Ultrasound-guided pericapsular nerve group block versus intravenous morphine for pain management in older adults with hip fractures: a randomised controlled trial in the emergency department.

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Jiraporn Sri-On, Yupadee Fusakul, Krit Phisaiphun, Pacharee Piyachan, Kitchai Luksameearunothai, Pornsiri Kanokkanjana, Gianluca Cappelleri
{"title":"Ultrasound-guided pericapsular nerve group block versus intravenous morphine for pain management in older adults with hip fractures: a randomised controlled trial in the emergency department.","authors":"Jiraporn Sri-On, Yupadee Fusakul, Krit Phisaiphun, Pacharee Piyachan, Kitchai Luksameearunothai, Pornsiri Kanokkanjana, Gianluca Cappelleri","doi":"10.1136/emermed-2025-215388","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Hip fracture pain is severe and is commonly managed with intravenous opioids that cause adverse effects in older adults. Although the use of regional anaesthesia is increasing, high-quality evidence remains limited, with insufficient randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the effectiveness of the pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block in the emergency department (ED). This study aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy of ultrasound-guided PENG block with intravenous morphine for acute hip fracture pain in older adults presenting to the ED.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This open label, 1:1 parallel RCT using software-generated randomisation compared PENG block versus intravenous morphine (0.1 mg/kg) in patients aged ≥65 years who presented to the ED with femoral head, intertrochanteric, subtrochanteric and neck fractures with acute moderate-to-severe pain, defined as ≥5 on an 11-point Verbal Numeric Rating Scale (VNRS). <i>The primary outcome was improvement in the VNRS score at 30 min. The secondary outcomes included the need for rescue therapy (intravenous fentanyl 0.5 µg/kg) and the incidence of adverse events.</i> RESULTS: A total of 34 patients were included in the final analysis, with 17 patients in each group. At 30 min, the median reduction in pain score was greater in the PENG block group than in the intravenous morphine group (-6 (IQR-6 to -5) vs -3 (IQR -5 to -2); p=0.001). Generalised estimating equation analysis accounting for repeated measures demonstrated that the PENG block was associated with a significantly more pronounced reduction in pain over time than intravenous morphine (adjusted β = -1.55; 95% CI -2.63 to -0.47; p=0.005). Rescue analgesia was required in 5.9% of patients receiving intravenous morphine, whereas no patients in the PENG block group required rescue therapy.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PENG block is a highly effective and safe alternative to intravenous morphine for managing acute hip fracture pain, particularly in older adults.</p>","PeriodicalId":11532,"journal":{"name":"Emergency Medicine Journal","volume":" ","pages":"530-536"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency Medicine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2025-215388","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Hip fracture pain is severe and is commonly managed with intravenous opioids that cause adverse effects in older adults. Although the use of regional anaesthesia is increasing, high-quality evidence remains limited, with insufficient randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the effectiveness of the pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block in the emergency department (ED). This study aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy of ultrasound-guided PENG block with intravenous morphine for acute hip fracture pain in older adults presenting to the ED.

Methods: This open label, 1:1 parallel RCT using software-generated randomisation compared PENG block versus intravenous morphine (0.1 mg/kg) in patients aged ≥65 years who presented to the ED with femoral head, intertrochanteric, subtrochanteric and neck fractures with acute moderate-to-severe pain, defined as ≥5 on an 11-point Verbal Numeric Rating Scale (VNRS). The primary outcome was improvement in the VNRS score at 30 min. The secondary outcomes included the need for rescue therapy (intravenous fentanyl 0.5 µg/kg) and the incidence of adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 34 patients were included in the final analysis, with 17 patients in each group. At 30 min, the median reduction in pain score was greater in the PENG block group than in the intravenous morphine group (-6 (IQR-6 to -5) vs -3 (IQR -5 to -2); p=0.001). Generalised estimating equation analysis accounting for repeated measures demonstrated that the PENG block was associated with a significantly more pronounced reduction in pain over time than intravenous morphine (adjusted β = -1.55; 95% CI -2.63 to -0.47; p=0.005). Rescue analgesia was required in 5.9% of patients receiving intravenous morphine, whereas no patients in the PENG block group required rescue therapy.

Conclusion: PENG block is a highly effective and safe alternative to intravenous morphine for managing acute hip fracture pain, particularly in older adults.

超声引导下的囊周神经阻滞与静脉注射吗啡治疗老年髋部骨折疼痛:急诊科的一项随机对照试验
背景:老年人髋部骨折疼痛严重,通常采用静脉注射阿片类药物治疗,但会引起不良反应。尽管区域麻醉的使用越来越多,但高质量的证据仍然有限,没有足够的随机对照试验(RCT)评估急诊科(ED)中囊包神经组(PENG)阻滞的有效性。本研究旨在比较超声引导下彭阻滞与静脉吗啡对急诊老年人急性髋部骨折疼痛的镇痛效果。这项开放标签、1:1平行随机对照试验采用软件生成随机化方法,比较了年龄≥65岁、股骨头、粗隆间、粗隆下和颈部骨折并伴有急性中度至重度疼痛(在11分口头数字评定量表(VNRS)中定义为≥5分)的患者,彭阻滞与静脉注射吗啡(0.1 mg/kg)。主要结果是30min时VNRS评分的改善。次要结局包括抢救治疗的需要(静脉注射芬太尼0.5µg/kg)和不良事件的发生率。结果:最终共纳入34例患者,每组17例。在30分钟时,彭阻滞组疼痛评分的中位数降幅大于静脉注射吗啡组(-6 (IQR-6至-5)vs -3 (IQR -5至-2);p = 0.001)。考虑到重复测量的广义估计方程分析表明,随着时间的推移,与静脉注射吗啡相比,彭阻滞与疼痛的减轻更为显著相关(调整后的β = -1.55; 95% CI -2.63至-0.47;p=0.005)。5.9%的静脉注射吗啡患者需要紧急镇痛,而彭阻滞组没有患者需要紧急镇痛。结论:彭阻滞是静脉注射吗啡治疗急性髋部骨折疼痛的一种非常有效和安全的替代方法,特别是在老年人中。
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
Emergency Medicine Journal
Emergency Medicine Journal 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
6.50%
发文量
262
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Emergency Medicine Journal is a leading international journal reporting developments and advances in emergency medicine and acute care. It has relevance to all specialties involved in the management of emergencies in the hospital and prehospital environment. Each issue contains editorials, reviews, original research, evidence based reviews, letters and more.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书