-
Pain Practice : the Official Journal of... Nov 2023Epidural analgesia is a common technique for managing perioperative and obstetric pain. Patients with cancer who cannot tolerate opioids or not responding to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Epidural analgesia is a common technique for managing perioperative and obstetric pain. Patients with cancer who cannot tolerate opioids or not responding to conventional treatment may benefit from epidural analgesia. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to analyze the efficacy and safety of epidural analgesia in patients with intractable cancer pain.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify studies on patients with cancer who received epidural analgesia. We assessed the quality of all included studies using the risk-of-bias tool or Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The primary outcome was pain relief after epidural analgesia, and the secondary outcome was quality of life, analgesic consumption, and adverse events. The studies were grouped based on the medications used for epidural analgesia. A descriptive synthesis was performed following the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis reporting guideline.
RESULTS
Our systematic review included nine randomized controlled trials (n = 340) and 15 observational studies (n = 926). Two randomized controlled trials suggested that epidural opioids were not superior to systemic opioids in relieving pain. Epidural opioids combined with local anesthetics or adjuvants, including calcitonin, clonidine, ketamine, neostigmine, methadone, and dexamethasone, offered better analgesic effects. No significant difference in pain relief between an intermittent bolus and a continuous infusion of epidural morphine was observed. Epidural opioids had more analgesic effects on nociceptive pain than neuropathic pain. The methods used to evaluate the quality of life and the corresponding results were heterogeneous among studies. Six observational studies demonstrated that some patients could have decreased opioid consumption after epidural analgesia. Adverse events, including complications and drug-related side effects, were reported in 23 studies. Five serious complications, such as epidural abscess and hematoma, required surgical management. The heterogeneity and methodological limitations of the studies hindered meta-analysis and evidence-level determination.
CONCLUSION
Coadministration of epidural opioids, local anesthetics, and adjuvants may provide better pain relief for intractable cancer pain. However, we must assess the patients to ensure that the benefits outweigh the risks before epidural analgesia. Therefore, further high-quality studies are required.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesics; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics, Local; Cancer Pain; Neoplasms; Pain, Postoperative; Quality of Life
PubMed: 37455298
DOI: 10.1111/papr.13273 -
BMC Pediatrics Aug 2023Children in acute pain often receive inadequate pain relief, partly from difficulties administering injectable analgesics. A rapid-acting, intranasal (IN) analgesic may... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Children in acute pain often receive inadequate pain relief, partly from difficulties administering injectable analgesics. A rapid-acting, intranasal (IN) analgesic may be an alternative to other parenteral routes of administration. Our review compares the efficacy, safety, and acceptability of intranasal analgesia to intravenous (IV) and intramuscular (IM) administration; and to compare different intranasal agents.
METHODS
We searched Cochrane Library, MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Web of Knowledge, Clinicaltrials.gov, Controlled-trials.com/mrcr, Clinicaltrialsregister.eu, Apps.who.int/trialsearch. We also screened reference lists of included trials and relevant systematic reviews. Studies in English from any year were included. Two authors independently assessed all studies. We included randomised trials (RCTs) of children 0-16, with moderate to severe pain; comparing intranasal analgesia to intravenous or intramuscular analgesia, or to other intranasal agents. We excluded studies of procedural sedation or analgesia. We extracted study characteristics and outcome data and assessed risk of bias with the ROB 2.0-tool. We conducted meta-analysis and narrative review, evaluating the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Outcomes included pain reduction, adverse events, acceptability, rescue medication, ease of and time to administration.
RESULTS
We included 12 RCTs with a total of 1163 children aged 3 to 20, most below 10 years old, with a variety of conditions. Our review shows that: - There may be little or no difference in pain relief (single dose IN vs IV fentanyl MD 4 mm, 95% CI -8 to 16 at 30 min by 100 mm VAS; multiple doses IN vs IV fentanyl MD 0, 95%CI -0.35 to 0.35 at 15 min by Hannallah score; single dose IN vs IV ketorolac MD 0.8, 95% CI -0.4 to 1.9 by Faces Pain Scale-Revised), adverse events (single dose IN vs IV fentanyl RR 3.09, 95% CI 0.34 to 28.28; multiple doses IN vs IV fentanyl RR 1.50, 95%CI 0.29 to 7.81); single dose IN vs IV ketorolac RR 0.716, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.26), or acceptability (single dose IN vs IV ketorolac RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.04) between intranasal and intravenous analgesia (low certainty evidence). - Intranasal diamorphine or fentanyl probably give similar pain relief to intramuscular morphine (narrative review), and are probably more acceptable (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.42 to 1.81) and tolerated better (RR 0.061, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.13 for uncooperative/negative reaction) (moderate certainty); adverse events may be similar (narrative review) (low certainty). - Intranasal ketamine gives similar pain relief to intranasal fentanyl (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.29 at 30 min), while having a higher risk of light sedation (RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.35) and mild side effects (RR 2.16, 95% CI 1.72 to 2.71) (high certainty). Need for rescue analgesia is probably similar (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.17) (moderate certainty), and acceptability may be similar (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.48) (low certainty).
