-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2015This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2006. Patients may control postoperative pain by self administration of intravenous... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2006. Patients may control postoperative pain by self administration of intravenous opioids using devices designed for this purpose (patient controlled analgesia or PCA). A 1992 meta-analysis by Ballantyne et al found a strong patient preference for PCA over non-patient controlled analgesia, but disclosed no differences in analgesic consumption or length of postoperative hospital stay. Although Ballantyne's meta-analysis found that PCA did have a small but statistically significant benefit upon pain intensity, a 2001 review by Walder et al did not find statistically significant differences in pain intensity or pain relief between PCA and groups treated with non-patient controlled analgesia.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of patient controlled intravenous opioid analgesia (termed PCA in this review) versus non-patient controlled opioid analgesia of as-needed opioid analgesia for postoperative pain relief.
SEARCH METHODS
We ran the search for the previous review in November 2004. For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014, Issue 12), MEDLINE (1966 to 28 January 2015), and EMBASE (1980 to 28 January 2015) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in any language, and reference lists of reviews and retrieved articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected RCTs that assessed pain intensity as a primary or secondary outcome. These studies compared PCA without a continuous background infusion with non-patient controlled opioid analgesic regimens. We excluded studies that explicitly stated they involved patients with chronic pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data, which included demographic variables, type of surgery, interventions, efficacy, and adverse events. We graded each included study for methodological quality by assessing risk of bias and employed the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence. We performed meta-analysis of outcomes that included pain intensity assessed by a 0 to 100 visual analog scale (VAS), opioid consumption, patient satisfaction, length of stay, and adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
Forty-nine studies with 1725 participants receiving PCA and 1687 participants assigned to a control group met the inclusion criteria. The original review included 55 studies with 2023 patients receiving PCA and 1838 patients assigned to a control group. There were fewer included studies in our updated review due to the revised exclusion criteria. For the primary outcome, participants receiving PCA had lower VAS pain intensity scores versus non-patient controlled analgesia over most time intervals, e.g., scores over 0 to 24 hours were nine points lower (95% confidence interval (CI) -13 to -5, moderate quality evidence) and over 0 to 48 hours were 10 points lower (95% CI -12 to -7, low quality evidence). Among the secondary outcomes, participants were more satisfied with PCA (81% versus 61%, P value = 0.002) and consumed higher amounts of opioids than controls (0 to 24 hours, 7 mg more of intravenous morphine equivalents, 95% CI 1 mg to 13 mg). Those receiving PCA had a higher incidence of pruritus (15% versus 8%, P value = 0.01) but had a similar incidence of other adverse events. There was no difference in the length of hospital stay.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Since the last version of this review, we have found new studies providing additional information. We reanalyzed the data but the results did not substantially alter any of our previously published conclusions. This review provides moderate to low quality evidence that PCA is an efficacious alternative to non-patient controlled systemic analgesia for postoperative pain control.
Topics: Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics, Opioid; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Patient Satisfaction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26035341
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003348.pub3 -
Local and Regional Anesthesia 2016A systematic review of the literature on the use of regional anesthesia (RA) and patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) was conducted in patients who require orthopedic... (Review)
Review
A systematic review of the literature on the use of regional anesthesia (RA) and patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) was conducted in patients who require orthopedic extremity procedures to determine whether either analgesic technique contributes to a delayed diagnosis of compartment syndrome (CS). A total of 34 relevant articles (28 case reports and six research articles) were identified. Of all case report articles published after 2009, the majority (75%) concluded that RA does not put the patient at an increased risk of a delayed diagnosis of CS. Of these, only two relevant prospective research studies focusing on RA or PCA and their relationship to CS were identified. Neither study resulted in any cases of CS. However, both had relatively small sample sizes. Given the lack of evidence identified in this systematic review, prospective studies or large-scale retrospective data reviews are needed to more strongly advocate the use of one modality of analgesia over the other in this patient population.
PubMed: 27785097
DOI: 10.2147/LRA.S109659 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Apr 2023The advantages of PCEA over CEA have been demonstrated in obstetric patients. Whether a similar benefit applies to surgical patients is unclear. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The advantages of PCEA over CEA have been demonstrated in obstetric patients. Whether a similar benefit applies to surgical patients is unclear.
