Dataset Information

Continuous wound infiltration versus epidural analgesia for midline abdominal incisions - a randomized-controlled pilot trial (Painless-Pilot trial; DRKS Number: DRKS00008023).

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:To test the feasibility of a randomized controlled study design comparing epidural analgesia (EDA) with continuous wound infiltration (CWI) in respect to postoperative complications and mobility to design a future multicentre randomized controlled trial. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS:CWI has been developed to address drawbacks of EDA. Previous studies have established the equivalent analgesic potential of CWI compared to EDA. This is a single centre, non-blinded pilot randomized controlled trial at a tertiary surgical centre. Patients undergoing elective non-colorectal surgery via a midline laparotomy were randomized to EDA or CWI. Endpoints included recruitment, feasibility of assessing postoperative mobility with a pedometer and morbidity. No primary endpoint was defined and all analyses were explorative. INTERVENTIONS:CWI with local anaesthetics (experimental group) vs. thoracic EDA (control). RESULTS:Of 846 patients screened within 14 months, 71 were randomized and 62 (31 per group) included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Mobility was assessed in 44 of 62 patients and revealed no differences within the first 3 postoperative days. Overall morbidity did not differ between the two groups (measured via the comprehensive complication index). Median pain scores at rest were comparable between the two groups, while EDA was superior in pain treatment during movement on the first, but not on the second and third postoperative day. Duration of preoperative induction of anaesthesia was shorter with CWI than with EDA. Of 17 serious adverse events, 3 were potentially related to EDA, while none was related to CWI. CONCLUSION:This trial confirmed the feasibility of a randomized trial design to compare CWI and EDA regarding morbidity. Improvements in the education and training of team members are necessary to improve recruitment. TRIAL REGISTRATION:DRKS00008023.

SUBMITTER: Klotz R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7059935 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRectus sheath catheter analgesia (RSCA) and thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) are both used for analgesia following laparotomy. The aim was to compare the analgesic effectiveness of RSCA with TEA after laparotomy for elective colorectal and urological surgery.MethodsPatients undergoing elective midline laparotomy were randomized in a non-blinded fashion to receive RSCA or TEA for postoperative analgesia at a single UK teaching hospital. The primary quantitative outcome measure was dynamic pain score at 24 h after surgery. A nested qualitative study (reported elsewhere) explored the dual primary outcome of patient experience and acceptability. Secondary outcome measures included rest and movement pain scores over 72 h, functional analgesia, analgesia satisfaction, opiate consumption, functional recovery, morbidity, safety, and cost-effectiveness.ResultsA total of 131 patients were randomized: 66 in the RSCA group and 65 in the TEA group. The median (interquartile range; i.q.r.) dynamic pain score at 24 h was significantly lower after TEA than RSCA (33 (11-60) versus 50.5 (24.50-77.25); P = 0.018). Resting pain score at 72 h was significantly lower after RSCA (4.5 (0.25-13.75) versus 12.5 (2-13); P = 0.019). Opiate consumption on postoperative day 3 (median (i.q.r.) morphine equivalent 17 (10-30) mg versus 40 (13.25-88.50) mg; P = 0.038), hypotension, or vasopressor dependency (29.7 versus 49.2 per cent; P = 0.023) and weight gain to day 3 (median (i.q.r.) 0 (-1-2) kg versus 1 (0-3) kg; P = 0.046) were all significantly greater after TEA, compared with RSCA. There were no significant differences between groups in other secondary outcomes, although more participants experienced serious adverse events after TEA compared with RSCA, which was also the more cost-effective.ConclusionsTEA provided superior initial postoperative analgesia but only for the first 24 h. By 72 hours RSCA provides superior analgesia, is associated with a lower incidence of unwanted effects, and may be more cost-effective.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To determine women's satisfaction with pain relief using patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil compared with epidural analgesia during labour. DESIGN:Multicentre randomised controlled equivalence trial. SETTING:15 hospitals in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS:Women with an intermediate to high obstetric risk with an intention to deliver vaginally. To exclude a clinically relevant difference in satisfaction with pain relief of more than 10%, we needed to include 1136 women. Because of missing values for satisfaction this number was increased to 1400 before any analysis. We used multiple imputation to correct for missing data. INTERVENTION:Before the onset of active labour consenting women were randomised to a pain relief strategy with patient controlled remifentanil or epidural analgesia if they requested pain relief during labour. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Primary outcome was satisfaction with pain relief, measured hourly on a visual analogue scale and expressed as area under the curve (AUC), thus providing a time weighted measure of total satisfaction with pain relief. A higher AUC represents higher satisfaction with pain relief. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity scores, mode of delivery, and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Analysis was done by intention to treat. The study was defined as an equivalence study for the primary outcome. RESULTS:1414 women were randomised, of whom 709 were allocated to patient controlled remifentanil and 705 to epidural analgesia. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Pain relief was ultimately used in 65% (447/687) in the remifentanil group and 52% (347/671) in the epidural analgesia group (relative risk 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.48). Cross over occurred in 7% (45/687) and 8% (51/671) of women, respectively. Of women primarily treated with remifentanil, 13% (53/402) converted to epidural analgesia, while in women primarily treated with epidural analgesia 1% (3/296) converted to remifentanil. The area under the curve for total satisfaction with pain relief was 30.9 in the remifentanil group versus 33.7 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference -2.8, 95% confidence interval -6.9 to 1.3). For who actually received pain relief the area under the curve for satisfaction with pain relief after the start of pain relief was 25.6 in the remifentanil group versus 36.1 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference -10.4, -13.9 to -7.0). The rate of caesarean section was 15% in both groups. Oxygen saturation was significantly lower (SpO2 <92%) in women who used remifentanil (relative risk 1.5, 1.4 to 1.7). Maternal and neonatal outcomes were comparable between both groups. CONCLUSION:In women in labour, patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil is not equivalent to epidural analgesia with respect to scores on satisfaction with pain relief. Satisfaction with pain relief was significantly higher in women who were allocated to and received epidural analgesia. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Netherlands Trial Register NTR2551.

Dataset Information

Continuous wound infiltration versus epidural analgesia for midline abdominal incisions - a randomized-controlled pilot trial (Painless-Pilot trial; DRKS Number: DRKS00008023).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets