Multicenter, randomized, controlled comparative-effectiveness study comparing virtual reality to sedation and standard local anesthetic for pain and anxiety during epidural steroid injections

IF 5 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia Pub Date : 2024-06-25 DOI:10.1016/j.lansea.2024.100437
Steven P. Cohen , Tina L. Doshi , COL Sithapan Munjupong , CeCe Qian , Pornpan Chalermkitpanit , Patt Pannangpetch , Kamolporn Noragrai , Eric J. Wang , Kayode A. Williams , Paul J. Christo , Pramote Euasobhon , Jason Ross , Eellan Sivanesan , Supak Ukritchon , Nuj Tontisirin
{"title":"Multicenter, randomized, controlled comparative-effectiveness study comparing virtual reality to sedation and standard local anesthetic for pain and anxiety during epidural steroid injections","authors":"Steven P. Cohen ,&nbsp;Tina L. Doshi ,&nbsp;COL Sithapan Munjupong ,&nbsp;CeCe Qian ,&nbsp;Pornpan Chalermkitpanit ,&nbsp;Patt Pannangpetch ,&nbsp;Kamolporn Noragrai ,&nbsp;Eric J. Wang ,&nbsp;Kayode A. Williams ,&nbsp;Paul J. Christo ,&nbsp;Pramote Euasobhon ,&nbsp;Jason Ross ,&nbsp;Eellan Sivanesan ,&nbsp;Supak Ukritchon ,&nbsp;Nuj Tontisirin","doi":"10.1016/j.lansea.2024.100437","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The use of sedation during interventional procedures has continued to rise resulting in increased costs, complications and reduced validity during diagnostic injections, prompting a search for alternatives. Virtual reality (VR) has been shown to reduce pain and anxiety during painful procedures, but no studies have compared it to a control and active comparator for a pain-alleviating procedure. The main objective of this study was to determine whether VR reduces procedure-related pain and other outcomes for epidural steroid injections (ESI).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 146 patients undergoing an ESI at 6 hospitals in Thailand and the United States. Patients were allocated to receive immersive VR with local anesthetic, sedation with midazolam and fentanyl plus local anesthetic, or local anesthetic alone. The primary outcome was procedure-related pain recorded on a 0-10 scale. Other immediate-term outcome measures were pain from a standardized subcutaneous skin wheal, procedure-related anxiety, ability to communicate, satisfaction, and time to discharge. Intermediate-term outcome measures at 4 weeks included back and leg pain scores, function, and success defined as a ≥2-point decrease in average leg pain coupled with a score ≥5/7 on a Patient Global Impression of Change scale.</p></div><div><h3>Findings</h3><p>Procedure-related pain scores with both VR (mean 3.7 (SD 2.5)) and sedation (mean 3.2 (SD 3.0)) were lower compared to control (mean 5.2 (SD 3.1); mean differences −1.5 (−2.7, −0.4) and −2.1 (−3.3, −0.9), respectively), but VR and sedation scores did not significantly differ (mean difference 0.5 (−0.6, 1.7)). Among secondary outcomes, communication was decreased in the sedation group (mean 3.7 (SD 0.9)) compared to the VR group (mean 4.1 (SD 0.5); mean difference 0.4 (0.1, 0.6)), but neither VR nor sedation was different than control. The trends favoring sedation and VR over control for procedure-related anxiety and satisfaction were not statistically significant. Post-procedural recovery time was longer for the sedation group compared to both VR and control groups. There were no meaningful intermediate-term differences between groups except that medication reduction was lowest in the control group.</p></div><div><h3>Interpretation</h3><p>VR provides comparable benefit to sedation for procedure-related pain, anxiety and satisfaction, but with fewer side effects, superior communication and a shorter recovery period.</p></div><div><h3>Funding</h3><p>Funded in part by grants from <span>MIRROR</span>, <span>Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences</span>, U.S. Dept. of Defense, grant # HU00011920011. Equipment was provided by Harvard MedTech, Las Vegas, NV.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":75136,"journal":{"name":"The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772368224000878/pdfft?md5=a12dd7047f7cc59c06fbc36c55111fad&pid=1-s2.0-S2772368224000878-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772368224000878","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The use of sedation during interventional procedures has continued to rise resulting in increased costs, complications and reduced validity during diagnostic injections, prompting a search for alternatives. Virtual reality (VR) has been shown to reduce pain and anxiety during painful procedures, but no studies have compared it to a control and active comparator for a pain-alleviating procedure. The main objective of this study was to determine whether VR reduces procedure-related pain and other outcomes for epidural steroid injections (ESI).

