-
Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology... 2024Prior research has established the effectiveness of magnesium in relieving postoperative pain. This article aims to evaluate magnesium sulfate for perioperative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Prior research has established the effectiveness of magnesium in relieving postoperative pain. This article aims to evaluate magnesium sulfate for perioperative analgesia in adults undergoing general abdominal surgery under general anesthesia.
OBJECTIVE
The primary aim was to assess pain scores at 6 and 24 hours postoperatively in patients receiving magnesium sulfate vs. the control group. Secondary outcomes were postoperative opioid consumption, perioperative complications, and time to rescue analgesia.
METHODS
A comprehensive database search identified studies comparing magnesium sulfate with control in adults undergoing general anesthesia for general abdominal surgery. Using random-effects models, data were presented as mean ± Standard Deviation (SD) or Odds Ratios (OR) with corresponding 95% Confidence Intervals (95% CI). A two-sided p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS
In total, 31 studies involving 1762 participants met the inclusion criteria. The magnesium group showed significantly lower postoperative pain scores at both early (within six hours) and late (up to 24 hours) time points compared to the control group. The early mean score was 3.1 ± 1.4 vs. 4.2 ± 2.3, and the late mean score was 2.3 ± 1.1 vs. 2.7 ± 1.5, resulting in an overall Mean Difference (MD) of -0.72; 95% CI -0.99, -0.44; p < 0.00001. The magnesium group was associated with lower rates of postoperative opioid consumption and shivering and had a longer time to first analgesia administration compared to the saline control group.
CONCLUSION
Magnesium sulfate administration was linked to reduced postoperative pain and opioid consumption following general abdominal surgery.
Topics: Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Magnesium Sulfate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Abdomen; Analgesics; Anesthesia, General; Analgesics, Opioid; Perioperative Care
PubMed: 38848810
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjane.2024.844524 -
Academic Emergency Medicine : Official... Jun 2024As part of the Geriatric Emergency Department (ED) Guidelines 2.0 project, we conducted a systematic review to find risk factors or risk stratification approaches that...
OBJECTIVE
As part of the Geriatric Emergency Department (ED) Guidelines 2.0 project, we conducted a systematic review to find risk factors or risk stratification approaches that can be used to identify subsets of older adults who may benefit from targeted ED delirium screening.
METHODS
An electronic search strategy was developed with a medical librarian, conducted in April 2021 and November 2022. Full-text studies of patients ≥65 years assessed for prevalent delirium in the ED were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the McMaster University Clarity Group tool. Outcomes measures pertained to the risk stratification method used. Due to heterogeneity of patient populations, risk stratification methods, and outcomes, a meta-analysis was not conducted.
RESULTS
Our search yielded 1878 unique citations, of which 13 were included. Six studies developed a novel delirium risk score with or without evaluation of specific risk factors, six studies evaluated specific risk factors only, and one study evaluated an existing nondelirium risk score for association with delirium. The most common risk factor was history of dementia, with odds ratios ranging from 3.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-8.9) to 18.33 (95% CI 8.08-43.64). Other risk factors that were consistently associated with increased risk of delirium included older age, use of certain medications (such as antipsychotics, antidepressants, and opioids, among others), and functional impairments. Of the studies that developed novel risk scores, the reported area under the curve ranged from 0.77 to 0.90. Only two studies reported potential impact of the risk stratification tool on screening burden.
CONCLUSIONS
There is significant heterogeneity, but results suggest that factors such as dementia, age over 75, and functional impairments should be used to identify older adults who are at highest risk for ED delirium. No studies evaluated implementation of a risk stratification method for delirium screening or evaluated patient-oriented outcomes.
PubMed: 38847070
DOI: 10.1111/acem.14939 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2024Persistent visceral pain is an unpleasant sensation coming from one or more organs within the body. Visceral pain is a common symptom in those with advanced cancer.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Persistent visceral pain is an unpleasant sensation coming from one or more organs within the body. Visceral pain is a common symptom in those with advanced cancer. Interventional procedures, such as neurolytic sympathetic nerve blocks, have been suggested as additional treatments that may play a part in optimising pain management for individuals with this condition.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of neurolytic sympathetic nerve blocks for persistent visceral pain in adults with inoperable abdominopelvic cancer compared to standard care or placebo and comparing single blocks to combination blocks.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases without language restrictions on 19 October 2022 and ran a top-up search on 31 October 2023: CENTRAL; MEDLINE via Ovid; Embase via Ovid; LILACS. We searched trial registers without language restrictions on 2 November 2022: ClinicalTrials.gov; WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We searched grey literature, checked reference lists of reviews and retrieved articles for additional studies, and performed citation searches on key articles. We also contacted experts in the field for unpublished and ongoing trials. Our trial protocol was preregistered in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on 21 October 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any sympathetic nerve block targeting sites commonly used to treat abdominal pelvic pain from inoperable malignancies in adults to standard care or placebo.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We independently selected trials based on predefined inclusion criteria, resolving any differences via adjudication with a third review author. We used a random-effects model as some heterogeneity was expected between the studies due to differences in the interventions being assessed and malignancy types included in the study population. We chose three primary outcomes and four secondary outcomes of interest. We sought consumer input to refine our review outcomes and assessed extracted data using Cochrane's risk of bias 2 tool (RoB 2). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE system.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 17 studies with 1025 participants in this review. Fifteen studies with a total of 951 participants contributed to the quantitative analysis. Single block versus standard care Primary outcomes No included studies reported our primary outcome, 'Proportion of participants reporting no worse than mild pain after treatment at 14 days'. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of sympathetic nerve blocks on reducing pain to no worse than mild pain at 14 days when compared to standard care due to insufficient data (very low-certainty evidence). Sympathetic nerve blocks may provide small to 'little to no' improvement in quality of life (QOL) scores at 14 days after treatment when compared to standard care, but the evidence is very uncertain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.70 to 0.25; I² = 87%; 4 studies, 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the risk of serious adverse events as defined in our review as only one study contributed data to this outcome. Sympathetic nerve blocks may have an 'increased risk' to 'no additional risk' of harm compared with standard care (very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes Sympathetic nerve blocks showed a small to 'little to no' effect on participant-reported pain scores at 14 days using a 0 to 10 visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain compared with standard care, but the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference (MD) -0.44, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.11; I² = 56%; 5 studies, 214 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be a 'moderate to large' to 'little to no' reduction in daily consumption of opioids postprocedure at 14 days with sympathetic nerve blocks compared with standard care, but the evidence is very uncertain (change in daily consumption of opioids at 14 days as oral milligrams morphine equivalent (MME): MD -41.63 mg, 95% CI -78.54 mg to -4.72 mg; I² = 90%; 4 studies, 130 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of sympathetic nerve blocks on participant satisfaction with procedure at 0 to 7 days and time to need for retreatment or treatment effect failure (or both) due to insufficient data. Combination block versus single block Primary outcomes There is no evidence about the effect of combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks on the proportion of participants reporting no worse than mild pain after treatment at 14 days because no studies reported this outcome. There may be a small to 'little to no' effect on QOL score at 14 days after treatment, but the evidence is very uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the risk of serious adverse events with combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks due to limited reporting in the included studies (very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks on participant-reported pain score and change in daily consumption of opioids postprocedure, at 14 days. There may be a small to 'little to no' effect, but the evidence is very uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). There is no evidence about the effect on participant satisfaction with procedure at 0 to 7 days and time to need for retreatment or treatment effect failure (or both) due to these outcomes not being measured by the studies. Risk of bias The risk of bias was predominately high for most outcomes in most studies due to significant concerns regarding adequate blinding. Very few studies were deemed as low risk across all domains for any outcome.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is limited evidence to support or refute the use of sympathetic nerve blocks for persistent abdominopelvic pain due to inoperable malignancy. We are very uncertain about the effect of combination sympathetic nerve blocks compared with single sympathetic nerve blocks. The certainty of the evidence is very low and these findings should be interpreted with caution.
Topics: Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Autonomic Nerve Block; Adult; Bias; Pelvic Neoplasms; Abdominal Neoplasms; Cancer Pain; Abdominal Pain; Pain Management; Nerve Block; Quality of Life
PubMed: 38842054
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD015229.pub2 -
Frontiers in Neurology 2024Epidural steroid injection for the treatment of sciatica caused by disc herniation is increasingly used worldwide, but its effectiveness remains controversial. The... (Review)
Review
Epidural steroid injection for the treatment of sciatica caused by disc herniation is increasingly used worldwide, but its effectiveness remains controversial. The review aiming to analyze the efficacy of epidural steroid injection on sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the use of epidural steroid injections in the management of sciatica induced by lumbar disc herniation were collected from PubMed and other databases from January, 2008 to December, 2023, with epidural steroid injection in the test group and epidural local anesthetic and/or placebo in the control group. Pain relief rate, assessed by numerical rating scale (NRS) and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, and function recovery, evaluated by Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, were recorded and compared. Meta-analysis was performed by Review Manager. In comparison to the control group, epidural steroid injections have been shown to be effective for providing short- (within 3 months) [MD = 0.44, 95%CI (0.20, 0.68), = 0.0003] and medium-term (within 6 months) [MD = 0.66, 95%CI (0.09,1.22), = 0.02] pain relief for sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation, while its long-term pain-relief effect were limited. However, the administration of epidural steroid injections did not lead to a significant improvement on sciatic nerve function in short- [MD = 0.79, 95%CI = (0.39, 1.98), = 0.19] and long-term [MD = 0.47, 95% CI = (-0.86, 1.80), = 0.49] assessed by IOD. Furthermore, the analysis revealed that administering epidural steroid injections resulted in a reduction in opioid usage among patients with lumbar disc herniation [MD = -14.45, 95% CI = (-24.61, -4.29), = 0.005]. The incidence of epidural steroid injection was low. Epidural steroid injection has demonstrated notable efficacy in relieving sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation in short to medium-term. Therefore, it is recommended as a viable treatment option for individuals suffering from sciatica.
PubMed: 38841695
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2024.1406504 -
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.... Jun 2024Although the transversus abdominal plane (TAP) block is commonly used in abdominal surgery as part of enhanced recovery after surgery pathways, the quadratus lumborum...
BACKGROUND
Although the transversus abdominal plane (TAP) block is commonly used in abdominal surgery as part of enhanced recovery after surgery pathways, the quadratus lumborum (QL) block has been hypothesized as an effective alternative to the TAP block in some areas. This review evaluates the current literature, as it relates to the QL block in plastic and reconstructive surgery.
METHODS
A systematic review using PubMed searched for all original, peer-reviewed articles, including the term "quadratus lumborum block." In total, 509 articles were identified for review by two independent reviewers. Original articles evaluating the use of a QL block in any plastic surgery operation were included. Articles evaluating pediatric patients, animal trials, and the use of a QL block in any nonplastic surgery operation were excluded.
RESULTS
Three articles met inclusion criteria. One trial demonstrated decreased subjective pain scores and total opioid use, whereas the second found no statistically significant difference. A case study described the use of a QL block for unilateral breast reconstruction with minimal opiate use and reduced pain scores postoperatively. Limitations include the limited number of studies and the heterogeneity in study type and design, making analysis difficult.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite its demonstrated efficacy in other surgical subspecialties, there are limited data evaluating the use of the QL block in plastic and reconstructive surgery. Additional research is needed to evaluate the role of the QL block in plastic surgery and how it compares to the more widely utilized TAP block.
PubMed: 38841521
DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000005863 -
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management Jun 2024Strong opioids are the cornerstone in the treatment of cancer-related pain.
CONTEXT
Strong opioids are the cornerstone in the treatment of cancer-related pain.
OBJECTIVES
This study aims to compare analgesic effectiveness of different strong opioids for the treatment of cancer-related pain.
METHODS
PubMed and Embase were searched for RCTs that compared strong opioids for treatment of cancer-related pain against one another. A network meta-analysis was conducted and the related Surface Under the Cumulative RAnking (SUCRA)-based treatment ranks were calculated. Primary outcome was pain intensity (numerical rating scale (NRS)) and/or the percentage of patients with ≥50% pain reduction, after 1 and 2-4 weeks.
