refractory pain

顽固性疼痛
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:难治性癌性骨痛(CIBP)会影响患者的功能和生活质量,但是指导阿片类药物选择的证据有限。我们评估了可行性,与其他阿片类药物轮换(OOR)相比,该队列中美沙酮轮换(MR)的耐受性和可能的疗效。
    方法:在不良事件通用术语标准中,CI血压和最严重疼痛强度≥4/10和/或阿片类药物毒性分级≥2的成年人以1:1随机分配给美沙酮或另一种阿片类药物轮换。在长达14天的预定义研究时间点使用标准化评估工具。
    结果:在51名符合条件的参与者中,38(74.5%)同意,和29(76.3%,MR:14,OOR:15)完成了阿片类药物旋转后14天的随访。两组均显示平均疼痛(MR:d=-1.2,p=0.003,OOR:d=-0.8,p=0.015)和最严重的疼痛(MR:d=-0.9,p=0.042,OOR:d=-0.6,p=0.048)和总疼痛干扰评分(MR:d=-1.1,p=0.042,OOR:d=-0.7,p=0.007)。与OOR组相比,MR中的口服吗啡等效日剂量显着减少(d=-0.8,p=0.05)。OOR组MR后阿片类药物相关不良事件的发生率没有变化,但较低(d=0.9,95%CI0.1,1.7,p=0.022)。在研究结束时,对镇痛的满意度没有组内或组间差异。
    结论:这项初步研究表明,难治性CIBP患者的MR和OOR是可行的,患者安全且可接受。需要适当的多中心随机对照研究来确认该队列中MR和OOR的疗效。
    背景:ACTRN12621000141842注册于2021年2月11日。
    OBJECTIVE: Refractory cancer-induced bone pain (CIBP) affects a patient\'s functional capacity and quality of life, but there is limited evidence to guide opioid choice. We assessed the feasibility, tolerability and possible efficacy of methadone rotation (MR) compared to other opioid rotations (OOR) in this cohort.
    METHODS: Adults with CIBP and worst pain intensity ≥ 4/10 and/or opioid toxicity graded ≥ 2 on the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events were randomised 1:1 to methadone or another opioid rotation. Standardised assessment tools were used at pre-defined study time points up to 14 days.
    RESULTS: Of 51 eligible participants, 38 (74.5%) consented, and 29 (76.3%, MR: 14, OOR: 15) completed the fourteen days follow-up post-opioid rotation. Both groups displayed significant reduction in average (MR: d =  - 1.2, p = 0.003, OOR: d =  - 0.8, p = 0.015) and worst pain (MR: d =  - 0.9, p = 0.042, OOR: d =  - 0.6, p = 0.048) and total pain interference score (MR: d =  - 1.1, p = 0.042, OOR: d =  - 0.7, p = 0.007). Oral morphine equivalent daily dose was reduced significantly in MR compared to the OOR group (d =  - 0.8, p = 0.05). The incidence of opioid-related adverse events following MR was unchanged but lower in the OOR group (d = 0.9, 95% CI 0.1,1.7, p = 0.022). There were no within-group or between-group differences in satisfaction with analgesia at the end of the study.
    CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study demonstrated that MR and OOR in patients with refractory CIBP are feasible, safe and acceptable to patients. Appropriately powered multi-centre randomised controlled studies are needed to confirm the efficacy of MR and OOR in this cohort.
    BACKGROUND: ACTRN12621000141842 registered 11 February 2021.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Evaluation Study
    目的:冷冻神经溶解是一种治疗外周性单核细胞增多症的潜在方法,但是缺乏关于其对减轻疼痛持续时间的影响的随机研究。方法:这项回顾性队列研究评估了冷冻神经松解术对难治性外周单神经病患者的镇痛作用。我们纳入了2018年6月至2022年7月期间接受超声引导冷冻神经溶解的24例患者。在手术前和手术后1、3和6个月使用数字评定量表记录每日最大疼痛水平。结果:1个月时,54.2%的患者报告疼痛减轻至少30%。该百分比在3个月和6个月时明显较低(13.8和9.1%,分别)。结论:我们的结果表明,反复冷冻神经溶解可能是难治性单神经病的可行治疗方法。需要进一步调查。
    Aim: Cryoneurolysis is a potential therapy for peripheral mononeuropathies, but randomized studies of its effects on the duration of pain reduction are lacking. Methods: This retrospective cohort study evaluated the analgesic effects of cryoneurolysis on patients with refractory peripheral mononeuropathy. We included 24 patients who underwent ultrasound-guided cryoneurolysis between June 2018 and July 2022. The daily maximum pain level was recorded using a numerical rating scale before and 1, 3 and 6 months after the procedure. Results: At 1 month, 54.2% of patients reported pain reduction of at least 30%. This percentage was significantly lower at 3 and 6 months (13.8 and 9.1%, respectively). Conclusion: Our results suggest that repeated cryoneurolysis may be a viable treatment for refractory mononeuropathy. Further investigations are needed.
    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
    背景:感觉丘脑的深部脑刺激(DBS)已经提出了40年,用于治疗医学上难治性神经性疼痛,但它的疗效仍然是部分的和不可预测的。最近针对ACC的DBS的试点研究,参与情感整合的大脑区域,情感,和疼痛的认知方面,可以改善患有难治性慢性疼痛的患者。ACC-DBS可以补充丘脑DBS,以治疗慢性疼痛的感觉辨别和情感成分,但是联合DBS的安全性,特别是在认知和影响方面,没有被研究过。
    方法:我们提出了一种前瞻性的,随机化,双盲,双中心研究评估双侧ACC-DBS联合单侧丘脑DBS治疗成人慢性单侧神经性疼痛的可行性和安全性,难以治疗。经过六个月的研究,有一个交叉的随机阶段,以比较疗效(通过疼痛强度和生活质量评估)和安全性(通过重复的神经系统检查评估,精神病学评估,认知评估,和情感功能的评估)仅合并ACC-丘脑DBS和丘脑DBS,分别。
    结论:EMOPAIN研究将显示ACC-DBS对于患有慢性单侧神经性疼痛的患者是否是安全有效的治疗方法,难以治疗。研究的设计将,第一次,以盲法评估ACC-DBS联合丘脑DBS的疗效。
    BACKGROUND: Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) of the sensory thalamus has been proposed for 40 years to treat medically refractory neuropathic pain, but its efficacy remains partial and unpredictable. Recent pilot studies of DBS targeting the ACC, a brain region involved in the integration of the affective, emotional, and cognitive aspects of pain, may improve patients suffering from refractory chronic pain. ACC-DBS could be complementary to thalamic DBS to treat both the sensory-discriminative and the affective components of chronic pain, but the safety of combined DBS, especially on cognition and affects, has not been studied.
    METHODS: We propose a prospective, randomized, double-blind, and bicentric study to evaluate the feasibility and safety of bilateral ACC-DBS combined with unilateral thalamic DBS in adult patients suffering from chronic unilateral neuropathic pain, refractory to medical treatment. After a study period of six months, there is a cross-over randomized phase to compare the efficacy (evaluated by pain intensity and quality of life) and safety (evaluated by repeated neurological examination, psychiatric assessment, cognitive assessment, and assessment of affective functions) of combined ACC-thalamic DBS and thalamic DBS only, respectively.
    CONCLUSIONS: The EMOPAIN study will show if ACC-DBS is a safe and effective therapy for patients suffering from chronic unilateral neuropathic pain, refractory to medical treatment. The design of the study will, for the first time, assess the efficacy of ACC-DBS combined with thalamic DBS in a blinded way.
    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
    虽然脊髓刺激(SCS)是解决脊柱手术后难治性持续性脊柱疼痛综合征(PSPS-T2)的公认疗法,它缺乏空间选择性和报告的不适由于位置效应可以被认为是显著的限制。作为替代方案,新波形,如突发刺激和不同的空间神经目标,如背根神经节刺激(DRGS),已经显示出有希望的结果。DRGS和标准SCS之间的比较,或它们的组合,从未在同一患者身上进行过研究。“BOOSTDRG”是第一个预期的,随机化,双盲,比较SCS与SCS的交叉研究DRGSvs.SCS+DRGS。将在三个中心招募66名PSPS-T2患者。在穿越之前,患者将接受每种刺激方式1个月,使用补品常规刺激。三个月后,刺激将包括切换到爆发1个月,患者将选择接受的模态/波形,然后在6个月和12个月时重新评估。除了我们基于疼痛等级的主要结果,这项研究旨在评估生活质量,功能性残疾,心理困扰,疼痛表面覆盖,全球变化的印象,药物量化,不良事件,脑功能成像和脑电图,目的是提供基于复合疼痛评估的多维见解。
    While spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-established therapy to address refractory persistent spinal pain syndrome after spinal surgery (PSPS-T2), its lack of spatial selectivity and reported discomfort due to positional effects can be considered as significant limitations. As alternatives, new waveforms, such as burst stimulation and different spatial neural targets, such as dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGS), have shown promising results. Comparisons between DRGS and standard SCS, or their combination, have never been studied on the same patients. \"BOOST DRG\" is the first prospective, randomized, double-blinded, crossover study to compare SCS vs. DRGS vs. SCS+DRGS. Sixty-six PSPS-T2 patients will be recruited internationally in three centers. Before crossing over, patients will receive each stimulation modality for 1 month, using tonic conventional stimulation. After 3 months, stimulation will consist in switching to burst for 1 month, and patients will choose which modality/waveform they receive and will then be reassessed at 6 and 12 months. In addition to our primary outcome based on pain rating, this study is designed to assess quality of life, functional disability, psychological distress, pain surface coverage, global impression of change, medication quantification, adverse events, brain functional imaging and electroencephalography, with the objective being to provide a multidimensional insight based on composite pain assessment.
