-
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia May 2024In labor, programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) can be defined as the bolus administration of epidural solution at scheduled time intervals. Compared to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Influence of different volumes and frequency of programmed intermittent epidural bolus in labor on maternal and neonatal outcomes: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
STUDY OBJECTIVE
In labor, programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) can be defined as the bolus administration of epidural solution at scheduled time intervals. Compared to continuous epidural infusion (CEI) with or without patient controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA), PIEB has been associated with decreased pain scores and need for rescue analgesia and increased maternal satisfaction. The optimal volume and dosing interval of PIEB, however, has still not been determined.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022362708).
SETTINGS
Labor.
PATIENTS
Pregnant patients.
INTERVENTIONS
Central, CINAHL, Global Health, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials that examined pregnant patients in labor who received CEI or PIEB with or without a PCEA component. Network meta-analysis was performed with a frequentist method, facilitating the indirect comparison of PIEB with different volumes and dosing intervals through the common comparator of CEI and substituting or supplementing direct comparisons with these indirect ones. Continuous and dichotomous outcomes were presented as mean differences and odds ratios, respectively, with 95% confidence intervals. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool.
MAIN RESULTS
Overall, 30 trials were included. For the first primary endpoint, need for rescue analgesia, PIEB delivered at a volume of 4 ml and frequency of 45 min (4/45) was inferior to PIEB 8/45 (OR 3.55; 95% CI 1.12-11.33), PIEB 10/60 was superior to PIEB 2.5/15 (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.16-0.82), PIEB 4/45 (OR 0.14; 95% CI 0.03-0.71) and PIEB 5/60 (OR 0.23; 95% CI 0.08-0.70), and PIEB 5/30 was not inferior to PIEB 10/60 (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.31-1.19). For the second primary endpoint, maternal satisfaction, no differences were present between the various PIEB regimens. The quality of evidence for these multiple primary endpoints was low owing to the presence of serious limitations and imprecision. Importantly, PIEB 5/30 decreased the pain score at 4 h compared to PIEB 2.5/15 (MD 2.45; 95% CI 0.13-4.76), PIEB 5/60 (MD -2.28; 95% CI -4.18--0.38) and PIEB 10/60 (MD 1.73; 95% CI 0.31-3.16). Mean ranking of interventions demonstrated PIEB 10/60 followed by PIEB 5/30 to be best placed to reduce the cumulative dose of local anesthetic, and this resulted in an improved incidence of lower limb motor blockade for PIEB 10/60 in comparison to CEI (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.14-0.67). No differences in neonatal outcomes were found. Some concerns were present for the risk of bias in two thirds of trials and the risk of bias was shown to be high in the remaining one third of trials.
CONCLUSIONS
Future research should focus on PIEB 5/30 and PIEB 10/60 and how the method of analgesia initiation, nature and concentration of local anesthetic, design of epidural catheter and rate of administration might influence outcomes related to the mother and neonate.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Infant, Newborn; Humans; Anesthetics, Local; Network Meta-Analysis; Labor, Obstetric; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Pain; Analgesia, Obstetrical
PubMed: 38176084
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2023.111364 -
Cureus Nov 2023Dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) is an effective surgical procedure for addressing lacrimal drainage problems. However, it can be a painful operation that involves incisions... (Review)
Review
Dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) is an effective surgical procedure for addressing lacrimal drainage problems. However, it can be a painful operation that involves incisions both inside and outside the eye, often leading to a high incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Preemptive analgesics can be employed to alleviate this unrelieved pain. Nonetheless, many of the drugs used can induce a wide range of adverse effects. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the current evidence regarding the efficacy of pregabalin in managing postoperative pain following DCR surgery. We conducted a thorough search of five electronic databases, namely, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, and Google Scholar, to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before September 2023. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs. The outcomes we evaluated included postoperative pain, surgery duration, time to first analgesia, total pethidine consumption, and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Continues data reported as mean difference (MD), and dichotomous data reported as risk ratio (RR), with 95% confidence interval (CI). A pooled meta-analysis of three RCTs, including 240 patients in both the pregabalin and placebo groups, was conducted. The results revealed that the pooled MD in pain scores was significantly lower in patients treated with pregabalin compared to those receiving a placebo ((MD = -1.35 (95% CI: -1.83 to -0.87, p < 0.00001)). Additionally, the pooled MD of pethidine consumption was significantly lower in patients treated with pregabalin compared to those receiving a placebo (MD = -54.13 (95% CI: -103.77 to -4.50, p = 0.03)). However, there was no statistical significance between both groups in terms of time to first analgesia and duration of surgery (p > 0.05). On the other hand, the pooled RR of PONV was significantly lower in patients treated with pregabalin compared to those receiving a placebo (RR = 0.37 (95% CI: 0.24-0.57, p < 0.001)). This meta-analysis demonstrates that pregabalin is an effective and well-tolerated intervention for reducing postoperative pain and PONV following DCR surgery, without significantly affecting surgery duration or time to first analgesia. These findings support the use of pregabalin in improving patient comfort and outcomes in this surgical context.
