-
BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care Dec 2022Refractory angina can have a significant effect on quality of life. Non-invasive interventions have been suggested but there are few guidelines on management. Our aim...
BACKGROUND
Refractory angina can have a significant effect on quality of life. Non-invasive interventions have been suggested but there are few guidelines on management. Our aim was to systematically review all studies that reported non-invasive interventions for refractory angina and report on their effectiveness and safety.
METHODS
We performed a literature search of six databases and a grey literature search. Treatments considered first line or second line according to the European Society of Cardiology were excluded, as were interventions that had undergone review within the last 3 years. Design, setting and outcomes were extracted and quality was assessed. A narrative synthesis was undertaken, including an analysis of adverse effects.
RESULTS
4476 studies were screened, 14 studies were included in our analysis. Interventions were specialist multidisciplinary programmes, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS), perhexiline, medical optimisation, morphine and intranasal alfentanil. The effects of specialist programmes and perhexiline treatment were mixed. Positive effects were reported with TENS, opioids and medical optimisation, with improvements in symptoms, exercise capacity and quality of life. No major adverse effects were noted in any of the treatments.
CONCLUSION
There are non-invasive treatments for refractory angina that are overlooked by current guidelines. While the quality of these studies varies, positive changes have been reported in symptoms, exercise tolerance and quality of life with few adverse effects. There is a need for further research into these treatments which could be useful within the contexts of cardiology and palliative care.
Topics: Humans; Quality of Life; Palliative Medicine; Perhexiline; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation
PubMed: 32499404
DOI: 10.1136/bmjspcare-2020-002202 -
Journal of Opioid Management 2022To determine equianalgesic potency ratios for opioids with an -evidence-based approach without the use of pre-existing potency tables. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To determine equianalgesic potency ratios for opioids with an -evidence-based approach without the use of pre-existing potency tables.
DESIGN
Frequentist network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing opioids in patient-controlled analgesia (PCA).
SETTING
A systematic review.
DATA SOURCES
A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), and Web of Science identified relevant RCTs from start of recording to 2019.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
RCTs comparing opioids via intravenous PCA in acute pain, with comparable resulting pain scores and identical treatment with coanalgesics at study level. The quality of studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool with six items.
RESULTS
52 RCTs were identified with data for 16 opioids. Primary endpoint was the inverted ratio of means of the total consumption administered via PCA, which resembles the analgesic potency. The calculated analgesic potencies were sufentanil 423 [95 percent CI 334.99; 532.96], fentanyl 58 [48.22; 68.60], buprenorphine 37 [26.66; 50.81], remifentanil 13 [9.37; 19.13], alfentanil 7 [4.02; 11.01], hydromorphone 6 [4.96; 8.43], oxymorphone 6 [4.46; 8.84], butorphanol 4.5 [3.05; 6.73], diamorphine 2.2 [1.16; 4.10], morphine 1, oxycodone 0.9 [0.65; 1.34], piritramide 0.9 [0.55; 1.56], nalbuphine 0.7 [0.54; 0.95], pethidine 0.12 [0.10; 0.15], meptazinol 0.08 [0.03; 0.20], and tramadol 0.08 [0.07; 0.10].
CONCLUSIONS
The results in part contradict the values from the literature, which have been criticized for their imprecision. From clinical experience however, our findings seem very plausible. Short-acting opioids are less potent compared to longer acting drugs, eg, morphine, probably due to shorter intervals for -readministration.
Topics: Humans; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics, Opioid; Network Meta-Analysis; Tramadol; Morphine
PubMed: 36523208
DOI: 10.5055/jom.2022.0751 -
Medicine Mar 2017Propofol injection pain was considered as one conundrum during clinical anesthesia. The systematic review about the effect of lidocaine in reducing injection pain among... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy of lidocaine on preventing incidence and severity of pain associated with propofol using in pediatric patients: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Propofol injection pain was considered as one conundrum during clinical anesthesia. The systematic review about the effect of lidocaine in reducing injection pain among children has not been established. The aim of the study was to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of such intervention.
