硬膜外氯普鲁卡因用于分娩镇痛期间突破性疼痛的有效性和安全性:前瞻性、双盲、随机试验。

IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Pain and Therapy Pub Date : 2024-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-01 DOI:10.1007/s40122-024-00577-7
Tianzhen Ji, Can Jiang, Hongxia Liu, Zhehao Cai, Rongrong Liu, Lei Xie, Cheng Xu
{"title":"硬膜外氯普鲁卡因用于分娩镇痛期间突破性疼痛的有效性和安全性:前瞻性、双盲、随机试验。","authors":"Tianzhen Ji, Can Jiang, Hongxia Liu, Zhehao Cai, Rongrong Liu, Lei Xie, Cheng Xu","doi":"10.1007/s40122-024-00577-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>A significant number of women who undergo neuraxial labor analgesia experience breakthrough pain. Prompt mitigation of breakthrough pain is essential to improve maternal and fetal outcomes. We evaluated epidural chloroprocaine compared with ropivacaine in alleviating labor breakthrough pain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial between May and July 2023. Eligible parturients received epidural analgesia with ropivacaine and sufentanil. Those with breakthrough pain were randomized to receive either 0.125% epidural ropivacaine (group R) or chloroprocaine at concentrations of 0.5% (group C1), 1.0% (group C2), or 1.5% (group C3), all in a volume of 6 mL. The primary outcome was the treatment success rate, indicated by a decrease of at least 4 points on the numerical rating scale pain score 9 min after analgesic injection. Secondary outcomes and adverse effects were also recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 323 patients receiving epidural analgesia, 192 experienced breakthrough pain. After exclusion of three patients because of protocol deviation, there were 47, 48, 47, and 47 patients in group R, C1, C2, and C3, respectively. Group C3 demonstrated a higher treatment success rate (39/47, 83.0%) in managing breakthrough pain than group R (26/47, 55.3%), group C1 (12/48, 25.0%), and group C2 (30/47, 63.8%) (p < 0.001). Group C3 had lower numerical rating scale scores at 6 and 9 min after injection and required fewer patient-controlled epidural boluses than other groups. In addition, group C3 reported greater satisfaction than the other groups (p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in obstetric or neonatal outcomes across these groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Parturients experiencing breakthrough pain could receive 1.5% epidural chloroprocaine, rather than lower chloroprocaine concentrations and ropivacaine, to achieve more rapid and better pain relief with higher patient satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2300071069, http://www.chictr.org.cn/index.aspx .</p>","PeriodicalId":19908,"journal":{"name":"Pain and Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"227-239"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10928033/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy and Safety of Epidural Chloroprocaine for Breakthrough Pain During Labor Analgesia: A Prospective, Double-Blind, Randomized Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Tianzhen Ji, Can Jiang, Hongxia Liu, Zhehao Cai, Rongrong Liu, Lei Xie, Cheng Xu\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40122-024-00577-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>A significant number of women who undergo neuraxial labor analgesia experience breakthrough pain. Prompt mitigation of breakthrough pain is essential to improve maternal and fetal outcomes. We evaluated epidural chloroprocaine compared with ropivacaine in alleviating labor breakthrough pain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial between May and July 2023. Eligible parturients received epidural analgesia with ropivacaine and sufentanil. Those with breakthrough pain were randomized to receive either 0.125% epidural ropivacaine (group R) or chloroprocaine at concentrations of 0.5% (group C1), 1.0% (group C2), or 1.5% (group C3), all in a volume of 6 mL. The primary outcome was the treatment success rate, indicated by a decrease of at least 4 points on the numerical rating scale pain score 9 min after analgesic injection. Secondary outcomes and adverse effects were also recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 323 patients receiving epidural analgesia, 192 experienced breakthrough pain. After exclusion of three patients because of protocol deviation, there were 47, 48, 47, and 47 patients in group R, C1, C2, and C3, respectively. Group C3 demonstrated a higher treatment success rate (39/47, 83.0%) in managing breakthrough pain than group R (26/47, 55.3%), group C1 (12/48, 25.0%), and group C2 (30/47, 63.8%) (p < 0.001). Group C3 had lower numerical rating scale scores at 6 and 9 min after injection and required fewer patient-controlled epidural boluses than other groups. In addition, group C3 reported greater satisfaction than the other groups (p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in obstetric or neonatal outcomes across these groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Parturients experiencing breakthrough pain could receive 1.5% epidural chloroprocaine, rather than lower chloroprocaine concentrations and ropivacaine, to achieve more rapid and better pain relief with higher patient satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2300071069, http://www.chictr.org.cn/index.aspx .</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19908,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pain and Therapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"227-239\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10928033/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pain and Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40122-024-00577-7\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain and Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40122-024-00577-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

