-
International Journal of Colorectal... Jan 2019A meta-analysis of RCTs was designed to provide an up-to-date comparison of thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) and patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) in laparoscopic... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
A meta-analysis of RCTs was designed to provide an up-to-date comparison of thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) and patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) in laparoscopic colectomy.
METHODS
Our study was completed following the PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. A systematic literature screening was performed in MEDLINE and Web of Science. Fixed effects (FE) or random effects (RE) models were estimated based on the Cochran Q test result.
RESULTS
Totally, 8 studies were introduced in the present meta-analysis. Superiority of PCA in terms of length of hospital stay (LOS) (WMD 0.73, p = 0.004) and total complication rate (OR 1.57, p = 0.02) was found. TEA had a lower resting pain visual analogue scale (VAS) score at Day 1 (WMD - 2.23, p = 0.005) and Day 2 (WMD - 2.17, p = 0.01). TEA group had also a systematically lower walking VAS. Moreover, first bowel opened time (first defecation) (WMD - 0.88, p < 0.00001) was higher when PCA was applied.
CONCLUSIONS
TEA was related to a lower first bowel opened time, walking, and resting pain levels at the first postoperative days. However, the overall complication rate and LOS were higher in the epidural analgesia group. Thus, for a safe conclusion to be drawn, further randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of a higher methodological and quality level are required.
Topics: Aged; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Colectomy; Endpoint Determination; Female; Humans; Laparoscopy; Length of Stay; Male; Middle Aged; Pain Measurement; Postoperative Complications; Postoperative Period; Publication Bias; Thoracic Vertebrae
PubMed: 30519843
DOI: 10.1007/s00384-018-3207-3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2019Active management of the third stage of labour involves giving a prophylactic uterotonic, early cord clamping and controlled cord traction to deliver the placenta. With... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Active management of the third stage of labour involves giving a prophylactic uterotonic, early cord clamping and controlled cord traction to deliver the placenta. With expectant management, signs of placental separation are awaited and the placenta is delivered spontaneously. Active management was introduced to try to reduce haemorrhage, a major contributor to maternal mortality in low-income countries. This is an update of a review last published in 2015.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effects of active versus expectant management of the third stage of labour on severe primary postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) and other maternal and infant outcomes.To compare the effects of variations in the packages of active and expectant management of the third stage of labour on severe primary PPH and other maternal and infant outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), on 22 January 2018, and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing active versus expectant management of the third stage of labour. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion, but none were identified.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, carried out data extraction and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight studies, involving analysis of data from 8892 women. The studies were all undertaken in hospitals, seven in higher-income countries and one in a lower-income country. Four studies compared active versus expectant management, and four compared active versus a mixture of managements. We used a random-effects model in the analyses because of clinical heterogeneity. Of the eight studies included, we considered three studies as having low risk of bias in the main aspects of sequence generation, allocation concealment and completeness of data collection. There was an absence of high-quality evidence according to GRADE assessments for our primary outcomes, which is reflected in the cautious language below.The evidence suggested that, for women at mixed levels of risk of bleeding, it is uncertain whether active management reduces the average risk of maternal severe primary PPH (more than 1000 mL) at time of birth (average risk ratio (RR) 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.87, 3 studies, 4636 women, I = 60%; GRADE: very low quality). For incidence of maternal haemoglobin (Hb) less than 9 g/dL following birth, active management of the third stage may reduce the number of women with anaemia after birth (average RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.83, 2 studies, 1572 women; GRADE: low quality). We also found that active management of the third stage may make little or no difference to the number of babies admitted to neonatal units (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.11, 2 studies, 3207 infants; GRADE: low quality). It is uncertain whether active management of the third stage reduces the number of babies with jaundice requiring treatment (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.68, 2 studies, 3142 infants, I = 66%; GRADE: very low quality). There were no data on our other primary outcomes of very severe PPH at the time of birth (more than 2500 mL), maternal mortality, or neonatal polycythaemia needing treatment.Active management reduces mean maternal blood loss at birth and probably reduces the rate of primary blood loss greater than 500 