-
Annals of Surgery Aug 2019To compare the efficacy and safety of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) to epidural analgesia in adults undergoing open hepatic resection. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy and safety of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) to epidural analgesia in adults undergoing open hepatic resection.
BACKGROUND
Effective pain management in patients undergoing open hepatic resection is often achieved with epidural analgesia. However, associated risks have prompted investigation of alternative analgesic methods in this patient population.
METHODS
A comprehensive systematic literature review via Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane databases from inception until December 2, 2017 was conducted, followed by meta-analysis. Abstract and full-text screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were conducted by 2 investigators. Odds ratios (OR), mean differences (MD), and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using RevMan 5.3.
RESULTS
Four randomized controlled trials with 278 patients were identified. All studies compared the use of PCA to epidural, with differing regimens. Pooled MD and 95% confidence interval for pain score were higher for PCA at rest 24 hours postoperatively (0.59 [0.30, 0.88]), and with movement at 48 hours postoperatively (0.95 [0.31, 1.60]. Pooled MD for hospital length of stay was 1.23 days (-2.72, 5.19). Pooled OR was 0.68 (0.36, 1.3) and 0.24 (0.04, 1.36) for overall and analgesia-related complications, respectively. Need for blood transfusion had a pooled OR of 1.14 (0.31, 4.18).
CONCLUSIONS
Epidural analgesia was observed to be superior to PCA for pain control in patients undergoing open hepatic resection, with no significant difference in hospital length of stay, complications, or transfusion requirements. Thus, epidural analgesia should be the preferred method for the management of postoperative pain in this patient population.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics, Opioid; Blood Transfusion; Hematoma, Epidural, Spinal; Hepatectomy; Humans; Infusions, Intravenous; Length of Stay; Pain, Postoperative; Patient Satisfaction; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 31058695
DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003274 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Apr 2023The advantages of PCEA over CEA have been demonstrated in obstetric patients. Whether a similar benefit applies to surgical patients is unclear. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The advantages of PCEA over CEA have been demonstrated in obstetric patients. Whether a similar benefit applies to surgical patients is unclear.
METHODS
Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library were searched, enabling a systematic review of studies comparing PCEA and CEA in adult surgical patients (PROSPERO: CRD42018106644). The study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB2). The primary outcome was pain scores on postoperative day one (POD1). Secondary outcomes were 24 or 48 h epidural or intravenous total analgesic dose, systemic analgesics, manual top-ups, side effects, and patient satisfaction.
RESULTS
Six randomized controlled trials with high heterogeneity of study characteristics were identified with a moderate risk of bias. Two studies showed significantly reduced resting pain scores on POD1 in PCEA compared with CEA patients (36-44%, < 0.05). Four studies found comparable pain scores between these groups. PCEA use reduced epidural medication (28% to 40% reduction, < 0.01) in four studies. One study found a 23% reduction ( < 0.001) of top-ups in PCEA; intravenous morphine use by PCEA patients was reduced (0.16 vs. 3.45 mg per patient, < 0.05) in one study. PCEA patients were more satisfied with analgesia ( < 0.001) in two studies. Nausea and vomiting were reduced in PCEA ( = 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS
Regarding the reduction in pain scores, the effects of PCEA were not significant or clinically not relevant. However, regarding the amount of epidural drug use, the amount of required rescue systemic analgesics, patient satisfaction, and the number of required top-ups, PCEA had advantages over CEA in surgical patients.
