Dataset Information

Intravenous vs oral acetaminophen in sinus surgery: A randomized clinical trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Multimodal perioperative analgesia including acetaminophen is recommended by current guidelines. The comparative efficacy of intravenous vs oral acetaminophen in sinus surgery is unknown. We aimed to determine whether intravenous or oral acetaminophen results in superior postoperative analgesia following sinus surgery.

Methods

This was a prospective randomized trial with blinded endpoint assessments conducted at a single large academic medical center. Subjects undergoing functional endoscopic sinus surgery were randomized to intravenous vs oral acetaminophen in addition to standard anesthetic and surgical care. The primary outcome was visual analogue scale pain score at 1 hour postoperatively.

Results

One hundred and ten adult patients were randomized; 9 were excluded from the data analysis. Fifty patients were assigned to intravenous acetaminophen and 51 to oral acetaminophen. Postoperative pain scores at 1 hour (primary endpoint) were not significantly different between the intravenous and oral acetaminophen groups. Similarly, there was no significant difference in pain scores at 24 hours postoperatively. Finally, there was no significant difference in postoperative opioid usage in the postanesthesia care unit or over the first 24 hours postoperatively.

Conclusions

This is the first comparative efficacy trial of oral vs intravenous acetaminophen in sinus surgery. There was no significant difference in pain scores at 1 or 24 hours postoperatively, and no difference in postoperative opioid use. Intravenous acetaminophen offers no apparent advantage over oral acetaminophen in patients undergoing sinus surgery.

Level of evidence

1b.

SUBMITTER: Bhoja R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7314478 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Intravenous vs oral acetaminophen in sinus surgery: A randomized clinical trial.

Bhoja Ravi R Ryan Matthew W MW Klein Kevin K Minhajuddin Abu A Melikman Emily E Hamza Mohamed M Marple Bradley F BF McDonagh David L DL

Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology 20200416 3

<h4>Background</h4>Multimodal perioperative analgesia including acetaminophen is recommended by current guidelines. The comparative efficacy of intravenous vs oral acetaminophen in sinus surgery is unknown. We aimed to determine whether intravenous or oral acetaminophen results in superior postoperative analgesia following sinus surgery.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a prospective randomized trial with blinded endpoint assessments conducted at a single large academic medical center. Subjects undergoin ...[more]

PMID: 32596476

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceIntravenous acetaminophen is a commonly prescribed analgesic for the prevention and treatment of postsurgical pain. Its efficacy in the context of endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) has yielded mixed results.ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of perioperative intravenous acetaminophen (IVAPAP) with that of placebo in improving early postoperative pain after endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS).Design, setting, and participantsA prospective, randomized clinical trial including 62 patients undergoing ESS for chronic rhinosinusitis in a single tertiary referral hospital.InterventionsParticipants were randomized to receive 1 g of IVAPAP or 100 mL of placebo consisting of saline infusions immediately before the start of surgery and 4 hours after the initial dose.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was postoperative pain measured by visual analog scale (VAS) scores up to 24 hours after surgery by blinded observers. Secondary endpoints included postoperative opioid (intravenous and oral) use and adverse events in the 24-hour postoperative period.ResultsOf the 62 enrolled adult participants, 60 were randomized (31 to IVAPAP intervention and 29 to placebo). The mean (SD) age of participants was 53.7 (14.7) years and 35 (58%) of the participants were men and 25 (42%) were women. Within the first hour, mean pain scores were reduced in the IVAPAP group compared with the control group, reaching a maximum difference of 7.7 mm on a VAS scale favoring the treatment group with a true difference possibly as high as 22 mm, and the data are compatible with a clinically meaningful difference. At 12- and 24-hours, average pain scores were less in the placebo group and the data are compatible with a clinically meaningful difference of 5.8 (-5.2 to 16.8) and 8.2 (-1.9 to 18.4), respectively, favoring the placebo group. However, at all time points the CIs included the null value and were wide, thus preventing definitive conclusions. Inspection of the secondary outcomes favored IVAPAP, but the wide range of the CIs and inclusion of the null value prevent definitive conclusions.Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this study are inconclusive. The data suggest that perioperative intravenous acetaminophen may reduce immediate postoperative pain and opioid requirements compared with placebo and these differences could be clinically meaningful. Unfortunately, the imprecision of the estimates prevents definitive conclusion. Use of IVAPAP does not seem to increase adverse events.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01608308.

