胸腔硬膜外导管与持续外周输液治疗创伤性肋骨骨折疼痛的比较。

Robel T Beyene,Marshall W Wallace,Nicholas Statzer,Susan E Hamblin,Edward Woo,Scott D Nelson,Brian F S Allen,Matthew D McEvoy,Derek A Riffert,Amber N Wesoloski,Fei Ye,Rebecca Irlmeier,Michele Fiorentino,Bradley M Dennis
{"title":"胸腔硬膜外导管与持续外周输液治疗创伤性肋骨骨折疼痛的比较。","authors":"Robel T Beyene,Marshall W Wallace,Nicholas Statzer,Susan E Hamblin,Edward Woo,Scott D Nelson,Brian F S Allen,Matthew D McEvoy,Derek A Riffert,Amber N Wesoloski,Fei Ye,Rebecca Irlmeier,Michele Fiorentino,Bradley M Dennis","doi":"10.1097/ta.0000000000004445","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nThoracic epidural catheters (TECs) are useful adjuncts to multimodal pain regimens in traumatic rib fractures. However, TEC placement is limited by contraindications, patient risk profile, and provider availability. Continuous peripheral infusion of ketamine and/or lidocaine is an alternative that has a modest risk profile and few contraindications. We hypothesized that patients with multiple traumatic rib fractures receiving TECs would have better pain control, in terms of daily morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) and mean pain scores (MPSs) when compared with continuous peripheral infusions of ketamine and/or lidocaine.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nWe retrospectively analyzed traumatic rib fracture admissions to a level 1 trauma center between January 2018 and December 2020. We evaluated two treatment groups: TEC only and continuous infusion only (drip only). A linear mixed-effects model evaluated the association of MME with treatment group. An interaction term of treatment group by time (days 1-7) was included to allow estimating potential time-dependent treatment effect on MME. A zero-inflated Poisson mixed-effects model evaluated the association of treatment with MPS. Both models adjusted for confounders.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nA total of 1,647 patients were included. After multivariable analysis, a significant, time-varying dose-response relationship between treatment group and MME was found, indicating an opioid-sparing effect favoring the TEC-only group. The opioid-sparing benefit for TEC-only therapy was most prominent at day 3 (27.4 vs 36.5 MME) and day 4 (27.3 vs 36.2 MME) (p < 0.01). The drip-only group had 1.21 times greater MPS than patients with TEC only (p < 0.001).\r\n\r\nCONCLUSION\r\nDrip-only analgesia is associated with higher daily MME use and MPS, compared with TEC only. The maximal benefit of TEC therapy appears to be on days 3 and 4. Prospective, randomized comparison between groups is necessary to evaluate the magnitude of the treatment effect.\r\n\r\nLEVEL OF EVIDENCE\r\nTherapeutic/Care Management; Level III.","PeriodicalId":501845,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of thoracic epidural catheter and continuous peripheral infusion for management of traumatic rib fracture pain.\",\"authors\":\"Robel T Beyene,Marshall W Wallace,Nicholas Statzer,Susan E Hamblin,Edward Woo,Scott D Nelson,Brian F S Allen,Matthew D McEvoy,Derek A Riffert,Amber N Wesoloski,Fei Ye,Rebecca Irlmeier,Michele Fiorentino,Bradley M Dennis\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/ta.0000000000004445\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\r\\nThoracic epidural catheters (TECs) are useful adjuncts to multimodal pain regimens in traumatic rib fractures. However, TEC placement is limited by contraindications, patient risk profile, and provider availability. Continuous peripheral infusion of ketamine and/or lidocaine is an alternative that has a modest risk profile and few contraindications. We hypothesized that patients with multiple traumatic rib fractures receiving TECs would have better pain control, in terms of daily morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) and mean pain scores (MPSs) when compared with continuous peripheral infusions of ketamine and/or lidocaine.\\r\\n\\r\\nMETHODS\\r\\nWe retrospectively analyzed traumatic rib fracture admissions to a level 1 trauma center between January 2018 and December 2020. We evaluated two treatment groups: TEC only and continuous infusion only (drip only). A linear mixed-effects model evaluated the association of MME with treatment group. An interaction term of treatment group by time (days 1-7) was included to allow estimating potential time-dependent treatment effect on MME. A zero-inflated Poisson mixed-effects model evaluated the association of treatment with MPS. Both models adjusted for confounders.