Search

BACKGROUND Dipyrone (metamizole) is widely used for perioperative pain management in countries where it is marketed; however, uncertainty exists concerning the safe use of this drug, specifically considering the rare adverse event of an agranulocytosis. METHODS As evidence from published studies was lacking, an expert panel developed recommendations for the perioperative use of dipyrone. After a formal, structured consensus process, the recommendations were approved by the involved medical societies. RESULTS The panel agreed that blood cell counts shall not be standard for short-term perioperative use in patients unless they are at risk for neutropenia. The medical staff shall be aware of the symptoms and course of action when agranulocytosis is suspected. Patients shall be informed about the risks and benefits of dipyrone and about potential alternatives. The expert group concluded that dipyrone has a relatively positive risk-benefit ratio compared to other nonopioid analgesics. The group strongly recommended educating patients about the symptoms of agranulocytosis if they have received dipyrone over several days and/or treatment is to be continued after discharge, because agranulocytosis can occur several days after discontinuation of metamizole. Further recommendations refer to the information of the physician taking over the patient's care after discharge and the avoidance of re-exposure in patients having previously suffered from dipyrone-induced agranulocytosis. CONCLUSION The group's recommendations shall be communicated in order to raise medical staff's and patients' awareness of the appropriate use of dipyrone in the perioperative period.

BACKGROUND After the introduction of instruments for benchmarking, certification and a national guideline for acute pain management, the aim of this study was to describe the current structure, processes and quality of German acute pain services (APS). METHODS All directors of German departments of anaesthesiology were invited to complete a postal questionnaire on structures und processes of acute pain management. The survey asked for staff, techniques and quality criteria, which enabled a comparison to previous data from 1999 and surveys from other countries. RESULTS Four hundred and eight (46%) questionnaires were returned. APS have increased considerably and are now available in 81% of the hospitals, mainly anaesthesia based. However, only 45% fulfilled the minimum quality criteria, such as the assignment of personnel, the organization of patient care during nights and weekends, written protocols for postoperative pain management, regular assessments and documenting pain scores. Staff resources varied considerably, but increased compared to 1999. Two daily rounds were performed in 71%, either by physicians and nurses (42%), by physicians only (25%) or by supervised nurses (31%). Most personnel assigned to the APS shared this work along with other duties. Only 53% of the hospitals had an integrated rotation for training their specialty trainees. CONCLUSIONS The availability of APS in Germany and other countries has increased over the last decade; however, the quality of nearly half of the APS is questionable. Against the disillusioning background of recently reported unfavourable pain-related patient outcomes, the structures, organization and quality of APS should be revisited.