patient-controlled

患者控制
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景/目的:即刻乳房重建手术(BRS)通常会导致明显的术后疼痛,需要有效的镇痛。这项研究旨在比较在接受BRS的患者中,含奈福泮的患者自控镇痛(PCA)与仅含阿片类药物的PCA的镇痛效果。方法:前瞻性,双盲,我们对120例接受乳房切除术后即刻BRS的患者进行了随机对照试验.患者被随机分配接受PCA单独使用芬太尼(F组:芬太尼10mcg/kg),芬太尼和奈福泮(FN组:芬太尼5mcg/kg+奈福泮1mg/kg),或单独使用奈福泮(N组:奈福泮2mg/kg)。疼痛强度(以VASr和VASm表示),阿片类药物的消费,并评估阿片类药物相关并发症.结果:PCA与nefopam,单独或与阿片类药物联合使用,与单独使用芬太尼的PCA相比,镇痛效果不差。术后24小时,F组VASr评分为2.9±1.0,组FN中3.1±1.2,N组2.8±0.9(p=0.501)。在同一时间点,F组VASm评分为4.1±1.2,组FN中的4.5±1.5,N组3.8±1.4(p=0.129)。在除PACU外的所有时间点观察到三组之间在总阿片类药物消耗方面的显著差异(p<0.0001)。然而,三组间阿片类药物相关并发症无显著差异.结论:用奈福泮进行PCA,无论是单独还是与阿片类药物联合使用,在立即接受BRS的患者中,与单独使用芬太尼的PCA相比,镇痛效果不差。
    Background/Objectives: Immediate breast reconstruction surgery (BRS) often leads to significant postoperative pain, necessitating effective analgesia. This study aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) containing nefopam with that of PCA containing opioids alone in patients undergoing BRS. Methods: A prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted on 120 patients undergoing immediate BRS after mastectomy. Patients were randomly allocated to receive PCA with fentanyl alone (Group F: fentanyl 10 mcg/kg), fentanyl and nefopam (Group FN: fentanyl 5 mcg/kg + nefopam 1 mg/kg), or nefopam alone (Group N: nefopam 2 mg/kg). Pain intensity (expressed in VASr and VASm), opioid consumption, and opioid-related complications were assessed. Results: PCA with nefopam, either alone or in combination with opioids, demonstrated non-inferior analgesic efficacy compared to PCA with fentanyl alone. At 24 h postoperatively, the VASr scores were 2.9 ± 1.0 in Group F, 3.1 ± 1.2 in Group FN, and 2.8 ± 0.9 in Group N (p = 0.501). At the same timepoint, the VASm scores were 4.1 ± 1.2 in Group F, 4.5 ± 1.5 in Group FN, and 3.8 ± 1.4 in Group N (p = 0.129). Significant differences among the three groups were observed at all timepoints except for PACU in terms of the total opioid consumption (p < 0.0001). However, there were no significant differences in opioid-related complications among the three groups. Conclusions: PCA with nefopam, whether alone or in combination with opioids, offers non-inferior analgesic efficacy compared to PCA with fentanyl alone in patients undergoing immediate BRS.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    这项研究调查了使用右美托咪定进行牙科治疗的患者控制镇静(PCS)的安全有效的推注剂量和锁定时间。镇静的深度,生命体征,并对患者满意度进行调查以证明安全性.
    招募了30名需要牙科洁牙的患者,并根据推注剂量和锁定时间随机分为三组:第1组(低剂量组,推注剂量0.05µg/kg,1分钟锁定时间),第2组(中剂量组,0.1微克/千克,1分钟),和第3组(高剂量组,0.2微克/千克,3分钟)(每个n=10)。心电图,脉搏,氧饱和度,血压,呼气末二氧化碳,呼吸频率,测量并记录脑电双频指数(BIS)评分。该研究分两个阶段进行:第一个阶段涉及无需牙科治疗的镇静作用,第二个阶段包括使用牙齿洁齿的镇静作用。患者被指示每10秒按一次药物需求按钮,入睡和醒来的过程重复1-5次。在第二阶段,在牙齿缩放期间,患者被指示按下药物需求按钮.反应性丧失(LOR)定义为对听觉刺激6次无反应,确定睡眠发作。在实验前后评估患者和牙医的满意度。
    30名患者(22名男性)参加了这项研究。在排除第一阶段出现头晕的患者后,对29例患者进行了缩放。第3组直到第一次LOR的平均给药次数(2.8次)明显低于第1组和第2组(8.0和6.5次,分别)。达到LOR所需的时间在组间没有差异。在第二阶段,在缩放期间达到LOR所需的平均时间为583.4秒。第1组的效应位点浓度(Ce)显著低于第2组和第3组。在PCS的参与者调查中,第3组有8/10报告部分记忆丧失,而第1组和第2组的17/20全部或部分回忆了该过程。
    使用右美托咪定的PCS可以提供快速的镇静作用,安全的生命体征管理,和最小的副作用,从而促进牙齿顺利镇静。
    UNASSIGNED: This study investigated a safe and effective bolus dose and lockout time for patient-controlled sedation (PCS) with dexmedetomidine for dental treatments. The depth of sedation, vital signs, and patient satisfaction were investigated to demonstrate safety.
    UNASSIGNED: Thirty patients requiring dental scaling were enrolled and randomly divided into three groups based on bolus doses and lockout times: group 1 (low dose group, bolus dose 0.05 µg/kg, 1-minute lockout time), group 2 (middle dose group, 0.1 µg/kg, 1-minute), and group 3 (high dose group, 0.2 µg/kg, 3-minute) (n = 10 each). ECG, pulse, oxygen saturation, blood pressure, end-tidal CO2, respiratory rate, and bispectral index scores (BIS) were measured and recorded. The study was conducted in two stages: the first involved sedation without dental treatment and the second included sedation with dental scaling. Patients were instructed to press the drug demand button every 10 s, and the process of falling asleep and waking up was repeated 1-5 times. In the second stage, during dental scaling, patients were instructed to press the drug demand button. Loss of responsiveness (LOR) was defined as failure to respond to auditory stimuli six times, determining sleep onset. Patient and dentist satisfaction were assessed before and after experimentation.
    UNASSIGNED: Thirty patients (22 males) participated in the study. Scaling was performed in 29 patients after excluding one who experienced dizziness during the first stage. The average number of drug administrations until first LOR was significantly lower in group 3 (2.8 times) than groups 1 and 2 (8.0 and 6.5 times, respectively). The time taken to reach the LOR showed no difference between groups. During the second stage, the average time required to reach the LOR during scaling was 583.4 seconds. The effect site concentrations (Ce) was significantly lower in group 1 than groups 2 and 3. In the participant survey on PCS, 8/10 in group 3 reported partial memory loss, whereas 17/20 in groups 1 and 2 recalled the procedure fully or partially.
    UNASSIGNED: PCS with dexmedetomidine can provide a rapid onset of sedation, safe vital sign management, and minimal side effects, thus facilitating smooth dental sedation.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    使用经皮神经电刺激(TENS)缓解分娩疼痛仍然存在争议,现有证据既不强烈也不一致。这项研究旨在比较TENS与注射哌替啶和异丙嗪在减轻分娩疼痛方面的效果。
    在此试验中,45名处于活跃期的孕妇,放置了TENS电极(两个手臂,和两名参与者的下背部)连续120分钟;另一组45名孕妇,肌内注射100毫克哌替啶和250微克异丙嗪,至少一小时后可重复一次。分娩疼痛和持续时间,需要引产/增加/其他疼痛控制方法/器械分娩,交货类型,并对两组产妇和新生儿并发症进行测量。
    基线平均视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分,TENS组为8.51±0.62,哌替啶和异丙嗪组为8.37±0.61(P=0.31)。在干预后120分钟,TENS组和哌替啶和异丙嗪组分别为6.29±1.50和5.73±1.46,差异无统计学意义(P=0.07)。TENS组的产程为6.61±1.71小时,哌替啶和异丙嗪组的产程为6.17±2.07小时,差异无统计学意义(P=0.33)。此外,母亲和新生儿均未出现并发症.
