Intravenous Versus Oral Acetaminophen in Ambulatory Surgical Center Laparoscopic Cholecystectomies: A Retrospective Analysis.

Q1 Medicine
P and T Pub Date : 2019-06-01
Ryan J Johnson, Danny K Nguyen, Jose M Acosta, Alice L O'Brien, Peter D Doyle, Glorimar Medina-Rivera
{"title":"Intravenous Versus Oral Acetaminophen in Ambulatory Surgical Center Laparoscopic Cholecystectomies: A Retrospective Analysis.","authors":"Ryan J Johnson,&nbsp;Danny K Nguyen,&nbsp;Jose M Acosta,&nbsp;Alice L O'Brien,&nbsp;Peter D Doyle,&nbsp;Glorimar Medina-Rivera","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study objective: </strong>The primary aim was to compare postoperative pain scores in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy and receiving intravenous (IV) or oral (PO) acetaminophen (APAP) as part of a multimodal analgesic regimen to examine whether PO APAP is non-inferior to IV APAP.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective analysis.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Ambulatory surgical center (ASC) in an academic setting.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>579 patients (18-70 years old), American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-III, undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Patients received 1,000 mg IV APAP intraoperatively (n = 319) or 1,000 mg PO APAP preoperatively (n = 260).</p><p><strong>Measurements: </strong>The primary outcome was the median difference in post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) end-pain scores between the groups. Median pain scores were also compared on PACU admission, and at 15, 30, 45, and 60 minutes. Additional measures include PACU rescue-analgesia consumption, time to first PACU rescue analgesia, intraoperative use of opioid and nonopioid analgesics, PACU length of stay, and PACU rescue nausea and vomiting therapy.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>In both groups, the PACU median end-pain score was 2. The 90% confidence interval (CI) for difference in median pain scores between groups was [0, 0]; the CI upper limit was below the non-inferior margin of 1 pain-score point, indicating PO APAP's non-inferiority to IV APAP. There were no statistically significant differences in the percentages of patients receiving PACU hydromorphone equivalents between the IV and PO groups (75% vs. 77%, <i>P</i> = 0.72) or in the mean dose received (0.5 mg vs. 0.5 mg, <i>P</i> = 0.66).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Single-dose PO APAP is non-inferior to IV APAP for postoperative analgesia in ASC laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients. The value of single-dose IV APAP in this population should be further explored.</p>","PeriodicalId":38773,"journal":{"name":"P and T","volume":"44 6","pages":"359-363"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6534170/pdf/ptj4406359.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"P and T","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Study objective: The primary aim was to compare postoperative pain scores in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy and receiving intravenous (IV) or oral (PO) acetaminophen (APAP) as part of a multimodal analgesic regimen to examine whether PO APAP is non-inferior to IV APAP.

Design: Retrospective analysis.

Setting: Ambulatory surgical center (ASC) in an academic setting.

Patients: 579 patients (18-70 years old), American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-III, undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Interventions: Patients received 1,000 mg IV APAP intraoperatively (n = 319) or 1,000 mg PO APAP preoperatively (n = 260).

Measurements: The primary outcome was the median difference in post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) end-pain scores between the groups. Median pain scores were also compared on PACU admission, and at 15, 30, 45, and 60 minutes. Additional measures include PACU rescue-analgesia consumption, time to first PACU rescue analgesia, intraoperative use of opioid and nonopioid analgesics, PACU length of stay, and PACU rescue nausea and vomiting therapy.

Main results: In both groups, the PACU median end-pain score was 2. The 90% confidence interval (CI) for difference in median pain scores between groups was [0, 0]; the CI upper limit was below the non-inferior margin of 1 pain-score point, indicating PO APAP's non-inferiority to IV APAP. There were no statistically significant differences in the percentages of patients receiving PACU hydromorphone equivalents between the IV and PO groups (75% vs. 77%, P = 0.72) or in the mean dose received (0.5 mg vs. 0.5 mg, P = 0.66).

Conclusion: Single-dose PO APAP is non-inferior to IV APAP for postoperative analgesia in ASC laparoscopic cholecystectomy patients. The value of single-dose IV APAP in this population should be further explored.

门诊外科中心腹腔镜胆囊切除术中静脉与口服对乙酰氨基酚的对比:回顾性分析。
研究目的:主要目的是比较腹腔镜胆囊切除术患者接受静脉(IV)或口服(PO)对乙酰氨基酚(APAP)作为多模式镇痛方案的一部分的术后疼痛评分,以检查PO APAP是否优于IV APAP。设计:回顾性分析。设置:门诊外科中心(ASC)在学术设置。患者:579例患者(18-70岁),美国麻醉医师协会身体状况I-III级,行腹腔镜胆囊切除术。干预措施:患者术中接受1000mg IV APAP (n = 319)或术前接受1000mg PO APAP (n = 260)。测量:主要结果是两组麻醉后护理单元(PACU)终末疼痛评分的中位数差异。还比较了PACU入院时、15分钟、30分钟、45分钟和60分钟的中位疼痛评分。其他措施包括PACU抢救镇痛消耗、首次PACU抢救镇痛时间、术中阿片类和非阿片类镇痛药物的使用、PACU住院时间、PACU抢救恶心呕吐治疗。主要结果:两组患者PACU中位末痛评分均为2分。组间中位疼痛评分差异的90%置信区间(CI)为[0,0];CI上限低于1个疼痛评分点的非劣效性,说明PO APAP对IV APAP的非劣效性。静脉注射组和静脉注射组接受PACU氢吗啡酮等效物的患者百分比(75%对77%,P = 0.72)或平均接受剂量(0.5 mg对0.5 mg, P = 0.66)无统计学差异。结论:单剂量PO APAP在ASC腹腔镜胆囊切除术患者术后镇痛效果不逊于静脉注射APAP。单剂量静脉注射APAP在该人群中的应用价值有待进一步探讨。
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
P and T
P and T Medicine-Pharmacology (medical)
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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