-
Scientific Reports Feb 2019The programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) technique offers multiple benefits over continuous epidural infusion (CEI), but controversy still exists when it is... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Programmed Intermittent Bolus and Continuous Infusion as the Background Infusion for Parturient-Controlled Epidural Analgesia.
The programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) technique offers multiple benefits over continuous epidural infusion (CEI), but controversy still exists when it is used in conjunction with a parturient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) regimen. A systematic review and meta-analysis was thus conducted using the Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL and Web of Science databases with the aim of identifying those randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that performed a comparison between PIEB and CEI in healthy parturients using a PCEA regimen with regard to the duration of labor, labor pain, anesthesia interventions, maternal satisfaction and main side effects. The data were analyzed using a random-effects model. Eleven eligible trials were included, in which 717 participants were allocated to the PIEB + PCEA group and 650 patients were allocated to the CEI + PCEA group. The rate of instrumental delivery, incidence of breakthrough pain, PCEA usage rates and local anesthetic usage were significantly reduced, the labor duration was statistically shorter, and the maternal satisfaction score was significantly improved in the PIEB + PCEA group compared with that in the CEI + PCEA group. There were no differences in the side effects between the two groups. The results of the present study suggest that the PIEB technique in conjunction with the PCEA regimen was more advantageous than CEI + PCEA, but additional studies should be conducted to consistently demonstrate an improvement in the maternal and fetal obstetric outcomes.
Topics: Adult; Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Anesthesia, Epidural; Anesthetics, Local; Female; Humans; Infusions, Parenteral; Labor, Obstetric; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30796286
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-39248-5 -
Heliyon Mar 2024The reciprocal nexus between sleep and pain is well-documented, with the deleterious impact of operative trauma potentially playing a pivotal role in the dysregulation...
Impact of the addition of dexmedetomidine to patient-controlled intravenous analgesia on postoperative pain-sleep interaction cycle and delirium: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
The reciprocal nexus between sleep and pain is well-documented, with the deleterious impact of operative trauma potentially playing a pivotal role in the dysregulation of this interplay, which could significantly contribute to the manifestation of postoperative delirium (POD). Studies have investigated the effect of adding dexmedetomidine (DEX) to patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) pumps on postoperative pain-sleep interaction cycle and POD, but conclusions remained uncertain. The objective of this investigation is to perform a meta-analysis that thoroughly assesses the impact of integrating DEX into PCIA, focusing on analgesic effectiveness, sleep quality, and the incidence of delirium in postoperative patients.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, SinoMed, and Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform were searched, for publications in any language, from database inception to September 2023. Our analysis encompassed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examine the therapeutic efficacy and risk profile of adding DEX to the PCIA on the postoperative pain-sleep interaction cycle, by focusing on changes in postoperative analgesia (Visual analog scale (VAS) score), sleep efficiency, sleep structure, subjective sleep score (Assen insomnia scale and numerical rating scale) and adverse event rate.
RESULTS
34 RCTs (4324 patients) were analyzed. This study shows DEX improved analgesia and reduced VAS scores at 6, 12, and 24 h after surgery. Sleep efficiency was enhanced on the 1st and 2nd postoperative night. DEX improved sleep structure at the 1st postoperative night by reducing non-rapid eye movement stage 1 (N1) sleep and increasing non-rapid eye movement stage 2 (N2) and non-rapid eye movement stage 3 (N3) sleep. At the 2nd night, DEX reduced N1 sleep and increased N2 sleep, but not N3 sleep. Data from AIS and NRS showed improvement in subjective sleep scores on the 1st postoperative night and 2nd night. Additionally, DEX decreased the occurrence of POD on the 24 h and first-three days.
CONCLUSION
This study shows that the typical DEX doses added to PCIA with sufentanil were 2-5 μg/kg or approximately 200-250 μg, and the addition of DEX to PCIA can improve pain-sleep interaction cycle from multiple perspectives, and further decrease the occurrence of POD.
