-
Academic Emergency Medicine : Official... Oct 2022We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous sedation (IVS), intraarticular anesthetic injection (IAA), and peripheral... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous sedation (IVS), intraarticular anesthetic injection (IAA), and peripheral nerve block (PNB) as sedation or analgesia methods for the reduction of anterior shoulder dislocation.
METHODS
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different sedation or analgesia methods for anterior shoulder dislocation reduction. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar databases were searched in October 2021. We conducted a random-effects NMA within a frequentist framework. We evaluated the confidence in each outcome using the CINeMA tool.
RESULTS
Sixteen RCTs (957 patients) were included. Regarding the primary outcomes, the three methods might result in little to no difference in the immediate success rate of reduction and patient satisfaction. The IAA method had a shorter emergency department length of stay than that of the IVS method (mean difference [MD] -107.88 min, 95% confidence interval [CI] -202.58 to -13.18). In the secondary outcomes, the IAA method had a lower pain score than that of the PNB method (standardized MD -1.83, 95% CI -3.64 to -0.02). The IAA and PNB methods might require a longer time for reduction than that of the IVS method (MD 5.3 min, 95% CI 2.4 to 10.36; MD 15.25, 95% CI 5.49 to 25.01). The three methods might result in little to no difference in the number of reduction attempts and total success rate of reduction. However, the confidence ratings for all treatment comparisons were very low. IAA and PNB had no adverse respiratory events.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of our NMA indicated that three sedation or analgesia methods (IVS, IAA, and PNB) might result in little to no difference in the success rate of reduction and patient satisfaction. IAA and PNB had no adverse respiratory events.
Topics: Analgesia; Humans; Nerve Block; Network Meta-Analysis; Shoulder; Shoulder Dislocation
PubMed: 35872652
DOI: 10.1111/acem.14568 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2020As a retained placenta is a potential life-threatening obstetrical complication, effective and timely management is important. The estimated mortality rates from a...
BACKGROUND
As a retained placenta is a potential life-threatening obstetrical complication, effective and timely management is important. The estimated mortality rates from a retained placenta in developing countries range from 3% to 9%. One possible factor contributing to the high mortality rates is a delay in initiating manual removal of the placenta. Effective anaesthesia or analgesia during this procedure will provide adequate uterine relaxation and pain control, enabling it to be carried out effectively.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of general, regional, and local anaesthesia or analgesia during manual removal of a retained placenta.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to 30 September 2019, and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We sought randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomised controlled trials, and cluster-randomised trials that compared different methods of preoperative or intraoperative anaesthetic or analgesic, administered during the manual removal of a retained placenta.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the study reports for inclusion, and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We followed standard Cochrane methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified only one randomised controlled trial (N = 30 women) that evaluated the effect of paracervical block on women undergoing manual removal of a retained placenta compared with intravenous pethidine and diazepam. The study was conducted in a hospital in Papua New Guinea. The study was at high risk of bias of performance bias and detection bias, low risk of attrition bias, and an unclear risk of selection bias, reporting bias, and other bias. The included study did not measure this review's primary outcomes of pain intensity and adverse events. The study reported that there were no women, in either group, who experienced an estimated postpartum blood loss of more than 500 mL. We are uncertain about the providers' satisfaction with the procedure, defined as their perception of achieving good pain relief during the procedure (risk ratio (RR) 1.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 3.16, one study, 30 women; very low quality evidence). We are also uncertain about the women's satisfaction with the procedure, defined as their perception of achieving good pain relief during the procedure (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.37; one study, 30 women; very low quality evidence). The included study did not report on any of our other outcomes of interest.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence from one small study to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of anaesthesia or analgesia during the manual removal of a retained placenta. The quality of the available evidence was very low. We downgraded based on issues of limitations in study design (risk of bias) and imprecision (single study with small sample size, few or no events, and wide confidence intervals). There is a need for well-designed, multi-centre, randomised, controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different types of anaesthesia and analgesia during manual removal of a retained placenta. These studies could report on the important outcomes outlined in this review.