METHODS
The literature search was performed from the inception to the May 31, 2016 in PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, and Cochrane database. All randomized controlled trials that using lidocaine for propofol injection pain in children were enrolled. The primary outcome included the incidence of injection pain and the incidence of propofol injection pain in different degrees. The data were combined to calculate the relative ratio and relevant 95% confidence interval. A meta-analysis was performed following the guidelines of the Cochrane Reviewer's Handbook and the PRISMA statement.
RESULTS
Data from the included 11 studies indicated that the incidence of injection pain was lower in lidocaine group than the incidence in saline control group and in propofol lipuro (medium- and long-chain triglycerides) group (pain occurrence: 22.1% in lidocaine vs 66.8% in saline, RR with 95% 0.34 [0.26, 0.43], I = 38%; 30.5% in lidocaine vs 46.9% in propofol lipuro, RR with 95% 0.68 [0.46, 1.00], I = 9%). There was no difference between lidocaine and ketamine/alfentanil both in reducing pain occurrence and in reducing pain severity (pain occurrence: 29.7% in lidocaine vs 25.8% in ketamine, RR with 95% 1.47 [0.16, 13.43], I = 94%; 31.0% in lidocaine vs 30.7% in alfentanil, RR with 95% 1.01 [0.69, 1.46], I = 11%). And the reported side effects revealed that the safety of lidocaine in pediatric patients was acceptable.
CONCLUSION
Compared with ketamine and alfentanil, lidocaine would be served as one more effective treatment in consideration of its well-matched efficacy, acceptable accessibility, and reasonable safety. However, more high-quality evidences in pediatric patients are necessary.
Topics: Adolescent; Alfentanil; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Anesthetics, Local; Child; Double-Blind Method; Humans; Incidence; Ketamine; Lidocaine; Pain; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 28296748
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000006320 -
American Journal of Therapeutics 2019Opioid-induced hyperalgesia (OIH) is a phenomenon that causes an increased pain sensitization and perception of pain to noxious stimuli secondary to opioid exposure....
BACKGROUND
Opioid-induced hyperalgesia (OIH) is a phenomenon that causes an increased pain sensitization and perception of pain to noxious stimuli secondary to opioid exposure. While this clinical effect has been described in the surgical setting, it is unclear if OIH occurs in the nonsurgical setting.
STUDY QUESTION
To review the available literature which evaluated OIH in nonsurgical settings.
DATA SOURCES
A comprehensive literature search was performed using PubMed (January 1946-July 2017) using a variety of keywords for OIH. This review included randomized controlled trials with objectives to identify OIH in the nonsurgical setting. The clinical outcomes of interest were identification of OIH, adverse events, and impact of OIH on opioid consumption.
RESULTS
The search identified 8 studies that fulfilled the criteria. Six studies enrolled healthy male volunteers, 1 study used chronic low-back patients, and another used heroin-dependent treatment-seeking adults. Studies used various opioids and dosages, including remifentanil, alfentanil, fentanyl, morphine, methadone, and buprenorphine. Three primary experimental pain induction models were used to evaluate for OIH. Measured outcomes included hyperalgesia area, pain threshold, and pain tolerance. All 5 studies that used the electrical stimulation model identified OIH as a significant outcome. However, only 2 of 5 studies using the cold pressor model and 1 of 3 studies using the heat pressor model identified OIH. None of the trials explored clinical outcomes, such as effects on opioid consumption.