mL, and the use of therapeutic uterotonics. Active management also probably reduces the mean birthweight of the baby, reflecting the lower blood volume from interference with placental transfusion. In addition, it may reduce the need for maternal blood transfusion. However, active management may increase maternal diastolic blood pressure, vomiting after birth, afterpains, use of analgesia from birth up to discharge from the labour ward, and more women returning to hospital with bleeding (outcome not pre-specified).In the comparison of women at low risk of excessive bleeding, there were similar findings, except it was uncertain whether there was a difference identified between groups for severe primary PPH (average RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.17; 2 studies, 2941 women, I = 71%), maternal Hb less than 9 g/dL at 24 to 72 hours (average RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.47; 1 study, 193 women) or the need for neonatal admission (average RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.88; 1 study, 1512 women). In this group, active management may make little difference to the rate of neonatal jaundice requiring phototherapy (average RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.18; 1 study, 1447 women).Hypertension and interference with placental transfusion might be avoided by using modifications to the active management package, for example, omitting ergot and deferring cord clamping, but we have no direct evidence of this here.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Although the data appeared to show that active management reduced the risk of severe primary PPH greater than 1000 mL at the time of birth, we are uncertain of this finding because of the very low-quality evidence. Active management may reduce the incidence of maternal anaemia (Hb less than 9 g/dL) following birth, but harms such as postnatal hypertension, pain and return to hospital due to bleeding were identified.In women at low risk of excessive bleeding, it is uncertain whether there was a difference between active and expectant management for severe PPH or maternal Hb less than 9 g/dL (at 24 to 72 hours). Women could be given information on the benefits and harms of both methods to support informed choice. Given the concerns about early cord clamping and the potential adverse effects of some uterotonics, it is critical now to look at the individual components of third-stage management. Data are also required from low-income countries.It must be emphasised that this review includes only a small number of studies with relatively small numbers of participants, and the quality of evidence for primary outcomes is low or very low.
Topics: Birth Weight; Constriction; Delivery, Obstetric; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Jaundice, Neonatal; Labor Stage, Third; Oxytocics; Placenta; Postpartum Hemorrhage; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 30754073
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007412.pub5 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2016This review is one in a series of Cochrane reviews investigating pain management for childbirth. These reviews all contribute to an overview of systematic reviews of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This review is one in a series of Cochrane reviews investigating pain management for childbirth. These reviews all contribute to an overview of systematic reviews of pain management for women in labour, and share a generic protocol. This review updates an earlier version of the review of the same title.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effectiveness and safety of hypnosis for pain management during labour and childbirth.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 September 2015) and the reference lists of primary studies and review articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTS comparing preparation for labour using hypnosis and/or use of hypnosis during labour, with or without concurrent use of pharmacological or non-pharmacological pain relief methods versus placebo, no treatment or any analgesic drug or technique.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality. Where possible we contacted study authors seeking additional information about data and methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine trials randomising a total of 2954 women. The risk of bias in trials was variable, there were several well-designed large trials and some trials where little was reported about trial design. Although eight of the nine trials assessed antenatal hypnotherapy, there were considerable differences between these trials in timing and technique. One trial provided hypnotherapy during labour. In this updated review we compared hypnosis interventions with all control groups (main comparison) and also with specific control conditions: standard care (nine RCTs), supportive counselling (two RCTs) and relaxation training (two RCTs).In the main comparison, women in the hypnosis group were less likely to use pharmacological pain relief or analgesia than those in the control groups, (average risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.94, eight studies, 2916 women; very low-quality evidence; random-effects model). There were no clear differences between women in the hypnosis group and those in the control groups for most of the other primary outcomes. There were no clear differences for sense of coping with labour (MD 0.22, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.58, one study, 420 women; low-quality evidence) or spontaneous vaginal birth (average RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.32, six studies, 2361 women; low-quality evidence; random-effects model). There were no clear differences for satisfaction with pain relief (measured on a seven-point scale two weeks postnatally) for women in the hypnosis group who also received pethidine (MD 0.41, 95% CI -0.45 to 1.27; one study, 72 women), Entonox (MD 0.19, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.57; one study, 357 women), self-hypnosis (MD 0.28, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.88; one study, 160 women), or epidural (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.34; one study, 127 women), but a slight benefit in favour of hypnosis was seen for women who received water immersion (MD 0.52, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.00; one study, 174 women (all low-quality evidence). There were no clear differences for satisfaction with pain relief when it was measured as the number of women who reported they had adequate pain relief (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 1.20, one study, 264 women; low-quality evidence). It should be noted that for pharmacological pain relief and spontaneous vaginal birth, there was evidence of considerable statistical heterogeneity, which could not be fully explained by subgroup analysis.For this review's secondary outcomes, no clear differences were found between women in the hypnosis group and women in the control groups for most outcomes where data were available. There was mixed evidence regarding benefits for women in the hypnosis group compared with all control groups for pain intensity, satisfaction with childbirth experience and postnatal depression. For each of these outcomes, data from more than one trial were available for analysis but could not be combined due to differences in measurement methods. There was evidence that fewer women in the hypnosis group stayed in hospital for more than two days after the birth but this finding was based on one small study (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.83). No clear differences between women in the hypnosis group and the control groups were found for the other secondary outcomes where data were available.In the comparisons of hypnosis with specific types of control conditions: standard care, supportive counselling and relaxation training, there were no clear differences found between women in the hypnosis group and those in the standard care control groups or the relaxation control groups for the primary outcomes. Compared with the women in the supportive counselling control group, women in the hypnosis group were less likely to use pharmacological analgesia (average RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.73, two studies, 562 women). They were also more likely to have a spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 2.42, 95% CI 1.43 to 4.07), although this finding was based on the results of one small study. Overall these new comparisons displayed much less statistical heterogeneity than the comparison including all control groups.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There are still only a relatively small number of studies assessing the use of hypnosis for labour and childbirth. Hypnosis may reduce the overall use of analgesia during labour, but not epidural use. No clear differences were found between women in the hypnosis group and those in the control groups for satisfaction with pain relief, sense of coping with labour or spontaneous vaginal birth. Not enough evidence currently exists regarding satisfaction with pain relief or sense of coping with labour and we would encourage any future research to prioritise the measurement of these outcomes. The evidence for the main comparison was assessed using GRADE as being of low quality for all the primary outcomes with downgrading decisions due to concerns regarding inconsistency of the evidence, limitations in design and imprecision. Further research is needed in the form of large, well-designed randomised controlled trials to assess whether hypnosis is of value for pain management during labour and childbirth.
Topics: Analgesia, Obstetrical; Female; Humans; Hypnosis; Labor Pain; Labor, Obstetric; Length of Stay; Patient Satisfaction; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 27192949
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009356.pub3 -
JAMA Surgery Oct 2017There is increased interest in nonpharmacological treatments to reduce pain after total knee arthroplasty. Yet, little consensus supports the effectiveness of these... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
IMPORTANCE
There is increased interest in nonpharmacological treatments to reduce pain after total knee arthroplasty. Yet, little consensus supports the effectiveness of these interventions.
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review and meta-analyze evidence of nonpharmacological interventions for postoperative pain management after total knee arthroplasty.
DATA SOURCES
Database searches of MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (OVID), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science (ISI database), Physiotherapy Evidence (PEDRO) database, and ClinicalTrials.gov for the period between January 1946 and April 2016.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials comparing nonpharmacological interventions with other interventions in combination with standard care were included.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers independently extracted the data from selected articles using a standardized form and assessed the risk of bias. A random-effects model was used for the analyses.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Postoperative pain and consumption of opioids and analgesics.