Project description:BackgroundThe efficacy of intravenous (IV) acetaminophen compared with its oral formulation for postoperative analgesia is unknown. We hypothesized that the addition of acetaminophen to a multimodal analgesia regimen would provide improved pain management in patients after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and that the effect of acetaminophen would be variable based on the route of delivery.MethodsThe study was a single-center, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial on the efficacy of IV vs oral acetaminophen in patients undergoing unilateral TKA. One hundred seventy-four subjects were randomized to one of the 3 groups: IV acetaminophen group (IV group, n = 57) received 1 g IV acetaminophen and oral placebo before postanesthesia care unit (PACU) admission; oral acetaminophen group (PO group, n = 58) received 1 g oral acetaminophen and volume-matched IV normal saline; placebo group (Placebo group, n = 59) received oral placebo and volume-matched IV normal saline. Pain scores were obtained every 15 minutes during PACU stay. Average pain scores, maximum pain score, and pain scores before physical therapy were compared among the 3 groups. Secondary outcomes included total opiate consumption, time to PACU discharge, time to rescue analgesia, and time to breakthrough pain.ResultsThe average PACU pain score was similar in the IV group (0.56 ± 0.99 [mean ± standard deviation]) compared with the PO group (0.67 ± 1.20; P = .84) and Placebo group (0.58 ± 0.99; P = .71). Total opiate consumption at 6 hours (0.47 mg hydromorphone equivalents ± 0.56 vs 0.54 ± 0.53 vs 0.54 ± 0.61; P = .69) and at 24 hours (1.25 ± 1.30 vs 1.49 ± 1.34 vs 1.36 ± 1.31; P = .46) were also similar between the IV, PO, and Placebo groups. No significant differences were found between all groups for any other outcome.ConclusionNeither IV nor oral acetaminophen provides additional analgesia in the immediate postoperative period when administered as an adjunct to multimodal analgesia in patients undergoing TKA in the setting of a spinal anesthetic.

Project description:ImportanceOpioid-induced ventilatory depression and hypoxemia is common, severe, and often unrecognized in postoperative patients. To the extent that nonopioid analgesics reduce opioid consumption, they may decrease postoperative hypoxemia.ObjectiveTo test the hypothesis that duration of hypoxemia is less in patients given intravenous acetaminophen than those given placebo.Design, setting, and participantsRandomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial conducted at 2 US academic hospitals among 570 patients who were undergoing abdominal surgery, enrolled from February 2015 through October 2018 and followed up until February 2019.InterventionsParticipants were randomized to receive either intravenous acetaminophen, 1 g (n = 289), or normal saline placebo (n = 291) starting at the beginning of surgery and repeated every 6 hours until 48 postoperative hours or hospital discharge, whichever occurred first.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the total duration of hypoxemia (hemoglobin oxygen saturation [Spo2] <90%) per hour, with oxygen saturation measured continuously for 48 postoperative hours. Secondary outcomes were postoperative opioid consumption, pain (0- 10-point scale; 0: no pain; 10: the most pain imaginable), nausea and vomiting, sedation, minimal alveolar concentration of volatile anesthetic, fatigue, active time, and respiratory function.ResultsAmong 580 patients randomized (mean age, 49 years; 48% women), 570 (98%) completed the trial. The primary outcome, median duration with Spo2 of less than 90%, was 0.7 (interquartile range [IQR], 0.1-5.1) minutes per hour among patients in the acetaminophen group and 1.1 (IQR, 0.1-6.6) minutes per hour among patients in the placebo group (P = .29), with an estimated median difference of -0.04 (95% CI,-0.18 to 0.11) minutes per hour. None of the 8 secondary end points differed significantly between the acetaminophen and placebo groups. Mean pain scores within initial 48 postoperative hours were 4.2 (SD, 1.8) in the acetaminophen group and 4.4 (SD, 1.8) in the placebo group (difference, -0.28; 95% CI, -0.71 to 0.15); median opioid use in morphine equivalents was 50 mg (IQR, 18-122 mg) and 58 mg (IQR, 24-151 mg) , respectively, with a ratio of geometric means of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.61-1.21).Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients who underwent abdominal surgery, use of postoperative intravenous acetaminophen, compared with placebo, did not significantly reduce the duration of postoperative hypoxemia over 48 hours. The study findings do not support the use of intravenous acetaminophen for this purpose.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02156154.

