Acupuncture in the emergency department (ACUITY): Results from a BraveNet multi-center feasibility randomized controlled trial

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q2 INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE
Jeffery A. Dusek , Gene A. Kallenberg , Alan B. Storrow , Robert M. Hughes , Christopher J. Coyne , David R. Vago , Arya Nielsen , Alison Karasz , Ryung S. Kim , Jessica Surdam , Tracy Segall , Kiran A. Faryar , Natalie L. Dyer , Bruce A. Barton , M. Diane McKee
{"title":"Acupuncture in the emergency department (ACUITY): Results from a BraveNet multi-center feasibility randomized controlled trial","authors":"Jeffery A. Dusek ,&nbsp;Gene A. Kallenberg ,&nbsp;Alan B. Storrow ,&nbsp;Robert M. Hughes ,&nbsp;Christopher J. Coyne ,&nbsp;David R. Vago ,&nbsp;Arya Nielsen ,&nbsp;Alison Karasz ,&nbsp;Ryung S. Kim ,&nbsp;Jessica Surdam ,&nbsp;Tracy Segall ,&nbsp;Kiran A. Faryar ,&nbsp;Natalie L. Dyer ,&nbsp;Bruce A. Barton ,&nbsp;M. Diane McKee","doi":"10.1016/j.imr.2024.101095","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Pain plays a significant role in emergency department (ED) visits, however safe and effective nonpharmacologic options are needed. Prior studies of acupuncture in the ED reported pain reduction with minimal side effects, but most were small and single site.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted ACUITY, a prospectively designed multi-center feasibility RCT. Our goal was to recruit 165 adults with acute non-emergent pain ≥4 on a 0–10-point scale at three EDs affiliated with BraveNet Practice Based Research Network. At baseline and 45–60 min later (post), participants self-assessed their pain and anxiety using a 0–10 rating scale. The primary feasibility outcome was recruitment of participants, whereas secondary outcomes were retention, and participant/provider acceptability.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>From May 3, 2021, to September 24, 2022, 632 eligible individuals were approached and 165 enrolled (165/632: 26.1 %), meeting our recruitment goal. Notably, 42.4 % of enrollees were Black/African American, 42.4 % were White/Caucasian, and 13.9 % were Hispanic/Latino. Participants were randomized to Acupuncture (<em>n</em> = 83) or Usual care (<em>n</em> = 82), of which 151 (91.5 %) and 128 (77.6 %) provided pain and anxiety scores at post-treatment and 1-week respectively. Acupuncture was rated acceptable to participants and providers. Mean pain ratings (pre-to-post) were 7.4 (2.2) to 4.8 (2.8) for acupuncture and 7.1 (2.3) to 6.4 (2.5) for usual care. Mean anxiety ratings (pre-to-post) were 4.5 (3.4) to 2.5 (2.6) for acupuncture and 4.1 (3.4) to 3.5 (3.2) for usual care.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Successful completion of ACUITY indicates we have the expertise and preliminary data to conduct a future definitive, multi-center RCT.</div></div><div><h3>Trial registration: Clinical trials.gov</h3><div>NCT04880733.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":13644,"journal":{"name":"Integrative Medicine Research","volume":"13 4","pages":"Article 101095"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Integrative Medicine Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213422024000751","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Pain plays a significant role in emergency department (ED) visits, however safe and effective nonpharmacologic options are needed. Prior studies of acupuncture in the ED reported pain reduction with minimal side effects, but most were small and single site.

Methods

We conducted ACUITY, a prospectively designed multi-center feasibility RCT. Our goal was to recruit 165 adults with acute non-emergent pain ≥4 on a 0–10-point scale at three EDs affiliated with BraveNet Practice Based Research Network. At baseline and 45–60 min later (post), participants self-assessed their pain and anxiety using a 0–10 rating scale. The primary feasibility outcome was recruitment of participants, whereas secondary outcomes were retention, and participant/provider acceptability.

Results

From May 3, 2021, to September 24, 2022, 632 eligible individuals were approached and 165 enrolled (165/632: 26.1 %), meeting our recruitment goal. Notably, 42.4 % of enrollees were Black/African American, 42.4 % were White/Caucasian, and 13.9 % were Hispanic/Latino. Participants were randomized to Acupuncture (n = 83) or Usual care (n = 82), of which 151 (91.5 %) and 128 (77.6 %) provided pain and anxiety scores at post-treatment and 1-week respectively. Acupuncture was rated acceptable to participants and providers. Mean pain ratings (pre-to-post) were 7.4 (2.2) to 4.8 (2.8) for acupuncture and 7.1 (2.3) to 6.4 (2.5) for usual care. Mean anxiety ratings (pre-to-post) were 4.5 (3.4) to 2.5 (2.6) for acupuncture and 4.1 (3.4) to 3.5 (3.2) for usual care.

Conclusion

Successful completion of ACUITY indicates we have the expertise and preliminary data to conduct a future definitive, multi-center RCT.

Trial registration: Clinical trials.gov

NCT04880733.
急诊科针灸 (ACUITY):BraveNet 多中心可行性随机对照试验的结果
背景疼痛在急诊科(ED)就诊中扮演着重要角色,但需要安全有效的非药物治疗方案。之前在急诊室进行的针灸研究报告称,针灸可减轻疼痛,且副作用极小,但大多数研究规模较小,且只在单一地点进行。方法我们进行了 ACUITY,这是一项前瞻性设计的多中心可行性 RCT。我们的目标是在 BraveNet 基于实践的研究网络下属的三家急诊室招募 165 名急性非急症疼痛≥4 级(0-10 分)的成人患者。在基线和 45-60 分钟后(后期),参与者使用 0-10 级评分表对疼痛和焦虑进行自我评估。结果从 2021 年 5 月 3 日到 2022 年 9 月 24 日,共接触了 632 名符合条件的人员,其中 165 人注册(165/632:26.1%),达到了我们的招募目标。值得注意的是,42.4%的注册者为黑人/非裔美国人,42.4%为白人/高加索人,13.9%为西班牙裔/拉丁美洲人。参与者被随机分配到针灸治疗(83 人)或常规治疗(82 人),其中 151 人(91.5%)和 128 人(77.6%)分别提供了治疗后和一周内的疼痛和焦虑评分。参与者和提供者均认为针灸是可接受的。针灸治疗的平均疼痛评分(治疗前至治疗后)为 7.4 (2.2) 至 4.8 (2.8),常规护理为 7.1 (2.3) 至 6.4 (2.5)。针灸的平均焦虑评分(前-后)为 4.5 (3.4) 到 2.5 (2.6),常规护理为 4.1 (3.4) 到 3.5 (3.2):试验注册:Clinical trials.govNCT04880733。
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
Integrative Medicine Research
Integrative Medicine Research Medicine-Complementary and Alternative Medicine
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.90%
发文量
65
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Integrative Medicine Research (IMR) is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal focused on scientific research for integrative medicine including traditional medicine (emphasis on acupuncture and herbal medicine), complementary and alternative medicine, and systems medicine. The journal includes papers on basic research, clinical research, methodology, theory, computational analysis and modelling, topical reviews, medical history, education and policy based on physiology, pathology, diagnosis and the systems approach in the field of integrative medicine.
×
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