    这项研究表明,在积极分娩阶段应用TENS可以在患者分娩疼痛中减少至少两个得分,而没有明显的并发症。
    UNASSIGNED: The use of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) to relieve labor pain remains controversial and existing evidence is neither strong nor consistent. This research was designed to compare TENS\' effect with the injection of pethidine and promethazine in labor pain reduction.
    UNASSIGNED: In this trial, for 45 pregnant women in the active phase of labor, TENS electrodes were placed (two on both arms, and two over the participants\' low back) continuously for 120 minutes; and for another group 45 pregnant women, 100 milligrams of pethidine and 250 micrograms of promethazine were injected intramuscularly which could be repeated once at least one hour later. Labor pain and duration, need for labor induction/augmentation/other pain control methods/ instrumental delivery, delivery type, and maternal and newborn complications were measured in both groups.
    UNASSIGNED: The baseline mean visual analog scale (VAS) score, in the TENS group was 8.51±0.62 and in the pethidine and promethazine groups was 8.37±0.61 (P=0.31). While in a 120min post-intervention, it was 6.29±1.50 and 5.73±1.46 in the TENS group and the pethidine and promethazine group, respectively with no statistically significant difference (P=0.07). The labor duration in the TENS group was 6.61±1.71 hours and in the pethidine and promethazine group was 6.17±2.07 hours, with no statistically significant difference (P=0.33). In addition, no complication was recorded neither in the mothers nor newborns.
    UNASSIGNED: This study showed that applying TENS in the active labor phase can reduce at least two scores in patient labor pain with no significant complications.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景和目的:通过硬膜外导管给药的局部麻醉药已经从间歇性补充发展到使用相同设备同时进行连续硬膜外输注(CEI)和患者自控硬膜外镇痛(PCEA)。最新的程序间歇性硬膜外推注(PIEB)模型被认为可以在硬膜外腔内产生更广泛,更均匀的镇痛分布。我们部门从CEI+PCEA切换到PIEB+PCEA始于2018年;然而,我们收到了来自质量保证团队的关于工作量的相互矛盾的反馈。本研究旨在探讨这种转换的利弊,包括急性疼痛服务(APS)工作人员工作量的差异,产妇满意度,副作用,以及转换前后的并发症。材料和方法:APS记录中的项目包括总交货时间,局麻药平均用量,和前面提到的项目。副作用的发生率,分娩持续时间和总剂量之间的关联,比较CEI和PIEB组时间亚组的每小时用药情况。救援推注造成的工作人员工作量,导管调节,并对剂量调整进行了分析。结果:CEI+PCEA和PIEB+PCEA分别用于分娩镇痛214例和272例,分别。PIEB+PCEA组的药物总量和平均每小时剂量显著降低。剂量变化的发生率,手动推注,每位患者的额外就诊次数,在PIEB+PCEA组中,利多卡因用于救援推注更多,表明工作人员的工作量增加。然而,两组的CS率没有差异,劳动时间,产妇满意度,和副作用。结论:这项研究表明,虽然PIEB+PCEA保持了降低总药物剂量的优势,它无意中增加了员工的负担。在选择不同的PCEA方法时,在临床环境中可能需要考虑增加工作量。
    Background and Objectives: Local anesthetics administered via epidural catheters have evolved from intermittent top-ups to simultaneous administration of continuous epidural infusion (CEI) and patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) using the same device. The latest programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) model is believed to create a wider and more even distribution of analgesia inside the epidural space. The switch from CEI + PCEA to PIEB + PCEA in our department began in 2018; however, we received conflicting feedback regarding workload from the quality assurance team. This study aimed to investigate the benefits and drawbacks of this conversion, including the differences in acute pain service (APS) staff workload, maternal satisfaction, side effects, and complications before and after the changeover. Materials and Methods: Items from the APS records included total delivery time, average local anesthetic dosage, and the