Project description:ImportancePostoperative delirium is common following cardiac surgery and may be affected by choice of analgesic and sedative.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of postoperative intravenous (IV) acetaminophen (paracetamol) vs placebo combined with IV propofol vs dexmedetomidine on postoperative delirium among older patients undergoing cardiac surgery.Design, setting, and participantsRandomized, placebo-controlled, factorial clinical trial among 120 patients aged 60 years or older undergoing on-pump coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery or combined CABG/valve surgeries at a US center. Enrollment was September 2015 to April 2018, with follow-up ending in April 2019.InterventionsPatients were randomized to 1 of 4 groups receiving postoperative analgesia with IV acetaminophen or placebo every 6 hours for 48 hours and postoperative sedation with dexmedetomidine or propofol starting at chest closure and continued for up to 6 hours (acetaminophen and dexmedetomidine: n = 29; placebo and dexmedetomidine: n = 30; acetaminophen and propofol: n = 31; placebo and propofol: n = 30).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was incidence of postoperative in-hospital delirium by the Confusion Assessment Method. Secondary outcomes included delirium duration, cognitive decline, breakthrough analgesia within the first 48 hours, and ICU and hospital length of stay.ResultsAmong 121 patients randomized (median age, 69 years; 19 women [15.8%]), 120 completed the trial. Patients treated with IV acetaminophen had a significant reduction in delirium (10% vs 28% placebo; difference, -18% [95% CI, -32% to -5%]; P = .01; HR, 2.8 [95% CI, 1.1-7.8]). Patients receiving dexmedetomidine vs propofol had no significant difference in delirium (17% vs 21%; difference, -4% [95% CI, -18% to 10%]; P = .54; HR, 0.8 [95% CI, 0.4-1.9]). There were significant differences favoring acetaminophen vs placebo for 3 prespecified secondary outcomes: delirium duration (median, 1 vs 2 days; difference, -1 [95% CI, -2 to 0]), ICU length of stay (median, 29.5 vs 46.7 hours; difference, -16.7 [95% CI, -20.3 to -0.8]), and breakthrough analgesia (median, 322.5 vs 405.3 µg morphine equivalents; difference, -83 [95% CI, -154 to -14]). For dexmedetomidine vs propofol, only breakthrough analgesia was significantly different (median, 328.8 vs 397.5 µg; difference, -69 [95% CI, -155 to -4]; P = .04). Fourteen patients in both the placebo-dexmedetomidine and acetaminophen-propofol groups (46% and 45%) and 7 in the acetaminophen-dexmedetomidine and placebo-propofol groups (24% and 23%) had hypotension.Conclusions and relevanceAmong older patients undergoing cardiac surgery, postoperative scheduled IV acetaminophen, combined with IV propofol or dexmedetomidine, reduced in-hospital delirium vs placebo. Additional research, including comparison of IV vs oral acetaminophen and other potentially opioid-sparing analgesics, on the incidence of postoperative delirium is warranted.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02546765.

Project description:ObjectivesImproved intraoperative visibility during functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) decreases the risk of serious orbital or skull base injuries. Esmolol and labetalol have been used to reduce bleeding and achieve better visibility, but it remains unclear which drug is more effective. This study aims to measure visibility scores and mucosal bleeding rates for esmolol and labetalol in FESS.MethodsThis is a 1-year randomized double-blind trial of adults undergoing FESS at a tertiary academic center. The inclusion criteria were as follows: age 18 or older; history of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) with or without nasal polyps; undergoing FESS for CRS; and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status 1 (healthy) or 2 (patient with mild systemic disease). The exclusion criteria were as follows: pregnancy; asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), bradycardia, heart failure, end-stage renal disease, cerebrovascular accident, diabetes mellitus; preoperative use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), aspirin, or beta-blockers; and body mass index (BMI) greater than 40 kg/m2. Patients received either dose-infused esmolol or intravenous push labetalol. The primary outcome was intraoperative visibility determined by surgeon using validated scoring systems (Boezaart, Wormald). The secondary outcome was hemodynamic control (rate of blood loss, average mean arterial pressure [MAP], average heart rate [HR]). Hypothesis of no difference between drugs formed before data collection.ResultsOf the 32 adults given drug (mean age = 50), 28 patients (13 esmolol and 15 labetalol) with complete data were included in the final analysis. There were no statistically significant differences between esmolol and labetalol in rate of blood loss (0.59 [0.28] vs 0.66 [0.37] mL/min, P = 0.62), average MAP (79.7 [7.5] vs 79.4 [7.7] mm Hg, P = .93), HR (72 [8.7] vs 68 [11.7] bpm, P = .26), or mean visibility scores for the Boezaart (3.1 [0.69] vs 3.1 [0.89], P = .85) and Wormald (6.1 [1.7] vs 5.9 [1.9], P = .72) grading scales.ConclusionsThere were no significant differences between esmolol and labetalol in rate of blood loss, MAP control, HR, or surgical visibility in FESS. Either drug may be used, and other considerations (availability, cost) can dictate choice.