    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
    在一些国家,含吗啡的鞘内给药系统(IDDS)已被证明可有效治疗中胸椎水平以上的难治性癌性疼痛。然而,在其他方面还没有得到充分的调查。我们设计了当前项目,以研究CiternaIDDS在晚期癌症患者中胸椎水平以上的顽固性疼痛中缓解疼痛的有效性和安全性。
    本研究方案允许符合条件的癌症患者接受食池IDDS手术。疼痛强度(视觉模拟评分,VAS),生活质量(36项短期健康调查,SF-36),和抑郁(抑郁自评量表,在术后随访中评估SDS)以及副作用。最近的文献表明,对于中胸水平以上的难治性疼痛状态,CiternaIDDS吗啡递送具有潜在作用。
    这项研究的结果可能提供进一步的证据,表明吗啡的CiternaIDDS可以作为晚期癌症患者中胸椎水平以上顽固性疼痛的有效和安全的疼痛缓解策略。
    UNASSIGNED: The cisterna Intrathecal Drug Delivery system (IDDS) with morphine has proven to be effective in treating refractory cancer pain above the middle thoracic vertebrae level in some countries. However, it has not been fully investigated in others. We designed the current project to investigate the efficacy and safety of cisterna IDDS for pain relief in refractory pain above the middle thoracic vertebrae level in advanced cancer patients.
    UNASSIGNED: This study protocol allows for eligible cancer patients to receive the cisterna IDDS operation. Pain intensity (Visual Analogue scale, VAS), quality of life (36-Item Short-Form Health Survey, SF-36), and depression (Self-Rating Depression scale, SDS) are assessed along with side effects in the postoperative follow-up visits. Recent literature suggests a potential role for cisterna IDDS morphine delivery for refractory pain states above the middle thoracic level.
    UNASSIGNED: The results of this study may provide further evidence that cisterna IDDS of morphine can serve as an effective and safe pain relief strategy for refractory pain above the middle thoracic vertebrae level in advanced cancer patients.
    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: An international panel of pain specialists (anesthesiology, neurology, neurosurgery, and psychology) and research methodologists developed a screening tool to identify patients who may be suitable for spinal cord stimulation (SCS)--the Refractory Chronic Pain Screening Tool (RCPST) prototype. We describe a feasibility study to explore practicality and validity of this prototype.
    METHODS: Consecutive outpatients were screened in two centers (United Kingdom and United States). Sixty chronic pain adults without satisfactory pain relief despite treatment were assessed using RCPST (by pain specialist without expertise in neurostimulation) and then evaluated by two pain specialists experienced in SCS implantation and management to determine whether the patient should be referred for SCS. To maintain blinding, the participating physicians did not inform each other or the patient of assessment outcome. Sensitivity and specificity of the RCPST prototype were calculated using implanters\' judgment as \"gold standard.\"
    RESULTS: The average age of patients was 47.7 years; 53% were female. Fifty-seven patients completed the study (one withdrew consent, two lost to follow-up). The pain specialists agreed the prototype was easy to use and took <10 minutes to complete. Implanter agreement was moderate (Kappa: 0.63, 95% confidence interval: 0.35-0.91). The prototype had low sensitivity (40%, 19-61%) and moderate specificity (78%, 65-92%). Using the same questionnaire with a modified decision algorithm, new prototypes were generated with range of high sensitivity (80-100%) and specificity (89-97%) values.
    CONCLUSIONS: The RCPST aims to identify patients that should be referred for consideration for neurostimulation. The final implant decision requires appropriate neurological diagnostic workup, psychological assessment, and trial stimulation. RCPST was considered practical for routine clinical practice and contained appropriate questions. Sensitivity needs to be improved. A future study should select and validate the ideal RCPST prototype.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Sci-hub)

公众号