METHODS
Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library were searched, enabling a systematic review of studies comparing PCEA and CEA in adult surgical patients (PROSPERO: CRD42018106644). The study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB2). The primary outcome was pain scores on postoperative day one (POD1). Secondary outcomes were 24 or 48 h epidural or intravenous total analgesic dose, systemic analgesics, manual top-ups, side effects, and patient satisfaction.
RESULTS
Six randomized controlled trials with high heterogeneity of study characteristics were identified with a moderate risk of bias. Two studies showed significantly reduced resting pain scores on POD1 in PCEA compared with CEA patients (36-44%, < 0.05). Four studies found comparable pain scores between these groups. PCEA use reduced epidural medication (28% to 40% reduction, < 0.01) in four studies. One study found a 23% reduction ( < 0.001) of top-ups in PCEA; intravenous morphine use by PCEA patients was reduced (0.16 vs. 3.45 mg per patient, < 0.05) in one study. PCEA patients were more satisfied with analgesia ( < 0.001) in two studies. Nausea and vomiting were reduced in PCEA ( = 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS
Regarding the reduction in pain scores, the effects of PCEA were not significant or clinically not relevant. However, regarding the amount of epidural drug use, the amount of required rescue systemic analgesics, patient satisfaction, and the number of required top-ups, PCEA had advantages over CEA in surgical patients.
PubMed: 37176605
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12093164 -
Medicine Jan 2022Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) is an effective method of postoperative pain, there have been many studies performed that have compared the efficacy of hydromorphone... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) is an effective method of postoperative pain, there have been many studies performed that have compared the efficacy of hydromorphone with continuous sufentanil. The purpose of this systematic review is to compare the efficacy and safety of hydromorphone and sufentanil.
METHODS
Seven databases were searched for controlled trials to compare the efficacy and safety of hydromorphone and sufentanil. After selecting the studies, extracting the data, and assessing study quality, the meta-analysis was performed on several of the studies with RevMan 5.3.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies comprised of 812 patients were found. The pain intensity of the hydromorphone group was significantly lower than that of the sufentanil group at 12 hours. With no statistical difference at 24 to 48 hours (MD12 = -1.52, 95% CI [-2.13, -1.97], P <.05). The sedation intensity of the hydromorphone group at 12, 24, and 48 hours were lower than those of the sufentanil group, with no statistical difference (MD12 = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.12], P > .05; MD24 = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.03], P > .05; MD48 = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.11)], P > .05). The PCA requests in the hydromorphone group were less than that in the sufentanil group, and there was no significant difference (RR = -0.20, 95% CI [-1.93,1.53], P > .05). The incidence of adverse events in the hydromorphone group was less than that in the sufentanil group, and there was a statistical difference: (RR = 0.61, 95% CI [0.47,0.79], P < .05).
CONCLUSION
Compared with sufentanil, PCA with hydromorphone was more effective in relieving pain and PCA requests 12, 24, and 48 hours after operation, and significantly reduced the incidence of adverse events, but it did not have an advantage in sedation intensity.
Topics: Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Humans; Hydromorphone; Narcotics; Pain, Postoperative; Sufentanil
PubMed: 35060534
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000028615 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2022Although pain is common in osteoarthritis, most people fail to achieve adequate analgesia. Increasing acknowledgement of the contribution of pain sensitisation has... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Although pain is common in osteoarthritis, most people fail to achieve adequate analgesia. Increasing acknowledgement of the contribution of pain sensitisation has resulted in the investigation of medications affecting pain processing with central effects. Antidepressants contribute to pain management in other conditions where pain sensitisation is present.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of antidepressants for the treatment of symptomatic knee and hip osteoarthritis in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search was January 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of adults with osteoarthritis that compared use of antidepressants to placebo or alternative comparator. We included trials that focused on efficacy (pain and function), treatment-related adverse effects and had documentation regarding discontinuation of participants. We excluded trials of less than six weeks of duration or had participants with concurrent mental health disorders.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods. Major outcomes were pain; responder rate; physical function; quality of life; and proportion of participants who withdrew due to adverse events, experienced any adverse events or had serious adverse events. Minor outcomes were proportion meeting the OARSI (Osteoarthritis Research Society International) Response Criteria, radiographic joint structure changes and proportion of participants who dropped out of the study for any reason. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