PubMed: 37176605
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12093164 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2015Acute otitis media (AOM) is one of the most common diseases in early infancy and childhood. Antibiotic use for AOM varies from 56% in the Netherlands to 95% in the USA,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acute otitis media (AOM) is one of the most common diseases in early infancy and childhood. Antibiotic use for AOM varies from 56% in the Netherlands to 95% in the USA, Canada and Australia. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 1, 1997 and previously updated in 1999, 2005, 2009 and 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of antibiotics for children with AOM.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1966 to April week 3, 2015), OLDMEDLINE (1958 to 1965), EMBASE (January 1990 to April 2015), Current Contents (1966 to April 2015), CINAHL (2008 to April 2015) and LILACS (2008 to April 2015).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 1) antimicrobial drugs with placebo and 2) immediate antibiotic treatment with expectant observation (including delayed antibiotic prescribing) in children with AOM.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
For the review of antibiotics against placebo, 13 RCTs (3401 children and 3938 AOM episodes) from high-income countries were eligible and had generally low risk of bias. The combined results of the trials revealed that by 24 hours from the start of treatment, 60% of the children had recovered whether or not they had placebo or antibiotics. Pain was not reduced by antibiotics at 24 hours (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.01) but almost a third fewer had residual pain at two to three days (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.86; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 20). A quarter fewer had pain at four to seven days (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.91; NNTB 16) and two-thirds fewer had pain at 10 to 12 days (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.66; NNTB 7) compared with placebo. Antibiotics did reduce the number of children with abnormal tympanometry findings at two to four weeks (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.90; NNTB 11), at six to eight weeks (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.00; NNTB 16) and the number of children with tympanic membrane perforations (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.76; NNTB 33) and halved contralateral otitis episodes (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.95; NNTB 11) compared with placebo. However, antibiotics neither reduced the number of children with abnormal tympanometry findings at three months (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.24) nor the number of children with late AOM recurrences (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.10) when compared with placebo. Severe complications were rare and did not differ between children treated with antibiotics and those treated with placebo. Adverse events (such as vomiting, diarrhoea or rash) occurred more often in children taking antibiotics (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.59; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 14). Funnel plots do not suggest publication bias. Individual patient data meta-analysis of a subset of included trials found antibiotics to be most beneficial in children aged less than two years with bilateral AOM, or with both AOM and otorrhoea.For the review of immediate antibiotics against expectant observation, five trials (1149 children) from high-income countries were eligible and had low to moderate risk of bias. Four trials (1007 children) reported outcome data that could be used for this review. From these trials, data from 959 children could be extracted for the meta-analysis of pain at three to seven days. No difference in pain was detectable at three to seven days (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.12). One trial (247 children) reported data on pain at 11 to 14 days. Immediate antibiotics were not associated with a reduction in the number of children with pain (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.10) compared with expectant observation. Additionally, no differences in the number of children with abnormal tympanometry findings at four weeks, tympanic membrane perforations and AOM recurrence were observed between groups. No serious complications occurred in either the antibiotic or the expectant observation group. Immediate antibiotics were associated with a substantial increased risk of vomiting, diarrhoea or rash compared with expectant observation (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.36; NNTH 9).Results from an individual patient data meta-analysis including data from six high-quality trials (1643 children) that were also included as individual trials in our review showed that antibiotics seem to be most beneficial in children younger than two years of age with bilateral AOM (NNTB 4) and in children with both AOM and otorrhoea (NNTB 3).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review reveals that antibiotics have no early effect on pain, a slight effect on pain in the days following and only a modest effect on the number of children with tympanic perforations, contralateral otitis episodes and abnormal tympanometry findings at two to four weeks and at six to eight weeks compared with placebo in children with AOM. In high-income countries, most cases of AOM spontaneously remit without complications. The benefits of antibiotics must be weighed against the possible harms: for every 14 children treated with antibiotics one child experienced an adverse event (such as vomiting, diarrhoea or rash) that would not have occurred if antibiotics were withheld. Therefore clinical management should emphasise advice about adequate analgesia and the limited role for antibiotics. Antibiotics are most useful in children under two years of age with bilateral AOM, or with both AOM and otorrhoea. For most other children with mild disease in high-income countries, an expectant observational approach seems justified.
Topics: Acute Disease; Adolescent; Age Factors; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Child; Child, Preschool; Earache; Humans; Infant; Otitis Media; Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Secondary Prevention; Tympanic Membrane Perforation
PubMed: 26099233
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000219.pub4 -
Anesthesia and Analgesia Oct 2019Side effects of opioids used for the treatment of acute pain frequently limit their analgesic quality. Many studies have compared opioid side effects in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Side effects of opioids used for the treatment of acute pain frequently limit their analgesic quality. Many studies have compared opioid side effects in patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), but it remains unclear whether there are specific side effect profiles that can be exploited when choosing an opioid for a patient. In this review, we wanted to determine the risk ratios (RRs) for the most common side effects when using different opioids for intravenous PCA in equianalgesic doses and rank the substances accordingly.
METHODS
A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), and Web of Science identified 63 randomized controlled trials comparing opioids under equianalgesic conditions. Inclusion criteria were comparable pain stimulus between groups, equal coanalgesic treatment, and comparable resulting pain scores. Quality of studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool with 6 items. Frequentistic network meta-analysis was conducted with morphine as the comparator. This method not only summarizes all estimated effects from direct comparisons of different interventions but also allows for indirect comparisons between interventions that can be linked via the common comparator, in which case the indirect evidence can be used to enhance the precision of the direct comparisons. Primary end points of this study were RRs for nausea and vomiting, pruritus, and events of sedation, as well as mean differences for scores of sedation. Events of respiratory depression were counted. Secondary end point was patient satisfaction (mean difference). The study protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42017062355).
RESULTS
Sixteen opioid interventions were compared in the largest network (nausea and vomiting outcome) and 7 opioid interventions in the smallest network (sedation events outcome). Most interventions did not differ from morphine on the primary outcomes (side effects), with some exceptions. Buprenorphine had a significantly higher RR of nausea and vomiting, whereas fentanyl had a lower RR of nausea and vomiting. Nalbuphine, butorphanol, methadone, and pethidine/meperidine had a lower risk of pruritus. Respiratory depression was rare (22 of 2452 patients). Pethidine/meperidine, fentanyl, and oxymorphone caused significantly lower sedation scores. Tramadol caused significantly lower satisfaction scores, whereas oxycodone, alfentanil, remifentanil, fentanyl, and pethidine/meperidine caused significantly higher satisfaction scores.
CONCLUSIONS
The opiate chosen for treatment most likely has little effect on the incidence of pruritus and nausea/vomiting, although considerable differences exist in terms of better and worse opioids in the presented rankings. Larger differences between drugs were observed with regard to sedation and patient satisfaction, and choosing the appropriate opioid may help to improve PCA in this regard.
Topics: Acute Pain; Administration, Intravenous; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics, Opioid; Consciousness; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Pruritus; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiratory Insufficiency; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30418234
DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000003887 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2016Operations on structures in the chest (usually the lungs) involve cutting between the ribs (thoracotomy). Severe post-thoracotomy pain can result from pleural (lung... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Operations on structures in the chest (usually the lungs) involve cutting between the ribs (thoracotomy). Severe post-thoracotomy pain can result from pleural (lung lining) and muscular damage, costovertebral joint (ribcage) disruption and intercostal nerve (nerves that run along the ribs) damage during surgery. Poor pain relief after surgery can impede recovery and increase the risks of developing complications such as lung collapse, chest infections and blood clots due to ineffective breathing and clearing of secretions. Effective management of acute pain following thoracotomy may prevent these complications and reduce the likelihood of developing chronic pain. A multi-modal approach to analgesia is widely employed by thoracic anaesthetists using a combination of regional anaesthetic blockade and systemic analgesia, with both non-opioid and opioid medications and local anaesthesia blockade.There is some evidence that blocking the nerves as they emerge from the spinal column (paravertebral block, PVB) may be associated with a lower risk of major complications in thoracic surgery but the majority of thoracic anaesthetists still prefer to use a thoracic epidural blockade (TEB) as analgesia for their patients undergoing thoracotomy. In order to bring about a change in practice, anaesthetists need a review that evaluates the risk of all major complications associated with thoracic epidural and paravertebral block in thoracotomy.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the two regional techniques of TEB and PVB in adults undergoing elective thoracotomy with respect to:1. analgesic efficacy;2. the incidence of major complications (including mortality);3. the incidence of minor complications;4. length of hospital stay;5. cost effectiveness.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for studies in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2013, Issue 9); MEDLINE via Ovid (1966 to 16 October 2013); EMBASE via Ovid (1980 to 16 October 2013); CINAHL via EBSCO host (1982 to 16 October 2013); and reference lists of retrieved studies. We handsearched the Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery and Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia (16 October 2013). We reran the search on 31st January 2015. We found one additional study which is awaiting classification and will be addressed when we update the review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PVB with TEB in thoracotomy, including upper gastrointestinal surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors (JY and SG) independently assessed the studies for inclusion and then extracted data as eligible for inclusion in qualitative and quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 studies with a total of 698 participants undergoing thoracotomy. There are two studies awaiting classification. The studies demonstrated high heterogeneity in insertion and use of both regional techniques, reflecting real-world differences in the anaesthesia techniques. Overall, the included studies have a moderate to high potential for bias, lacking details of randomization, group allocation concealment or arrangements to blind participants or outcome assessors. There was low to very low-quality evidence that showed no significant difference in 30-day mortality (2 studies, 125 participants. risk ratio (RR) 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 4.23, P value = 0.68) and major complications (cardiovascular: 2 studies, 114 participants. Hypotension RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.62, P value = 0.45; arrhythmias RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.04 to 3.29, P value = 0.36, myocardial infarction RR 3.19, 95% CI 0.13, 76.42, P value = 0.47); respiratory: 5 studies, 280 participants. RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.52, P value = 0.30). There was moderate-quality evidence that showed comparable analgesic efficacy across all time points both at rest and after coughing or physiotherapy (14 studies, 698 participants). There was moderate-quality evidence that showed PVB had a better minor complication profile than TEB including hypotension (8 studies, 445 participants. RR 0.16, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.38, P value < 0.0001), nausea and vomiting (6 studies, 345 participants. RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.75, P value = 0.001), pruritis (5 studies, 249 participants. RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.59, P value = 0.0005) and urinary retention (5 studies, 258 participants. RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.46, P value < 0.0001). There was insufficient data in chronic pain (six or 12 months). There was no difference found in and length of hospital stay (3 studies, 124 participants). We found no studies that reported costs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Paravertebral blockade reduced the risks of developing minor complications compared to thoracic epidural blockade. Paravertebral blockade was as effective as thoracic epidural blockade in controlling acute pain. There was a lack of evidence in other outcomes. There was no difference in 30-day mortality, major complications, or length of hospital stay. There was insufficient data on chronic pain and costs. Results from this review should be interpreted with caution due to the heterogeneity of the included studies and the lack of reliable evidence. Future studies in this area need well-conducted, adequately-powered RCTs that focus not only on acute pain but also on major complications, chronic pain, length of stay and costs.
Topics: Acute Pain; Anesthesia, Epidural; Delirium; Humans; Hypotension; Length of Stay; Lung Diseases; Nerve Block; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Thoracotomy
PubMed: 26897642
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009121.pub2 -
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia Jun 2022Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has gained popularity for perioperative analgesia in various surgeries. However, its efficacy in lumbar surgery remains unclear. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STUDY OBJECTIVE
Erector spinae plane block (ESPB) has gained popularity for perioperative analgesia in various surgeries. However, its efficacy in lumbar surgery remains unclear. This review aimed to determine whether ESPB could improve analgesic efficacy in lumbar spine surgery.
DESIGN
A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
SETTING
Perioperative setting.
PATIENTS
Patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery under general anesthesia.
INTERVENTIONS
We searched the databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science etc. for published eligible controlled trials comparing ESPB with control (no block/sham block) in lumbar spine surgery.
MEASUREMENTS
The primary outcome was opioid consumption in the first 24 h after surgery.