Topics: Analgesia, Obstetrical; Anesthesia, Obstetrical; Female; Humans; Job Satisfaction; Nerve Block; Pain, Procedural; Patient Satisfaction; Placenta, Retained; Pregnancy
PubMed: 32529658
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013013.pub2 -
Minerva Anestesiologica Feb 2015Cesarean delivery is a major surgical procedure, after which a woman can experience substantial postoperative discomfort or pain. Inadequate postoperative analgesia is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Cesarean delivery is a major surgical procedure, after which a woman can experience substantial postoperative discomfort or pain. Inadequate postoperative analgesia is one of the most common reasons for poor patient satisfaction following cesarean delivery. Although spinal or systemic opioids are currently the gold standard to achieve effective analgesia, they are often associated with side effects. In the last few years there has been growing interest in abdominal plane blocks, with promising data on their efficacy. The transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block is a regional analgesic technique which is gaining acceptance in postoperative analgesia for lower abdominal surgeries. In this systematic review of articles published as of 31 December 2013, we searched the principal medical databases for randomized controlled trials that assessed the efficacy of ultrasound (US)-guided TAP block following cesarean delivery and reported on postoperative opioid consumption and pain score, opioid-related side-effects and patient satisfaction. Although controversy surrounds the utility of US-guided TAP block in cesarean section, evidence suggests that when correctly executed as part of a multimodal analgesic regimen, TAP block may reduce postoperative opioid consumption and opioid-related side effects, improving postoperative pain control and patient satisfaction. Further studies are necessary to explore this field of research.
Topics: Abdominal Muscles; Adult; Analgesia; Cesarean Section; Female; Humans; Nerve Block; Pain, Postoperative; Pregnancy
PubMed: 24739207
DOI: No ID Found -
Anaesthesia Aug 2017We aimed to assess the effectiveness of remifentanil used as intravenous patient-controlled analgesia for the pain of labour. We performed a systematic literature search...
We aimed to assess the effectiveness of remifentanil used as intravenous patient-controlled analgesia for the pain of labour. We performed a systematic literature search in December 2015 (updated in December 2016). We included randomised, controlled and cluster-randomised trials of women in labour with planned vaginal delivery receiving patient-controlled remifentanil compared principally with other parenteral and patient-controlled opioids, epidural analgesia and continuous remifentanil infusion or placebo. The primary outcomes were patient satisfaction with pain relief and the occurrence of adverse events for mothers and newborns. We assessed risk of bias for each included study and applied the GRADE approach for the quality of evidence. We included total zero event trials, using a constant continuity correction of 0.01 and a random-effect meta-analysis. Twenty studies were included in the qualitative analysis; within these, 3713 participants were randomised and 3569 analysed. Most of our pre-specified outcomes were not studied in the included trials. However, we found evidence that women using patient-controlled remifentanil were more satisfied with pain relief than women receiving parenteral opioids (four trials, 216 patients, very low quality evidence) with a standardised mean difference ([SMD] 95%CI) of 2.11 (0.72-3.49), but were less satisfied than women receiving epidural analgesia (seven trials, 2135 patients, very low quality evidence), -0.22 (-0.40 to -0.04). Data on adverse events were sparse. However, the relative risk (95%CI) for maternal respiratory depression for patient-controlled remifentanil compared with epidural analgesia (three trials, 687 patients, low-quality evidence) was 0.91 (0.51-1.62). Compared with continuous intravenous infusion of remifentanil (two trials, 135 patients, low-quality evidence) no conclusion could be reached as all study arms showed zero events. The relative risk (95%CI) of Apgar scores less than 7 at 5 min after birth compared with epidural analgesia (five trials, 1322 participants, low-quality evidence) was 1.26 (0.62-2.57).
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Humans; Pain Management; Patient Satisfaction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remifentanil
PubMed: 28695584
DOI: 10.1111/anae.13971 -
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine Apr 2023Proximal femoral fractures are characterized as one of the most common and most painful injuries sustained by patients of all ages and are associated with high rates of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Proximal femoral fractures are characterized as one of the most common and most painful injuries sustained by patients of all ages and are associated with high rates of oligoanalgesia in the prehospital setting. Current treatments include oral and parenteral opiates and sedative agents, however regional anesthesia techniques for pain relief may provide superior analgesia with lower risk of side effects during patient transportation. The fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB) is an inexpensive treatment which is performed with minimal additional equipment, ultimately making it suitable in prehospital settings.
PROBLEM
In adult patients sustaining proximal femoral fractures in the prehospital setting, what is the effect of the FICB on non-verbal pain scores (NVPS), patient satisfaction, success rate, and adverse events compared to traditional analgesic techniques?
METHODS
A librarian-assisted literature search was conducted of the Cochrane Database, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science indexes. Additionally, reference lists for potential review articles from the , the , the , , and the were reviewed. Databases and journals were searched during the period from January 1, 1980 through July 1, 2022. Each study was scrutinized for quality and validity and was assigned a level of evidence as per Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines.
RESULTS
Five studies involving 340 patients were included (ie, two randomized control trials [RCTs], two observational studies, and one prospective observational study). Pain scores decreased after prehospital FICB across all included studies by a mean of 6.65 points (5.25 - 7.5) on the NVPS. Out of the total 257 FICBs conducted, there was a success rate of 230 (89.3%). Of these, only two serious adverse events were recorded, both of which related to local analgesia toxicity. Neither resulted in long-term sequelae and only one required treatment.
CONCLUSION
Use of FICBs results in a significant decrease in NVPS in the prehospital setting, and they are ultimately suitable as regional analgesic techniques for proximal femur fractures. It carries a low risk of adverse events and may be performed by health care practitioners of various backgrounds with suitable training. The results suggest that FICBs are more effective for pain management than parenteral or oral opiates and sedative agents alone and can be used as an appropriate adjunct to pain management.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Nerve Block; Femoral Fractures; Proximal Femoral Fractures; Pain; Emergency Medical Services; Fascia; Opiate Alkaloids; Hip Fractures; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 36912109
DOI: 10.1017/S1049023X23000298 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2014Pain is the most common symptom in the emergency setting; however, timely management of acute pain in children continues to be suboptimal. Intranasal drug delivery has... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Pain is the most common symptom in the emergency setting; however, timely management of acute pain in children continues to be suboptimal. Intranasal drug delivery has emerged as an alternative method of achieving quicker drug delivery without adding to the distress of a child by inserting an intravenous cannula.
OBJECTIVES
We identified and evaluated all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials to assess the effects of intranasal fentanyl (INF) versus alternative analgesic interventions in children with acute pain, with respect to reduction in pain score, occurrence of adverse events, patient tolerability, use of "rescue analgesia," patient/parental satisfaction and patient mortality.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 1); MEDLINE (Ovid SP, from 1995 to January 2014); EMBASE (Ovid SP, from 1995 to January 2014); the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (EBSCO Host, from 1995 to January 2014); the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database (LILACS) (BIREME, from 1995 to January 2014); Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux (CAB) Abstracts (from 1995 to January 2014); the Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Web of Science (from 1995 to January 2014); BIOSIS Previews (from 1995 to January 2014); the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) (from 1995 to January 2014); International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) (from 1995 to January 2014); ClinicalTrials.gov (from 1995 to January 2014); and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (to January 2014).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs comparing INF versus any other pharmacological/non-pharmacological intervention for the treatment of children in acute pain (aged < 18 years).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two independent review authors assessed each title and abstract for relevance. Full copies of all studies that met the inclusion criteria were retrieved for further assessment. Mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to measure effect sizes. Two review authors independently assessed and rated the methodological quality of each trial using the tool of The Cochrane Collaboration to assess risk of bias, as per Chapter 8 of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.