PubMed: 38524538
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e27623 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2015Many patients with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong analgesics. Buprenorphine, fentanyl and morphine are examples of strong... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Many patients with cancer experience moderate to severe pain that requires treatment with strong analgesics. Buprenorphine, fentanyl and morphine are examples of strong opioids used for cancer pain relief. However, strong opioids are ineffective as pain treatment in all patients and are not well-tolerated by all patients. The aim of this Cochrane review is to assess whether buprenorphine is associated with superior, inferior or equal pain relief and tolerability compared to other analgesic options for patients with cancer pain.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of buprenorphine for pain in adults and children with cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library) issue 12 or 12 2014, MEDLINE (via OVID) 1948 to 20 January 2015, EMBASE (via OVID) 1980 to 20 January 2015, ISI Web of Science (SCI-EXPANDED & CPCI-S) to 20 January 2015, ISI BIOSIS 1969 to 20 January 2015. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov/; metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (http://www.controlled-trials.com/mrct/), the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/) and the Proceedings of the Congress of the European Federation of International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP; via European Journal of Pain Supplements) on 16 February 2015. We checked the bibliographic references of identified studies as well as relevant studies and systematic reviews to find additional trials not identified by the electronic searches. We contacted authors of included studies for other relevant studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials, with parallel-group or crossover design, comparing buprenorphine (any formulation and any route of administration) with placebo or an active drug (including buprenorphine) for cancer background pain in adults and children.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data pertaining to study design, participant details (including age, cancer characteristics, previous analgesic medication and setting), interventions (including details about titration) and outcomes, and independently assessed the quality of the included studies according to standard Cochrane methodology. As it was not feasible to meta-analyse the data, we summarised the results narratively. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
In this Cochrane review we identified 19 relevant studies including a total of 1421 patients that examined 16 different intervention comparisons.Of the studies that compared buprenorphine to another drug, 11 studies performed comparative analyses between the randomised groups, and five studies found that buprenorphine was superior to the comparison treatment. Three studies found no differences between buprenorphine and the comparison drug, while another three studies found treatment with buprenorphine to be inferior to the alternative treatment in terms of the side effects profile or patients preference/acceptability.Of the studies that compared different doses or formulations/routes of administration of buprenorphine, pain intensity ratings did not differ significantly between intramuscular buprenorphine and buprenorphine suppository. However, the average severity of dizziness, nausea, vomiting and adverse events as a total were all significantly higher in the intramuscular group relatively to the suppository group (one study).Sublingual buprenorphine was associated with faster onset of pain relief compared to subdermal buprenorphine, with similar duration analgesia and no significant differences in adverse event rates reported between the treatments (one study).In terms of transdermal buprenorphine, two studies found it superior to placebo, whereas a third study found no difference between placebo and different doses of transdermal buprenorphine.The studies that examined different doses of transdermal buprenorphine did not report a clear dose-response relationship.The quality of this evidence base was limited by under-reporting of most bias assessment items (e.g., the patient selection items), by small sample sizes in several included studies, by attrition (with data missing from 8.2% of the enrolled/randomised patients for efficacy and from 14.6% for safety) and by limited or no reporting of the expected outcomes in a number of cases. The evidence for all the outcomes was very low quality.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the available evidence, it is difficult to say where buprenorphine fits in the treatment of cancer pain with strong opioids. However, it might be considered to rank as a fourth-line option compared to the more standard therapies of morphine, oxycodone and fentanyl, and even there it would only be suitable for some patients. However, palliative care patients are often heterogeneous and complex, so having a number of analgesics available that can be given differently increases patient and prescriber choice. In particular, the sublingual and injectable routes seemed to have a more definable analgesic effect, whereas the transdermal route studies left more questions.
Topics: Administration, Cutaneous; Administration, Oral; Administration, Sublingual; Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Child; Humans; Neoplasms; Pain; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25826743
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009596.pub4 -
Biomedical Papers of the Medical... Mar 2016Although epidural analgesia is still regarded as the gold standard for labour analgesia due to its efficacy, in cases of contraindication, systemic remifentanil is an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
Although epidural analgesia is still regarded as the gold standard for labour analgesia due to its efficacy, in cases of contraindication, systemic remifentanil is an alternative. Since the first demonstration of the safety of remifentanil in obstetric analgesia in 1996, this has been repeatedly confirmed for both mother and newborn. The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate recently published studies (up to December 2014) on the analgesic efficacy of remifentanil during labour (as a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) decrease in the first hour by 2 or more).