RESULTS
Of 5509 studies, 39 randomized clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis (2391 patients). The most commonly performed interventions included continuous passive motion, preoperative exercise, cryotherapy, electrotherapy, and acupuncture. Moderate-certainty evidence showed that electrotherapy reduced the use of opioids (mean difference, -3.50; 95% CI, -5.90 to -1.10 morphine equivalents in milligrams per kilogram per 48 hours; P = .004; I2 = 17%) and that acupuncture delayed opioid use (mean difference, 46.17; 95% CI, 20.84 to 71.50 minutes to the first patient-controlled analgesia; P < .001; I2 = 19%). There was low-certainty evidence that acupuncture improved pain (mean difference, -1.14; 95% CI, -1.90 to -0.38 on a visual analog scale at 2 days; P = .003; I2 = 0%). Very low-certainty evidence showed that cryotherapy was associated with a reduction in opioid consumption (mean difference, -0.13; 95% CI, -0.26 to -0.01 morphine equivalents in milligrams per kilogram per 48 hours; P = .03; I2 = 86%) and in pain improvement (mean difference, -0.51; 95% CI, -1.00 to -0.02 on the visual analog scale; P < .05; I2 = 62%). Low-certainty or very low-certainty evidence showed that continuous passive motion and preoperative exercise had no pain improvement and reduction in opioid consumption: for continuous passive motion, the mean differences were -0.05 (95% CI, -0.35 to 0.25) on the visual analog scale (P = .74; I2 = 52%) and 6.58 (95% CI, -6.33 to 19.49) opioid consumption at 1 and 2 weeks (P = .32, I2 = 87%), and for preoperative exercise, the mean difference was -0.14 (95% CI, -1.11 to 0.84) on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index Scale (P = .78, I2 = 65%).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this meta-analysis, electrotherapy and acupuncture after total knee arthroplasty were associated with reduced and delayed opioid consumption.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Humans; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 28813550
DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.2872 -
The Clinical Journal of Pain Dec 2015This meta-analysis evaluated the effects of opioid-dexmedetomidine (DEX) combinations for postoperative patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
This meta-analysis evaluated the effects of opioid-dexmedetomidine (DEX) combinations for postoperative patient-controlled analgesia (PCA).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic literature search was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials comparing opioid-DEX combinations to opioid alone for intravenous PCA up to postoperative 24 hours in adult patients. Outcomes included postoperative pain intensity, opioid consumption, and adverse events.
RESULTS
Seven randomized controlled trials were included. Compared with opioid alone, postoperative intravenous opioid-DEX combination PCA strategies led to lower postoperative pain intensity (mean difference(4 h)=-0.83 [on a 0 to 10 scale], 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.34 to -0.32, P=0.002), lower postoperative morphine-equivalent consumption (mean difference(0-24 h)=-16.46 mg, 95% CI: -23.65 to -9.27, P<0.00001), and lower incidence of postoperative nausea (risk ratio [RR]=0.42, 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.58, P<0.00001), vomiting (RR=0.38, 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.89, P=0.02), and pruritus (RR=0.59, 95% CI: 0.35 to 1.00, P=0.05). More patients were satisfied with PCA when opioids were combined with DEX (RR=1.14, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.29, P=0.02).
DISCUSSION
These data suggest that an opioid-DEX combination is a safe and effective strategy for postoperative intravenous PCA.
Topics: Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics, Opioid; Dexmedetomidine; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Pain, Postoperative
PubMed: 25654534
DOI: 10.1097/AJP.0000000000000219 -
Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia =... Mar 2016To determine whether ketamine added to morphine or hydromorphone patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) provides clinically relevant reductions in postoperative pain, opioid... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Ketamine added to morphine or hydromorphone patient-controlled analgesia for acute postoperative pain in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.
PURPOSE
To determine whether ketamine added to morphine or hydromorphone patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) provides clinically relevant reductions in postoperative pain, opioid requirements, and adverse events when compared with morphine or hydromorphone PCA in adults undergoing surgery.
SOURCE
We systematically searched six databases up to June 2, 2015 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ketamine plus morphine/hydromorphone PCA vs morphine/hydromorphone PCA for postoperative pain in adults.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
Thirty-six RCTs including 2,502 patients proved eligible, and 22 of these were at low risk of bias. The addition of ketamine to morphine/hydromorphone PCA decreased postoperative pain intensity at six to 72 hr when measured at rest (weighted mean difference [WMD] on a 10-cm visual analogue scale ranged from -0.4 to -1.3 cm) and during mobilization (WMD ranged from -0.4 to -0.5 cm). Adjunctive ketamine also significantly reduced cumulative morphine consumption at 24-72 hr by approximately 5-20 mg. Predefined subgroup analyses and meta-regression did not detect significant differences across subgroups, including a dose-response relationship. There was no significant difference in patient satisfaction scores at 24 and 48 hr. Nevertheless, the addition of ketamine to morphine/hydromorphone PCA significantly reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting (relative risk, 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 0.85; absolute risk reduction, 8.9%; 95% CI, 4.6 to 12.2). Significant effects on other adverse events (e.g., hallucinations, vivid dreams) were not detected, though only a few studies reported on them.
