首页> 外文期刊>JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association >Anesthesia-assisted vs buprenorphine- or clonidine-assisted heroin detoxification and naltrexone induction: a randomized trial.
【24h】

Anesthesia-assisted vs buprenorphine- or clonidine-assisted heroin detoxification and naltrexone induction: a randomized trial.

机译:麻醉辅助与丁丙诺啡或可乐定辅助的海洛因排毒和纳曲酮诱导:一项随机试验。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

CONTEXT: Rapid opioid detoxification with opioid antagonist induction using general anesthesia has emerged as an expensive, potentially dangerous, unproven approach to treat opioid dependence. OBJECTIVE: To determine how anesthesia-assisted detoxification with rapid antagonist induction for heroin dependence compared with 2 alternative detoxification and antagonist induction methods. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A total of 106 treatment-seeking heroin-dependent patients, aged 21 through 50 years, were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 inpatient withdrawal treatments over 72 hours followed by 12 weeks of outpatient naltrexone maintenance with relapse prevention psychotherapy. This randomized trial was conducted between 2000 and 2003 at Columbia University Medical Center's Clinical Research Center. Outpatient treatment occurred at the Columbia University research service for substance use disorders. Patients were included if they had an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of I or II, were without major comorbid psychiatric illness, and were not dependent on other drugs or alcohol. INTERVENTIONS: Anesthesia-assisted rapid opioid detoxification with naltrexone induction, buprenorphine-assisted rapid opioid detoxification with naltrexone induction, and clonidine-assisted opioid detoxification with delayed naltrexone induction. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Withdrawal severity scores on objective and subjective scales; proportions of patients receiving naltrexone, completing inpatient detoxification, and retained in treatment; proportion of opioid-positive urine specimens. RESULTS: Mean withdrawal severities were comparable across the 3 treatments. Compared with clonidine-assisted detoxification, the anesthesia- and buprenorphine-assisted detoxification interventions had significantly greater rates of naltrexone induction (94% anesthesia, 97% buprenorphine, and 21% clonidine), but the groups did not differ in rates of completion of inpatient detoxification. Treatment retention over 12 weeks was not significantly different among groups with 7 of 35 (20%) retained in the anesthesia-assisted group, 9 of 37 (24%) in the buprenorphine-assisted group, and 3 of 34 (9%) in the clonidine-assisted group. Induction with 50 mg of naltrexone significantly reduced the risk of dropping out (odds ratio, 0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.15-0.51). There were no significant group differences in proportions of opioid-positive urine specimens. The anesthesia procedure was associated with 3 potentially life-threatening adverse events. CONCLUSION: These data do not support the use of general anesthesia for heroin detoxification and rapid opioid antagonist induction.
机译:背景:使用全麻快速诱导类阿片拮抗剂排毒已成为治疗阿片类药物依赖的昂贵,潜在危险,未经证实的方法。目的:确定与两种替代性排毒和拮抗剂诱导方法相比,快速拮抗剂诱导对海洛因依赖的麻醉辅助排毒方法。设计,地点和患者:共有106名寻求治疗的海洛因依赖患者,年龄21至50岁,在72小时内被随机分配到3种住院戒断治疗中的1种,随后进行了12周的门诊纳曲酮维持治疗以及预防复发的心理治疗。这项随机试验于2000年至2003年之间在哥伦比亚大学医学中心的临床研究中心进行。哥伦比亚大学研究服务部门针对药物滥用症进行了门诊治疗。如果患者的美国或美国麻醉医师学会的身体状况为I或II,没有严重的合并性精神疾病,并且不依赖其他药物或酒精,则将其包括在内。干预措施:麻醉诱导的阿片类药物快速排毒与纳曲酮诱导;丁丙诺啡辅助的阿片类药物快速排毒与纳曲酮诱导;可乐定辅助的阿片类药物排毒与延迟的纳曲酮诱导作用。主要观察指标:客观和主观上的戒断严重程度评分;接受纳曲酮,完成住院排毒并保留治疗的患者比例;阿片类药物阳性尿样的比例。结果:3种治疗方法的平均戒断严重程度相当。与可乐定辅助的排毒相比,麻醉和丁丙诺啡辅助的排毒干预措施具有更高的纳曲酮诱导率(94%麻醉,97%丁丙诺啡和21%可乐定),但两组的住院完成率没有差异排毒。各组在12周内的治疗保留率无显着差异,麻醉辅助组中35例中有7例(20%),丁丙诺啡辅助组中37例中有9例(24%),34例中34例中有3例(9%)。可乐定辅助组。 50 mg纳曲酮的诱导显着降低了辍学的风险(赔率,0.28; 95%置信区间,0.15-0.51)。阿片类药物阳性尿液样本的比例没有显着的群体差异。麻醉过程与3种可能危及生命的不良事件有关。结论:这些数据不支持全身麻醉用于海洛因排毒和快速阿片样物质拮抗剂诱导。

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