PubMed: 38024096
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.48720 -
Burns & Trauma 2022Topical local analgesic and anaesthetic agents have been used both pre- and immediately post-harvest on split-thickness skin graft (STSG) donor site wounds (DSW). There...
BACKGROUND
Topical local analgesic and anaesthetic agents have been used both pre- and immediately post-harvest on split-thickness skin graft (STSG) donor site wounds (DSW). There is no systematic review of their effectiveness in providing post-harvest analgesia, or of the possible toxic effects of systemic absorption. This study is designed to address the question of which agent, if any, is favoured over the others and whether there are any safety data regarding their use.
METHODS
Systematic literature review of randomised controlled trials of topical agents applied to STSG DSWs, with a view to providing analgesia. Studies identified via search of Cochrane and EBSCO databases. No restrictions on language or publication year. Primary outcomes: pain at the time of (awake) STSG, and post-harvest pain (up to first dressing change). Secondary outcome was serum medication levels relative to published data on toxic doses. Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool utilised in assessment of included studies. At least 2 reviewers screened and reviewed included studies. A narrative review is presented.
RESULTS
There were 11 studies meeting inclusion criteria. Overall methodological quality and patient numbers were low. Topical eutectic mixture of lidocaine and prilocaine pre-harvest affords good local anaesthesia in awake STSG harvesting. Topical bupivacaine (5 studies) or lidocaine (1 study) gave significantly better post-harvest anaesthesia/analgesia than placebo. Topical morphine performs no better than placebo. Topical local anaesthetic agents at reported doses were all well below toxic serum levels.
CONCLUSIONS
Topical local anaesthetics (lidocaine or bupivacaine) provide good analgesia, both during and after STSG harvest, at well below toxic serum levels, but there are no good data determining the best local anaesthetic agent to use. There is no evidence morphine performs better than placebo.
PubMed: 36133279
DOI: 10.1093/burnst/tkac020 -
Hernia : the Journal of Hernias and... Jun 2022To evaluate the use, results, and reporting of patient-reported outcome measures specific to patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair. (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To evaluate the use, results, and reporting of patient-reported outcome measures specific to patients undergoing inguinal hernia repair.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed and reported according to the PRISMA 2020 statement. A protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42021243468). Systematic searches were performed in PubMed and EMBASE. We only included randomized controlled trials that involved postoperative administration of a hernia-specific patient-reported outcome measure. Risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane risk of bias-tool 2.0.
RESULTS
Twenty trials and four different instruments were included: the Carolinas Comfort Scale (nine studies), Activities Assessment Scale (six studies), Inguinal Pain Questionnaire (seven studies), and Surgical Pain Scales (one study). Included trials used patient-reported outcome measures and compared either different surgical approaches (11 studies), types of mesh/fixation (seven studies), or types of anesthesia/analgesia (two studies). Results were reported using several different methods including means, medians, or proportions of either overall results, results from subscales, or results from single questionnaire items. Seven of the 20 included studies specified a patient-reported outcome measure as a primary outcome and provided clear reporting of sample size calculation.
CONCLUSION
Reporting of results from patient-reported outcome measures in inguinal hernia research was characterized by heterogeneity. The results were reported using several different methods, which impedes proper evidence synthesis. Only half of the included studies applied a patient-reported outcome measure as primary outcome. Ultimately, the heterogeneity in outcome reporting is an important methodological problem obstructing the full utilization of patient-reported outcome measures in inguinal hernia research.
Topics: Hernia, Inguinal; Herniorrhaphy; Humans; Pain; Pain, Postoperative; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Surgical Mesh
PubMed: 34480660
DOI: 10.1007/s10029-021-02492-8 -
EClinicalMedicine Jun 2024General anaesthesia is provided to more than 300 million surgical patients worldwide, every year. It is administered either through total intravenous anaesthesia, using...
BACKGROUND
General anaesthesia is provided to more than 300 million surgical patients worldwide, every year. It is administered either through total intravenous anaesthesia, using only intravenous agents, or through inhalational anaesthesia, using volatile anaesthetic agents. The debate on how this affects postoperative patient outcome is ongoing, despite an abundance of published trials. The relevance of this topic has grown by the increasing concern about the contribution of anaesthetic gases to the environmental impact of surgery. We aimed to summarise all available evidence on relevant patient outcomes with total intravenous anaesthesia versus inhalational anaesthesia.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed/Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials for works published from January 1, 1985 to August 1, 2023 for randomised controlled trials comparing total intravenous anaesthesia using propofol versus inhalational anaesthesia using the volatile anaesthetics sevoflurane, desflurane or isoflurane. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full text articles, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Outcomes were derived from a recent series of publications on consensus definitions for Standardised Endpoints for Perioperative trials (StEP). Primary outcomes covered mortality and organ-related morbidity. Secondary outcomes were related to anaesthetic and surgical morbidity. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023430492).
FINDINGS
We included 317 randomised controlled trials, comprising 51,107 patients. No difference between total intravenous and inhalational anaesthesia was seen in the primary outcomes of in-hospital mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.67-1.66, 27 trials, 3846 patients), 30-day mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.70-1.36, 23 trials, 9667 patients) and one-year mortality (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.88-1.48, 13 trials, 9317 patients). Organ-related morbidity was similar between groups except for the subgroup of elderly patients, in which total intravenous anaesthesia was associated with a lower incidence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40-0.97, 11 trials, 3834 patients) and a better score on postoperative cognitive dysfunction tests (standardised mean difference 1.68, 95% CI 0.47-2.88, 9 trials, 4917 patients). In the secondary outcomes, total intravenous anaesthesia resulted in a lower incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.56-0.67, 145 trials, 23,172 patients), less emergence delirium (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.29-0.56, 32 trials, 4203 patients) and a higher quality of recovery score (QoR-40 mean difference 6.45, 95% CI 3.64-9.25, 17 trials, 1835 patients).
INTERPRETATION
The results indicate that postoperative mortality and organ-related morbidity was similar for intravenous and inhalational anaesthesia. Total intravenous anaesthesia offered advantages in postoperative recovery.
FUNDING
Dutch Society for Anaesthesiology (NVA).
PubMed: 38774674
DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102636 -
Supportive Care in Cancer : Official... Jul 2022Cancer prevalence is increasing, with many patients requiring opioid analgesia. Clinicians need to ensure patients receive adequate pain relief. However, opioid misuse... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Cancer prevalence is increasing, with many patients requiring opioid analgesia. Clinicians need to ensure patients receive adequate pain relief. However, opioid misuse is widespread, and cancer patients are at risk.
OBJECTIVES
This study aims (1) to identify screening approaches that have been used to assess and monitor risk of opioid misuse in patients with cancer; (2) to compare the prevalence of risk estimated by each of these screening approaches; and (3) to compare risk factors among demographic and clinical variables associated with a positive screen on each of the approaches.
METHODS
Medline, Cochrane Controlled Trial Register, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Embase databases were searched for articles reporting opioid misuse screening in cancer patients, along with handsearching the reference list of included articles. Bias was assessed using tools from the Joanna Briggs Suite.
RESULTS
Eighteen studies met the eligibility criteria, evaluating seven approaches: Urine Drug Test (UDT) (n = 8); the Screener and Opioid Assessment for Patients with Pain (SOAPP) and two variants, Revised and Short Form (n = 6); the Cut-down, Annoyed, Guilty, Eye-opener (CAGE) tool and one variant, Adapted to Include Drugs (n = 6); the Opioid Risk Tool (ORT) (n = 4); Prescription Monitoring Program (PMP) (n = 3); the Screen for Opioid-Associated Aberrant Behavior Risk (SOABR) (n = 1); and structured/specialist interviews (n = 1). Eight studies compared two or more approaches. The rates of risk of opioid misuse in the studied populations ranged from 6 to 65%, acknowledging that estimates are likely to have varied partly because of how specific to opioids the screening approaches were and whether a single or multi-step approach was used. UDT prompted by an intervention or observation of aberrant opioid behaviors (AOB) were conclusive of actual opioid misuse found to be 6.5-24%. Younger age, found in 8/10 studies; personal or family history of anxiety or other mental ill health, found in 6/8 studies; and history of illicit drug use, found in 4/6 studies, showed an increased risk of misuse.
CONCLUSIONS
Younger age, personal or familial mental health history, and history of illicit drug use consistently showed an increased risk of opioid misuse. Clinical suspicion of opioid misuse may be raised by data from PMP or any of the standardized list of AOBs. Clinicians may use SOAPP-R, CAGE-AID, or ORT to screen for increased risk and may use UDT to confirm suspicion of opioid misuse or monitor adherence. More research into this important area is required.
SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS
This systematic review summarized the literature on the use of opioid misuse risk approaches in people with cancer. The rates of reported risk range from 6 to 65%; however, true rate may be closer to 6.5-24%. Younger age, personal or familial mental health history, and history of illicit drug use consistently showed an increased risk of opioid misuse. Clinicians may choose from several approaches. Limited data are available on feasibility and patient experience. PROSPERO registration number. CRD42020163385.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Humans; Illicit Drugs; Neoplasms; Opioid-Related Disorders; Pain
PubMed: 35166898
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-022-06895-w -
European Spine Journal : Official... Dec 2021The objective of this meta-analysis and systematic review is to compare the methodology and evaluate the efficacy of Enhanced recovery after Spine Surgery (ERAS) for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
The objective of this meta-analysis and systematic review is to compare the methodology and evaluate the efficacy of Enhanced recovery after Spine Surgery (ERAS) for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS) and to compare the outcomes with traditional discharge (TD) pathways.
METHODS
Using major databases, a systematic search was performed. Studies comparing the implementation of ERAS or ERAS-like and TD pathways in patients with AIS were identified. Data regarding methodology and outcomes were collected and analyzed.
RESULTS
Fourteen studies (n = 2456) were included, comprising 1081 TD and 1375 ERAS or ERAS-like patients. Average age of patients was 14.6 ± 0.4 years. Surgical duration was on average 35.6 min shorter for the ERAS group compared to TD cohort ([2.8, 68.3], p = 0.03), and blood loss was 112.3 milliliters less ([102.4, 122.2], p < 0.00001). ERAS group reached first ambulation 29.6 h earlier ([11.2, 48.0], p-0.002), patient-controlled-analgesia (PCA) discontinuation 0.53 day earlier ([0.4, 0.6], p < 0.00001), urinary catheter discontinuation 0.5 day earlier ([0.4, 0.6], p < 0.00001), and length-of-stay (LOS) was 1.6 days shorter ([1.4, 1.8], p < 0.00001). Rates of complications and 30-day-readmission-to-hospital were similar between both groups. Pain scores were significantly lower for ERAS group on days 0 through 2 post-operatively.
