甲状腺和甲状旁腺手术中不含阿片类药物和含阿片类药物异丙酚麻醉的比较

IF 7.5 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY Anaesthesia Pub Date : 2024-09-17 DOI:10.1111/anae.16435
Fang Chen, Xiaocou Wang, Chuanhui Xie
{"title":"甲状腺和甲状旁腺手术中不含阿片类药物和含阿片类药物异丙酚麻醉的比较","authors":"Fang Chen, Xiaocou Wang, Chuanhui Xie","doi":"10.1111/anae.16435","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>We read with great interest the article by Wang et al. [<span>1</span>]. They concluded that opioid-free propofol anaesthesia reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing thyroid and parathyroid surgery. However, we have several concerns about this trial.</p>\n<p>The primary outcome of this study was the incidence of PONV, defined as a composite outcome that encompasses the rates of nausea, retching and vomiting within the first 48 h postoperatively. However, in the results section, the individual occurrences of nausea, retching and vomiting are not documented separately. This composite outcome may lead to an overestimation of the impact of the intervention on specific outcomes.</p>\n<p>The analysis of the severity of PONV as a secondary outcome indicates that significant differences in PONV rates within the first 24 h postoperatively are limited to mild symptoms, with no statistically significant differences observed for moderate or severe PONV after adjustment. The analyses for both the post-anaesthesia care unit and the 24–48 h postoperative PONV show that only mild levels of nausea and vomiting were present, with no statistical significance between the two groups. The classification of the composite outcome into simple categories of mild, moderate and severe does not facilitate precise analyses of the results. Previous studies have developed optimised assessment scales to evaluate patients' subjective experiences of PONV, revealing that only 1 in 5 patients with PONV display significant clinical relevance [<span>2, 3</span>]. In the present study, a total of 57 instances of PONV were recorded in the first 48 h postoperatively, with only 20 patients requiring anti-emetics and just six reporting severe symptoms. The primary differences in PONV between groups were noted in the mild category; however, this cohort likely experienced minimal subjective discomfort and may not be classified as having clinically significant PONV.</p>\n<p>The implementation of a completely opioid-free strategy necessitates a significant increase in the doses of alternative intra-operative medications, such as ketamine or dexmedetomidine, potentially leading to more adverse effects. In this study, patients allocated to the opioid-free group experienced an increased incidence of nightmares or hallucinations and extended tracheal extubation times. Completely avoiding opioids does not convey any inherent advantages and may be associated with adverse effects and increased resource utilisation [<span>4</span>]. For instance, the anaesthesia protocol for the opioid-free group appears to have utilised a greater amount of propofol (740 mg vs. 690 mg). Conversely, patients in the opioid-inclusive anaesthesia group received higher than standard doses of sufentanil, placing them at a greater risk for postoperative opioid-related adverse side effects [<span>5</span>].</p>","PeriodicalId":7742,"journal":{"name":"Anaesthesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of opioid-free and opioid-inclusive propofol anaesthesia for thyroid and parathyroid surgery\",\"authors\":\"Fang Chen, Xiaocou Wang, Chuanhui Xie\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/anae.16435\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>We read with great interest the article by Wang et al. [<span>1</span>]. They concluded that opioid-free propofol anaesthesia reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing thyroid and parathyroid surgery. However, we have several concerns about this trial.</p>\\n<p>The primary outcome of this study was the incidence of PONV, defined as a composite outcome that encompasses the rates of nausea, retching and vomiting within the first 48 h postoperatively. However, in the results section, the individual occurrences of nausea, retching and vomiting are not documented separately. This composite outcome may lead to an overestimation of the impact of the intervention on specific outcomes.</p>\\n<p>The analysis of the severity of PONV as a secondary outcome indicates that significant differences in PONV rates within the first 24 h postoperatively are limited to mild symptoms, with no statistically significant differences observed for moderate or severe PONV after adjustment. The analyses for both the post-anaesthesia care unit and the 24–48 h postoperative PONV show that only mild levels of nausea and vomiting were present, with no statistical significance between the two groups. The classification of the composite outcome into simple categories of mild, moderate and severe does not facilitate precise analyses of the results. Previous studies have developed optimised assessment scales to evaluate patients' subjective experiences of PONV, revealing that only 1 in 5 patients with PONV display significant clinical relevance [<span>2, 3</span>]. In the present study, a total of 57 instances of PONV were recorded in the first 48 h postoperatively, with only 20 patients requiring anti-emetics and just six reporting severe symptoms. The primary differences in PONV between groups were noted in the mild category; however, this cohort likely experienced minimal subjective discomfort and may not be classified as having clinically significant PONV.</p>\\n<p>The implementation of a completely opioid-free strategy necessitates a significant increase in the doses of alternative intra-operative medications, such as ketamine or dexmedetomidine, potentially leading to more adverse effects. In this study, patients allocated to the opioid-free group experienced an increased incidence of nightmares or hallucinations and extended tracheal extubation times. Completely avoiding opioids does not convey any inherent advantages and may be associated with adverse effects and increased resource utilisation [<span>4</span>]. For instance, the anaesthesia protocol for the opioid-free group appears to have utilised a greater amount of propofol (740 mg vs. 690 mg). Conversely, patients in the opioid-inclusive anaesthesia group received higher than standard doses of sufentanil, placing them at a greater risk for postoperative opioid-related adverse side effects [<span>5</span>].</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7742,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anaesthesia\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anaesthesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.16435\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.16435","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们饶有兴趣地阅读了 Wang 等人的文章[1]。他们认为,无阿片类药物的异丙酚麻醉可减少甲状腺和甲状旁腺手术患者的术后恶心和呕吐(PONV)。这项研究的主要结果是 PONV 发生率,即术后 48 小时内恶心、反胃和呕吐的综合结果。然而,在结果部分,恶心、反胃和呕吐的发生率并未单独记录。作为次要结果,对 PONV 严重程度的分析表明,术后 24 小时内 PONV 发生率的显著差异仅限于轻度症状,经调整后,中度或重度 PONV 的差异无统计学意义。对麻醉后护理单元和术后 24-48 小时 PONV 的分析表明,只有轻度恶心和呕吐,两组之间没有统计学意义。将综合结果简单分为轻度、中度和重度不利于对结果进行精确分析。以往的研究已制定了优化的评估量表来评估患者对 PONV 的主观感受,结果显示只有五分之一的 PONV 患者显示出显著的临床相关性[2, 3]。在本研究中,术后 48 小时内共记录到 57 例 PONV,其中只有 20 例患者需要止吐,6 例患者症状严重。各组间 PONV 的主要差异出现在轻度组;不过,这组患者的主观不适感可能极小,因此可能不会被归类为临床上严重的 PONV。在这项研究中,分配到无阿片类药物组的患者噩梦或幻觉发生率增加,气管插管时间延长。完全避免使用阿片类药物并不会带来任何固有的优势,反而可能会带来不良反应并增加资源利用率[4]。例如,无阿片类药物组的麻醉方案似乎使用了更多的异丙酚(740 毫克对 690 毫克)。相反,含阿片类药物麻醉组患者接受的舒芬太尼剂量高于标准剂量,使他们术后出现阿片类药物相关不良副作用的风险更高[5]。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparison of opioid-free and opioid-inclusive propofol anaesthesia for thyroid and parathyroid surgery