RESULTS
Sixteen RCTs (1813 patients) were included. Methadone showed, with a high certainty of evidence, increased ORs for treatment success at 1 week, compared with morphine, buprenorphine, fentanyl, and oxycodone, range 3.230-36.833. Methadone had the highest likelihood to be the treatment of preference (ToP) (SUCRA 0.9720). For fentanyl, ORs were lower, however significant and with high certainty. After 2-4 weeks, methadone again showed the highest likelihood for ToP, however, with moderate certainty and nonsignificant ORs. The combination of morphine/methadone, compared with morphine, buprenorphine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, methadone, and oxycodone achieved a treatment effect of mean NRS difference after 2-4 weeks between -1.100 and -1.528 and had the highest likelihood for ToP.
CONCLUSION
The results suggest that methadone possibly deserves further promotion as first-line treatment for the treatment of cancer-related pain.
PubMed: 38838946
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2024.05.022 -
Journal of Addictions NursingNursing professionals are vitally involved in the cascade of care for opioid use disorders (OUDs). The global spread of COVID-19 has had complex effects on public health...
BACKGROUND
Nursing professionals are vitally involved in the cascade of care for opioid use disorders (OUDs). The global spread of COVID-19 has had complex effects on public health aspects of major diseases, including OUDs. There are limited data on the major ways in which the COVID-19 pandemic has affected the functions of nursing professionals in the care of OUDs.
METHOD
This systematic review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and examined published data for trends in OUD care during the first 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on nursing functions. The National Library of Medicine PubMed database and the EMBASE database were examined for peer-reviewed studies with primary data published between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2021.
REVIEW FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
Rapid changes were observed in numerous aspects of OUDs during the early pandemic stage, as well as its care by nursing and other health professionals. These changes include increased overdoses (primarily from synthetic opioids such as fentanyl) and emergency department visits. These trends varied considerably across U.S. jurisdictions, underscoring the importance of region-specific examinations for public health policy and intervention. Out of necessity, healthcare systems and nursing professionals adapted to the challenges of OUD care in the pandemic. These adaptations included increases in telehealth services, increases in take-home doses of methadone or buprenorphine/naloxone, and expansion of layperson training in the use of naloxone for overdose reversal. It is likely that some of these adaptations will result in long-term changes in standards of care practices for OUDs by nursing professionals.
Topics: Humans; COVID-19; Opioid-Related Disorders; Nurse's Role; Opiate Substitution Treatment; United States; Analgesics, Opioid; SARS-CoV-2
PubMed: 38830000
DOI: 10.1097/JAN.0000000000000573 -
Kidney & Blood Pressure Research Jun 2024Opioid analgesics are often used to manage moderate to severe pain. A significant proportion of patients taking opioids have compromised kidney function. This systematic...
INTRODUCTION
Opioid analgesics are often used to manage moderate to severe pain. A significant proportion of patients taking opioids have compromised kidney function. This systematic review aimed to examine the available evidence on the safety and analgesic effect of opioid use in adults with kidney disease.
METHODS
We searched eight electronic databases from inception to 26th January 2023. Published original research articles in English reporting on opioid use and pharmacokinetic data among adults with reduced renal function were included. Article screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were conducted by at least two investigators independently. This review was registered prospectively on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42020159091).
RESULTS
There were 32 observational studies included, 14 of which reported on morphine use, three involved fentanyl use, two involved hydromorphone use and 13 articles reported on other opioids including codeine, dihydrocodeine, and buprenorphine.
CONCLUSION
There is limited and low-quality evidence to inform the safety and analgesic effect of opioid use in reduced renal function. Morphine remains the opioid for which there is the most evidence available on safety and analgesic effect in the context of renal disease. Greater caution and consideration of potential risks and benefits should be applied when using other opioids. Further high-quality studies examining clinical outcomes associated with the use of different opioids and opioid doses in renal disease are warranted.