\\r\\n\\r\\nRESULTS\\r\\nA total of 1,647 patients were included. After multivariable analysis, a significant, time-varying dose-response relationship between treatment group and MME was found, indicating an opioid-sparing effect favoring the TEC-only group. The opioid-sparing benefit for TEC-only therapy was most prominent at day 3 (27.4 vs 36.5 MME) and day 4 (27.3 vs 36.2 MME) (p < 0.01). The drip-only group had 1.21 times greater MPS than patients with TEC only (p < 0.001).\\r\\n\\r\\nCONCLUSION\\r\\nDrip-only analgesia is associated with higher daily MME use and MPS, compared with TEC only. The maximal benefit of TEC therapy appears to be on days 3 and 4. Prospective, randomized comparison between groups is necessary to evaluate the magnitude of the treatment effect.\\r\\n\\r\\nLEVEL OF EVIDENCE\\r\\nTherapeutic/Care Management; Level III.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501845,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/ta.0000000000004445\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ta.0000000000004445","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景胸部硬膜外导管(TEC)是创伤性肋骨骨折患者多模式止痛疗法的有效辅助手段。然而,TEC 置入受到禁忌症、患者风险状况和医疗服务提供者可用性的限制。氯胺酮和/或利多卡因持续外周输注是一种风险较低、禁忌症较少的替代方法。我们假设,与持续外周输注氯胺酮和/或利多卡因相比,接受 TEC 的多发性创伤性肋骨骨折患者在每日吗啡毫克当量(MME)和平均疼痛评分(MPS)方面的疼痛控制效果会更好。方法我们回顾性分析了 2018 年 1 月至 2020 年 12 月期间一级创伤中心收治的创伤性肋骨骨折患者。我们评估了两个治疗组:仅 TEC 组和仅持续输注组(仅滴注组)。线性混合效应模型评估了 MME 与治疗组的关系。模型中加入了治疗组与时间(第 1-7 天)的交互项,以估计治疗对 MME 的潜在时间依赖效应。零膨胀泊松混合效应模型评估了治疗与 MPS 的关系。结果共纳入 1647 名患者。经过多变量分析,发现治疗组与 MME 之间存在显著的剂量-时间变化反应关系,表明仅使用 TEC 组具有阿片类药物节省效应。仅使用 TEC 治疗的阿片类药物节省效应在第 3 天(27.4 MME 对 36.5 MME)和第 4 天(27.3 MME 对 36.2 MME)最为突出(p < 0.01)。结论与仅使用 TEC 相比,仅使用滴注镇痛与较高的每日 MME 使用量和 MPS 相关。TEC疗法的最大益处似乎出现在第3天和第4天。有必要进行前瞻性的随机分组比较,以评估治疗效果的大小。
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 thoracic epidural catheter and continuous peripheral infusion for management of traumatic rib fracture pain.
BACKGROUND Thoracic epidural catheters (TECs) are useful adjuncts to multimodal pain regimens in traumatic rib fractures. However, TEC placement is limited by contraindications, patient risk profile, and provider availability. Continuous peripheral infusion of ketamine and/or lidocaine is an alternative that has a modest risk profile and few contraindications. We hypothesized that patients with multiple traumatic rib fractures receiving TECs would have better pain control, in terms of daily morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) and mean pain scores (MPSs) when compared with continuous peripheral infusions of ketamine and/or lidocaine. METHODS We retrospectively analyzed traumatic rib fracture admissions to a level 1 trauma center between January 2018 and December 2020. We evaluated two treatment groups: TEC only and continuous infusion only (drip only). A linear mixed-effects model evaluated the association of MME with treatment group. An interaction term of treatment group by time (days 1-7) was included to allow estimating potential time-dependent treatment effect on MME. A zero-inflated Poisson mixed-effects model evaluated the association of treatment with MPS. Both models adjusted for confounders. RESULTS A total of 1,647 patients were included. After multivariable analysis, a significant, time-varying dose-response relationship between treatment group and MME was found, indicating an opioid-sparing effect favoring the TEC-only group. The opioid-sparing benefit for TEC-only therapy was most prominent at day 3 (27.4 vs 36.5 MME) and day 4 (27.3 vs 36.2 MME) (p < 0.01). The drip-only group had 1.21 times greater MPS than patients with TEC only (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION Drip-only analgesia is associated with higher daily MME use and MPS, compared with TEC only. The maximal benefit of TEC therapy appears to be on days 3 and 4. Prospective, randomized comparison between groups is necessary to evaluate the magnitude of the treatment effect. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Comparison of thoracic epidural catheter and continuous peripheral infusion for management of traumatic rib fracture pain. Bleeding control methods for kids: A pediatric approach to the national education campaign-a pilot program. Real-time attending trauma surgeon assessment of direct-to-operating room trauma resuscitations: Results from a prospective observational study. Whole blood to total transfusion volume ratio in injured children: A national database analysis. Contemporary Diagnosis and Management of Mild TBI (Concussions): What You Need to Know.
×
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