Inhaled analgesics for the treatment of prehospital acute pain-A systematic review.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-26 DOI:10.1111/aas.14527
Per Kristian Hyldmo, Marius Rehn, Kristian Dahl Friesgaard, Leif Rognås, Lasse Raatiniemi, Jouni Kurola, Robert Larsen, Poul Kongstad, Mårten Sandberg, Vidar Magnusson, Gunn Elisabeth Vist
{"title":"Inhaled analgesics for the treatment of prehospital acute pain-A systematic review.","authors":"Per Kristian Hyldmo, Marius Rehn, Kristian Dahl Friesgaard, Leif Rognås, Lasse Raatiniemi, Jouni Kurola, Robert Larsen, Poul Kongstad, Mårten Sandberg, Vidar Magnusson, Gunn Elisabeth Vist","doi":"10.1111/aas.14527","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many prehospital emergency patients receive suboptimal treatment for their moderate to severe pain. Various factors may contribute. We aim to systematically review literature pertaining to prehospital emergency adult patients with acute pain and the pain-reducing effects, adverse events (AEs), and safety issues associated with inhaled analgetic agents compared with other prehospital analgesic agents.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>As part of an initiative from the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, we conducted a systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42018114399), applying the PRISMA guidelines, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE), and Cochrane methods, searching the Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, PubMed, and EMBASE databases (updated March 2024). Inclusion criteria were the use of inhaled analgesic agents in adult patients with acute pain in the prehospital emergency care setting. All steps were performed by minimum of two individual researchers. The primary outcome was pain reduction; secondary outcomes were speed of onset, duration of effect, and relevant AEs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included seven studies (56,535 patients in total) that compared inhaled agents (methoxyflurane [MF] and nitrous oxide [N<sub>2</sub>O]) to other drugs or placebo. Study designs were randomized controlled trial (1; n = 60), randomized non-blinded study (1; n = 343), and randomized open-label study (1; n = 270). The remaining were prospective or retrospective observational studies. The evidence according to GRADE was of low or very low quality. No combined meta-analysis was possible. N<sub>2</sub>O may reduce pain compared to placebo, but not compared to intravenous (IV) paracetamol, and may be less effective compared to morphine and MF. MF may reduce pain compared to paracetamol, ketoprofen, tramadol, and fentanyl. Both agents may be associated with marked but primarily mild AEs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We found low-quality evidence suggesting that both MF and N<sub>2</sub>O are safe and may have a role in the management of pain in the prehospital setting. There is low-quality evidence to support MF as a short-acting single analgesic or as a bridge to IV access and the administration of other analgesics. There may be occupational health issues regarding the prehospital use of N<sub>2</sub>O.</p>","PeriodicalId":6909,"journal":{"name":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","volume":" ","pages":"1306-1318"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.14527","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Many prehospital emergency patients receive suboptimal treatment for their moderate to severe pain. Various factors may contribute. We aim to systematically review literature pertaining to prehospital emergency adult patients with acute pain and the pain-reducing effects, adverse events (AEs), and safety issues associated with inhaled analgetic agents compared with other prehospital analgesic agents.

Methods: As part of an initiative from the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, we conducted a systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42018114399), applying the PRISMA guidelines, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE), and Cochrane methods, searching the Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, PubMed, and EMBASE databases (updated March 2024). Inclusion criteria were the use of inhaled analgesic agents in adult patients with acute pain in the prehospital emergency care setting. All steps were performed by minimum of two individual researchers. The primary outcome was pain reduction; secondary outcomes were speed of onset, duration of effect, and relevant AEs.

Results: We included seven studies (56,535 patients in total) that compared inhaled agents (methoxyflurane [MF] and nitrous oxide [N2O]) to other drugs or placebo. Study designs were randomized controlled trial (1; n = 60), randomized non-blinded study (1; n = 343), and randomized open-label study (1; n = 270). The remaining were prospective or retrospective observational studies. The evidence according to GRADE was of low or very low quality. No combined meta-analysis was possible. N2O may reduce pain compared to placebo, but not compared to intravenous (IV) paracetamol, and may be less effective compared to morphine and MF. MF may reduce pain compared to paracetamol, ketoprofen, tramadol, and fentanyl. Both agents may be associated with marked but primarily mild AEs.

Conclusion: We found low-quality evidence suggesting that both MF and N2O are safe and may have a role in the management of pain in the prehospital setting. There is low-quality evidence to support MF as a short-acting single analgesic or as a bridge to IV access and the administration of other analgesics. There may be occupational health issues regarding the prehospital use of N2O.

治疗院前急性疼痛的吸入镇痛剂--系统综述。
背景:许多院前急诊病人在中度至重度疼痛方面所接受的治疗效果并不理想。这可能是多种因素造成的。我们旨在系统回顾有关院前急救成人急性疼痛患者的文献,以及与其他院前镇痛剂相比,吸入镇痛剂的镇痛效果、不良事件(AEs)和安全性问题:作为斯堪的纳维亚麻醉和重症监护医学会倡议的一部分,我们应用 PRISMA 指南、建议评估、开发和评价分级 (GRADE) 以及 Cochrane 方法,检索了 Cochrane 图书馆、Epistemonikos、Centre for Reviews and Dissemination、PubMed 和 EMBASE 数据库(2024 年 3 月更新),进行了一项系统性综述(PROSPERO CRD42018114399)。纳入标准是在院前急救环境中对急性疼痛的成年患者使用吸入式镇痛剂。所有步骤至少由两名研究人员共同完成。主要结果是疼痛减轻;次要结果是起效速度、疗效持续时间和相关的 AEs:我们纳入了七项研究(共 56,535 名患者),这些研究将吸入剂(甲氧基氟烷 [MF] 和氧化亚氮 [N2O])与其他药物或安慰剂进行了比较。研究设计包括随机对照试验(1;n = 60)、随机非盲研究(1;n = 343)和随机开放标签研究(1;n = 270)。其余为前瞻性或回顾性观察研究。根据 GRADE,这些证据的质量较低或很低。无法进行综合荟萃分析。与安慰剂相比,一氧化二氮可减轻疼痛,但与静脉注射扑热息痛相比,一氧化二氮不能减轻疼痛。与扑热息痛、酮洛芬、曲马多和芬太尼相比,吗啡可减轻疼痛。两种药物都可能伴有明显但主要是轻微的不良反应:我们发现低质量的证据表明,MF 和 N2O 都是安全的,可在院前疼痛治疗中发挥作用。有低质量的证据支持将 MF 用作短效单一镇痛药或作为静脉注射和使用其他镇痛药的桥梁。院前使用一氧化二氮可能存在职业健康问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
9.50%
发文量
157
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica publishes papers on original work in the fields of anaesthesiology, intensive care, pain, emergency medicine, and subjects related to their basic sciences, on condition that they are contributed exclusively to this Journal. Case reports and short communications may be considered for publication if of particular interest; also letters to the Editor, especially if related to already published material. The editorial board is free to discuss the publication of reviews on current topics, the choice of which, however, is the prerogative of the board. Every effort will be made by the Editors and selected experts to expedite a critical review of manuscripts in order to ensure rapid publication of papers of a high scientific standard.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信