formerly mentioned items. The incidence of side effects, the association between the duration of delivery and total dosage, and hourly medication usage in the time subgroups of the CEI and PIEB groups were compared. The staff workload incurred from rescue bolus injection, catheter adjustment, and dosage adjustment was also analyzed. Results: The final analysis included 214 and 272 cases of CEI + PCEA and PIEB + PCEA for labor analgesia, respectively. The total amount of medication and average hourly dosage were significantly lower in the PIEB + PCEA group. The incidences of dosage change, manual bolus, extra visits per patient, and lidocaine use for rescue bolus were greater in the PIEB + PCEA group, indicating an increased staff workload. However, the two groups did not differ in CS rates, labor time, maternal satisfaction, and side effects. Conclusions: This study revealed that while PIEB + PCEA maintained the advantage of decreasing total drug doses, it inadvertently increased the staff burden. Increased workload might be a consideration in clinical settings when choosing between different methods of PCEA.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Randomized Controlled Trial
    背景:我们旨在研究间歇性椎旁推注阻滞对开腹肝切除术镇痛和恢复的影响。
    方法:80岁18-70岁,美国麻醉医师协会I-III级患者计划采用J形肋下切口进行肝切除术,并随机接受间歇性推注椎旁罗哌卡因(0.5%负荷,0.2%的输注)或0.9%的生理盐水以1:1的比例输注(手术前25毫升装载,术后48h推注0.125ml/kg/h)。主要结果设定为患者控制的镇痛泵记录的术后48小时累积静脉吗啡消耗量。
    结果:每组38名患者完成了研究。术后24时椎旁阻滞的累积吗啡消耗量低于对照组(差异-10.5mg,95CI-16mg至-6mg,P<0.001)和48(差异-12毫克,95CI-19.5mg至-5mg,P=0.001)小时。椎旁阻滞术后4h静息时疼痛评分低于对照组(差异2,95CI-3~-1,P<0.001)。术后12h,椎旁阻滞组的主动疼痛评分低于对照组(差异-1,95CI-2至0,P=0.005)。术后三个月,椎旁阻滞组的感觉减退率(OR0.28,95CI0.11~0.75,P=0.009)和麻木率(OR0.26,95CI0.07~0.88,P=0.024)低于对照组.
    结论:间歇性椎旁推注阻滞在接受肝切除术的患者中提供了保留阿片类药物的效果,并增强了患者在医院和出院后的恢复。
    背景:clinicaltrials.gov(NCT04304274),日期:2020年3月11日。
    BACKGROUND: We aimed to investigate the effects of intermittent bolus paravertebral block on analgesia and recovery in open hepatectomy.
    METHODS: Eighty 18-70 years old, American Society of Anesthesiologists level I-III patients scheduled for hepatectomy with a J-shaped subcostal incision were enrolled and randomized to receive either intermittent bolus paravertebral ropivacaine (0.5% loading, 0.2% infusion) or 0.9% saline infusion at 1:1 ratio (25 ml loading before surgery, 0.125 ml/kg/h bolus for postoperative 48 h). The primary outcome was set as postoperative 48 h cumulative intravenous morphine consumption recorded by a patient-controlled analgesic pump.
    RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients in each group completed the study. The cumulative morphine consumptions were lower in the paravertebral block than control group at postoperative 24 (difference -10.5 mg, 95%CI -16 mg to -6 mg, P < 0.001) and 48 (difference -12 mg, 95%CI -19.5 mg to -5 mg, P = 0.001) hours. The pain numerical rating scales at rest were lower in the paravertebral block than control group at postoperative 4 h (difference -2, 95%CI -3 to -1, P < 0.001). The active pain numerical rating scales were lower in the paravertebral block than control group at postoperative 12 h (difference -1, 95%CI -2 to 0, P = 0.005). Three months postoperatively, the paravertebral block group had lower rates of hypoesthesia (OR 0.28, 95%CI 0.11 to 0.75, P = 0.009) and numbness (OR 0.26, 95%CI 0.07 to 0.88, P = 0.024) than the control group.
