CASE REPORT: Intravenous fentanyl patient-controlled analgesia for perioperative treatment of neuropathic/ischaemic pain in haemodialysis patients: a case series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Use of opioids is common in perioperative haemodialysis patients because they often suffer from intractable ischaemic or neuropathic lower extremity pain. Intravenous (IV) fentanyl, patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) does not appear to have been evaluated in this setting; hence this study. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a prospective, single-centre study. IV fentanyl PCA was used for pain control in 16 patients with lower extremity, neuropathic/ischaemic pain, scheduled for major lower extremity amputation. IV fentanyl PCA was used before and after amputation in eight patients, before but not after amputation in seven patients, and until death in one terminal cancer patient who chose to forgo surgery. Pain intensity was assessed with the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the McGill Pain Questionnaire. Depth of sedation was assessed on a 4-point scale. Ischaemic pain scores were high before fentanyl PCA started, but decreased significantly and remained low with fentanyl PCA use (P<0·001). Phantom pain scores were low (VAS≤4). Respiratory depression was not a problem in any patient. CONCLUSIONS: Concerns about accumulation of active opioid metabolites make provision of adequate analgesia problematic in haemodialysis patients scheduled for amputation, and emergency surgery. Our data on a small patient population suggest that IV fentanyl PCA is safe and effective for severe pain in haemodialysis patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".