Methods

A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 146 patients undergoing an ESI at 6 hospitals in Thailand and the United States. Patients were allocated to receive immersive VR with local anesthetic, sedation with midazolam and fentanyl plus local anesthetic, or local anesthetic alone. The primary outcome was procedure-related pain recorded on a 0-10 scale. Other immediate-term outcome measures were pain from a standardized subcutaneous skin wheal, procedure-related anxiety, ability to communicate, satisfaction, and time to discharge. Intermediate-term outcome measures at 4 weeks included back and leg pain scores, function, and success defined as a ≥2-point decrease in average leg pain coupled with a score ≥5/7 on a Patient Global Impression of Change scale.

Findings

Procedure-related pain scores with both VR (mean 3.7 (SD 2.5)) and sedation (mean 3.2 (SD 3.0)) were lower compared to control (mean 5.2 (SD 3.1); mean differences −1.5 (−2.7, −0.4) and −2.1 (−3.3, −0.9), respectively), but VR and sedation scores did not significantly differ (mean difference 0.5 (−0.6, 1.7)). Among secondary outcomes, communication was decreased in the sedation group (mean 3.7 (SD 0.9)) compared to the VR group (mean 4.1 (SD 0.5); mean difference 0.4 (0.1, 0.6)), but neither VR nor sedation was different than control. The trends favoring sedation and VR over control for procedure-related anxiety and satisfaction were not statistically significant. Post-procedural recovery time was longer for the sedation group compared to both VR and control groups. There were no meaningful intermediate-term differences between groups except that medication reduction was lowest in the control group.

Interpretation

VR provides comparable benefit to sedation for procedure-related pain, anxiety and satisfaction, but with fewer side effects, superior communication and a shorter recovery period.

Funding

Funded in part by grants from MIRROR, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, U.S. Dept. of Defense, grant # HU00011920011. Equipment was provided by Harvard MedTech, Las Vegas, NV.

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
虚拟现实与镇静剂和标准局麻药治疗硬膜外类固醇注射过程中的疼痛和焦虑的多中心随机对照比较效果研究
背景介入治疗过程中使用镇静剂的情况不断增加,导致成本增加、并发症增多以及诊断性注射的有效性降低,这促使人们寻找替代方法。虚拟现实(VR)已被证明可以减轻痛苦手术中的疼痛和焦虑,但还没有研究将其与减轻疼痛手术的对照组和活性比较组进行比较。本研究的主要目的是确定虚拟现实是否能减轻硬膜外类固醇注射(ESI)过程中与手术相关的疼痛及其他结果。方法在泰国和美国的 6 家医院对 146 名接受 ESI 的患者进行了随机对照试验。患者被分配接受沉浸式 VR 与局部麻醉、咪达唑仑和芬太尼镇静剂加局部麻醉或仅局部麻醉。主要结果是以0-10分制记录的手术相关疼痛。其他近期疗效指标包括来自标准化皮下肿块的疼痛、与手术相关的焦虑、沟通能力、满意度和出院时间。4 周时的中期结果测量包括背部和腿部疼痛评分、功能和成功率,成功率的定义是腿部疼痛平均值下降≥2 分,同时患者总体变化印象量表评分≥5/7。与对照组(平均 5.2 (SD 3.1);平均差异分别为 -1.5 (-2.7, -0.4) 和 -2.1 (-3.3, -0.9))相比,VR(平均 3.2 (SD 3.0))和镇静(平均 3.2 (SD 3.0))的手术相关疼痛评分均较低,但 VR 和镇静评分无显著差异(平均差异为 0.5 (-0.6, 1.7))。在次要结果中,镇静组的沟通能力(平均 3.7 (SD 0.9))比 VR 组(平均 4.1 (SD 0.5);平均差异 0.4 (0.1, 0.6))有所下降,但 VR 和镇静与对照组相比均无差异。在与手术相关的焦虑和满意度方面,镇静和 VR 组优于对照组的趋势没有统计学意义。与 VR 组和对照组相比,镇静组的术后恢复时间更长。除了对照组用药量减少最少外,各组之间没有明显的中期差异。设备由内华达州拉斯维加斯的哈佛医疗技术公司提供。
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
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
One health intervention for the control and elimination of scrub typhus, anthrax, and brucellosis in Southeast Asia: a systematic review Point of care lactate for differentiating septic shock from hypovolemic shock in non-ICU settings: a prospective observational study Assessment of public health laboratory preparedness and response in WHO South-East Asia region during the COVID-19 pandemic: lessons learned and future directions Advancing evidence-based decision-making in Bhutan: development of a health technology assessment framework The implications of waiving local clinical trials for drugs in India: a double-edged sword?
×
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