METHODS
Search of the US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (www.pubmed.gov), SCOPUS database (www.scopus.com) and Web of Science database (www.webofknowledge.com) using the key words "labour" and "remifentanil". 44 identified articles were included in the review and 15 published randomised controlled studies were incorporated into the meta-analysis. This was based on the fixed model and described by differences in the VAS between t=0 and t=1 hour after remifentanil administration using the 95% confidence interval (CI). The analysis was computed using the Comprehensive meta-analysis version 2.2.064.
RESULTS
The combined data from the meta-analysis showed a statistically significant decrease in VAS in the remifentanil group. From a comparison of the CIs of summary estimates with a cut-off decrease of VAS 2, for the fixed model, there was a statistically significantly greater decrease in VAS than the cut-off. In the systematic review, we describe possible modes of application, dosage and side-effects for mother, fetus/ newborn.
CONCLUSION
The meta-analysis presented here confirms that remifentanil for labour analgesia is effective but questions remain which can only be answered by further randomized trials.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics, Opioid; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Epidemiologic Methods; Female; Humans; Infusion Pumps; Labor Pain; Pain Measurement; Piperidines; Pregnancy; Remifentanil; Risk Assessment; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26460593
DOI: 10.5507/bp.2015.043 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Jul 2023This systematic review explored the efficacy of different analgesic modalities and the impact on perioperative outcome in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This systematic review explored the efficacy of different analgesic modalities and the impact on perioperative outcome in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy.
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library Database using the PRISMA framework. The primary outcome was pain scores on postoperative day one (POD1) and postoperative day two (POD2). The secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay (LOS) and specific procedure-related complications.
RESULTS
Five randomized controlled trials and ten retrospective cohort studies were included in the systematic review. Studies compared epidural analgesia (EA), patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), continuous wound infiltration (CWI), continuous bilateral thoracic paravertebral infusion (CTPVI), intrathecal morphine (ITM), and sublingual sufentanil. The pain scores on POD1 ( < 0.001) and POD2 ( = 0.05) were higher in the PCA group compared with the EA group. Pain scores were comparable between EA and CWI plus PCA or CTPVI on POD1 and POD2. Pain scores were comparable between EA and ITM on POD1. The procedure-related complications and length of hospital stay were not significantly different according to the type of analgesia.
CONCLUSIONS
EA provided lower pain scores compared with PCA on the first postoperative day after pancreatoduodenectomy; the length of hospital stay and procedure-related complications were similar between EA and PCA. CWI and CTPVI provided similar pain relief to EA.
PubMed: 37510799
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12144682 -
Pain and Therapy Jun 2020Pain is commonly experienced among patients after surgical procedures. Clinical pain management after surgery is far from being successful. Patients may control... (Review)
Review
CONTEXT
Pain is commonly experienced among patients after surgical procedures. Clinical pain management after surgery is far from being successful. Patients may control postoperative pain by self-administration of intravenous opioids using devices designed for this purpose (patient-controlled analgesia or PCA). PCA devices have been developed including the sufentanil sublingual tablet system (SSTS). A systematic review of the use of SSTS for postoperative pain is needed to identify an alternative method of pain management.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review literature to establish the efficacy and the safety of PCA with SSTS used in the treatment of moderate-to-severe acute post-operative pain in a hospital setting.
METHODS
Embase, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central Trials Register were systematically searched in December 2019 for studies examining SSTS for pain in adult after surgical procedures. The methodological quality of the studies and their results were appraised using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist and specific measurement properties criteria, respectively.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies evaluating SSTS were included for a total of 2311 patients. All participants in the SSTS group reported NRS ≤ 4 within 24 h after surgery. Patient satisfaction was high, with a minimum of 70% satisfaction among patients treated with SSTS. The most common adverse events (AEs) overall for SSTS 15 and 30 mcg were nausea, vomiting, and headache. AEs observed in the studies were generally consistent with those associated with opioids and the postsurgical setting.
CONCLUSIONS
SSTS is an important system for the management of moderate-to-severe acute pain in a hospital setting. SSTS is well tolerated, with no unexpected adverse events (AEs) and no clinically meaningful vital sign changes. These data confirm the safety and tolerability of the SSTS. Successful pain management resulted in a high level of acceptance of the SSTS by patients with high satisfaction for the method of pain control.
