The Efficacy of Patient Controlled Analgesia for Acute Non Traumatic Abdominal Pain in Emergency Department

Nik Hisamuddin Nik Ab Rahman, Kogulan Kanesan
{"title":"The Efficacy of Patient Controlled Analgesia for Acute Non Traumatic Abdominal Pain in Emergency Department","authors":"Nik Hisamuddin Nik Ab Rahman, Kogulan Kanesan","doi":"10.31436/imjm.v22i3.1988","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION: Patient-Controlled Analgesia (PCA) is an intravenous selfadministration of small doses of opioids (such as morphine) using a programmable pump, The goal of PCA is to efficiently reduce patients’ pain at patient's preferred dose and schedule. Thus, we conducted a study to compare patient PCA morphine with intravenous bolus morphine for acute abdominal pain of non-traumatic origin in the emergency department (ED). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomised, non-blinded clinical trial was conducted in patients presented with severe acute non traumatic abdominal pain of less than 24 hours requiring opioid analgesic based on numerical pain score of more than seven at triage. The primary outcome was visual analogue pain score (VAS) recorded at 0, 30th, 60th and 120th minutes during the management in the ED and after admission to wards, and the secondary outcomes were total dosage of morphine used and degree of patient satisfaction. RESULTS: A total of 62 participants who fulfilled study criteria were randomized into PCA morphine group or bolus morphine group. The average amount of analgesic used for bolus morphine group was lower compared to PCA morphine (4.23 mg)(s.d 1.89 vs 5.29 mg)(s.d 2.16) (p=0.027). Despite of significant VAS score changes within group analysis, between group repeated measure ANOVA (RMA) VAS score analysis was not statistically significant. [Bolus group (6.7+2.03) compared to PCA group (5.83 + 2.38)](p=0.089). Patient satisfaction was statistically significant for the PCA group [PCA (1.65+0.709) compared to bolus group (2.23+0.920)](p=0.007). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in pain score reduction between PCA and intravenous bolus of morphine for the management of severe acute non traumatic abdominal pain in ED. However, PCA provided more patient satisfaction and should be considered as an alternative modality of acute pain management in ED.","PeriodicalId":13474,"journal":{"name":"IIUM Medical Journal Malaysia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IIUM Medical Journal Malaysia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31436/imjm.v22i3.1988","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

INTRODUCTION: Patient-Controlled Analgesia (PCA) is an intravenous selfadministration of small doses of opioids (such as morphine) using a programmable pump, The goal of PCA is to efficiently reduce patients’ pain at patient's preferred dose and schedule. Thus, we conducted a study to compare patient PCA morphine with intravenous bolus morphine for acute abdominal pain of non-traumatic origin in the emergency department (ED). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomised, non-blinded clinical trial was conducted in patients presented with severe acute non traumatic abdominal pain of less than 24 hours requiring opioid analgesic based on numerical pain score of more than seven at triage. The primary outcome was visual analogue pain score (VAS) recorded at 0, 30th, 60th and 120th minutes during the management in the ED and after admission to wards, and the secondary outcomes were total dosage of morphine used and degree of patient satisfaction. RESULTS: A total of 62 participants who fulfilled study criteria were randomized into PCA morphine group or bolus morphine group. The average amount of analgesic used for bolus morphine group was lower compared to PCA morphine (4.23 mg)(s.d 1.89 vs 5.29 mg)(s.d 2.16) (p=0.027). Despite of significant VAS score changes within group analysis, between group repeated measure ANOVA (RMA) VAS score analysis was not statistically significant. [Bolus group (6.7+2.03) compared to PCA group (5.83 + 2.38)](p=0.089). Patient satisfaction was statistically significant for the PCA group [PCA (1.65+0.709) compared to bolus group (2.23+0.920)](p=0.007). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in pain score reduction between PCA and intravenous bolus of morphine for the management of severe acute non traumatic abdominal pain in ED. However, PCA provided more patient satisfaction and should be considered as an alternative modality of acute pain management in ED.
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
急诊科病人自控镇痛治疗急性非外伤性腹痛的疗效观察
患者自控镇痛(PCA)是一种使用可编程泵的小剂量阿片类药物(如吗啡)的静脉自我给药,其目标是在患者喜欢的剂量和时间表下有效地减少患者的疼痛。因此,我们进行了一项比较急诊科(ED)非外伤性急性腹痛患者PCA吗啡与静脉注射吗啡的研究。材料和方法:一项随机、非盲临床试验在分诊时疼痛评分大于7分的严重急性非外伤性腹痛患者中进行,患者持续时间小于24小时,需要阿片类镇痛药。主要观察指标为患者在急诊科治疗期间及入院后0、30、60、120分钟的视觉模拟疼痛评分(VAS),次要观察指标为吗啡总用量及患者满意度。结果:符合研究标准的62例受试者被随机分为PCA吗啡组和大剂量吗啡组。大剂量吗啡组镇痛药平均用量低于PCA组(4.23 mg)(s)。1.89 vs 5.29 mg)(s。D 2.16) (p=0.027)。尽管组内VAS评分变化显著,但组间重复测量方差分析(RMA) VAS评分分析无统计学意义。[Bolus组(6.7+2.03)相比PCA组(5.83 + 2.38)](p=0.089)。PCA组患者满意度差异有统计学意义[PCA(1.65+0.709)比bolus组(2.23+0.920)](p=0.007)。结论:PCA与静脉注射吗啡治疗急症急性非创伤性腹痛的疼痛评分降低无显著差异。然而,PCA提供了更多的患者满意度,应考虑作为急症急性疼痛治疗的另一种方式。
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
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Post-traumatic, Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Symptoms among Malaysian Firefighters “You Know How People Talk,” Reasons Behind Child Marriage among Female Youth in The North-Eastern State of West Malaysia Holistic Management of Diabetic Foot: Redefining Strategy Microbiome Dysbiosis in Depression: A Narrative Review Effectiveness of Hypertonic Saline, Polidocanol, and Glycerol as Sclerosing Agent: An Experimental Study in Javan Rabbits (Lepus nigricollis)
×
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