介绍:在接受神经性分娩镇痛的产妇中,有相当多的人经历过突破性疼痛。及时缓解突破性疼痛对改善产妇和胎儿的预后至关重要。我们对硬膜外氯普鲁卡因与罗哌卡因在缓解分娩突破性疼痛方面的效果进行了评估:我们在 2023 年 5 月至 7 月期间进行了一项双盲随机对照临床试验。符合条件的产妇接受了罗哌卡因和舒芬太尼硬膜外镇痛。出现突破性疼痛的患者被随机分配接受 0.125% 硬膜外罗哌卡因(R 组)或浓度为 0.5%(C1 组)、1.0%(C2 组)或 1.5% (C3 组)的氯普鲁卡因,所有药物的容量均为 6 毫升。主要结果是治疗成功率,即在注射镇痛剂 9 分钟后,数字评分表疼痛评分下降至少 4 分。此外,还记录了次要结果和不良反应:在接受硬膜外镇痛的 323 名患者中,有 192 人出现了突破性疼痛。因方案偏差而排除了三名患者后,R、C1、C2 和 C3 组分别有 47、48、47 和 47 名患者。与 R 组(26/47,55.3%)、C1 组(12/48,25.0%)和 C2 组(30/47,63.8%)相比,C3 组在控制突破性疼痛方面的治疗成功率更高(39/47,83.0%)(P 结论:R、C1、C2 和 C3 组在控制突破性疼痛方面的治疗成功率更高:出现突破性疼痛的产妇可以接受1.5%的硬膜外氯普鲁卡因,而不是较低浓度的氯普鲁卡因和罗哌卡因,以达到更快、更好的止痛效果和更高的患者满意度:中国临床试验注册中心,ChiCTR2300071069,http://www.chictr.org.cn/index.aspx 。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Efficacy and Safety of Epidural Chloroprocaine for Breakthrough Pain During Labor Analgesia: A Prospective, Double-Blind, Randomized Trial.

Introduction: A significant number of women who undergo neuraxial labor analgesia experience breakthrough pain. Prompt mitigation of breakthrough pain is essential to improve maternal and fetal outcomes. We evaluated epidural chloroprocaine compared with ropivacaine in alleviating labor breakthrough pain.

Methods: We performed a double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial between May and July 2023. Eligible parturients received epidural analgesia with ropivacaine and sufentanil. Those with breakthrough pain were randomized to receive either 0.125% epidural ropivacaine (group R) or chloroprocaine at concentrations of 0.5% (group C1), 1.0% (group C2), or 1.5% (group C3), all in a volume of 6 mL. The primary outcome was the treatment success rate, indicated by a decrease of at least 4 points on the numerical rating scale pain score 9 min after analgesic injection. Secondary outcomes and adverse effects were also recorded.

Results: Out of 323 patients receiving epidural analgesia, 192 experienced breakthrough pain. After exclusion of three patients because of protocol deviation, there were 47, 48, 47, and 47 patients in group R, C1, C2, and C3, respectively. Group C3 demonstrated a higher treatment success rate (39/47, 83.0%) in managing breakthrough pain than group R (26/47, 55.3%), group C1 (12/48, 25.0%), and group C2 (30/47, 63.8%) (p < 0.001). Group C3 had lower numerical rating scale scores at 6 and 9 min after injection and required fewer patient-controlled epidural boluses than other groups. In addition, group C3 reported greater satisfaction than the other groups (p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in obstetric or neonatal outcomes across these groups.

Conclusion: Parturients experiencing breakthrough pain could receive 1.5% epidural chloroprocaine, rather than lower chloroprocaine concentrations and ropivacaine, to achieve more rapid and better pain relief with higher patient satisfaction.

Trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2300071069, http://www.chictr.org.cn/index.aspx .

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pain and Therapy
Pain and Therapy CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
5.00%
发文量
110
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Pain and Therapy is an international, open access, peer-reviewed, rapid publication journal dedicated to the publication of high-quality clinical (all phases), observational, real-world, and health outcomes research around the discovery, development, and use of pain therapies and pain-related devices. Studies relating to diagnosis, pharmacoeconomics, public health, quality of life, and patient care, management, and education are also encouraged. Areas of focus include, but are not limited to, acute pain, cancer pain, chronic pain, headache and migraine, neuropathic pain, opioids, palliative care and pain ethics, peri- and post-operative pain as well as rheumatic pain and fibromyalgia. The journal is of interest to a broad audience of pharmaceutical and healthcare professionals and publishes original research, reviews, case reports, trial protocols, short communications such as commentaries and editorials, and letters. The journal is read by a global audience and receives submissions from around the world. Pain and Therapy will consider all scientifically sound research be it positive, confirmatory or negative data. Submissions are welcomed whether they relate to an international and/or a country-specific audience, something that is crucially important when researchers are trying to target more specific patient populations. This inclusive approach allows the journal to assist in the dissemination of all scientifically and ethically sound research.
期刊最新文献
Efficacy and Safety of Different Preemptive Analgesia Measures in Pain Management after Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Lumbar Sympathetic Block to Treat CRPS in an 18-Month-Old Girl: A Breaking Barriers Case Report and Review of Literature. The Impact of Different Regional Anesthesia Techniques on the Incidence of Chronic Post-surgical Pain in Patients Undergoing Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery: A Network Meta-analysis. Methadone Conversion Using a 3-Day Switch Strategy in Patients with Cancer on High-Dose Opioids: A Retrospective Study. Present and Future of Pharmacological Management for Acute Moderate-to-Severe Postoperative, Traumatic, or Musculoskeletal Pain in Europe: A Narrative Review.
×
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