Nine trials (2122 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Seven trials examined only knee osteoarthritis. Two also included participants with hip osteoarthritis. All trials compared antidepressants to placebo, with or without non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Trial sizes were 36 to 388 participants. Most participants were female, with mean ages of 54.5 to 65.9 years. Trial durations were 8 to 16 weeks. Six trials examined duloxetine. We combined data from nine trials in meta-analyses for knee and hip osteoarthritis. One trial was at low risk of bias in all domains. Five trials were at risk of attrition and reporting bias. High-certainty evidence found that antidepressants resulted in a clinically unimportant improvement in pain compared to placebo. Mean reduction in pain (0 to 10 scale, 0 = no pain) was 1.7 points with placebo and 2.3 points with antidepressants (mean difference (MD) -0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.88 to -0.31; 9 trials, 2122 participants). Clinical response was defined as achieving a 50% or greater reduction in 24-hour mean pain. High-certainty evidence demonstrated that 45% of participants receiving antidepressants had a clinical response compared to 28.6% receiving placebo (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.82; 6 RCTs, 1904 participants). This corresponded to an absolute improvement in pain of 16% more responders with antidepressants (8.9% more to 26% more) and a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial effect (NNTB) of 6 (95% CI 4 to 11). High-certainty evidence showed that the mean improvement in function (on 0 to 100 Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index, 0 = best function) was 10.51 points with placebo and 16.16 points with antidepressants (MD -5.65 points, 95% CI -7.08 to -4.23; 6 RCTs, 1909 participants). This demonstrates a small, clinically unimportant response. Moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision) showed that quality of life measured using the EuroQol 5-Dimension scale (-0.11 to 1.0, 1.0 = perfect health) improved by 0.07 points with placebo and 0.11 points with antidepressants (MD 0.04, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.07; 3 RCTs, 815 participants). This is clinically unimportant. High-certainty evidence showed that total adverse events increased in the antidepressant group (64%) compared to the placebo group (49%) (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.41; 9 RCTs, 2102 participants). The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) was 7 (95% CI 5 to 11). Low-certainty evidence (downgraded twice for imprecision for very low numbers of events) found no evidence of a difference in serious adverse events between groups (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.94; 9 RCTs, 2101 participants). The NNTH was 1000. Moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for imprecision) showed that 11% of participants receiving antidepressants withdrew from trials due to an adverse event compared to 5% receiving placebo (RR 2.15, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.97; 6 RCTs, 1977 participants). The NNTH was 17 (95% CI 10 to 35).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is high-certainty evidence that use of antidepressants for knee osteoarthritis leads to a non-clinically important improvement in mean pain and function. However, a small number of people will have a 50% or greater important improvement in pain and function. This finding was consistent across all trials. Pain in osteoarthritis may be due to a variety of causes that differ between individuals. It may be that the cause of pain that responds to this therapy is only present in a small number of people. There is moderate-certainty evidence that antidepressants have a small positive effect on quality of life with heterogeneity between trials. High-certainty evidence indicates antidepressants result in more adverse events and moderate-certainty evidence indicates more withdrawal due to adverse events. There was little to no difference in serious adverse events (low-certainty evidence due to low numbers of events). This suggests that if antidepressants were being considered, there needs to be careful patient selection to optimise clinical benefit given the known propensity for adverse events with antidepressant use. Future trials should include alternative antidepressant agents or phenotyping of pain in people with osteoarthritis, or both.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antidepressive Agents; Duloxetine Hydrochloride; Osteoarthritis, Hip; Osteoarthritis, Knee; Pain; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36269595
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012157.pub2 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine May 2022To compare the intravenous and epidural routes of patient-controlled anesthesia in abdominal surgery. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To compare the intravenous and epidural routes of patient-controlled anesthesia in abdominal surgery.
METHODS
We searched for randomized clinical trials that compared the intravenous and epidural modes of patient-controlled anesthesia in intra-abdominal surgery in adults. Data analysis was performed in RevMan 5.4. Heterogeneity was measured using I statistic. Risk of bias was assessed using the Jadad/Oxford quality scoring system.
RESULTS
Seven studies reporting 529 patients were included into the meta-analysis. For pain at rest, the mean difference with 95% confidence interval (CI) was -0.00 [-0.79, 0.78], -value 0.99, while for pain on coughing, it was 0.43 [-0.02, 0.88], -value 0.06, indicating that patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) was superior. For the sedation score, the mean difference with 95% CI was 0.26 [-0.37, 0.89], -value 0.42, slightly favoring PCEA. For the length of hospital stay, the mean difference with 95% CI was 1.13 [0.29, 1.98], -value 0.009, favoring PCEA. For postoperative complications, the risk ratio with 95% CI was 0.8 [0.62, 1.03], -value 0.08, slightly favoring patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIVA). A significant effect was observed for hypotension, favoring PCIVA.
CONCLUSIONS
Patient-controlled intravenous analgesia compared with patient-controlled epidural analgesia was associated with fewer episodes of hypotension. PCEA, on other hand, was associated with a shorter length of hospital stay. Pain control and other side effects did not differ significantly. Only three studies out of seven had an acceptable methodological quality. Thus, these conclusions should be taken with caution.
PubMed: 35566705
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11092579 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2017Multiple analgesic strategies for pain relief during labour are available. Recently remifentanil, a short-acting opioid, has recently been used as an alternative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Multiple analgesic strategies for pain relief during labour are available. Recently remifentanil, a short-acting opioid, has recently been used as an alternative analgesic due to its unique pharmacological properties.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically assess the effectiveness of remifentanil intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) for labour pain, along with any potential harms to the mother and the newborn.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (9 December 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), handsearched congress abstracts (November 2015), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-randomised trials comparing remifentanil (PCA) with another opioid (intravenous (IV)/intramuscular (IM)), or with another opioid (PCA), or with epidural analgesia, or with remifentanil (continuous IV), or with remifentanil (PCA, different regimen), or with inhalational analgesia, or with placebo/no treatment in all women in labour including high-risk groups with planned vaginal delivery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data, and appraised study quality.We contacted study authors for additional information other than incomplete outcome data. We performed random-effects meta-analysis.To reduce the risk of random error in meta-analysis we performed trial sequential analysis. We included total zero event trials and used a constant continuity correction of 0.01 (ccc 0.01) for meta-analysis. We applied the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the quality of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty RCTs with 3569 women were included. Of those, 10 trials (2983 participants) compared remifentanil (PCA) to an epidural, four trials (216 participants) to another opioid (IV/IM), three trials (215 participants) to another opioid (PCA), two trials (135 participants) to remifentanil (continuous IV), and one trial (20 participants) to remifentanil (PCA, different regimen). No trials were identified for the remaining comparisons.Methodological quality of studies was moderate to poor. We assessed risk of bias as high for blinding issues and incomplete outcome data in 65% and 45% of the included studies, respectively.There is evidence of effect that women in the remifentanil (PCA) group were more satisfied with pain relief than women in the other opioids (IV/IM) group (standardised mean difference (SMD) 2.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 3.49, four trials, very low-quality evidence), and that women were less satisfied compared to women in the epidural group (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.04, seven trials, very low-quality evidence).There is evidence of effect that remifentanil (PCA) provided stronger pain relief at one hour than other opioids administered IV/IM (SMD -1.58, 95% CI -2.69 to -0.48, three trials, very low-quality evidence) or via PCA (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -1.01 to -0.00, three trials, very low-quality evidence). Pain intensity was higher in the remifentanil (PCA) group compared to the epidural group (SMD 0.57, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.84, six trials, low-quality evidence).Data were limited on safety aspects for both the women and the newborns. Only one study analysed maternal apnoea in a comparison of remifentanil (PCA) versus epidural and reported that half of the women in the remifentanil and none in the epidural group had an apnoea (very low-quality evidence). There is no evidence of effect that remifentanil (PCA) was associated with an increased risk for maternal respiratory depression when compared to epidural analgesia (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.62, ccc 0.01, three trials, low-quality evidence) and no reliable conclusion might be reached compared to remifentanil (continuous IV) (all study arms included zero events, two trials, low-quality evidence). In one trial of remifentanil (PCA) versus another opioid (IM) three out of 18 women in the remifentanil and none out of 18 in the control group had a respiratory depression (very low-quality evidence).There is no evidence of effect that remifentanil (PCA) was associated with an increased risk for newborns with Apgar scores less than seven at five minutes compared to epidural analgesia (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.62 to 2.57, ccc 0.01, five trials, low-quality evidence) and