    CONCLUSIONS: Intermittent bolus paravertebral block provided an opioid-sparing effect and enhanced recovery both in hospital and after discharge in patients undergoing hepatectomy.
    BACKGROUND: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04304274), date: 11/03/2020.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate the safety and efficacy of remifentanil for patient-controlled intravenous labor analgesia as an alternative to the patient-controlled epidural labor analgesia.
    UNASSIGNED: METHODS: Out of 453 parturients who volunteered for labor analgesia and were selected as research objects, 407 completed the trial. They were divided into the research group (n = 148) and the control group (n = 259; patient-controlled epidural analgesia). In the research group, the first dose of remifentanil, the background dose and the patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) dose were 0.4 μg/kg, 0.04 μg/min and 0.4 μg/kg, respectively, with a lockout interval of 3 min. The control group was given epidural analgesia. The first dose and background dose were 6-8 mL, and PCA dose and the locking time of analgesia pump were 5 mL and 20 min, respectively. The following indexes of the two groups were observed and recorded: the analgesic and sedative effects on parturient, labor process, forceps delivery, cesarean section rate and adverse reactions, and maternal and neonatal conditions.
    RESULTS: 1. The onset time of analgesia in the research group was (0.97 ± 0.08) min, which was noticeably shorter than that in the control group ([15.74 ± 1.91] min), with a statistically significant difference (t = -93.979, p = 0.000). 2. There was no significant difference in the labor process, forceps delivery, cesarean section rate and neonatal condition between the two groups (p > 0.05).
    CONCLUSIONS: Remifentanil patient-controlled intravenous labor analgesia has the advantage of rapid onset of labor analgesia. Although its analgesic effect is not as accurate and stable as epidural patient-controlled labor analgesia, it shows a high level of maternal and family satisfaction.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:验证度洛西汀降低结肠大手术患者术后吗啡用量和疼痛强度的假设。
    方法:单中心,prospective,双盲,随机化,对照试验。
    方法:大学附属医院,从2019年12月到2021年9月。
    方法:60岁18-85岁,接受择期开放大结肠手术的ASAI-III患者随机分为度洛西汀(度洛西汀)组或安慰剂(安慰剂)组(每组n=30)。
    方法:在手术前2小时和手术后24小时口服度洛西汀60mg或安慰剂。
    方法:PCA吗啡消耗,休息时的手术疼痛,以及在10厘米视觉模拟量表(VAS)上测量的运动,Ramsay镇静评分,在患者进入麻醉后监护病房(PACU)时,评估可能与度洛西汀相关的不良反应的发生率,术后6、24和48小时(PO)。
    结果:调整年龄后,BMI,ASA物理状态,教育水平,和切口类型,PCA吗啡消耗24POh组间无差异(度洛西汀=5.44±2.06mg;安慰剂=10.33±2.06mg,p=0.62)或48hPO(度洛西汀=9.18±2.06mg,安慰剂=12.93±2.06,p=1)。在24hPO时,静息时的疼痛在两组之间也没有差异(度洛西汀=1.76±0.67cm;安慰剂=1±0.67cm,p=1)或在48hPO(度洛西汀=0.84±0.67cm;安慰剂=0.49±0.67cm,p=1)。同样,在24hPO时(度洛西汀=2.09±0.68cm;安慰剂=1.80±0.68,p=1)或48hPO时(度洛西汀=1.16±0.68cm;安慰剂=0.88±0.68cm,p=1)。两组之间的镇静评分和不良反应也没有差异。
    结论:在本研究的条件下,在大结肠手术后的最初48小时内,短期度洛西汀并未降低阿片类药物的总消耗量或疼痛强度.
    OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that duloxetine reduces postoperative morphine consumption and pain intensity in patients undergoing major colonic surgeries.
    METHODS: Single-center, prospective, double-blinded, randomized, controlled trial.
    METHODS: Tertiary university hospital, from December 2019 to September 2021.
    METHODS: Sixty 18-85 years old, ASA I - III patients undergoing elective open major colonic surgeries were randomly allocated into duloxetine (duloxetine) or placebo (placebo) groups (n = 30 per group).
    METHODS: Duloxetine 60 mg or placebo was administered orally 2 h before and 24 h after surgery.
    METHODS: PCA morphine consumption, surgical pain at rest, and movement measured on 10-cm visual analog scales (VAS), Ramsay sedation scores, and the incidence of adverse effects potentially associated with duloxetine were assessed at patients\' admission to the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU), 6, 24, and 48 h postoperatively (PO).
    RESULTS: After adjusting for age, BMI, ASA physical status, education level, and incision type, no differences were found between groups in PCA morphine consumption 24 PO h (duloxetine = 5.44 ± 2.06 mg; placebo = 10.33 ± 2.06 mg, p = 0.62) or 48 h PO (duloxetine = 9.18 ± 2.06 mg, placebo = 12.93 ± 2.06, p = 1). Pain at rest also did not differ between groups at 24 h PO (duloxetine = 1.76 ± 0.67 cm; placebo = 1 ± 0.67 cm, p = 1) or at 48 h PO (duloxetine = 0.84 ± 0.67 cm; placebo = 0.49 ± 0.67 cm, p = 1). Similarly, groups did not differ regarding pain on movement at 24 h PO (duloxetine = 2.09 ± 0.68 cm; placebo = 1.80 ± 0.68, p = 1) or at 48 h PO (duloxetine = 1.16 ± 0.68 cm; placebo = 0.88 ± 0.68 cm, p = 1). Sedation scores and adverse effects also did not differ between groups.
    CONCLUSIONS: Under this study\'s conditions, short-term duloxetine did not reduce total opioid consumption or pain intensity during the initial 48 h following major colon surgery.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    开腹胃切除术导致严重的术后疼痛。因此,我们研究了开腹胃切除术后超声引导双侧竖脊肌平面阻滞(ESPB)的阿片类药物保护效果.
    接受开腹胃切除术的成年患者被随机分为ESPB组(基于ESPB+芬太尼的静脉患者自控镇痛[IV-PCA])或对照组(仅基于芬太尼的IV-PCA)。主要结果是术后前24小时内的芬太尼当量总消耗量。次要结果是在麻醉后监护病房(PACU)和术后3、6、12和24小时使用数字评分量表的疼痛强度,以及PACU住院期间和术后3、6和12小时的芬太尼当量消耗量,和第一次要求抢救镇痛的时间。
    58名患者被纳入分析。两组术后24小时内芬太尼总当量消耗量无显著差异(P=0.471)。除了在PACU停留期间和术后3小时外,两组之间的疼痛强度没有显着差异(两者均P<0.001)。ESPB组病房首次抢救镇痛时间长于对照组(P=0.045)。
    超声引导下的ESPB在开腹胃切除术后的前24小时内没有减少总芬太尼当量消耗。与对照组相比,仅降低了术后疼痛强度直至术后3小时。超声引导单次注射ESPB不能在开腹胃切除术后提供有效的阿片类药物保留效果。
    UNASSIGNED: Open gastrectomy causes severe postoperative pain. Therefore, we investigated the opioid-sparing effect of the ultrasound-guided bilateral erector spinae plane block (ESPB) after open gastrectomy.
    UNASSIGNED: Adult patients undergoing open gastrectomy were randomly assigned to either the ESPB group (ESPB + fentanyl based intravenous patient-controlled analgesia [IV-PCA]) or a control group (fentanyl based IV-PCA only). The primary outcome was total fentanyl equivalent consumption during the first 24 hour postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were pain intensities using a numeric rating scale at the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 hour postoperatively, and the amount of fentanyl equivalent consumption during the PACU stay and at 3, 6, and 12 hour postoperatively, and the time to the first request for rescue analgesia.