MAIN RESULTS
Three studies (313 participants) met the inclusion criteria. One study compared INF versus intramuscular morphine (IMM); another study compared INF versus intravenous morphine (IVM); and another study compared standard concentration INF (SINF) versus high concentration INF (HINF). All three studies reported a reduction in pain score following INF administration. INF produced a greater reduction in pain score at 10 minutes post administration when compared with IMM (INF group pain score: 1/5 vs IMM group pain score: 2/5; P value 0.014). No other statistically significant differences in pain scores were reported at any other time point. When INF was compared with IVM and HINF, no statistically significant differences in pain scores were noted between treatment arms, before analgesia or at 5, 10, 20 and 30 minutes post analgesia. Specifically, when INF was compared with IVM, both agents were seen to produce a statistically significant reduction in pain score up to 20 minutes post analgesia. No further reduction in pain score was noted after this time. When SINF was compared with HINF, a statistically and clinically significant reduction in pain scores over study time was observed (median decrease for both groups 40 mm, P value 0.000). No adverse events (e.g. opiate toxicity, death) were reported in any study following INF administration. One study described better patient tolerance to INF compared with IMM, which achieved statistical significance. The other studies described reports of a "bad taste" and vomiting with INF. Overall the risk of bias in all studies was considered low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
INF may be an effective analgesic for the treatment of patients with acute moderate to severe pain, and its administration appears to cause minimal distress to children. However, this review of published studies does not allow any definitive conclusions regarding whether INF is superior, non-inferior or equivalent to intramuscular or intravenous morphine. Limitations of this review include the following: few eligible studies for inclusion (three); no study examined the use of INF in children younger than three years of age; no study included children with pain from a "medical" cause (e.g. abdominal pain seen in appendicitis); and all eligible studies were conducted in Australia. Consequently, the findings may not be generalizable to other healthcare settings, to children younger than three years of age and to those with pain from a "medical" cause.
Topics: Acute Pain; Administration, Intranasal; Analgesics, Opioid; Child; Fentanyl; Humans; Morphine; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25300594
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009942.pub2 -
The Journal of Pain Feb 2016Acute postoperative pain is a common clinical condition that, when poorly controlled, can result in a number of significant negative consequences. The American Pain... (Review)
Review
Research Gaps in Practice Guidelines for Acute Postoperative Pain Management in Adults: Findings From a Review of the Evidence for an American Pain Society Clinical Practice Guideline.
UNLABELLED
Acute postoperative pain is a common clinical condition that, when poorly controlled, can result in a number of significant negative consequences. The American Pain Society commissioned an evidence-based guideline on the management of postoperative pain to promote evidence-based, safe, and effective perioperative pain management. An interdisciplinary panel developed 31 key questions and inclusion criteria to guide the evidence review. Investigators reviewed 6556 abstracts from multiple electronic databases up to November 2012, an updated evidence review to October 2014, and key references suggested by expert reviewers. More than 800 primary studies not included in a systematic review and 107 systematic reviews were included. Despite a large body of evidence, a number of critical research gaps were identified where only low-quality or insufficient evidence was found to help guide clinical practice recommendations. This report identifies evidence gaps including optimal methods and timing of perioperative patient education, nonpharmacological modalities, combinations of analgesic techniques, monitoring of patient response to treatment, techniques for neuraxial and regional analgesia, and organizational care delivery models. Recommendations to help guide the design of future perioperative studies are offered.
PERSPECTIVE
Acute postoperative pain is a common clinical condition requiring an evidence-based, planned, and multimodal approach. Despite the plethora of published evidence, much of it is weak and key questions remain unanswered. Researchers are encouraged to work together to produce strong evidence to help guide clinical decisions in perioperative pain management.
Topics: Acute Pain; Humans; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Societies, Medical
PubMed: 26719073
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2015.10.023 -
Pain and Therapy Jun 2020Pain is commonly experienced among patients after surgical procedures. Clinical pain management after surgery is far from being successful. Patients may control... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Pain is commonly experienced among patients after surgical procedures. Clinical pain management after surgery is far from being successful. Patients may control postoperative pain by self-administration of intravenous opioids using devices designed for this purpose (patient-controlled analgesia or PCA). PCA devices have been developed including the sufentanil sublingual tablet system (SSTS). A systematic review of the use of SSTS for postoperative pain is needed to identify an alternative method of pain management.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review literature to establish the efficacy and the safety of PCA with SSTS used in the treatment of moderate-to-severe acute post-operative pain in a hospital setting.