Project description:ImportanceAlthough oral corticosteroids are commonly prescribed following endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) for chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) without nasal polyposis, there are little data to suggest that this is a beneficial practice.ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy of oral corticosteroids following ESS in CRS without polyps.Design, setting, and participantsThis prospective double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized noninferiority clinical trial conducted in a single academic tertiary rhinology practice included adults with CRS without polyps undergoing ESS. Of 81 patients recruited, 72 completed the study.InterventionsPatients were randomized into 2 treatment groups: a 12-day postoperative taper of oral prednisone vs matched placebo tablets. All study patients also received a uniform 2-week postoperative regimen of oral antibiotics, fluticasone nasal spray, and saline rinses.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome measures were Sinonasal Outcome Test-22 (SNOT-22) scores and Lund-Kennedy endoscopy scores, collected preoperatively and postoperatively at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months. Scores were compared between treatment groups at each time point using longitudinal difference between treatment groups and analyzed using 2-way, repeated measures analysis of variance. Secondary outcome measures included treatment-related adverse effects.ResultsOverall, 72 patients (mean [SD] age, 49.4 [14.9] years; 36 men, 36 women) completed the study, with 33 in the prednisone arm and 39 in the placebo arm. When comparing longitudinal differences between treatment groups, there was no clinically meaningful difference observed in SNOT-22 total (F[4254] = 1.71, η2 = 0.01 [95% CI, 0.00-0.05]) or Lund-Kennedy scores (F[4247] = 1.23, η2 = 0.02 [95% CI, 0.00-0.50]). In SNOT-22 subdomain analyses, there was no clinically meaningful difference between treatment groups for rhinologic, extranasal rhinologic, ear/facial, or sleep subdomains. However, the prednisone group had worse longitudinal scores for psychological dysfunction compared with the placebo group (F[4254] = 3.18, η2 = 0.05 [95% CI, 0.02-0.09]). Reported adverse effects were similar between the 2 treatment groups.Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial of patients with CRS without polyps, oral prednisone following ESS conferred no additional benefit over placebo in terms of SNOT-22 total scores, SNOT-22 rhinologic subscores, or Lund-Kennedy endoscopy scores up to 6 months after surgery. Patients receiving prednisone, however, did demonstrate worse SNOT-22 psychologic subdomain scores. These results suggest that the risks of oral corticosteroids may outweigh the benefits; thus use of oral corticosteroids after ESS for CRS without polyps should be carefully considered.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02748070.

Project description:Importance:Intravenous (IV) administration of corticosteroids is the standard of care in the treatment of acute optic neuritis. However, it is uncertain whether a bioequivalent dose of corticosteroid administered orally, which may be more cost-efficient and convenient for patients, is as effective as IV administration in the treatment of acute optic neuritis. Objective:To determine whether recovery of vision following treatment of acute optic neuritis with a high-dose IV corticosteroid is superior to that with a bioequivalent dose of an oral corticosteroid. Design, Setting, and Participants:This single-blind (participants unblinded) randomized clinical trial with 6-month follow-up was conducted at a single tertiary care center in London, Ontario, Canada. Participants were enrolled from March 2012 to May 2015, with the last participant's final visit occurring November 2015. Patients 18 to 64 years of age presenting within 14 days of acute optic neuritis onset, without any recovery at time of randomization and without history of optic neuritis in the same eye, were screened. Inclusion criteria included best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of 20/40 or worse and corticosteroids deemed required by treating physician. In total, 89 participants were screened; 64 were eligible, but 9 declined to participate. Thus, 55 participants were enrolled and randomized. Primary analysis was unadjusted and according to the intention-to-treat principle. Interventions:Participants were randomized 1:1 to the IV methylprednisolone sodium succinate (1000-mg) or oral prednisone (1250-mg) group. Main Outcomes and Measures:Primary outcome was recovery of the latency of the P100 component of the visual evoked potential at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were the P100 latency at 1 month and BCVA as assessed with Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study letter scores on the alphabet chart and scores on low-contrast letters at 1 and 6 months. Results:Of 55 randomized participants, the final analyzed cohort comprised 23 participants in the IV and 22 in the oral treatment groups. The mean (SD) age of the cohort was 34.6 (9.5) years, and there were 28 women (62.2%). At 6 months' recovery, P100 latency in the IV group improved by 62.9 milliseconds (from a mean [SD] of 181.9 [53.6] to 119.0 [16.5] milliseconds), and the oral group improved by 66.7 milliseconds (from a mean [SD] of 200.5 [67.2] to 133.8 [31.5] milliseconds), with no significant difference between groups (P = .07). Similarly, no significant group difference was found in the mean P100 latency recovery at 1 month. For BCVA, recovery between the groups did not reach statistical significance at 1 month or 6 months. In addition, improvements in low-contrast (1.25% and 2.5%) BCVA were not significantly different between treatment groups at 1 or 6 months' recovery. Conclusions and Relevance:This study finds that bioequivalent doses of oral corticosteroids may be used as an alternative to IV corticosteroids to treat acute optic neuritis. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01524250.

Dataset Information

Intravenous vs oral acetaminophen in sinus surgery: A randomized clinical trial.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Level of evidence

Publications

Intravenous vs oral acetaminophen in sinus surgery: A randomized clinical trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets