Ewan D McNicol, McKenzie C Ferguson, Roman Schumann
{"title":"Single-dose intravenous ketorolac for acute postoperative pain in adults.","authors":"Ewan D McNicol, McKenzie C Ferguson, Roman Schumann","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD013263.pub2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND Postoperative pain is common and may be severe. Postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces patient opioid requirements and, in turn, may reduce the incidence and severity of opioid-induced adverse events (AEs). OBJECTIVES To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose intravenous ketorolac, compared with placebo or an active comparator, for moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults. SEARCH METHODS We searched the following databases without language restrictions: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS on 20 April 2020. We checked clinical trials registers and reference lists of retrieved articles for additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomized double-blind trials that compared a single postoperative dose of intravenous ketorolac with placebo or another active treatment, for treating acute postoperative pain in adults following any surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was the number of participants in each arm achieving at least 50% pain relief over a four- and six-hour period. Our secondary outcomes were time to and number of participants using rescue medication; withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, adverse events (AEs), and for any other cause; and number of participants experiencing any AE, serious AEs (SAEs), and NSAID-related or opioid-related AEs. For subgroup analysis, we planned to analyze different doses of parenteral ketorolac separately and to analyze results based on the type of surgery performed. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS We included 12 studies, involving 1905 participants undergoing various surgeries (pelvic/abdominal, dental, and orthopedic), with 17 to 83 participants receiving intravenous ketorolac in each study. Mean study population ages ranged from 22.5 years to 67.4 years. Most studies administered a dose of ketorolac of 30 mg; one study assessed 15 mg, and another administered 60 mg. Most studies had an unclear risk of bias for some domains, particularly allocation concealment and blinding, and a high risk of bias due to small sample size. The overall certainty of evidence for each outcome ranged from very low to moderate. Reasons for downgrading certainty included serious study limitations, inconsistency and imprecision. Ketorolac versus placebo Very low-certainty evidence from eight studies (658 participants) suggests that ketorolac results in a large increase in the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over four hours compared to placebo, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 2.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.80 to 4.37). The number needed to treat for one additional participant to benefit (NNTB) was 2.4 (95% CI 1.8 to 3.7). Low-certainty evidence from 10 studies (914 participants) demonstrates that ketorolac may result in a large increase in the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over six hours compared to placebo (RR 3.26, 95% CI 1.93 to 5.51). The NNTB was 2.5 (95% CI 1.9 to 3.7). Among secondary outcomes, for time to rescue medication, moderate-certainty evidence comparing intravenous ketorolac versus placebo demonstrated a mean median of 271 minutes for ketorolac versus 104 minutes for placebo (6 studies, 633 participants). For the number of participants using rescue medication, very low-certainty evidence from five studies (417 participants) compared ketorolac with placebo. The RR was 0.60 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.00), that is, it did not demonstrate a difference between groups. Ketorolac probably results in a slight increase in total adverse event rates compared with placebo (74% versus 65%; 8 studies, 810 