Efficacy of different routes of acetaminophen administration for postoperative pain in children: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Danilo Osorio, Diana Maldonado, Koen Rijs, Caroline van der Marel, Markus Klimek, Jose A. Calvache
{"title":"Efficacy of different routes of acetaminophen administration for postoperative pain in children: a systematic review and network meta-analysis","authors":"Danilo Osorio, Diana Maldonado, Koen Rijs, Caroline van der Marel, Markus Klimek, Jose A. Calvache","doi":"10.1007/s12630-024-02760-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Purpose</h3><p>Acetaminophen is the most common drug used to treat acute pain in the pediatric population, given its wide safety margin, low cost, and multiple routes for administration. We sought to determine the most efficacious route of acetaminophen administration for postoperative acute pain relief in the pediatric surgical population.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included children aged between 30 days and 17 yr who underwent any type of surgical procedure and that evaluated the analgesic efficacy of different routes of administration of acetaminophen for the treatment of postoperative pain. We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, CINAHL, LILACs, and Google Scholar databases for trials published from inception to 16 April 2023. We assessed the risk of bias in the included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 1.0 tool. We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Our primary outcome was postoperative pain using validated pain scales.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>We screened 2,344 studies and included 14 trials with 829 participants in the analysis. We conducted a network meta-analysis for the period from zero to two hours, including six trials with 496 participants. There was no evidence of differences between intravenous <i>vs</i> rectal routes of administration of acetaminophen (difference in means, −0.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.62 to 0.06; very low certainty of the evidence) and intravenous <i>vs</i> oral acetaminophen (difference in means, −0.60; 95% CI, −1.20 to 0.01; low certainty of the evidence). For the comparison of oral <i>vs</i> rectal routes, we found evidence favouring the oral route (difference in means, −0.88; 95% CI, −1.44 to −0.31; low certainty of the evidence). Few trials reported secondary outcomes of interest; when comparing the oral and rectal routes in the incidence of nausea and vomiting, there was no evidence of differences (relative risk, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.78).</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusion</h3><p>The available evidence on the effect of the administration route of acetaminophen on postoperative pain in children is very uncertain. The outcomes of postoperative pain control and postoperative vomiting may differ very little between the oral and rectal route. Better designed and executed RCTs are required to address this important clinical question.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Study registration</h3><p>PROSPERO (CRD42021286495); first submitted 19 November 2021.</p>","PeriodicalId":9472,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Anesthesia","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Anesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-024-02760-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

Acetaminophen is the most common drug used to treat acute pain in the pediatric population, given its wide safety margin, low cost, and multiple routes for administration. We sought to determine the most efficacious route of acetaminophen administration for postoperative acute pain relief in the pediatric surgical population.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included children aged between 30 days and 17 yr who underwent any type of surgical procedure and that evaluated the analgesic efficacy of different routes of administration of acetaminophen for the treatment of postoperative pain. We searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, CINAHL, LILACs, and Google Scholar databases for trials published from inception to 16 April 2023. We assessed the risk of bias in the included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 1.0 tool. We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Our primary outcome was postoperative pain using validated pain scales.

Results

We screened 2,344 studies and included 14 trials with 829 participants in the analysis. We conducted a network meta-analysis for the period from zero to two hours, including six trials with 496 participants. There was no evidence of differences between intravenous vs rectal routes of administration of acetaminophen (difference in means, −0.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.62 to 0.06; very low certainty of the evidence) and intravenous vs oral acetaminophen (difference in means, −0.60; 95% CI, −1.20 to 0.01; low certainty of the evidence). For the comparison of oral vs rectal routes, we found evidence favouring the oral route (difference in means, −0.88; 95% CI, −1.44 to −0.31; low certainty of the evidence). Few trials reported secondary outcomes of interest; when comparing the oral and rectal routes in the incidence of nausea and vomiting, there was no evidence of differences (relative risk, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.78).

Conclusion

The available evidence on the effect of the administration route of acetaminophen on postoperative pain in children is very uncertain. The outcomes of postoperative pain control and postoperative vomiting may differ very little between the oral and rectal route. Better designed and executed RCTs are required to address this important clinical question.

Study registration

PROSPERO (CRD42021286495); first submitted 19 November 2021.

Abstract Image

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
对乙酰氨基酚不同给药途径对儿童术后疼痛的疗效:系统综述和网络荟萃分析
目的 对乙酰氨基酚是治疗小儿急性疼痛最常用的药物,因为它安全范围广、成本低、给药途径多。我们试图确定对乙酰氨基酚治疗小儿手术人群术后急性疼痛最有效的给药途径。方法 我们对随机对照试验(RCT)进行了系统性回顾,这些试验纳入了年龄在 30 天到 17 岁之间、接受过任何类型手术的儿童,并评估了对乙酰氨基酚治疗术后疼痛的不同给药途径的镇痛效果。我们在 MEDLINE、CENTRAL、Embase、CINAHL、LILACs 和 Google Scholar 数据库中检索了从开始到 2023 年 4 月 16 日发表的试验。我们使用 Cochrane Risk of Bias 1.0 工具评估了纳入研究的偏倚风险。我们使用随机效应模型进行了频数网络荟萃分析。我们的主要研究结果是术后疼痛,采用的是有效的疼痛量表。结果我们筛选了 2344 项研究,并纳入了 14 项试验,共有 829 名参与者参与分析。我们对零到两小时的时间段进行了网络荟萃分析,其中包括六项试验,共有 496 名参与者。没有证据表明对乙酰氨基酚静脉注射与直肠给药途径之间存在差异(平均值差异为-0.28;95%置信区间[CI]为-0.62至0.06;证据确定性极低),也没有证据表明对乙酰氨基酚静脉注射与口服给药途径之间存在差异(平均值差异为-0.60;95%置信区间[CI]为-1.20至0.01;证据确定性低)。在口服与直肠给药途径的比较中,我们发现有证据表明口服途径更受青睐(平均值差异为-0.88;95% CI为-1.44至-0.31;证据确定性较低)。很少有试验报告了相关的次要结果;在比较口服和直肠给药途径的恶心和呕吐发生率时,没有证据表明两者存在差异(相对风险为 1.20;95% CI 为 0.81 至 1.78)。口服和直肠给药途径对术后疼痛控制和术后呕吐的影响可能差别不大。要解决这一重要的临床问题,需要更好地设计和执行 RCT。研究注册PROSPERO (CRD42021286495);2021 年 11 月 19 日首次提交。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Ineffectiveness of a point-of-care waste anesthetic gas recovery system. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a patient with Fontan circulation Pediatric Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease and peripheral nerve blocks: a retrospective cohort study of 25 patients The evolution and formalization of anesthesia assistant roles across Canada Availability of halothane is still important in some parts of the world.
×
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