CONCLUSIONS
Our review suggests that intranasal analgesics are probably a good alternative to intramuscular analgesics in children with acute moderate to severe pain; and may be an alternative to intravenous administration. Intranasal ketamine gives similar pain relief to fentanyl, but causes more sedation, which should inform the choice of intranasal agent.
Topics: Child; Humans; Ketorolac; Ketamine; Pain; Analgesia; Fentanyl
PubMed: 37596559
DOI: 10.1186/s12887-023-04203-x -
Anaesthesia Dec 2023Acute postoperative pain remains a critical treatment priority and has prompted a search for technologies and techniques to assist with intra-operative analgesic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Acute postoperative pain remains a critical treatment priority and has prompted a search for technologies and techniques to assist with intra-operative analgesic monitoring and management. Anaesthetists traditionally rely on clinical judgement to guide intra-operative analgesia, but several emerging technologies such as the nociception level index herald the possibility of routine intra-operative analgesia monitoring. However, the impact of devices like nociception level index on postoperative outcomes has not been proven. We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of articles which compared nociception level index-guided analgesia to standard care. The primary outcomes were pain intensity and opioid consumption during the first 60-120 min after surgery. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting and duration of stay in the post-anaesthesia care unit. Ten studies, collectively including 662 patients and published between 2019 and 2023, met inclusion criteria for both the qualitative systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis. Risk of methodological bias was generally low or unclear, and six studies reported a significant conflict of interest relevant to their findings. Our meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. It found statistically significant benefits of nociception level index-guided analgesia for early postoperative pain (mean (95%CI) difference -0.46 (-0.88 to -0.03) on an 11-point scale, p = 0.03), and opioid requirement (mean (95%CI) difference -1.04 (-1.94 to -0.15) mg intravenous morphine equivalent, p = 0.02). Our meta-analysis of the current literature finds that nociception level index-guided analgesia statistically significantly reduces reported postoperative pain intensity and opioid consumption but fails to show clinically relevant outcomes. We found no evidence that nociception level index-guided analgesia affected postoperative nausea and vomiting nor duration of stay in the post-anaesthesia care unit.
Topics: Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Nociception; Analgesia; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 37864430
DOI: 10.1111/anae.16148 -
World Journal of Clinical Cases Jun 2024Scientific evidence develops bit by bit from case reports, case series; to larger case-control, case-cohort; and further escalate to randomized controlled trials. This...
Scientific evidence develops bit by bit from case reports, case series; to larger case-control, case-cohort; and further escalate to randomized controlled trials. This echoed the importance of continue publishing , where novel and advancing discoveries start from a single case. In contrast, at the other end of the realm of evidence synthesis, systematic review and meta-analysis represent distinct yet interconnected processes. Butorphanol in epidural labor analgesia has long been studied since 1989, and with 70 publications from MEDLINE searches. However, there was no meta-analysis, nor any systematic review published so far. The latest in-press article published by Tang on the protocol for the systematic review and meta-analysis on the safety and effectiveness of butorphanol in epidural labor analgesia is encouraging. We believe the findings of this study will be valuable for clinical practice as well as for future research.
PubMed: 38899305
DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v12.i16.2701 -
Heart & Lung : the Journal of Critical... 2024The use of sedative and analgesic drugs during non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) is controversial. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The use of sedative and analgesic drugs during non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) is controversial.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical effectiveness of sedative and analgesic medications used during NIV for patients with ARF to no sedation or analgesia. In addition, to investigate the characteristics of dexmedetomidine in comparison to other medications.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched. Mean differences (MDs) or pooled risk ratios (RRs) were computed using random-effects models. We applied the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool 2.0 to assess the methodological quality of eligible studies and the GRADE approach to evaluate the evidence certainty.
RESULTS
Twenty-one studies were selected. Whether in Group A (using sedative and analgesic drugs vs. nonuse) or Group B (using dexmedetomidine vs. other drugs), the rates of tracheal intubation and delirium, the length of NIV, and the length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU LOS) all decreased in both experimental groups (P < 0.05). And there were no significant differences in all-cause mortality and the incidence of hypotension between the two groups (P > 0.05), while both Group A and Group B's experimental groups had greater incidences of bradycardia.
CONCLUSIONS
Administering sedative and analgesic medications during NIV can reduce the risk of tracheal intubation and delirium. Additionally, dexmedetomidine outperformed other sedative medications in terms of these clinical outcomes, making it the better option when closely monitoring patients' vital signs.
Topics: Humans; Respiration, Artificial; Dexmedetomidine; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Pain; Intensive Care Units; Noninvasive Ventilation; Analgesics; Analgesia; Delirium
PubMed: 37769542
DOI: 10.1016/j.hrtlng.2023.09.005 -
European Journal of Obstetrics,... Aug 2023To identify which gynecologic procedures are eligible to be performed under PSA with propofol and to describe safety and effectiveness of these procedures in this... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To identify which gynecologic procedures are eligible to be performed under PSA with propofol and to describe safety and effectiveness of these procedures in this setting.
METHODS
A systematic review of the literature was conducted in Pubmed (MEDLINE), Embase and The Cochrane Library from inception until September 21st 2022. Cohort studies and randomized controlled trials were included when they reported on clinical outcomes of gynecologic procedures under procedural sedation and analgesia in which propofol was used as an anesthetic. Studies were excluded when sedation without propofol was used, when they only mentioned the use of procedural sedation and analgesia but did not describe any clinical outcome parameters or when < 10 patients were included. The primary outcome parameter was completeness of procedure. Secondary outcome parameters were type of gynecologic procedure, intraoperative complication rate, patient satisfaction, postoperative pain, duration of hospital admission, patient's discomfort and ease of procedure as judged by the surgeon. The Cochrane risk of bias tool and the ROBINS-I tool were used for bias assessment. A narrative synthesis of the findings from the included studies was provided. Numbers and percentages were presented, as well as means with standard deviations and medians with interquartile range where applicable.
RESULTS
Eight studies were included. A total of 914 patients underwent gynecologic surgical procedures with procedural sedation and analgesia with propofol. Gynecological procedures varied from hysteroscopic procedures, vaginal prolapse surgery and laparoscopic procedures. The percentage of complete procedures was 89.8%-100%. Complications occurred in 0-6.5% of patients. Other outcomes were measured in various ways, but overall patient satisfaction was high and postoperative pain was low.
CONCLUSION
The use of PSA with propofol is promising for a wide range of gynecologic procedures, including hysteroscopic procedures, vaginal prolapse surgery and laparoscopic procedures. The use of PSA with propofol seems to be effective and safe and leads to high degree of patient satisfaction. More research is needed in order to determine for which types of procedures PSA can be used.
Topics: Humans; Female; Propofol; Uterine Prolapse; Analgesia; Pain, Postoperative; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures
PubMed: 37327552
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.05.035 -
AANA Journal Dec 2023Effective control of labor pain is critical to the birthing experience. Dexmedetomidine is an alternative adjunct to labor analgesia without the risk of opioid-related... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Effective control of labor pain is critical to the birthing experience. Dexmedetomidine is an alternative adjunct to labor analgesia without the risk of opioid-related adverse effects. The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy and safety of neuraxial dexmedetomidine versus neuraxial opioids in labor analgesia. PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, Google Scholar, and grey literature were searched for evidence. Risk ratio and mean difference (MD) were used to estimate outcomes. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Risk of Bias and GRADE system. Sixteen studies including 1,669 patients were analyzed. Compared with opioids, dexmedetomidine prolonged the duration of analgesia (MD, 47.58 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.57 to 93.58; = .04), reduced pain score (MD, -0.71; 95% CI, -1.17 to -0.24; = .003), and shortened the onset of analgesia (MD, -1.14 minutes; 95% CI, -1.93 to -0.35; = .005). Dexmedetomidine did not affect the duration of first and second stages of labor, number of spontaneous, assisted, and cesarean delivery. Additionally, dexmedetomidine had little to no effects on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Neuraxial dexmedetomidine is more favorable than neuraxial opioids for labor analgesia. Extrapolation of the findings to clinical practice should take into considerations the review limitations.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Infant, Newborn; Humans; Analgesics, Opioid; Dexmedetomidine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Analgesics; Analgesia
PubMed: 37987724
DOI: No ID Found -
The Japanese Dental Science Review Dec 2023Acute dental pain is a common issue leading to dental consultation. Besides causal therapy, patients are treated with acupuncture, but efficacy in acute dental pain is... (Review)
Review
Acute dental pain is a common issue leading to dental consultation. Besides causal therapy, patients are treated with acupuncture, but efficacy in acute dental pain is still not clarified. We aimed to evaluate results of recent research to estimate the efficacy of acupuncture compared to pain-relieving approaches in treatment of acute dental pain. A systematic review of controlled trials being published between database inception and 2020 were conducted to evaluate the efficacy of acupuncture (alone or as complementary therapy) compared to local anesthesia or conventional analgesic medications in acute dental pain (intraoperatively and postoperatively) and to clarify whether acupuncture reduces the use of postoperative analgesic medications. Of 1672 publications, 23 publications met the inclusion criteria. From these, 11 randomized controlled trials (n = 668) reported on the efficacy of acupuncture on postoperative acute dental pain. Patients, who received acupuncture, showed lower pain scores postoperatively compared to sham acupuncture (Relative Risk -0.77, 95% Confidence interval -1.52 to -0.03). Overall, the results suggest a potential role of acupuncture in improving acute dental pain intraoperatively and postoperatively as well as improving the efficacy of local anesthesia, but the results are limited due to methodological shortcomings emphasizing the necessity for future high-quality research.
PubMed: 36950225
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdsr.2023.02.005 -
Paediatric Drugs Sep 2023Owing to its pharmacodynamic properties, especially the rapid onset and short duration of its action, the use of remifentanil in obstetric anesthesia, as well as in...
BACKGROUND
Owing to its pharmacodynamic properties, especially the rapid onset and short duration of its action, the use of remifentanil in obstetric anesthesia, as well as in neonatology, might be increasingly used.
OBJECTIVE
We conducted a systematic review to assess the efficacy and safety of remifentanil in preterm and term neonates. Outcomes of interest were neonatal adaptation after fetal exposure; neonatal pain, distress, and discomfort control during invasive procedures; and the occurrence of hemodynamic effects or respiratory depression induced by remifentanil infusion.
METHODS
Given the different contexts of use, we have organized this work into three parts: (A) use of remifentanil for labor or cesarean section, with exposure of the fetus before birth, (B) brief use for neonatal procedural analgesia, and (C) prolonged use for sedation/analgesia of neonates. The bibliographic search was conducted based on keywords using electronic medical databases (DATABASE, Cochrane Library, PubMed, and EMBASE) from 1 January 2000 until 31 December 2022.
RESULTS
Twenty-two articles were included (10 in part A, 5 in part B and 7 in part C). Prospective, controlled, randomized, blinded, and intention-to-treat trials were retained. Neonates were well adapted after exposure to remifentanil in the fetal period. Pain, stress, and discomfort were controlled during a brief or prolonged invasive procedure when remifentanil was used for sedation/analgesia. The physiological parameters were stable and the procedures were straightforward. Chest wall rigidity appeared to be a common side effect, but this can be managed by slow and continuous infusion and by using the minimum effective dose.
CONCLUSIONS
Remifentanil appears to be effective and safe in the short term in preterm and full-term neonates. However, its safety is compromised by the risk of chest wall rigidity. It should be used in appropriate neonatal units and in the presence of physicians able to monitor its side effects. Long-term outcomes have not been evaluated, to our knowledge.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Humans; Pregnancy; Female; Remifentanil; Piperidines; Analgesics, Opioid; Cesarean Section; Prospective Studies; Fetus; Pain
PubMed: 37541994
DOI: 10.1007/s40272-023-00583-w -
The Journal of Pain Nov 2023Transdermal buprenorphine (TBUP) may have some advantages for the management of acute postoperative pain. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Transdermal buprenorphine (TBUP) may have some advantages for the management of acute postoperative pain. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy and safety of TBUP compared to other analgesics or placebo for acute postoperative pain. A systematic search was conducted using Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) until December 26, 2022. The search included randomized controlled trials comparing TBUP versus other analgesics or placebo for acute postoperative pain. A certainty assessment was conducted using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method. The protocol for this review was registered on Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022318601). In total, 15 studies involving 1,205 participants were included that compared TBUP versus fentanyl (n = 2), celecoxib (n = 3), placebo (n = 2), tramadol (n = 5), diclofenac (n = 3), parecoxib (n = 1), and flurbiprofen (n = 1). Meta-analyses were conducted for 3 comparators that involved 2 studies each. There was no significant difference in pain between TBUP 10 mcg/h versus fentanyl 25 mcg/h (standardized mean difference [SMD] -.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] -.86 to .81, P = .95, I = 85%). TBUP 10 mcg/h was associated with less pain compared to celecoxib 200 mg twice daily (SMD -.32, 95% CI -.58 to -.05, P = .02, I = 0%) and placebo (SMD -2.29, 95% CI -4.32 to -.27, P = .03, I = 94%). The GRADE assessment showed a very low certainty of evidence for all comparisons. There is insufficient evidence that TBUP improves pain control compared to other analgesics for acute postoperative pain. PERSPECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the use of TBUP to other analgesics for postoperative pain. The results showed that there is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of TBUP in this setting. The findings will help clinicians select the most appropriate opioid regimens for postoperative pain.
Topics: Humans; Celecoxib; Analgesics, Opioid; Pain, Postoperative; Fentanyl; Buprenorphine
PubMed: 37442403
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2023.07.001