Oral sedation for pain with cervical dilator placement: a randomized controlled trial

Q2 Medicine Contraception: X Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.conx.2020.100053
Jessica K. Lee , Anne E. Burke , Katrina Thaler , Jennifer A. Robinson , Carolyn Sufrin
{"title":"Oral sedation for pain with cervical dilator placement: a randomized controlled trial","authors":"Jessica K. Lee ,&nbsp;Anne E. Burke ,&nbsp;Katrina Thaler ,&nbsp;Jennifer A. Robinson ,&nbsp;Carolyn Sufrin","doi":"10.1016/j.conx.2020.100053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>Assess oral sedation versus placebo for pain control with cervical dilator placement.</p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>We randomized participants presenting for dilation and evacuation to lorazepam 1 mg/oxycodone 5 mg or placebo 45 min before cervical dilator placement. Our primary outcome was median visual analog scale (VAS) pain score after dilator placement using a 100-mm VAS. We used our outcome data to calculate median pain score changes from baseline to better reflect pain score differences between study groups. Planned sample size was 30 participants per group, for a total of 60.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We randomized 27 participants; 9 received sedation and 11 placebo. Median pain score increase from baseline to last dilator placement was 20 [interquartile range (IQR) 8–29] and 31 (IQR 15–81) in the oral sedation and placebo groups, p = .16.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>We were unable to enroll our desired sample size, and our sample is underpowered to make any conclusions. Our results suggest that oral sedation may provide some benefit for pain relief with dilator insertion and indicate that further research might be worthwhile especially in settings that do not routinely provide these analgesics.</p></div><div><h3>Implications</h3><p>We had difficulty with study recruitment because many patients desired oral sedation for pain management for cervical dilator placement and declined randomization. Randomized trials of pain management with a placebo arm may find recruitment challenging especially if default clinical care already includes a pain management option that patients would have to opt out of.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":10655,"journal":{"name":"Contraception: X","volume":"3 ","pages":"Article 100053"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.conx.2020.100053","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contraception: X","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590151620300368","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

Assess oral sedation versus placebo for pain control with cervical dilator placement.

Study design

We randomized participants presenting for dilation and evacuation to lorazepam 1 mg/oxycodone 5 mg or placebo 45 min before cervical dilator placement. Our primary outcome was median visual analog scale (VAS) pain score after dilator placement using a 100-mm VAS. We used our outcome data to calculate median pain score changes from baseline to better reflect pain score differences between study groups. Planned sample size was 30 participants per group, for a total of 60.

Results

We randomized 27 participants; 9 received sedation and 11 placebo. Median pain score increase from baseline to last dilator placement was 20 [interquartile range (IQR) 8–29] and 31 (IQR 15–81) in the oral sedation and placebo groups, p = .16.

Conclusion

We were unable to enroll our desired sample size, and our sample is underpowered to make any conclusions. Our results suggest that oral sedation may provide some benefit for pain relief with dilator insertion and indicate that further research might be worthwhile especially in settings that do not routinely provide these analgesics.

Implications

We had difficulty with study recruitment because many patients desired oral sedation for pain management for cervical dilator placement and declined randomization. Randomized trials of pain management with a placebo arm may find recruitment challenging especially if default clinical care already includes a pain management option that patients would have to opt out of.

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
口服镇静治疗宫颈扩张器置入疼痛:一项随机对照试验
目的评估口服镇静与安慰剂在宫颈扩张器置入后疼痛控制中的作用。研究设计:在宫颈扩张器放置前,我们随机分组接受劳拉西泮1 mg/羟考酮5 mg或安慰剂45 min的扩张和疏散治疗。我们的主要结局是使用100毫米视觉模拟评分(VAS)测量扩张器放置后的中位疼痛评分。我们使用结果数据计算疼痛评分中位数从基线的变化,以更好地反映研究组之间疼痛评分的差异。计划样本量为每组30人,总共60人。结果随机选取27例受试者;镇静组9例,安慰剂组11例。口服镇静组和安慰剂组从基线到最后一次扩张器放置的疼痛评分中位数增加为20[四分位数间距(IQR) 8-29]和31 (IQR 15-81), p = .16。我们无法招募到我们想要的样本量,而且我们的样本量不足以得出任何结论。我们的研究结果表明口服镇静可能对置入扩张器的疼痛缓解有一定的好处,并表明进一步的研究可能是值得的,特别是在没有常规提供这些镇痛药的环境中。我们在招募研究时遇到困难,因为许多患者在放置宫颈扩张器时需要口服镇静来缓解疼痛,因此拒绝随机分组。用安慰剂组进行疼痛管理的随机试验可能会发现招募具有挑战性,特别是如果默认的临床护理已经包括患者必须选择退出的疼痛管理选项。
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
Contraception: X
Contraception: X Medicine-Obstetrics and Gynecology
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊最新文献
Outpatient medical management of later second trimester abortion (18–23.6 weeks) with procedural evacuation backup: A large case series Experiences of delay-causing obstacles and mental health at the time of abortion seeking Maximizing the effectiveness of 1.5 mg levonorgestrel for emergency contraception: The case for precoital use How does person-centered maternity care relate to postpartum contraceptive counseling and use? Evidence from a longitudinal study of women delivering at health facilities in Ethiopia Dilation and evacuation versus medication abortion at 15–24 weeks of gestation in low-middle income country: A retrospective cohort study
×
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