PubMed: 32303979
DOI: 10.1007/s40122-020-00166-4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2015Electrical cardioversion is an effective procedure for restoring normal sinus rhythm in the hearts of patients with irregular heart rhythms. It is important that the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Electrical cardioversion is an effective procedure for restoring normal sinus rhythm in the hearts of patients with irregular heart rhythms. It is important that the patient is not fully conscious during the procedure, as it can be painful and distressing. The drug used to make patients unaware of the procedure should rapidly achieve the desired level of sedation, should wear off quickly and should not cause cardiovascular or respiratory side effects.
OBJECTIVES
We aimed to compare the safety, effectiveness and adverse events associated with various anaesthetic or sedative agents used in direct current cardioversion for cardiac arrhythmia in both elective and emergency settings.We sought answers to the following specific questions.• Which drugs deliver the best outcomes for patients undergoing electrical cardioversion?• Does using a particular agent confer advantages or disadvantages?• Is additional analgesic necessary to prevent pain?
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) on 27 March 2014. Our search terms were relevant to the review question and were not limited by outcomes. We also carried out searches of clinical trials registers and forward and backward citation tracking.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered all randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized and cluster-randomized studies with adult participants undergoing electrical cardioversion procedures in the elective or emergency setting.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data, consulting with a third review author for disagreements. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, including assessment of risk of bias for all studies.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 23 studies with 1250 participants that compared one drug with one or more other drugs. Of these comparisons, 19 studies compared propofol with another drug. Seven of these compared propofol with etomidate (four of which combined the drugs with remifentanil or fentanyl), five midazolam, six thiopentone and two sevoflurane. Three studies compared etomidate with thiopentone, and three etomidate with midazolam. Two studies compared thiopentone with midazolam, one thiopentone with diazepam and one midazolam with diazepam. Drug doses and the time over which the drugs were given varied between studies. Although all studies were described as randomized, limited information was provided about the methods used for selection and group allocation. A high level of performance bias was observed across studies, as study authors had not attempted to blind the anaesthetist to group allocation. Similarly, study authors had rarely provided sufficient information on whether outcome assessors had been blinded.Included studies presented outcome data for hypotension, apnoea, participant recall, success of cardioversion, minor adverse events of nausea and vomiting, pain at injection site and myoclonus, additional analgesia and participant satisfaction. We did not pool the data from different studies in view of the multiple drug comparisons, differences in definitions and reporting of outcomes, variability of endpoints and high or unclear risk of bias across studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Few studies reported statistically significant results for our relevant outcomes, and most study authors concluded that both, or all, agents compared in individual studies were adequate for cardioversion procedures. It is our opinion that at present, there is no evidence to suggest that current anaesthetic practice for cardioversion should change.
Topics: Anesthetics; Apnea; Diazepam; Electric Countershock; Etomidate; Fentanyl; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Hypotension; Mental Recall; Methyl Ethers; Midazolam; Piperidines; Propofol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Remifentanil; Sevoflurane; Thiopental
PubMed: 25803543
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010824.pub2 -
World Journal of Surgery Oct 2021This systematic review explored the efficacy of different pain relief modalities used in the management of postoperative pain following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This systematic review explored the efficacy of different pain relief modalities used in the management of postoperative pain following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) and distal pancreatectomy (DP) and impact on perioperative outcomes.
METHODS
MEDLINE (OVID), Embase, Pubmed, Web of Science and CENTRAL databases were searched using PRISMA framework. Primary outcomes included pain on postoperative day 2 and 4 and respiratory morbidity. Secondary outcomes included operation time, bile leak, delayed gastric emptying, postoperative pancreatic fistula, length of stay, and opioid use.
RESULTS
Five randomized controlled trials and seven retrospective cohort studies (1313 patients) were included in the systematic review. Studies compared epidural analgesia (EDA) (n = 845), patient controlled analgesia (PCA) (n = 425) and transabdominal wound catheters (TAWC) (n = 43). EDA versus PCA following PD was compared in eight studies (1004 patients) in the quantitative meta-analysis. Pain scores on day 2 (p = 0.19) and 4 (p = 0.18) and respiratory morbidity (p = 0.42) were comparable between EDA and PCA. Operative times, bile leak, delayed gastric emptying, pancreatic fistula, opioid use, and length of stay also were comparable between EDA and PCA. Pain scores and perioperative outcomes were comparable between EDA and PCA following DP and EDA and TAWC following PD.