no reliable conclusion might be reached compared to another opioid (IV) and compared to remifentanil (PCA, different regimen) both with zero events in all study arms (one trial, very-low quality evidence). In one trial of remifentanil (PCA) versus another opioid (PCA) none out of nine newborns in the remifentanil and three out of eight in the opioid (PCA) group had Apgar scores less than seven (very-low quality evidence).There is evidence that remifentanil (PCA) was associated with a lower risk for the requirement of additional analgesia when compared to other opioids (IV/IM) (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.81, three trials, moderate-quality evidence) and that it was associated with a higher risk compared to epidural analgesia (RR 9.27, 95% CI 3.73 to 23.03, ccc 0.01, six trials, moderate-quality evidence). There is no evidence of effect that remifentanil (PCA) reduced the requirement for additional analgesia compared to other opioids (PCA) (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.28, three trials, low-quality evidence).There is evidence that there was no difference in the risk for caesarean delivery between remifentanil (PCA) and other opioids (IV/IM) (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.32, ccc 0.01, four trials, low-quality evidence) and epidural analgesia (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.22, ccc 0.01, nine trials, moderate-quality evidence), respectively. Pooled meta-analysis revealed an increased risk for caesarean section under remifentanil (PCA) compared to other opioids (PCA) (RR 2.78, 95% CI 0.99 to 7.82, two trials, very low-quality evidence). However, a wide range of clinically relevant and non-relevant treatment effects is compatible with this result.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the current systematic review, there is mostly low-quality evidence to inform practice and future research may significantly alter the current situation. The quality of evidence is mainly limited by poor quality of the studies, inconsistency, and imprecision. More research is needed on maternal and neonatal safety outcomes (maternal apnoea and respiratory depression, Apgar score) and on the optimal mode and regimen of remifentanil administration to provide highest efficacy with reasonable adverse effects for mothers and their newborns.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics, Opioid; Apnea; Cesarean Section; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Labor Pain; Pain Measurement; Patient Satisfaction; Piperidines; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remifentanil
PubMed: 28407220
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011989.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2017This is an update of the review published in Issue 4, 2003. Bone metastasis cause severe pain as well as pathological fractures, hypercalcaemia and spinal cord... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an update of the review published in Issue 4, 2003. Bone metastasis cause severe pain as well as pathological fractures, hypercalcaemia and spinal cord compression. Treatment strategies currently available to relieve pain from bone metastases include analgesia, radiotherapy, surgery, chemotherapy, hormone therapy, radioisotopes and bisphosphonates.
OBJECTIVES
To determine efficacy and safety of radioisotopes in patients with bone metastases to improve metastatic pain, decrease number of complications due to bone metastases and improve patient survival.
SEARCH METHODS
We sought randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and the PaPaS Trials Register up to October 2010.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies selected had metastatic bone pain as a major outcome after treatment with a radioisotope, compared with placebo or another radioisotope.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We assessed the risk of bias of included studies by their sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of study participants, researchers and outcome assessors, and incomplete outcome data. Two review authors extracted data. We performed statistical analysis as an "available case" analysis, and calculated global estimates of effect using a random-effects model. We also performed an intention-to-treat (ITT) sensitivity analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
This update includes 15 studies (1146 analyzed participants): four (325 participants) already included and 11 new (821 participants). Only three studies had a low risk of bias. We observed a small benefit of radioisotopes for complete relief (risk ratio (RR) 2.10, 95% CI 1.32 to 3.35; Number needed to treat to benefit (NNT) = 5) and complete/partial relief (RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.63; NNT = 4) in the short and medium term (eight studies, 499 participants). There is no conclusive evidence to demonstrate that radioisotopes modify the use of analgesia with respect to placebo. Leucocytopenia and thrombocytopenia are secondary effects significantly associated with the administration of radioisotopes (RR 5.03; 95% CI 1.35 to 18.70; Number needed to treat to harm (NNH) = 13). Pain flares were not higher in the radioisotopes group (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.27 to 2.06). There are scarce data of moderate quality when comparing Strontium-89 (Sr) with Samarium-153 (Sm), Rhenium-186 (Re) and Phosphorus-32 (P). We observed no significant differences between treatments. Similarly, we observed no differences when we compared different doses of Sm (0.5 versus 1.0 mCi).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This update adds new evidence on efficacy of radioisotopes versus placebo, Sr compared with other radioisotopes, and dose-comparisons of Sm and Re. There is some evidence indicating that radioisotopes may provide complete reduction in pain over one to six months with no increase in analgesic use, but severe adverse effects (leucocytopenia and thrombocytopenia) are frequent.
