Effect of Remifentanil on Acute and Chronic Postsurgical Pain in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY Clinical Journal of Pain Pub Date : 2024-03-01 DOI:10.1097/AJP.0000000000001183
Bi Zhang, Chang Cai, Zhihao Pan, Liye Zhuang, Yong Qi
{"title":"Effect of Remifentanil on Acute and Chronic Postsurgical Pain in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Bi Zhang, Chang Cai, Zhihao Pan, Liye Zhuang, Yong Qi","doi":"10.1097/AJP.0000000000001183","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Our purpose was to explore the effect of remifentanil on acute and chronic postsurgical pain after cardiac surgery.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Randomized controlled trials were retrieved from electronic databases, such as PubMed, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Internet databases, Scopus, and Web of Science. A systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were performed. Basic information and outcomes were extracted from the included studies. The primary outcome was chronic postsurgical pain. Secondary outcomes were scores of postsurgical pain and morphine consumption within 24 hours after cardiac surgery. Risk of bias (ROB) assessment was based on the Cochrane ROB tool version 2. The overall quality of the evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven studies consisting of 658 patients were enrolled in the meta-analysis. A single study had a high ROB and 2 studies had a moderate ROB. The incidence of chronic postsurgical pain (4 studies [415 patients]; risk ratio: 1.02 [95% CI: 0.53 to 1.95]; P = 0.95; I2 = 59%; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.78 to 1.20) and the postsurgical pain score (2 studies [196 patients]; mean difference: 0.09 [95% CI: -0.36 to 0.55]; P = 0.69; I2 = 0%; TSA-adjusted CI: -0.36 to 0.55) were not statistically different between the 2 groups. However, morphine consumption (6 studies [569 patients]; mean difference: 6.94 [95% CI: 3.65 to 10.22]; P < 0.01; I2 = 0%; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.00 to 0.49) was higher in the remifentanil group than in the control group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There was not enough evidence to prove that remifentanil can increase the incidence of chronic postsurgical pain after cardiac surgery, but interestingly, the results tended to support a trend toward increased complications in the intervention group. However, there was moderate certainty evidence that the use of remifentanil increases the consumption of morphine for analgesia, and more direct comparison trials are needed to inform clinical decision-making with greater confidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":50678,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Journal of Pain","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000001183","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Our purpose was to explore the effect of remifentanil on acute and chronic postsurgical pain after cardiac surgery.

Materials and methods: Randomized controlled trials were retrieved from electronic databases, such as PubMed, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Internet databases, Scopus, and Web of Science. A systematic review, meta-analysis, and trial sequential analysis (TSA) were performed. Basic information and outcomes were extracted from the included studies. The primary outcome was chronic postsurgical pain. Secondary outcomes were scores of postsurgical pain and morphine consumption within 24 hours after cardiac surgery. Risk of bias (ROB) assessment was based on the Cochrane ROB tool version 2. The overall quality of the evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

Results: Seven studies consisting of 658 patients were enrolled in the meta-analysis. A single study had a high ROB and 2 studies had a moderate ROB. The incidence of chronic postsurgical pain (4 studies [415 patients]; risk ratio: 1.02 [95% CI: 0.53 to 1.95]; P = 0.95; I2 = 59%; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.78 to 1.20) and the postsurgical pain score (2 studies [196 patients]; mean difference: 0.09 [95% CI: -0.36 to 0.55]; P = 0.69; I2 = 0%; TSA-adjusted CI: -0.36 to 0.55) were not statistically different between the 2 groups. However, morphine consumption (6 studies [569 patients]; mean difference: 6.94 [95% CI: 3.65 to 10.22]; P < 0.01; I2 = 0%; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.00 to 0.49) was higher in the remifentanil group than in the control group.

Conclusion: There was not enough evidence to prove that remifentanil can increase the incidence of chronic postsurgical pain after cardiac surgery, but interestingly, the results tended to support a trend toward increased complications in the intervention group. However, there was moderate certainty evidence that the use of remifentanil increases the consumption of morphine for analgesia, and more direct comparison trials are needed to inform clinical decision-making with greater confidence.

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
瑞芬太尼对心脏手术患者急性和慢性术后疼痛的影响:系统回顾与元分析》。
目的:我们的目的是探讨瑞芬太尼对心脏手术后急性和慢性术后疼痛的影响:我们的目的是探讨瑞芬太尼对心脏手术后急性和慢性术后疼痛的影响:在 PubMed、Cochrane Library、CNKI 数据库、Scopus 和 Web of Science 等电子数据库中检索随机对照试验 (RCT)。进行了系统综述、荟萃分析和试验序列分析(TSA)。从纳入的研究中提取了基本信息和结果。主要结果是慢性术后疼痛。次要结果是心脏手术后 24 小时内的手术后疼痛评分和吗啡消耗量。我们根据科克伦偏倚风险工具第二版(ROB 2.0)对偏倚风险进行了评估。证据的总体质量采用建议评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)系统进行评定:荟萃分析共纳入了七项研究,包括 658 名患者。其中一项研究存在高偏倚风险,两项研究存在中度偏倚风险。慢性手术后疼痛的发生率(4 项研究 [415 名患者];RR,1.02 [95% CI,0.53-1.95];P =0.95;I2=59%;TSA 调整后的 CI,0.78-1.2020)和手术后疼痛评分(2 项研究 [196 名患者];MD 0.09 [95% CI, -0.36-0.55]; P =0.69; I2=0%; TSA 调整后的 CI, -0.36-0.55)在两组之间没有统计学差异。然而,吗啡消耗量(6 项研究 [569 例患者];MD 6.94 [95% CI, 3.65-10.22];PD 讨论:没有足够的证据证明瑞芬太尼会增加心脏手术后慢性术后疼痛的发生率,但有趣的是,研究结果倾向于支持干预组并发症增加的趋势。不过,有中度确定性证据表明,使用瑞芬太尼会增加吗啡镇痛的用量,因此需要进行更多的直接对比试验,以便为临床决策提供更有把握的信息。
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
Clinical Journal of Pain
Clinical Journal of Pain 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
3.40%
发文量
118
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: ​​​The Clinical Journal of Pain explores all aspects of pain and its effective treatment, bringing readers the insights of leading anesthesiologists, surgeons, internists, neurologists, orthopedists, psychiatrists and psychologists, clinical pharmacologists, and rehabilitation medicine specialists. This peer-reviewed journal presents timely and thought-provoking articles on clinical dilemmas in pain management; valuable diagnostic procedures; promising new pharmacological, surgical, and other therapeutic modalities; psychosocial dimensions of pain; and ethical issues of concern to all medical professionals. The journal also publishes Special Topic issues on subjects of particular relevance to the practice of pain medicine.
期刊最新文献
Application of the IASP Grading System to Identify Underlying Pain Mechanisms in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Prospective Cohort Study. Retrospective Analysis of Fibromyalgia: Exploring the Interplay Between Various Triggers and Fibromyalgia's Severity. Genicular Nerve Block for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials. Is Social Support Associated With Clinical Outcomes in Adults With Nonspecific Chronic Low Back Pain? A Systematic Review. Narrative Accounts of Youth and Their Mothers With Chronic Headache: Application of a Socio-narratology Framework to Pain Narratives.
×
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