    UNASSIGNED: Fifty-eight patients were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in total fentanyl equivalent consumption during the first 24 hour postoperatively between the two groups (P = 0.471). Pain intensities were not significantly different between the groups except during the PACU stay and 3 hour postoperatively (P < 0.001, for both). Time to the first rescue analgesia in the ward was longer in the ESPB group than the control group (P = 0.045).
    UNASSIGNED: Ultrasound-guided ESPB did not decrease total fentanyl equivalent consumption during the first 24 hour after open gastrectomy. It only reduced postoperative pain intensity until 3 hour postoperatively compared with the control group. Ultrasound-guided single-shot ESPB cannot provide an efficient opioid-sparing effect after open gastrectomy.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    During labour, the effects of adding a programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) baseline analgesic regimen to patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) remain uncertain.
    This single centre prospective double-blinded controlled study randomised nulliparous women over 35 weeks of gestational age in a PCEA + PIEB or PCEA only group. After an epidural analgesia catheter was inserted, a specific pump administered a solution of levobupivacaine 0.625 mg mL-1, sufentanil 0.25 µg mL-1, and clonidine 0.375 µg mL-1. In both groups the PCEA mode delivered an 8 mL bolus with a lockout period of 8 min. In the PCEA + PIEB group, women also received a programmed 8 mL bolus every 60 min. Additional bolus were allowed if required. The primary outcome was the hourly consumption of levobupivacaine from epidural catheter placement to new-born delivery. Secondary outcome were motor block, oxytocin use, sufentanil consumption, additional bolus required, instrumental vaginal delivery, unplanned caesarean section, pain during labour and women\'s satisfaction.
    Analysis included 162 and 155 women in the PCEA and PCEA + PIEB groups, respectively. The median [IQR] hourly consumption of levobupivacaine was significantly lower in the PCEA group (9.9 (7.8-12.4] mg h-1) as compared to the PCEA + PIEB group (11.2 [7.9-14.3] mg h-1; p = 0.046). The difference between medians was 1.3 mg h-1 95 % CI (0.1-2.9). There was no difference between groups for secondary outcomes.
    PCEA only modestly decreased the hourly consumption of local anaesthetic as compared to PCEA + PIEB but the difference was not clinically relevant.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Sci-hub)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    BACKGROUND: The aim of this prospective, randomized, controlled study was to evaluate the analgesic effect of ultrasonography (USG) guided continuous erector spinae plane block (ESPB) for postoperative analgesia in video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS).
    METHODS: Eighty American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I-III patients aged 18-75 and who were to undergo VATS were included in this study. Randomization was performed in 2 groups, continuous ESPB (ESPB Group) and no intervention (Control Group). 20 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine was administered for the block. Immediately after surgery, the patient received continuous infusion of 0.125% bupivacaine at 4 mL h-1 via the catheter inserted for the block. Patients in both groups received tramadol via an intravenous patient-controlled analgesia device. Tramadol and meperidine consumption, visual analog scale pain scores and opioid-related side effects were recorded at 0, 1, 4, 8, 12, 24, 36, and 48 h postoperatively.
    RESULTS: The use of continuous ESPB in VATS significantly decreased the amount of tramadol used in the first 48 h postoperatively (P < 0.001). There was a statistically significant difference in the number of meperidine rescue analgesia administered between the ESPB and Control Groups (P < 0.001). While the incidences of nausea and itching were higher in Control Group, there were no differences in terms of the other side effects between the groups.
    CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that USG-guided continuous ESPB provides adequate analgesia following VATS as part of multimodal analgesia. Continuous ESPB significantly reduced opioid consumption and opioid-related side effects compared to those in the Control Group.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

公众号