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":" ","pages":"321-327"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"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
Efficacy of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen Therapy During Bronchoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Reduction in Time-to-Diagnosis for Lung Cancer Resulting From Implementation of a Formal Incidental Pulmonary Nodule (IPN) Program Compared With Traditional Referral Pathways. Amniotic Membrane (AM) Covered Airway Stent Mitigates Airway Injury and Complications: A Comparative In Vivo Study in a Porcine Model. Routine Pathology Testing Prior to Bronchoscopy has Limited Clinical Impact With Significant Economic and Environmental Costs. American Association of Bronchology and Interventional Pulmonology Essential Knowledge in Interventional Pulmonology Series: Selected Topics in Airway Stenting.
×
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:604180095
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