PubMed: 38824925
DOI: 10.1159/000538258 -
BMC Anesthesiology May 2024Nasal surgeries, addressing anatomical variations for form and function, require careful anesthesia administration, including dexmedetomidine and remifentanil. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study
BACKGROUND
Nasal surgeries, addressing anatomical variations for form and function, require careful anesthesia administration, including dexmedetomidine and remifentanil. This meta-analysis evaluates their safety and efficacy variations in nasal surgeries, emphasizing patient comfort and optimal outcomes.
METHODS
Four electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL Complete) were searched for records in English. Studies that measure the effect of dexmedetomidine versus remifentanil on patients underwent nasal surgery were included. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool was used to assess the quality of the included studies. A random-effect model was preferred and statistical analysis was performed by Stata software version 17.
RESULTS
Out of an initial pool of 63 articles, five studies were selected for this analysis. All of these chosen studies were Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs). The meta-analysis involved a total of 302 participants, with 152 in the remifentanil group and 150 in the dexmedetomidine group. The analysis aimed to compare the effects of Dexmedetomidine and Remifentanil on heart rate (HR) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) during surgery. Both groups exhibited similar MAP and HR, with the exception of a slightly lower HR in the remifentanil group at the 15th minute of surgery (Standardized Mean Difference: -0.24 [-0.83, 0.34]). Furthermore, when evaluating the impact of these medications on post-surgery outcomes, including pain levels, the use of pain relief medications, patient-surgeon satisfaction, agitation scores, and recovery time, no significant differences were observed between the two medications in any of these aspects.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the study compared Dexmedetomidine and Remifentanil in nasal surgeries anesthesia. No significant differences were found in heart rate, blood pressure, satisfaction, pain, agitation, or recovery time. The study had limitations, and future research should establish standardized protocols and consider various surgical factors.
Topics: Dexmedetomidine; Humans; Remifentanil; Nasal Surgical Procedures; Heart Rate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Hypnotics and Sedatives
PubMed: 38816731
DOI: 10.1186/s12871-024-02563-0 -
The International Journal on Drug Policy Jun 2024A better understanding of global patterns of drug use among people who inject drugs can inform interventions to reduce harms related to different use profiles. This... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
A better understanding of global patterns of drug use among people who inject drugs can inform interventions to reduce harms related to different use profiles. This review aimed to comprehensively present the geographical variation in drug consumption patterns among this population.
METHODS
Systematic searches of peer reviewed (PsycINFO, Medline, Embase) and grey literature published from 2008-2022 were conducted. Data on recent (past year) and lifetime drug use among people who inject drugs were included. Data were extracted on use of heroin, amphetamines, cocaine, benzodiazepines, cannabis, alcohol, and tobacco; where possible, estimates were disaggregated by route of administration (injecting, non-injecting, smoking). National estimates were generated and, where possible, regional, and global estimates were derived through meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Of 40,427 studies screened, 394 were included from 81 countries. Globally, an estimated 78.1 % (95 %CI:70.2-84.2) and 71.8 % (65.7-77.2) of people who inject drugs had recently used (via any route) and injected heroin, while an estimated 52.8 % (47.0-59.0) and 19.8 % (13.8-26.5) had recently used and injected amphetamines, respectively. Over 90 % reported recent tobacco use (93.5 % [90.8-95.3]) and recent alcohol use was 59.1 % (52.6-65.6). In Australasia recent heroin use was lowest (49.4 % [46.8-52.1]) while recent amphetamine injecting (64.0 % [60.8-67.1]) and recent use of cannabis (72.3 % [69.9-74.6]) were higher than in all other regions. Recent heroin use (86.1 % [78.3-91.4]) and non-injecting amphetamine use (43.3 % [38.4-48.3]) were highest in East and Southeast Asia. Recent amphetamine use (75.8 % [72.7-78.8]) and injecting heroin use (84.8 % (81.4-87.8) were highest in North America while non-injecting heroin use was highest in Western Europe (45.0 % [41.3-48.7]).
CONCLUSION
There is considerable variation in types of drugs and routes of administration used among people who inject drugs. This variation needs to be considered in national and global treatment and harm reduction interventions to target the specific behaviours and harms associated with these regional profiles of use.
Topics: Humans; Substance Abuse, Intravenous; Global Health
PubMed: 38796926
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2024.104455