CONCLUSIONS
Adding ketamine to morphine/hydromorphone PCA provides a small improvement in postoperative analgesia while reducing opioid requirements. Adjunctive ketamine also reduces postoperative nausea and vomiting without a detected increase in other adverse effects; however, adverse events were probably underreported.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adult; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Drug Combinations; Humans; Hydromorphone; Ketamine; Morphine; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Pain, Postoperative; Patient Satisfaction; Publication Bias; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26659198
DOI: 10.1007/s12630-015-0551-4 -
Pharmacy (Basel, Switzerland) Aug 2018PRN is the acronym for ',' written against prescriptions whose administration should be based on patients' needs, rather than at set times. The aim of this systematic... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
PRN is the acronym for ',' written against prescriptions whose administration should be based on patients' needs, rather than at set times. The aim of this systematic review was to explore safety issues and adverse events arising from PRN prescription and administration. Electronic databases including Scopus, PubMed [including Medline], Embase, Cinahl, Web of Science and ProQuest were systematically searched to retrieve articles published from 2005 to 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA
we included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and studies with comparison groups, comparing PRN prescription and administration with scheduled administration, where safety issues and adverse events were reported. The authors independently assessed titles, abstracts and full-texts of retrieved studies based on inclusion criteria and risk of bias. Results were summarised narratively. The search identified 7699 articles. Title, abstract and full-text appraisals yielded 5 articles. The included studies were RCTs with one exception, a pre-test post-test experimental design. Patient populations, interventions and outcomes varied. Studies compared patient-controlled or routine administration with PRN and one trial assessed the effect of a practice guideline on implementation of PRN administration. More analgesia was administered in the patient-controlled than the PRN arms but pain reduction was similar. However, there was little difference in administration of psychotropic medicines. No differences between patient-controlled and PRN groups were reported for adverse events. The PRN practice guideline improved PRN patient education but non-documentation of PRN administration increased. This systematic review suggests that PRN safety issues and adverse events are an under-researched area of healthcare practice. Variations in the interventions, outcomes and clinical areas make it difficult to judge the overall quality of the evidence. Well-designed RCTs are needed to identify any safety issues and adverse events associated with PRN administration.
PubMed: 30158511
DOI: 10.3390/pharmacy6030095 -
Anesthesia and Analgesia Mar 2009Patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) for labor was introduced into clinical practice 20 yr ago. The PCEA technique has been shown to have significant benefits... (Review)
Review
Patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) for labor was introduced into clinical practice 20 yr ago. The PCEA technique has been shown to have significant benefits when compared with continuous epidural infusion. We conducted a systematic review using MEDLINE and EMBASE (1988-April 1, 2008) of all randomized, controlled trials in parturients who received PCEA in labor in which one of the following comparisons were made: background infusion versus none; ropivacaine versus bupivacaine; high versus low concentrations of local anesthetics; and new strategies versus standard strategies. The outcomes of interest were maternal analgesia, satisfaction, motor block, and the incidence of unscheduled clinician interventions. A continuous background infusion improved maternal analgesia and reduced unscheduled clinician interventions. Larger bolus doses (more than 5 mL) may provide better analgesia compared with small boluses. Low concentrations of bupivacaine or ropivacaine provide excellent analgesia without significant motor block. Many strategies with PCEA can provide effective labor analgesia. High volume, dilute local anesthetic solutions with a continuous background infusion appear to be the most successful strategy. Research into new delivery strategies, such as mandatory programmed intermittent boluses and computerized feedback dosing, is ongoing.
Topics: Adult; Amides; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Anesthetics, Local; Bupivacaine; Female; Humans; Infusions, Intravenous; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ropivacaine; Young Adult
PubMed: 19224805
DOI: 10.1213/ane.0b013e3181951a7f -
Anesthesia and Analgesia Jul 2015Patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) has gained popularity, but it is still unclear whether adding a background infusion confers any benefit. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The effect of adding a background infusion to patient-controlled epidural labor analgesia on labor, maternal, and neonatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) has gained popularity, but it is still unclear whether adding a background infusion confers any benefit.