participants; RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.19; number needed to treat for an additional harmful event (NNTH) 16.7, 95% CI 8.3 to infinite, moderate-certainty evidence). Serious AEs were rare. Low-certainty evidence from eight studies (703 participants) did not demonstrate a difference in rates between ketorolac and placebo (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.13 to 3.03). Ketorolac versus NSAIDs Ketorolac was compared to parecoxib in four studies and diclofenac in two studies. For our primary outcome, over both four and six hours there was no evidence of a difference between intravenous ketorolac and another NSAID (low-certainty and moderate-certainty evidence, respectively). Over four hours, four studies (337 participants) produced an RR of 1.04 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.21) and over six hours, six studies (603 participants) produced an RR of 1.06 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.19). For time to rescue medication, low-certainty evidence from four studies (427 participants) suggested that participants receiving ketorolac waited an extra 35 minutes (mean median 331 minutes versus 296 minutes). For the number of participants using rescue medication, very low-certainty evidence from three studies (260 participants) compared ketorolac with another NSAID. The RR was 0.90 (95% CI 0.58 to 1.40), that is, there may be little or no difference between groups. Ketorolac probably results in a slight increase in total adverse event rates compared with another NSAID (76% versus 68%, 5 studies, 516 participants; RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.23; NNTH 12.5, 95% CI 6.7 to infinite, moderate-certainty evidence). Serious AEs were rare. Low-certainty evidence from five studies (530 participants) did not demonstrate a difference in rates between ketorolac and another NSAID (RR 3.18, 95% CI 0.13 to 76.99). Only one of the five studies reported a single serious AE. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The amount and certainty of evidence for the use of intravenous ketorolac as a treatment for postoperative pain varies across efficacy and safety outcomes and amongst comparators, from very low to moderate. The available evidence indicates that postoperative intravenous ketorolac administration may offer substantial pain relief for most patients, but further research may impact this estimate. Adverse events appear to occur at a slightly higher rate in comparison to placebo and to other NSAIDs. Insufficient information is available to assess whether intravenous ketorolac has a different rate of gastrointestinal or surgical-site bleeding, renal dysfunction, or cardiovascular events versus other NSAIDs. There was a lack of studies in cardiovascular surgeries and in elderly populations who may be at increased risk for adverse events.","PeriodicalId":515753,"journal":{"name":"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews","volume":" ","pages":"CD013263"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/14651858.CD013263.pub2","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Cochrane database of systematic reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013263.pub2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
BACKGROUND Postoperative pain is common and may be severe. Postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces patient opioid requirements and, in turn, may reduce the incidence and severity of opioid-induced adverse events (AEs). OBJECTIVES To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose intravenous ketorolac, compared with placebo or an active comparator, for moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults. SEARCH METHODS We searched the following databases without language restrictions: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS on 20 April 2020. We checked clinical trials registers and reference lists of retrieved articles for additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomized double-blind trials that compared a single postoperative dose of intravenous ketorolac with placebo or