We read with great interest the article by Wang et al. [1]. They concluded that opioid-free propofol anaesthesia reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in patients undergoing thyroid and parathyroid surgery. However, we have several concerns about this trial.

The primary outcome of this study was the incidence of PONV, defined as a composite outcome that encompasses the rates of nausea, retching and vomiting within the first 48 h postoperatively. However, in the results section, the individual occurrences of nausea, retching and vomiting are not documented separately. This composite outcome may lead to an overestimation of the impact of the intervention on specific outcomes.

The analysis of the severity of PONV as a secondary outcome indicates that significant differences in PONV rates within the first 24 h postoperatively are limited to mild symptoms, with no statistically significant differences observed for moderate or severe PONV after adjustment. The analyses for both the post-anaesthesia care unit and the 24–48 h postoperative PONV show that only mild levels of nausea and vomiting were present, with no statistical significance between the two groups. The classification of the composite outcome into simple categories of mild, moderate and severe does not facilitate precise analyses of the results. Previous studies have developed optimised assessment scales to evaluate patients' subjective experiences of PONV, revealing that only 1 in 5 patients with PONV display significant clinical relevance [2, 3]. In the present study, a total of 57 instances of PONV were recorded in the first 48 h postoperatively, with only 20 patients requiring anti-emetics and just six reporting severe symptoms. The primary differences in PONV between groups were noted in the mild category; however, this cohort likely experienced minimal subjective discomfort and may not be classified as having clinically significant PONV.

The implementation of a completely opioid-free strategy necessitates a significant increase in the doses of alternative intra-operative medications, such as ketamine or dexmedetomidine, potentially leading to more adverse effects. In this study, patients allocated to the opioid-free group experienced an increased incidence of nightmares or hallucinations and extended tracheal extubation times. Completely avoiding opioids does not convey any inherent advantages and may be associated with adverse effects and increased resource utilisation [4]. For instance, the anaesthesia protocol for the opioid-free group appears to have utilised a greater amount of propofol (740 mg vs. 690 mg). Conversely, patients in the opioid-inclusive anaesthesia group received higher than standard doses of sufentanil, placing them at a greater risk for postoperative opioid-related adverse side effects [5].

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
Anaesthesia
Anaesthesia 医学-麻醉学
CiteScore
21.20
自引率
9.30%
发文量
300
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The official journal of the Association of Anaesthetists is Anaesthesia. It is a comprehensive international publication that covers a wide range of topics. The journal focuses on general and regional anaesthesia, as well as intensive care and pain therapy. It includes original articles that have undergone peer review, covering all aspects of these fields, including research on equipment.
期刊最新文献
Increasing multimorbidity and the evolving peri-operative model of care. Simulated altitude for prehabilitation: alternatives await in less rarified air. Consensus on decommissioning piped nitrous oxide from UK and Ireland operating theatre suites: a rational approach to an increasingly ignoble gas. Effect of time of day on outcomes in elective surgery: a systematic review. Evaluation of the i-gel® Plus supraglottic airway device in elective surgery: a prospective international multicentre 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