» Articles » PMID: 27358262

Opioid Sparing Effect and Safety of Nefopam in Patient Controlled Analgesia After Laparotomy: A Randomized, Double Blind Study

Overview
Journal J Int Med Res
Publisher Sage Publications
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2016 Jul 1
PMID 27358262
Citations 11
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: A double-blind randomised study to evaluate the opioid sparing effect and safety of nefopam when administered via intravenous patient controlled analgesia (PCA) with fentanyl.

Methods: Patients planned for elective open laparotomy, were randomly assigned to receive into fentanyl 25 µg/ml (SF group) or nefopam 2.4 mg/ml plus fentanyl 25 µg/ml (NF group). Patients were assessed before surgery and for 24 h postoperatively.

Results: Total PCA fentanyl consumption was significantly lower in the NF group (n = 35) than the SF group (n = 36). Pain scores were significantly lower and patients' satisfaction with treatment significantly better in the NF group than the SF group. Dry mouth and dizziness were significantly more frequent in the NF group than the SF group. There were no other statistically significant between-group differences in the incidence of adverse events.

Conclusions: Intravenous PCA using nefopam + fentanyl following laparotomy has an opioid sparing effect and is associated with a low incidence of some of the typical opioid related adverse events.

Trial Registry: Clinicaltrials.gov Registration No: NCT02596269.

Citing Articles

Additive effect of a single intravenous dose of acetaminophen administered at the end of laparoscopic hysterectomy on postoperative pain control with nefopam and fentanyl-based patient-controlled analgesia: a double-blind, randomized controlled....

Nam S, Yoo S, Park S, Kim J BMC Anesthesiol. 2025; 25(1):88.

PMID: 39979845 PMC: 11841248. DOI: 10.1186/s12871-025-02971-w.


Comparison of Nefopam-Based Patient-Controlled Analgesia with Opioid-Based Patient-Controlled Analgesia for Postoperative Pain Management in Immediate Breast Reconstruction Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Huh J, Lee N, Kim M, Choi H, Oh D, Choi J J Clin Med. 2024; 13(12).

PMID: 38930019 PMC: 11204651. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13123490.


Pain in Colorectal Surgery: How Does It Occur and What Tools Do We Have for Treatment?.

Ivascu R, Dutu M, Stanca A, Negutu M, Morlova D, Dutu C J Clin Med. 2023; 12(21).

PMID: 37959235 PMC: 10648968. DOI: 10.3390/jcm12216771.


The Lack of Analgesic Efficacy of Nefopam after Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery for Lung Cancer: A Randomized, Single-Blinded, Controlled Trial.

Yeo H, Choi J, Lee S, Sim W, Park S, Jeong H J Clin Med. 2022; 11(16).

PMID: 36013087 PMC: 9409862. DOI: 10.3390/jcm11164849.


Analgesic effects of ultrasound-guided fourquadrant transversus abdominis plane in patients with cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: a prospective, randomized, controlled study.

Song J, Choi N, Kang M, Ji S, Kim D, Kwon M Anesth Pain Med (Seoul). 2022; 17(1):75-86.

PMID: 35139610 PMC: 8841264. DOI: 10.17085/apm.21094.


References
1.
Piercey M, SCHROEDER L . Spinal and Supraspinal sites for morphine and nefopam analgesia in the mouse. Eur J Pharmacol. 1981; 74(2-3):135-40. DOI: 10.1016/0014-2999(81)90523-9. View

2.
Bhatt A, Pleuvry B, MADDISON S . Respiratory and metabolic effects of oral nefopam in human volunteers. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1981; 11(2):209-11. PMC: 1401573. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.1981.tb01126.x. View

3.
Mimoz O, Incagnoli P, Josse C, Gillon M, Kuhlman L, Mirand A . Analgesic efficacy and safety of nefopam vs. propacetamol following hepatic resection. Anaesthesia. 2001; 56(6):520-5. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2044.2001.01980.x. View

4.
Breivik H, Borchgrevink P, Allen S, Rosseland L, Romundstad L, Hals E . Assessment of pain. Br J Anaesth. 2008; 101(1):17-24. DOI: 10.1093/bja/aen103. View

5.
Ould-Ahmed M, Drouillard I, El-Kartouti A, Wey P, Lions C, Martinez J . [Nefopam by continuous intravenous injection and adverse drug reactions: which causality assessment?]. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 2006; 26(1):74-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.annfar.2006.07.080. View