another active treatment, for treating acute postoperative pain in adults following any surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was the number of participants in each arm achieving at least 50% pain relief over a four- and six-hour period. Our secondary outcomes were time to and number of participants using rescue medication; withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, adverse events (AEs), and for any other cause; and number of participants experiencing any AE, serious AEs (SAEs), and NSAID-related or opioid-related AEs. For subgroup analysis, we planned to analyze different doses of parenteral ketorolac separately and to analyze results based on the type of surgery performed. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS We included 12 studies, involving 1905 participants undergoing various surgeries (pelvic/abdominal, dental, and orthopedic), with 17 to 83 participants receiving intravenous ketorolac in each study. Mean study population ages ranged from 22.5 years to 67.4 years. Most studies administered a dose of ketorolac of 30 mg; one study assessed 15 mg, and another administered 60 mg. Most studies had an unclear risk of bias for some domains, particularly allocation concealment and blinding, and a high risk of bias due to small sample size. The overall certainty of evidence for each outcome ranged from very low to moderate. Reasons for downgrading certainty included serious study limitations, inconsistency and imprecision. Ketorolac versus placebo Very low-certainty evidence from eight studies (658 participants) suggests that ketorolac results in a large increase in the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over four hours compared to placebo, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 2.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.80 to 4.37). The number needed to treat for one additional participant to benefit (NNTB) was 2.4 (95% CI 1.8 to 3.7). Low-certainty evidence from 10 studies (914 participants) demonstrates that ketorolac may result in a large increase in the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over six hours compared to placebo (RR 3.26, 95% CI 1.93 to 5.51). The NNTB was 2.5 (95% CI 1.9 to 3.7). Among secondary outcomes, for time to rescue medication, moderate-certainty evidence comparing intravenous ketorolac versus placebo demonstrated a mean median of 271 minutes for ketorolac versus 104 minutes for placebo (6 studies, 633 participants). For the number of participants using rescue medication, very low-certainty evidence from five studies (417 participants) compared ketorolac with placebo. The RR was 0.60 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.00), that is, it did not demonstrate a difference between groups. Ketorolac probably results in a slight increase in total adverse event rates compared with placebo (74% versus 65%; 8 studies, 810 participants; RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.19; number needed to treat for an additional harmful event (NNTH) 16.7, 95% CI 8.3 to infinite, moderate-certainty evidence). Serious AEs were rare. Low-certainty evidence from eight studies (703 participants) did not demonstrate a difference in rates between ketorolac and placebo (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.13 to 3.03). Ketorolac versus NSAIDs Ketorolac was compared to parecoxib in four studies and diclofenac in two studies. For our primary outcome, over both four and six hours there was no evidence of a difference between intravenous ketorolac and another NSAID (low-certainty and moderate-certainty evidence, respectively). Over four hours, four studies (337 participants) produced an RR of 1.04 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.21) and over six hours, six studies (603 participants) produced an RR of 1.06 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.19). For time to rescue medication, low-certainty evidence from four studies (427 participants) suggested that participants receiving ketorolac waited an extra 35 minutes (mean median 331 minutes versus 296 