Feasibility and Efficacy of a Non-Opioid Based Pain Management After Medical Thoracoscopy.

See-Wei Low, John J Mullon, Karen L Swanson, Ryan M Kern, Darlene R Nelson, Sebastian Fernandez-Bussy, Kenneth K Sakata
{"title":"Feasibility and Efficacy of a Non-Opioid Based Pain Management After Medical Thoracoscopy.","authors":"See-Wei Low,&nbsp;John J Mullon,&nbsp;Karen L Swanson,&nbsp;Ryan M Kern,&nbsp;Darlene R Nelson,&nbsp;Sebastian Fernandez-Bussy,&nbsp;Kenneth K Sakata","doi":"10.1097/LBR.0000000000000908","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Prescription opioids are a major cause of the opioid epidemic. Despite the minimally invasive nature of medical thoracoscopy (MT), data on the efficacy of non-opioid-based pain control after MT is lacking. The purpose of this study is to assess the feasibility and efficacy of a non-opioid-based pain management strategy in patients who underwent MT.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent MT in the Mayo Clinic (Minnesota and Arizona) outpatient setting. We assessed their pain level and the need for analgesia post-MT from August 1, 2019, to May 24, 2021.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty patients were included. In the first 24 hours, 5/40 (12.5%) reported no pain. Twenty-eight patients out of 40 (70%) reported minor pain (pain scale 1-3), and 7/40 (17.5%) reported moderate pain (pain scale 4-6). No patients reported severe pain. Twenty-two out of 35 patients who experienced discomfort (63%) required acetaminophen, 6/35 patients (17%) required nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, and 7/35 patients (20%) did not require analgesia. Of the 7 patients who had moderate pain, 5 (71%) reported that the moderate pain improved to mild at 72 hours post-MT. Zero patients required opioids, and none reported contacting any provider to manage the pain post-MT. Fourteen patients (78%) who had both parietal pleural biopsies and tunneled pleural catheter placed reported minor pain, 3 patients (17%) reported moderate pain, and 1 patient (6%) experienced no discomfort.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>MT is well-tolerated by patients with non-opioid-based pain management strategy as needed if there is no absolute contraindication.</p>","PeriodicalId":15268,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bronchology & Interventional Pulmonology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bronchology & Interventional Pulmonology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/LBR.0000000000000908","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Prescription opioids are a major cause of the opioid epidemic. Despite the minimally invasive nature of medical thoracoscopy (MT), data on the efficacy of non-opioid-based pain control after MT is lacking. The purpose of this study is to assess the feasibility and efficacy of a non-opioid-based pain management strategy in patients who underwent MT.

Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent MT in the Mayo Clinic (Minnesota and Arizona) outpatient setting. We assessed their pain level and the need for analgesia post-MT from August 1, 2019, to May 24, 2021.

Results: Forty patients were included. In the first 24 hours, 5/40 (12.5%) reported no pain. Twenty-eight patients out of 40 (70%) reported minor pain (pain scale 1-3), and 7/40 (17.5%) reported moderate pain (pain scale 4-6). No patients reported severe pain. Twenty-two out of 35 patients who experienced discomfort (63%) required acetaminophen, 6/35 patients (17%) required nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, and 7/35 patients (20%) did not require analgesia. Of the 7 patients who had moderate pain, 5 (71%) reported that the moderate pain improved to mild at 72 hours post-MT. Zero patients required opioids, and none reported contacting any provider to manage the pain post-MT. Fourteen patients (78%) who had both parietal pleural biopsies and tunneled pleural catheter placed reported minor pain, 3 patients (17%) reported moderate pain, and 1 patient (6%) experienced no discomfort.

Conclusion: MT is well-tolerated by patients with non-opioid-based pain management strategy as needed if there is no absolute contraindication.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
非阿片类药物治疗胸腔镜检查后疼痛的可行性和疗效。
背景:处方类阿片是阿片类药物流行的主要原因。尽管医用胸腔镜(MT)具有微创性,但缺乏关于MT后非阿片类药物疼痛控制效果的数据。本研究的目的是评估非阿片类药物疼痛管理策略在MT患者中的可行性和有效性。方法:我们对梅奥诊所(明尼苏达州和亚利桑那州)门诊接受MT的所有患者进行了回顾性分析。我们评估了他们在2019年8月1日至2021年5月24日MT后的疼痛水平和镇痛需求。结果:包括40名患者。在最初的24小时内,5/40(12.5%)报告没有疼痛。40名患者中有28名(70%)报告轻微疼痛(疼痛等级1-3),7/40名(17.5%)报告中度疼痛(疼痛级别4-6)。没有患者报告严重疼痛。35名出现不适的患者中有22名(63%)需要对乙酰氨基酚,6/35名(17%)需要非甾体抗炎药,7/35名(20%)不需要镇痛。在7名中度疼痛的患者中,5名(71%)报告称,MT后72小时中度疼痛改善为轻度。零名患者需要阿片类药物,也没有人报告联系任何提供者来治疗MT后的疼痛。14名患者(78%)同时进行了壁胸膜活检和隧道式胸膜导管置入术,报告轻微疼痛,3名患者(17%)报告中度疼痛,1名患者(6%)没有不适。结论:如果没有绝对禁忌症,根据需要采用非阿片类药物疼痛管理策略的患者可以很好地耐受MT。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
6.10%
发文量
121
期刊最新文献
Ibrutinib and Bleeding Hazards During Bronchoscopy. Rapid Pleurodesis in Patients With Chronic Noninfectious Pleural Effusion: Twenty Years of Real-world Performance Data. Safety and Efficacy of Rigid Bronchoscopy-guided Percutaneous Dilational Tracheostomy: A Single-center Experience. Diagnostic Value and Safety of Addition of Transbronchial Needle Aspiration to Transbronchial Biopsy Through Endobronchial Ultrasonography Using a Guide Sheath Under Virtual Bronchoscopic Navigation for the Diagnosis of Peripheral Pulmonary Lesions. Percutaneous Airway Silicone Stent External Fixation Outcomes and Techniques: Case Series With Literature Review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1