CONCLUSIONS
Use of ERAS after AIS is safe and effective, decreasing surgical duration and blood loss. ERAS methodology effectively focused on reducing time to first ambulation, PCA discontinuation, and urinary catheter removal. Outcomes showed significantly decreased LOS without a significant increase in complications. There should be efforts to incorporate ERAS in AIS surgery. Further studies are necessary to assess patient satisfaction.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III
Meta-analysis of Level 3 studies.
Topics: Adolescent; Enhanced Recovery After Surgery; Humans; Length of Stay; Postoperative Complications; Retrospective Studies; Scoliosis; Spinal Fusion; Spine
PubMed: 34524513
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-021-06984-0 -
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 -
Journal of Surgical Oncology May 2023We aim to evaluate the analgesic efficacy and safety of erector spinae plane block (ESPB) for postoperative analgesia in breast cancer surgeries. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
We aim to evaluate the analgesic efficacy and safety of erector spinae plane block (ESPB) for postoperative analgesia in breast cancer surgeries.
METHODS
PubMed, Web of Science, CBM, Embase, Cochrane, Wanfang, VIPP, and CNKI were searched to identify published eligible randomized controlled trials. The primary results were the postoperative 24 h morphine consumption and pain scores, while the secondary outcomes included pain scores at other times, press times of patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA), times to request for first rescue analgesia, the incidence of request for rescue analgesia, opioid-related complications, nerve blocks related complications and patient satisfaction.
RESULTS
We included 20 studies meeting the inclusion criteria, which involved 1293 participants. The morphine consumption and the pain scores during 24 h postoperatively were significantly decreased in the ESPB group versus the control group (p < 0.00001). Furthermore, ESPB also reduced pain scores at other time points, press times of PCIA, and times to first rescue analgesia requirement. Meanwhile, there was a lower incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, and skin pruritus in the ESPB group than in the control group.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared to general anesthesia alone, ESPB combined with general anesthesia can effectively reduce the postoperative pain intensity within 48 h and opioid consumption within 24 h after breast cancer surgery, and reduce the incidence of opioid and nerve blocks related complications.
Topics: Humans; Female; Breast Neoplasms; Analgesics, Opioid; Pain, Postoperative; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Morphine Derivatives
PubMed: 36826370
DOI: 10.1002/jso.27221 -
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management Mar 2024Ketamine is a well-characterized anesthetic agent, and subanesthetic ketamine possesses analgesic effects in both acute and chronic pain. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
CONTEXT
Ketamine is a well-characterized anesthetic agent, and subanesthetic ketamine possesses analgesic effects in both acute and chronic pain.
OBJECTIVES
A systematic review was performed to ascertain the efficacy and safety of ketamine in treating pain for cancer patients.
METHODS
Eight databases were searched from the inception to March 20th, 2023 to obtain randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on ketamine for treating pain in cancer patients. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies; then, meta-analysis was performed by using Revman 5.3 software and Stata 14.0 software.
RESULTS
Thirty-five studies were included, involving 2279 patients with cancer pain. The results of meta-analysis showed that ketamine could significantly reduce pain intensity. Subgroup analysis revealed that, when compared with control group, ketamine decreased markedly visual analogue scale (VAS) scores in two days after the end of treatment with ketamine, and ketamine administrated by patient controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) was effective. Meanwhile, ketamine could significantly reduce the number of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) compressions within 24 hours and morphine dosage. Ketamine could not decrease Ramsay sedation score. Additionally, the adverse events significantly decreased in the ketamine group, including nausea and vomiting, constipation, pruritus, lethargy, uroschesis, hallucination, and respiratory depression. In addition, compared with the control group, ketamine could reduce Hamilton depression scale (HAMD) score and relieve depressive symptoms.
CONCLUSION
Ketamine may be used as an effective therapy to relieve cancer pain. However, more rigorously designed RCTs with larger sample sizes are required to verify the above conclusions.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Ketamine; Cancer Pain; Analgesics, Opioid; Morphine; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Pain; Pain, Postoperative; Neoplasms
PubMed: 37972720
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2023.11.004