CONCLUSIONS
EDA, PCA and TAWC are the most frequently used analgesic modalities in pancreatic surgery. Pain relief and other perioperative outcomes are comparable between them. Further larger randomized controlled trials are warranted to explore the relative merits of each analgesic modality on postoperative outcomes with emphasis on postoperative complications.
Topics: Analgesia, Epidural; Analgesia, Patient-Controlled; Analgesics; Humans; Pain, Postoperative; Pancreatectomy; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 34185150
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-021-06217-x -
Trials Mar 2022Developments in the care of critically ill patients with severe burns have led to improved hospital survival, but long-term recovery may be impaired. The extent to which... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Developments in the care of critically ill patients with severe burns have led to improved hospital survival, but long-term recovery may be impaired. The extent to which patient-centred outcomes are assessed and reported in studies in this population is unclear.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review to assess the outcomes reported in studies involving critically ill burns patients. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies on the topics of fluid resuscitation, analgesia, haemodynamic monitoring, ventilation strategies, transfusion targets, enteral nutrition and timing of surgery were included. We assessed the outcomes reported and then classified these according to two suggested core outcome sets.
RESULTS
A comprehensive search returned 6154 studies; 98 papers met inclusion criteria. There were 66 RCTs, 19 clinical studies with concurrent controls and 13 interventional studies without concurrent controls. Outcome reporting was inconsistent across studies. Pain, reported using the visual analogue scale, fluid volume administered and mortality were the only outcomes measured in more than three studies. Sixty-six studies (67%) had surrogate primary outcomes. Follow-up was poor, with median longest follow-up across all studies 5 days (IQR 3-28). When compared to the suggested OMERACT core outcome set, 53% of papers reported on mortality, 28% reported on life impact, 30% reported resource/economic outcomes and 95% reported on pathophysiological manifestations. Burns-specific Falder outcome reporting was globally poor, with only 4.3% of outcomes being reported across the 98 papers.
CONCLUSION
There are deficiencies in the reporting of outcomes in the literature pertaining to the intensive care management of patients with severe burns, both with regard to the consistency of outcomes as well as a lack of focus on patient-centred outcomes. Long-term outcomes are infrequently reported. The development and validation of a core outcome dataset for severe burns would improve the quality of reporting.
Topics: Burns; Critical Care; Critical Illness; Enteral Nutrition; Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care
PubMed: 35246209
DOI: 10.1186/s13063-022-06104-3 -
Pain Aug 2023There is a rapidly growing body of evidence for the application of virtual reality (VR) in pain management, however, with varying effectiveness. Little is known about... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
There is a rapidly growing body of evidence for the application of virtual reality (VR) in pain management, however, with varying effectiveness. Little is known about patient-related and VR-related factors affecting efficacy of VR. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed including 122 randomised controlled trials (9138 patients), reporting on subjectively reported pain scores comparing an immersive VR intervention to a non-VR control group. Virtual reality significantly reduced pain in the pooled analysis (standardized mean difference = -0.65, 95% CI -0.76 to -0.54, P < 0.001). Subgroup analyses showed no significant differences between type of pain, ie, VR effects were similar in acute, chronic, and procedural pain conditions. Univariate and multivariate meta-regression analyses were performed to investigate the effect of intervention, patient, and pain characteristics on VR. Virtual reality effectively reduced pain, especially in patients reporting moderate to severe pain and in younger subjects. Studies comparing VR with a control group receiving no distraction methods were associated with higher effect sizes. The effect of VR was not related to a specific frequency or duration of use. Type of software and interaction level were related to VR effects in the univariable, but not in the multivariable, meta-regression analysis. Heterogeneity was considerable for all meta-analyses, and risk of bias was moderate to high in most included studies. Studies on mechanisms behind VR analgesia in younger patients and patients reporting moderate to severe pain are recommended to confirm our hypotheses while taking into account risk of bias and the comparator. Optimal application of VR using treatment modules for long-term pain conditions are an important issue for future research.
Topics: Humans; Pain; Pain Management; Virtual Reality; Analgesia; Regression Analysis
PubMed: 36943251
DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002883