was rated by a 5-score verbal scale every 2 hours. With pain score of 2 or more, promedol was intramuscularly administered in a dose of 10 mg. Inspiratory volume was recorded before extubation and the first administration of a drug just after extubation and then every 2 hours. The baseline indices did not differ in both groups. Throughout the observation, the inspiratory volume was lower in the paracetamol group than in the placebo group; however, there was a statistically significant difference (p = 0.012) in the reduction in the manifestations of the pain syndrome (by 81%) only just after tracheal extubation. During this period, inspiratory volume values were higher in the paracetamol group; however, a statistically significant (39%) difference between the groups in the mean values was obtained only during and 2 hours after extubation. In the perfalgan group, the mean total use of promedol was 36% less than in the placebo-group, which was statistically significant (p = 0.019). The early postoperative use of paracetamol after myocardial revascularization reduces the intake of opioids and diminishes the intensity of the pain syndrome within the first hours after extubation, which promotes a higher thoracic excursion, as confirmed by a statistically significant increase in the maximum inspiratory capacity. To compare the analgesic efficacy and tolerance of propacetamol and morphine, 80 patients in good clinical condition were included in a prospective, parallel, randomized double blind trial after elective surgery expected to elicit light to moderate postoperative pain. At the end of general anesthesia, 40 patients received 30 mg/kg propacetamol and 40 0.2 mg/kg morphine, as a 15-min intravenous infusion. The groups were similar for age, weight and duration of anesthesia. Supplemental analgesia had to be given in 7 cases from the propacetamol group vs. 2 cases from the morphine group. The postoperative pain, evaluated 7 times during 4 h from the end of infusion with a visual analog scale, revealed a modest advantage for morphine at 0.5 and 4 h (p = 0.05). The respiratory rate was slightly lower after morphine (p = 0.02). No significant differences were observed in blood oxygen saturation, blood pressure, heart rate, body temperature and vigilance evaluated by the trailmaking test. Nausea was present in 4 cases under propacetamol and 3 under morphine, and pruritus in 2 and 7 cases, respectively. In conclusion, propacetamol may represent an alternative to morphine for pain prevention after mildly to moderately painful surgery in situations where the use of opioids is unsuitable. Despite the widespread use of paracetamol for many years, the analgesic serum concentrations of paracetamol are unknown. Therefore the correlation between serum paracetamol concentrations and the analgesic effect was studied.
                Sixty-four women undergoing laparoscopic sterilization were included in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study. Patients were given i.v. propacetamol 40 mg kg(-1) (group H), 20 mg kg(-1) (group I), 10 mg kg(-1) (group L) or placebo after surgery. Alfentanil was available via patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) during the 4-h postoperative study period. The patients' self-reported pain was registered on the visual analog scale (VAS). A pharmacokinetic model was fitted to the paracetamol data.
                One to 3 h after injection of propacetamol the alfentanil consumption was significantly (P = 0.01-0.04) higher in the placebo group compared with groups H, I, and L receiving propacetamol. There were no significant differences between the amounts of alfentanil consumed in groups H, I, and L. Initial VAS-scores were moderate (5.4-6.2), and declined significantly (P < 0.0001) over time, with no difference between groups. Paracetamol followed an open two-compartment model with i.v. administration and first order elimination. The estimated concentrations immediately (t = 0) after injection were 56 mg l(-1) (H), 28 mg l(-1) (I) and 14 mg l(-1) (L).
                We showed a significant opioid-sparing effect of paracetamol in the immediate postoperative period. Pharmacokinetic data were in accordance with other studies. Our results suggest that a ceiling effect of paracetamol may be present at i.v. doses of 5 mg kg(-1), i.e. a serum concentration of 14 mg l(-1), which is a lower dose than previously suggested.
                Copyright Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 47 (2003) Propacetamol is an injectable pro-drug of paracetamol (acetaminophen) with analgesic and antipyretic activities, especially used in the post-operative period. The aim of this study was to assess the analgesic efficacy and safety of intravenous paracetamol, administered as propacetamol, in comparison with placebo and intramuscular diclofenac in patients with post-operative pain.
                This was a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy study. One hundred and twenty patients with moderate to severe pain following total hip arthroplasty received either two administrations of propacetamol 2 g intravenously, 5 h apart (n = 40), one single administration of diclofenac 75 mg intramuscularly (n = 40) or placebo (n = 40). Efficacy measures were assessed before each drug administration, for the 5 h following each study treatment administration and for the total study duration of 10 h. Safety was assessed by reporting adverse events and changes in vital signs, electrocardiogram (ECG) and biochemical investigations before and 24 h after dosing.
                Both active treatments were effective and statistically superior to placebo over the whole study period, as indicated by the total pain relief score. No significant differences were found between propacetamol and diclofenac for any measures of analgesic activity. Only minor and common adverse events were reported, with no overall differences between the groups.
                Both active treatments were superior to placebo, and the overall efficacy of two intravenous infusions of propacetamol 2 g (equivalent to 1 g of paracetamol), 5 h apart, was not statistically different from that provided by a single intramuscular injection of diclofenac 75 mg over the first 5 h post-dose and over the total 10-h study period. The safety was good. Intravenously administered paracetamol is an effective analgesic in postoperative pain management. However, there is a lack of data on the effect of intravenous (i.v.) paracetamol on pain following soft tissue surgery.
                Eighty-seven patients undergoing elective breast surgery with total i.v. anaesthesia (propofol/remifentanil) were randomized to three groups. Group para received 1 g i.v. paracetamol 20 min before and 4, 10 and 16 h after the end of the operation. Group meta and plac received 1 g i.v. metamizol or placebo, respectively, scheduled at the same time points. All patients had access to i.v. morphine on demand to achieve adequate pain relief.
                No significant difference in total morphine consumption between groups was detectable. The proportion of patients who did not receive any morphine in the postoperative period was significantly higher in group para (42%) than in group plac (4%). Ambulation was significantly (P < 0.05) earlier in group para (4.0 +/- 0.2 h) than in groups meta (4.6 +/- 0.2 h) and plac (5.5 +/- 1.0 h). No differences were observed between groups meta and plac. There were no differences between groups with regard to incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting or changes in vigilance.
                Neither i.v. paracetamol nor i.v. metamizol provided a significant reduction in total postoperative morphine consumption compared with placebo in the management of postoperative pain after elective breast surgery. Administration of paracetamol resulted in a significant reduction in the number of patients needing opioid analgesics to achieve adequate postoperative pain relief.
A single dose of both IV propacetamol and IV paracetamol provides around four hours of effective analgesia for about 37% of patients with acute postoperative pain. Both formulations are associated with few adverse events, although patients receiving IV propacetamol have a higher incidence of pain on infusion than both placebo and IV paracetamol.