MAIN RESULTS
Twelve studies comprising 665 participants were included. Compared to the control, ESPB reduced the opioid (morphine milligram equivalents) consumption significantly 24 h after surgery [mean difference (MD) = -14.55; 95% confidence interval (CI), -21.03 to -8.07; P < 0.0001] and lowered the pain scores at various time points (at rest or during movement) for 48 h after surgery. ESPB increased the patient satisfaction score (0-10) (MD = 2.38; 95% CI, 2.10 to 2.66; P < 0.0001), decreased the postoperative nausea and vomiting [risk ratio (RR) = 0.36; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.67; P = 0.001], and minimized the length of hospital stay (MD = -1.24 days; 95% CI, -2.31 to -0.18; P = 0.02). Furthermore, subgroup analysis revealed additional reduction in opioid consumption by the block approach at the vertebral level of incision/operation than that at the fixed thoracic/lumbar level. However, considerable heterogeneity and low-grade quality of evidence were observed.
CONCLUSIONS
ESPB provided effective postoperative analgesia resulting in better patient satisfaction and recovery with decreased postoperative nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing lumbar surgery compared to the control. However, the low-grade quality of evidence compromised the findings, therefore further high-quality of evidence is required. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021233362.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Humans; Nerve Block; Pain, Postoperative; Paraspinal Muscles; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting
PubMed: 35030493
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2022.110647 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2015This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2006. Patients may control postoperative pain by self administration of intravenous... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2006. Patients may control postoperative pain by self administration of intravenous opioids using devices designed for this purpose (patient controlled analgesia or PCA). A 1992 meta-analysis by Ballantyne et al found a strong patient preference for PCA over non-patient controlled analgesia, but disclosed no differences in analgesic consumption or length of postoperative hospital stay. Although Ballantyne's meta-analysis found that PCA did have a small but statistically significant benefit upon pain intensity, a 2001 review by Walder et al did not find statistically significant differences in pain intensity or pain relief between PCA and groups treated with non-patient controlled analgesia.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of patient controlled intravenous opioid analgesia (termed PCA in this review) versus non-patient controlled opioid analgesia of as-needed opioid analgesia for postoperative pain relief.
SEARCH METHODS
We ran the search for the previous review in November 2004. For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014, Issue 12), MEDLINE (1966 to 28 January 2015), and EMBASE (1980 to 28 January 2015) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in any language, and reference lists of reviews and retrieved articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected RCTs that assessed pain intensity as a primary or secondary outcome. These studies compared PCA without a continuous background infusion with non-patient controlled opioid analgesic regimens. We excluded studies that explicitly stated they involved patients with chronic pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data, which included demographic variables, type of surgery, interventions, efficacy, and adverse events. We graded each included study for methodological quality by assessing risk of bias and employed the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence. We performed meta-analysis of outcomes that included pain intensity assessed by a 0 to 100 visual analog scale (VAS), opioid consumption, patient satisfaction, length of stay, and adverse events.
MAIN RESULTS
Forty-nine studies with 1725 participants receiving PCA and 1687 participants assigned to a control group met the inclusion criteria. The original review included 55 studies with 2023 patients receiving PCA and 1838 patients assigned to a control group. There were fewer included studies in our updated review due to the revised exclusion criteria. For the primary outcome, participants receiving PCA had lower VAS pain intensity scores versus non-patient controlled analgesia over most time intervals, e.g., scores over 0 to 24 hours were nine points lower (95% confidence interval (CI) -13 to -5, moderate quality evidence) and over 0 to 48 hours were 10 points lower (95% CI -12 to -7, low quality evidence). Among the secondary outcomes, participants were more satisfied with PCA (81% versus 61%, P value = 0.002) and consumed higher amounts of opioids than controls (0 to 24 hours, 7 mg more of intravenous morphine equivalents, 95% CI 1 mg to 13 mg). Those receiving PCA had a higher incidence of pruritus (15% versus 8%, P value = 0.01) but had a similar incidence of other adverse events. There was no difference in the length of hospital stay.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Since the last version of this review, we have found new studies providing additional information. We reanalyzed the data but the results did not substantially alter any of our previously published conclusions. This review provides moderate to low quality evidence that PCA is an efficacious alternative to non-patient controlled systemic analgesia for postoperative pain control.