CONCLUSIONS
Most included studies identified OIH as a significant outcome within the nonsurgical setting. However, due to conflicting conclusions and various limitations, the clinical impact of OIH could not be assessed. Clinicians should monitor for effects of OIH in the nonoperative setting because there is insufficient evidence from the available literature to conclude that OIH is consistently observed in this setting.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Humans; Hyperalgesia; Pain; Pain Management; Pain Threshold
PubMed: 29726847
DOI: 10.1097/MJT.0000000000000734 -
Anesthesia and Analgesia Feb 2002Shivering is a frequent complication in the postoperative period. The relative efficacy of interventions that are used for the treatment of postoperative shivering is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
UNLABELLED
Shivering is a frequent complication in the postoperative period. The relative efficacy of interventions that are used for the treatment of postoperative shivering is not well understood. We performed a systematic search (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, hand searching, all languages, to August, 2000) for full reports of randomized comparisons of any pharmacological antishivering intervention (active) with placebo (control) in the postoperative period. Dichotomous data on absence of further shivering after treatment and adverse effects were extracted from original reports. Relative risk (RR) and number-needed-to-treat (NNT) were calculated with 95% confidence interval (CI) using a fixed effect model. Data from 20 trials (944 adults received an active intervention, 413 were controls) were analyzed. Antishivering efficacy depended on the active regimen and the length of follow-up. Efficacy with meperidine 25 mg, clonidine 150 microg, ketanserin 10 mg, and doxapram 100 mg was reported in at least three trials; all were significantly more effective than control. After 1 min, the NNT of meperidine 25 mg for no further shivering compared with placebo was 2.7 (RR, 6.8; 95% CI, 2.5-18.5). After 5 min, the NNT of meperidine 25 mg was 1.3 (RR, 9.6; 95% CI, 5.7-16), the NNT of clonidine 150 microg was 1.3 (RR, 6.8; 95% CI, 3.3-14.2), the NNT of doxapram 100 mg was 1.7 (RR 4.0; 95% CI, 2.4-6.5), and the NNT of ketanserin 10 mg was 2.3 (RR 3.1; 95% CI, 1.9-5.1). After 10 min, the NNT of meperidine 25 mg was 1.5 (RR 4.0; 95% CI, 2.5-6.2). After 15 min, the NNT of ketanserin 10 mg was 3.3 (RR 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-1.9). Long-term outcome data were lacking. There were not enough data for alfentanil, fentanyl, morphine, nalbuphine, lidocaine, magnesium, metamizol, methylphenidate, nefopam, pentazocine, and tramadol to draw meaningful conclusions. Reporting of adverse drug reactions was sparse. Fewer than two shivering patients need to be treated with meperidine 25 mg, clonidine 150 microg, or doxapram 100 mg for one to stop shivering within 5 min who would have continued to shiver had they all received a placebo.
IMPLICATIONS
Less than two shivering patients need to be treated with meperidine 25 mg, clonidine 150 microg, or doxapram 100 mg for one to stop shivering within 5 min who would have continued to shiver had they all received a placebo.
Topics: Adrenergic alpha-Agonists; Analgesics, Opioid; Clonidine; Humans; Ketanserin; Lidocaine; Meperidine; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Shivering
PubMed: 11812718
DOI: 10.1097/00000539-200202000-00043 -
Anesthesia and Analgesia Apr 2000The best intervention to prevent pain on injection with propofol is unknown. We conducted a systematic literature search (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
UNLABELLED
The best intervention to prevent pain on injection with propofol is unknown. We conducted a systematic literature search (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, bibliographies, hand searching, any language, up to September 1999) for full reports of randomized comparisons of analgesic interventions with placebo to prevent that pain. We analyzed data from 6264 patients (mostly adults) of 56 reports. On average, 70% of the patients reported pain on injection. Fifteen drugs, 12 physical measurements, and combinations were tested. With IV lidocaine 40 mg, given with a tourniquet 30 to 120 s before the injection of propofol, the number of patients needed to be treated (NNT) to prevent pain in one who would have had pain had they received placebo was 1.6. The closest to this came meperidine 40 mg with tourniquet (NNT 1.9) and metoclopramide 10 mg with tourniquet (NNT 2.2). With lidocaine mixed with propofol, the best NNT was 2.4; with IV alfentanil or fentanyl, it was 3 to 4. IV lidocaine before the injection of propofol was less analgesic. Temperature had no significant effect. There was a lack of data for all other interventions to allow meaningful conclusions. The diameter of venous catheters and speed of injection had no impact on pain.
IMPLICATIONS
IV lidocaine (0.5 mg/kg) should be given with a rubber tourniquet on the forearm, 30 to 120 s before the injection of propofol; lidocaine will prevent pain in approximately 60% of the patients treated in this manner.
Topics: Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Humans; Injections; Lidocaine; Pain; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Temperature
PubMed: 10735808
DOI: 10.1097/00000539-200004000-00035