METHODS
A systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, CENTRAL, Clinicaltrials.gov, and ISI WOS was performed to identify randomized controlled double-blind trials that compare PCEA-only with PCEA combined with a continuous infusion (PCEA + CI) in parturients. The data were subjected to meta-analyses using the random-effects model. Our primary outcome was the incidence of instrumental vaginal delivery. Secondary outcomes were incidences of spontaneous vaginal and cesarean deliveries, duration of labor, analgesic outcomes, maternal outcomes (visual analog scale scores for pain, maternal satisfaction, nausea, pruritus, hypotension), and neonatal outcomes (Apgar score, umbilical artery pH).
RESULTS
We identified 7 trials with a low risk of bias, reporting on 891 parturients, for inclusion in our systematic review. The risk of instrumental vaginal delivery was increased in the PCEA + CI group, risk ratio (RR) 1.66 (95% confidence interval 1.08-2.56, P = 0.02; I = 0%); the RR for cesarean delivery was 0.83 (95% confidence interval 0.61-1.13, I = 0%). The second stage of labor was prolonged (weighted mean difference 12.3 minutes, 95% confidence interval 5.1-19.5 minutes, P = 0.0008; I = 0%) in the PCEA + CI group. Fewer patients in the PCEA + CI group required physician-administered boluses (RR 0.35 [95% confidence interval 0.25-0.47, P < 0.00001; I = 0%]). No differences regarding maternal adverse events (nausea, pruritus, hypotension) or neonatal outcomes (Apgar scores <7, umbilical artery pH) were observed.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of current evidence, no conclusion can be drawn regarding the risks or benefits of adding a continuous background infusion to PCEA compared with PCEA-only epidural labor analgesia. Further high-quality studies involving a sufficient number of patients are required.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics; Apgar Score; Cesarean Section; Chi-Square Distribution; Extraction, Obstetrical; Female; Fetal Blood; Humans; Hydrogen-Ion Concentration; Infant, Newborn; Infusions, Parenteral; Labor Pain; Labor, Obstetric; Odds Ratio; Pain Measurement; Parturition; Patient Satisfaction; Pregnancy; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25902319
DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000743 -
Medicine Jan 2020Patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) has been suggested as an effective method of pain relief. There are several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine combined with tramadol for patient-controlled intravenous analgesia in Chinese surgical patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) has been suggested as an effective method of pain relief. There are several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of dexmedetomidine (DEX) combined with tramadol for PCIA in Chinese surgical patients. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DEX combined with tramadol for PCIA in Chinese surgical patients from current data.
METHODS
The RCTs of DEX combined with tramadol for PCIA were gathered from the PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database, Cochrane Library, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure database, and VIP databases. After data extraction and quality assessment of the included RCTs, RevMan 5.3 software was employed for the meta-analysis of visual analog scale (VAS) scores, Ramsay sedation scores, effective pressure times for PCIA, tramadol consumption, and safety.
RESULTS
Fourteen RCTs were included. Compared with tramadol alone, postoperative intravenous tramadol-DEX combination PCA led to lower VAS scores (weighted mean differences [WMD]12h = 0.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] v1.50 to 1.79; WMD24h = 0.78, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.62; WMD48h = 0.51, 95% CI -0.66 to -0.38; all P < .05), lower Ramsay sedation scores (WMD24h = 0.08, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.02; WMD48h = 0.09, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.07; all P < .05), and less postoperative tramadol consumption (WMD0-24h = -102.59 mg, 95% CI -149.68 to -55.49; WMD0-48h = -152.91 mg, 95% CI -259.93 to -45.89; all P < .05). With regard to safety, there was a significant difference between DEX-tramadol and tramadol for PCIA in terms of the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting, dizziness, chills, and restlessness (all P < .05).
CONCLUSION
According to the domestic evidence, this systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that DEX-tramadol PCIA is superior to tramadol in terms of analgesic efficacy and safety for Chinese surgical patients. However, because of some clear limitations (sample size and heterogeneity), these results should be interpreted with caution. Further large-scale and well-designed studies are needed to summarize and analyze the data to draw a more convincing conclusion.
Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics, Non-Narcotic; Analgesics, Opioid; China; Dexmedetomidine; Drug Combinations; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Tramadol
PubMed: 32011494
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000018825