Topics: Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics, Opioid; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Patient Satisfaction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 26035341
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003348.pub3 -
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 -
BMC Anesthesiology May 2019Previous studies have demonstrated that dexmedetomidine improves the quality of postoperative analgesia. In the present study, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
Dexmedetomidine and sufentanil combination versus sufentanil alone for postoperative intravenous patient-controlled analgesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Previous studies have demonstrated that dexmedetomidine improves the quality of postoperative analgesia. In the present study, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to quantify the effect of dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to sufentanil for postoperative patient-controlled analgesia (PCA).
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials in which dexmedetomidine was used as an adjuvant for PCA with sufentanil. In the retrieved studies, we quantitatively analyzed pain intensity, sufentanil consumption, and drug-related side effects.
RESULTS
Nine studies with 907 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with sufentanil alone, dexmedetomidine-sufentanil for postoperative intravenous PCA reduced pain intensity at 24 h (mean difference (MD) = - 0.70points; 95% confidence interval (CI): - 1.01, - 0.39; P < 0.00001) and 48 h postoperatively (MD = -0.61points; 95% CI: - 1.00, - 0.22; P = 0.002). Moreover, dexmedetomidine-sufentanil reduced sufentanil consumption during the first 24 h (MD = -13.77 μg; 95% CI: - 18.56, - 8.97; P < 0.00001) and 48 h postoperatively (MD = -20.81 μg; 95% CI: - 28.20, - 13.42; P < 0.00001). Finally, dexmedetomidine-sufentanil improved patient satisfaction without increasing the incidence of side effects.
CONCLUSIONS
Dexmedetomidine as an adjuvant to sufentanil for postoperative PCA can reduce postoperative pain score and sufentanil consumption.
Topics: Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics, Opioid; Dexmedetomidine; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Infusions, Intravenous; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sufentanil
PubMed: 31103031
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-019-0756-0 -
Medicine Jan 2022Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) is an effective method of postoperative pain, there have been many studies performed that have compared the efficacy of hydromorphone... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) is an effective method of postoperative pain, there have been many studies performed that have compared the efficacy of hydromorphone with continuous sufentanil. The purpose of this systematic review is to compare the efficacy and safety of hydromorphone and sufentanil.
METHODS
Seven databases were searched for controlled trials to compare the efficacy and safety of hydromorphone and sufentanil. After selecting the studies, extracting the data, and assessing study quality, the meta-analysis was performed on several of the studies with RevMan 5.3.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies comprised of 812 patients were found. The pain intensity of the hydromorphone group was significantly lower than that of the sufentanil group at 12 hours. With no statistical difference at 24 to 48 hours (MD12 = -1.52, 95% CI [-2.13, -1.97], P <.05). The sedation intensity of the hydromorphone group at 12, 24, and 48 hours were lower than those of the sufentanil group, with no statistical difference (MD12 = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.12], P > .05; MD24 = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.03], P > .05; MD48 = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.11)], P > .05). The PCA requests in the hydromorphone group were less than that in the sufentanil group, and there was no significant difference (RR = -0.20, 95% CI [-1.93,1.53], P > .05). The incidence of adverse events in the hydromorphone group was less than that in the sufentanil group, and there was a statistical difference: (RR = 0.61, 95% CI [0.47,0.79], P < .05).
CONCLUSION
Compared with sufentanil, PCA with hydromorphone was more effective in relieving pain and PCA requests 12, 24, and 48 hours after operation, and significantly reduced the incidence of adverse events, but it did not have an advantage in sedation intensity.
Topics: Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics, Opioid; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Humans; Hydromorphone; Narcotics; Pain, Postoperative; Sufentanil
PubMed: 35060534
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000028615