minutes). For the number of participants using rescue medication, very low-certainty evidence from three studies (260 participants) compared ketorolac with another NSAID. The RR was 0.90 (95% CI 0.58 to 1.40), that is, there may be little or no difference between groups. Ketorolac probably results in a slight increase in total adverse event rates compared with another NSAID (76% versus 68%, 5 studies, 516 participants; RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.23; NNTH 12.5, 95% CI 6.7 to infinite, moderate-certainty evidence). Serious AEs were rare. Low-certainty evidence from five studies (530 participants) did not demonstrate a difference in rates between ketorolac and another NSAID (RR 3.18, 95% CI 0.13 to 76.99). Only one of the five studies reported a single serious AE. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The amount and certainty of evidence for the use of intravenous ketorolac as a treatment for postoperative pain varies across efficacy and safety outcomes and amongst comparators, from very low to moderate. The available evidence indicates that postoperative intravenous ketorolac administration may offer substantial pain relief for most patients, but further research may impact this estimate. Adverse events appear to occur at a slightly higher rate in comparison to placebo and to other NSAIDs. Insufficient information is available to assess whether intravenous ketorolac has a different rate of gastrointestinal or surgical-site bleeding, renal dysfunction, or cardiovascular events versus other NSAIDs. There was a lack of studies in cardiovascular surgeries and in elderly populations who may be at increased risk for adverse events.
背景:术后疼痛是常见的,可能是严重的。术后给予非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDs)可减少患者对阿片类药物的需求,进而可能降低阿片类药物引起的不良事件(ae)的发生率和严重程度。目的:评估单剂量静脉注射酮罗拉酸与安慰剂或活性比较物对成人中至重度术后疼痛的镇痛效果和不良反应。检索方法:我们于2020年4月20日检索了以下数据库,没有语言限制:CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase和LILACS。我们检查了临床试验注册和检索文章的参考文献列表,以寻找其他研究。选择标准:随机双盲试验,比较单一剂量的术后静脉注射酮罗拉酸与安慰剂或其他积极治疗,治疗任何手术后急性术后疼痛的成人。资料收集和分析:我们使用Cochrane期望的标准方法程序。我们的主要结局是在4小时和6小时的时间内,每组中达到至少50%疼痛缓解的受试者人数。我们的次要结局是使用抢救药物的参与者的时间和人数;因缺乏疗效、不良事件(ae)或其他原因而停药;以及发生任何AE、严重AE (sae)、nsaid相关或阿片类药物相关AE的参与者人数。对于亚组分析,我们计划分别分析不同剂量的肠外酮罗拉酸,并根据手术类型分析结果。我们使用GRADE评估证据的确定性。主要结果:我们纳入了12项研究,涉及1905名接受各种手术(骨盆/腹部、牙科和骨科)的参与者,每项研究中有17至83名参与者接受静脉注射酮罗拉酸。研究人群的平均年龄从22.5岁到67.4岁不等。大多数研究给药剂量为30毫克酮咯酸;一项研究评估15毫克,另一项研究评估60毫克。大多数研究在某些领域存在不明确的偏倚风险,特别是分配隐藏和盲法,并且由于样本量小,偏倚风险较高。每个结果的证据的总体确定性从非常低到中等。降低确定性的原因包括严重的研究限制、不一致和不精确。来自8项研究(658名参与者)的非常低确定性的证据表明,与安慰剂相比,酮罗拉酸导致在4小时内达到至少50%疼痛缓解的参与者人数大幅增加,但证据非常不确定(风险比(RR) 2.81, 95%置信区间(CI) 1.80至4.37)。每增加一名患者(NNTB)需要治疗的人数为2.4人(95% CI 1.8 - 3.7)。来自10项研究(914名受试者)的低确定性证据表明,与安慰剂相比,酮洛拉克可能导致6小时内达到至少50%疼痛缓解的受试者人数大幅增加(RR 3.26, 95% CI 1.93至5.51)。NNTB为2.5 (95% CI 1.9 ~ 3.7)。在次要结果中,对于挽救药物的时间,比较静脉注射酮罗拉酸与安慰剂的中等确定性证据表明,酮罗拉酸的平均中位时间为271分钟,而安慰剂的中位时间为104分钟(6项研究,633名参与者)。对于使用救援药物的参与者数量,来自五项研究(417名参与者)的极低确定性证据将酮罗拉酸与安慰剂进行了比较。RR为0.60 (95% CI 0.36 ~ 1.00),即组间无差异。与安慰剂相比,酮罗拉酸可能导致总不良事件发生率略有增加(74%对65%;8项研究,810名参与者;RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00 ~ 1.19;需要治疗额外有害事件的人数(NNTH) 16.7, 95% CI 8.3至无限,中等确定性证据)。严重的ae很少见。来自8项研究(703名参与者)的低确定性证据未显示酮罗拉酸和安慰剂之间的发生率差异(RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.13至3.03)。酮罗拉酸与非甾体抗炎药的比较:四项研究将酮罗拉酸与帕瑞昔布和两项研究将双氯芬酸进行了比较。对于我们的主要结局,在4和6小时内,没有证据表明静脉注射酮罗拉酸和另一种非甾体抗炎药之间存在差异(分别为低确定性和中等确定性证据)。超过4小时,4项研究(337名参与者)的RR为1.04 (95% CI 0.89至1.21),超过6小时,6项研究(603名参与者)的RR为1.06 (95% CI 0.95至1.19)。对于挽救药物的时间,来自四项研究(427名参与者)的低确定性证据表明,接受酮罗拉克的参与者多等了35分钟(平均中位数331分钟对296分钟)。对于使用救援药物的参与者数量,来自三个研究(260名参与者)的非常低确定性证据比较了酮罗拉酸和另一种非甾体抗炎药。 RR为0.90 (95% CI 0.58 ~ 1.40),即组间差异可能很小或没有差异。与另一种非甾体抗炎药相比,酮罗拉酸可能导致总不良事件发生率略有增加(76%对68%,5项研究,516名受试者;RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.00 ~ 1.23;NNTH 12.5, 95% CI 6.7至无限,中等确定性证据)。严重的ae很少见。来自5项研究(530名参与者)的低确定性证据没有显示酮罗拉酸和另一种非甾体抗炎药的发生率差异(RR 3.18, 95% CI 0.13至76.99)。五项研究中只有一项报告了一次严重的AE。作者的结论是:使用静脉注射酮罗拉酸治疗术后疼痛的证据的数量和确定性在疗效和安全性结果上有所不同,在比较者中,从非常低到中等。现有证据表明,术后静脉注射酮罗拉酸可能对大多数患者提供实质性的疼痛缓解,但进一步的研究可能会影响这一估计。与安慰剂和其他非甾体抗炎药相比,不良事件的发生率似乎略高。目前还没有足够的信息来评估静脉注射酮罗拉酸与其他非甾体抗炎药相比是否具有不同的胃肠道或手术部位出血、肾功能障碍或心血管事件发生率。缺乏对心血管手术和可能增加不良事件风险的老年人群的研究。