Patient-Controlled Analgesia vs Intravenous Push Hydromorphone for Pain Management of Vaso-Occlusive Crisis Associated With Sickle Cell Disease.

IF 0.9 Q3 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Katharine Russo, Poonam Chhunchha
{"title":"Patient-Controlled Analgesia vs Intravenous Push Hydromorphone for Pain Management of Vaso-Occlusive Crisis Associated With Sickle Cell Disease.","authors":"Katharine Russo,&nbsp;Poonam Chhunchha","doi":"10.1080/15360288.2023.2167035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) appears to be the preferred modality for treatment of pain associated with vaso-occlusive crisis (VOC) and is the current standard of therapy at most institutions. With limited data available, this study analyzed the effectiveness of PCA vs intravenous push (IVP) hydromorphone for pain management of VOC. The primary objective was to determine whether PCA or IVP hydromorphone is more effective in controlling VOC pain determined by a reduction in mean absolute difference pain intensity (MPI) from baseline to discharge. This retrospective single-center study evaluated differences in outcomes between patients treated with PCA vs those treated with IVP hydromorphone for VOC during hospital admission. Those 18 years or older admitted with one of the following International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes were included: D57.0 (Hb-SS disease with crisis), D57.2 (sickle cell/Hb-C disease), and D57.4 (sickle cell thalassemia), and administered PCA or IVP hydromorphone. The observed difference in absolute pain scores were not statistically significant (<i>p</i> = 0.753). The use of IVP hydromorphone resulted in a significant reduction in length of stay (LOS) and morphine milligram equivalent (MME) use compared to PCA, but was associated with a numerical increase in treatment failures. This study was limited by its retrospective nature, uneven distribution of groups, and only reviewed use of IVP and PCA hydromorphone at one institution.</p>","PeriodicalId":16645,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pain & Palliative Care Pharmacotherapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pain & Palliative Care Pharmacotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15360288.2023.2167035","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) appears to be the preferred modality for treatment of pain associated with vaso-occlusive crisis (VOC) and is the current standard of therapy at most institutions. With limited data available, this study analyzed the effectiveness of PCA vs intravenous push (IVP) hydromorphone for pain management of VOC. The primary objective was to determine whether PCA or IVP hydromorphone is more effective in controlling VOC pain determined by a reduction in mean absolute difference pain intensity (MPI) from baseline to discharge. This retrospective single-center study evaluated differences in outcomes between patients treated with PCA vs those treated with IVP hydromorphone for VOC during hospital admission. Those 18 years or older admitted with one of the following International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes were included: D57.0 (Hb-SS disease with crisis), D57.2 (sickle cell/Hb-C disease), and D57.4 (sickle cell thalassemia), and administered PCA or IVP hydromorphone. The observed difference in absolute pain scores were not statistically significant (p = 0.753). The use of IVP hydromorphone resulted in a significant reduction in length of stay (LOS) and morphine milligram equivalent (MME) use compared to PCA, but was associated with a numerical increase in treatment failures. This study was limited by its retrospective nature, uneven distribution of groups, and only reviewed use of IVP and PCA hydromorphone at one institution.

患者自控镇痛与静脉推氢吗啡酮治疗镰状细胞病相关血管闭塞危像的疼痛管理
患者自控镇痛(PCA)似乎是治疗血管闭塞危象(VOC)相关疼痛的首选方式,也是目前大多数机构的治疗标准。在数据有限的情况下,本研究分析了PCA与静脉推注(IVP)氢吗啡酮对VOC疼痛管理的有效性。主要目的是通过从基线到出院的平均绝对疼痛强度(MPI)的降低来确定PCA或IVP氢吗啡酮是否更有效地控制VOC疼痛。这项回顾性单中心研究评估了住院期间使用PCA治疗与使用IVP氢吗啡酮治疗VOC的患者之间的结果差异。患者年龄≥18岁,患有以下国际疾病分类第十次修订代码之一:D57.0 (Hb-SS危重症)、D57.2(镰状细胞/Hb-C疾病)和D57.4(镰状细胞地中海贫血),并给予PCA或IVP氢蝶酮。两组绝对疼痛评分差异无统计学意义(p = 0.753)。与PCA相比,IVP氢吗啡酮的使用显著减少了住院时间(LOS)和吗啡毫克当量(MME)的使用,但与治疗失败的数字增加有关。本研究的局限性在于其回顾性,分组分布不均匀,并且仅回顾了IVP和PCA氢吗啡酮在一个机构的使用情况。
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
1.60
自引率
9.10%
发文量
40
×
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