Topics: Bone Neoplasms; Fractures, Bone; Humans; Hypercalcemia; Pain; Pain Measurement; Phosphorus Radioisotopes; Radioisotopes; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ruthenium Radioisotopes; Samarium; Spinal Cord Compression; Strontium Radioisotopes
PubMed: 28334435
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003347.pub3 -
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Mar 2020Intravenous remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia (RPCA) is an alternative for epidural analgesia (EA) in labor pain relief. However, it remains unknown whether RPCA... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Intravenous remifentanil patient-controlled analgesia (RPCA) is an alternative for epidural analgesia (EA) in labor pain relief. However, it remains unknown whether RPCA is superior to EA in decreasing the risk of intrapartum maternal fever during labor.
METHODS
According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic review and meta-analysis was performed by searching PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to April 2019. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the risk of intrapartum maternal fever with RPCA compared with EA alone or EA in combination with spinal analgesia during labor were included.
RESULTS
A total of 825 studies were screened, and 6 RCTs including 3341 patients were identified. Compared with EA, RPCA was associated with a significantly lower incidence of intrapartum maternal fever (risk ratio [RR] 0.48, P = 0.02, I = 49%) during labor analgesia. After excluding 2 trials via the heterogeneity analysis, there was no difference in the incidence of intrapartum fever between patients receiving RPCA and those receiving EA. Satisfaction with pain relief during labor was lower in the RPCA group than that in the EA group (- 10.6 [13.87, - 7.44], P < 0.00001, I = 0%). The incidence of respiratory depression was significantly greater in the RPCA group than that in the EA group (risk ratio 2.86 [1.65, 4.96], P = 0.0002, I = 58%). The incidence of Apgar scores < 7 at 5 min in the RPCA group was equivalent to that in the EA group.
CONCLUSION
There is no solid evidence to illustrate that the incidence of intrapartum maternal fever is lower in patients receiving intravenous RPCA than in patients receiving EA.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics, Opioid; Apgar Score; Female; Fever; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Labor Pain; Labor, Obstetric; Obstetric Labor Complications; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Patient Satisfaction; Pregnancy; Remifentanil
PubMed: 32164593
DOI: 10.1186/s12884-020-2800-y -
BMJ Open Jun 2017To evaluate the effect of capnography monitoring on sedation-related adverse events during procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) administered for ambulatory surgery... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effect of capnography monitoring on sedation-related adverse events during procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) administered for ambulatory surgery relative to visual assessment and pulse oximetry alone.
DESIGN AND SETTING
Systematic literature review and random effects meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting sedation-related adverse event incidence when adding capnography to visual assessment and pulse oximetry in patients undergoing PSA during ambulatory surgery in the hospital setting. Searches for eligible studies published between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 2016 (inclusive) were conducted in PubMed, the Cochrane Library and EMBASE without any language constraints. Searches were conducted in January 2017, screening and data extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers, and study quality was assessed using a modified Jadad scale.
INTERVENTIONS
Capnography monitoring relative to visual assessment and pulse oximetry alone.
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES
Predefined endpoints of interest were desaturation/hypoxaemia (the primary endpoint), apnoea, aspiration, bradycardia, hypotension, premature procedure termination, respiratory failure, use of assisted/bag-mask ventilation and death during PSA.
RESULTS
The literature search identified 1006 unique articles, of which 13 were ultimately included in the meta-analysis. Addition of capnography to visual assessment and pulse oximetry was associated with a significant reduction in mild (risk ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.89) and severe (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.81) desaturation, as well as in the use of assisted ventilation (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.95). No significant differences in other endpoints were identified.
CONCLUSIONS
Meta-analysis of 13 RCTs published between 2006 and 2016 showed a reduction in respiratory compromise (from respiratory insufficiency to failure) during PSA with the inclusion of capnography monitoring. In particular, use of capnography was associated with less mild and severe oxygen desaturation, which may have helped to avoid the need for assisted ventilation.
Topics: Bradycardia; Capnography; Conscious Sedation; Deep Sedation; Humans; Monitoring, Physiologic; Oximetry; Patient Safety; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; Respiratory Insufficiency
PubMed: 28667196
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013402