首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Pain Research >Comparative effectiveness analysis of two regional analgesia techniques for the pain management of isolated multiple rib fractures
【24h】

Comparative effectiveness analysis of two regional analgesia techniques for the pain management of isolated multiple rib fractures

机译:两种局部止痛技术对孤立性多发肋骨骨折疼痛处理的比较效果分析

获取原文
           

摘要

Background: Catheter-based regional analgesia has been proposed as an alternative to systemic analgesia for patients with multiple rib fractures (MRF). This study sought to compare the efficacy of regional techniques for decreasing pain and improving clinical outcomes. Study design: This was a multi-institutional, retrospective cohort study of adult (≥18 years) patients admitted to four nonacademic trauma centers over two years (from 07/1/2014 to 06/30/2016). Study inclusion was MRF (≥3 fractures) with no other severe injuries. Two primary regional analgesia techniques were utilized and compared: continuous intercostal nerve blocks (CINB) and epidural (EPI) analgesia. The primary outcome, average pain scores on treatment, was examined using a repeated measures, linear regression mixed model. Secondary outcomes included hospital LOS, ICU LOS, ICU admission and hospital readmission, pulmonary complications, and incentive spirometry volumes during treatment, and were examined with univariate statistics. Results: There were 339 patients with isolated MRF; 85 (25%) required regional analgesia (CINB, n=41; EPI, n=44) and the remaining 75% received systemic analgesia only (IV, n=195; PO, n=59). There were demographic and clinical differences between regional analgesia and systemic analgesia groups; on the contrary, there were no demographic or clinical differences between the CINB and EPI groups. Adjusted pain scores were similar for the EPI and CINB groups (4.0 vs 4.4, p =0.49). Secondary outcomes were worse in the EPI group compared to the CINB group: less improvement in incentive spirometry volume ( p =0.004), longer ICU LOS ( p =0.03), longer hospital LOS ( p 0.001), and more ICU admission ( p 0.001). Conclusion: In patients requiring regional analgesia, pain management was equivalent with CINB and EPI, but CINB was associated with significantly better clinical outcomes. CINB might offer an efficient alternative for pain control in patients with MRF.
机译:背景:对于多肋骨骨折(MRF)的患者,基于导管的区域镇痛已被建议作为全身镇痛的替代方法。这项研究试图比较区域性技术减轻疼痛和改善临床结果的功效。研究设计:这是一项多机构,回顾性队列研究,研究对象是在两年内(从2014年7月1日至2016年6月30日)入住四个非学术创伤中心的成年(≥18岁)患者。研究纳入的是MRF(≥3骨折),没有其他严重伤害。使用和比较了两种主要的区域镇痛技术:连续肋间神经阻滞(CINB)和硬膜外(EPI)镇痛。使用重复测量,线性回归混合模型检查主要结果,即治疗时的平均疼痛评分。次要结局包括住院期间LOS,ICU LOS,ICU入院和医院再入院,肺部并发症以及治疗期间的激励肺活量,并采用单变量统计数据进行检查。结果:339例孤立的MRF患者。 85(25%)位患者需要局部镇痛(CINB,n = 41; EPI,n = 44),其余75​​%仅接受全身性镇痛(IV,n = 195; PO,n = 59)。局部镇痛组和全身镇痛组之间在人口统计学和临床​​上存在差异。相反,CINB和EPI组之间在人口统计学或临床上没有差异。 EPI和CINB组的调整后疼痛评分相似(4.0对4.4,p = 0.49)。与CINB组相比,EPI组的次要结局更差:激励肺活量的改善较少(p = 0.004),ICU LOS较长(p = 0.03),住院LOS较长(p <0.001)和ICU入院较多(p <0.001)。结论:在需要局部镇痛的患者中,疼痛处理与CINB和EPI等效,但是CINB与明显更好的临床结局相关。 CINB可能为MRF患者的疼痛控制提供有效的替代方法。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号