METHODS
Embase, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central Trials Register were systematically searched in December 2019 for studies examining SSTS for pain in adult after surgical procedures. The methodological quality of the studies and their results were appraised using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist and specific measurement properties criteria, respectively.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies evaluating SSTS were included for a total of 2311 patients. All participants in the SSTS group reported NRS ≤ 4 within 24 h after surgery. Patient satisfaction was high, with a minimum of 70% satisfaction among patients treated with SSTS. The most common adverse events (AEs) overall for SSTS 15 and 30 mcg were nausea, vomiting, and headache. AEs observed in the studies were generally consistent with those associated with opioids and the postsurgical setting.
CONCLUSIONS
SSTS is an important system for the management of moderate-to-severe acute pain in a hospital setting. SSTS is well tolerated, with no unexpected adverse events (AEs) and no clinically meaningful vital sign changes. These data confirm the safety and tolerability of the SSTS. Successful pain management resulted in a high level of acceptance of the SSTS by patients with high satisfaction for the method of pain control.
PubMed: 32303979
DOI: 10.1007/s40122-020-00166-4 -
Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology... 2023Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is an α2-adrenergic receptor agonist used for its sedative, analgesic, and anxiolytic effects. Non-Operating Room Anesthesia (NORA) is a modality... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is an α2-adrenergic receptor agonist used for its sedative, analgesic, and anxiolytic effects. Non-Operating Room Anesthesia (NORA) is a modality of anesthesia that can be done under general anesthesia or procedural sedation or/and analgesia. In this particular setting, a level-2 sedation, such as the one provided by DEX, is beneficial. We aimed to study the effects and safety of DEX in the different NORA settings in the adult population.
METHODS
A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted. Interventions using DEX only or DEX associated with other sedative agents, in adults (18 years old or more), were included. Procedures outside the NORA setting and/or without a control group without DEX were excluded. MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov, Scopus, LILACS, and SciELO were searched. The primary outcome was time until full recovery. Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic and respiratory complications and other adverse events, among others.
RESULTS
A total of 97 studies were included with a total of 6,706 participants. The meta-analysis demonstrated that DEX had a higher time until full recovery (95% CI = [0.34, 3.13] minutes, a higher incidence of hypotension (OR = 1.95 [1.25, 3.05], p = 0.003, I = 39%) and bradycardia (OR = 3.60 [2.29, 5.67], p < 0.00001, I = 0%), and a lower incidence of desaturation (OR = 0.40 [0.25, 0.66], p = 0.0003, I² = 60%).
CONCLUSION
DEX in NORA procedures in adults was associated with a lower incidence of amnesia and respiratory effects but had a long time to recovery and more hemodynamic complications.
PubMed: 34933035
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjane.2021.12.002 -
Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism Aug 2021To assess how patient characteristics and study design influence the effectiveness of control interventions in hand OA trials. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To assess how patient characteristics and study design influence the effectiveness of control interventions in hand OA trials.
METHODS
The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020163473). Two authors independently searched four electronic databases from their inception to December 31, 2019. Randomized and non-randomized controlled hand OA trials were included if pain intensity was assessed using a validated scale. We allocated control groups into one of the following: placebo, add-on treatment, no treatment, or active treatment. The standardized mean differences (d) of pain, as well as subjective function and hand strength, were pooled with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and 90% prediction intervals using random-effects models. Meta-regression and post-hoc subgroup analyses were performed to investigate which factors potentially impacted placebo analgesia and between-study heterogeneity.
RESULTS
Thirty-one placebo, 11 add-on, 12 no-treatment, and 10 active-treatment controls were included in meta-analyses. Effective pain relief was observed in placebo (d = -0.50, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.37), add-on (d = -0.35, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.12), and active-treatment (d = -0.92, 95% CI -1.35 to -0.48) groups. In subjective function, these treatments had smaller but beneficial effects; hand strength, contrastingly, was not improved. Placebo effects were larger when flare designs were used (d = -0.96) and more homogeneous when minimum pain thresholds were set (d = -0.46, 90% prediction intervals -0.79 to -0.14).
CONCLUSION
Placebo, add-on, and active control treatments were more effective than the no treatment control in relieving hand pain and improving subjective function. By choosing minimum pain thresholds and flare requirements at patient enrollment, moderate pain relief may be replicated among control participants in future randomized placebo-controlled trials.
Topics: Control Groups; Hand; Humans; Osteoarthritis; Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34146952
DOI: 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2021.04.006