Dataset Information

Opioid sparing effect and safety of nefopam in patient controlled analgesia after laparotomy: A randomized, double blind study.

ABSTRACT: A double-blind randomised study to evaluate the opioid sparing effect and safety of nefopam when administered via intravenous patient controlled analgesia (PCA) with fentanyl.Patients planned for elective open laparotomy, were randomly assigned to receive into fentanyl 25?µg/ml (SF group) or nefopam 2.4?mg/ml plus fentanyl 25?µg/ml (NF group). Patients were assessed before surgery and for 24?h postoperatively.Total PCA fentanyl consumption was significantly lower in the NF group (n?=?35) than the SF group (n?=?36). Pain scores were significantly lower and patients' satisfaction with treatment significantly better in the NF group than the SF group. Dry mouth and dizziness were significantly more frequent in the NF group than the SF group. There were no other statistically significant between-group differences in the incidence of adverse events.Intravenous PCA using nefopam?+?fentanyl following laparotomy has an opioid sparing effect and is associated with a low incidence of some of the typical opioid related adverse events.Clinicaltrials.gov Registration No: NCT02596269.

SUBMITTER: Jin HS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5536619 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Opioid sparing effect and safety of nefopam in patient controlled analgesia after laparotomy: A randomized, double blind study.

Jin Hyun Seung HS Kim Yong Chul YC Yoo Yongjae Y Lee Changsoon C Cho Chan Woo CW Kim Won-Joong WJ

The Journal of international medical research 20160629 4

<h4>Objectives</h4>A double-blind randomised study to evaluate the opioid sparing effect and safety of nefopam when administered via intravenous patient controlled analgesia (PCA) with fentanyl.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients planned for elective open laparotomy, were randomly assigned to receive into fentanyl 25 µg/ml (SF group) or nefopam 2.4 mg/ml plus fentanyl 25 µg/ml (NF group). Patients were assessed before surgery and for 24 h postoperatively.<h4>Results</h4>Total PCA fentanyl consumption was s ...[more]

PMID: 27358262

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

Project description:The optimal postoperative analgesia after primary total hip arthroplasty remains in question. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study compared the use of patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) with use of a multimodal pain regimen including periarticular injection (PAI). We hypothesized that PAI would lead to earlier readiness for discharge, decreased opioid consumption, and lower pain scores.Forty-one patients received PAI, and forty-three patients received PCEA. Preoperatively, both groups were administered dexamethasone (6 mg, orally). The PAI group received a clonidine patch and sustained-release oxycodone (10 mg), while the PCEA group had placebo. Both groups received combined spinal-epidural anesthesia and used an epidural pain pump postoperatively; the PAI group had normal saline solution, while the PCEA group had bupivacaine and hydromorphone. The primary outcome, readiness for discharge, required the discontinuation of the epidural, a pain score of <4 (numeric rating scale) without parenteral narcotics, normal eating, minimal nausea, urination without a catheter, a dry surgical wound, no acute medical problems, and the ability to independently transfer and walk 12.2 m (40 ft).The mean time to readiness for discharge (and standard deviation) was 2.4 ± 0.7 days (PAI) compared with 2.3 ± 0.8 days (PCEA) (p = 0.86). The mean length of stay was 3.0 ± 0.8 days (PAI) compared with 3.1 ± 0.7 days (PCEA) (p = 0.46). A significant mean difference in pain score of 0.74 with ambulation (p = 0.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18 to 1.31) and 0.80 during physical therapy (p = 0.03; 95% CI, 0.09 to 1.51) favored the PCEA group. The mean opioid consumption (oral morphine equivalents in milligrams) was significantly higher in the PAI group on postoperative day 0 (43 ± 21 compared with 28 ± 23; p = 0.002) and postoperative days 0 through 2 (136 ± 59 compared with 90 ± 79; p = 0.004). Opioid-Related Symptom Distress Scale (ORSDS) composite scores for severity and bothersomeness as well as scores for nausea, vomiting, and itchiness were significantly higher in the PCEA group (p < 0.05). Quality of Recovery-40 scores and patient satisfaction were similar.PAI did not decrease the time to discharge and was associated with higher pain scores and greater opioid consumption but lower ORSDS scores compared with PCEA. The choice for analgesic regimen may depend on a particular patient's threshold for pain and the potential side effects.

Project description:Background and objectivesMyasthenia gravis (MG) is an autoimmune disease characterized by dysfunction at the neuromuscular junction. Treatment frequently includes corticosteroids (CSs) and IV immunoglobulin (IVIG). This study was conducted to determine whether immune globulin (human), 10% caprylate/chromatography purified (IGIV-C) could facilitate CS dose reduction in CS-dependent patients with MG.MethodsIn this randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial, CS-dependent patients with MG (Myasthenia Gravis Foundation of America Class II-Iva; AChR+) received a loading dose of 2 g/kg IGIV-C over 2 days (maximum 80 g/d) or placebo at week 0 (baseline). Maintenance doses (1 g/kg IGIV-C or placebo) were administered every 3 weeks through week 36. Tapering of CS was initiated at week 9 and continued through week 36 unless the patient worsened (quantitative MG score ≥4 points from baseline). CS doses were increased (based on the current CS dose) in patients who worsened. Patients were withdrawn if worsening failed to improve within 6 weeks or if a second CS increase was required. The primary efficacy end point (at week 39) was a ≥50% reduction in CS dose. Secondary and safety end points were assessed throughout the study and follow-up (weeks 42 and 45). The study results and full protocol are available at clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02473965.ResultsThe primary end point (≥50% reduction in CS dose) showed no significant difference between the IGIV-C treatment (60.0% of patients) and placebo (63.3%). There were no significant differences for secondary end points. Safety data indicated that IGIV-C was well tolerated.DiscussionIn this study, IGIV-C was not more effective than placebo in reducing daily CS dose. These results suggest that the effects of IGIV-C and CS are not synergistic and may be mechanistically different.Trial registration informationThe trial was registered on clinicaltrialsregister.eu (EudraCT #: 2013-005099-17) and clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT02473965).Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class II evidence that IVIG infusions in adult patients with MG do not increase the percentage of patients achieving a ≥50% reduction in corticosteroid dose compared with placebo.

Dataset Information

Opioid sparing effect and safety of nefopam in patient controlled analgesia after laparotomy: A randomized, double blind study.

Publications

Opioid sparing effect and safety of nefopam in patient controlled analgesia after laparotomy: A randomized, double blind study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets