注射预防性抗凝剂以防止静脉血栓栓塞后疼痛的比较

IF 1.4 Q3 SURGERY
Margaret Shyu , Tyler P. Robinson , Allison M. Morgan , Julie K. Johnson , Ying Shan , Karl Y. Bilimoria , Anthony D. Yang
{"title":"注射预防性抗凝剂以防止静脉血栓栓塞后疼痛的比较","authors":"Margaret Shyu ,&nbsp;Tyler P. Robinson ,&nbsp;Allison M. Morgan ,&nbsp;Julie K. Johnson ,&nbsp;Ying Shan ,&nbsp;Karl Y. Bilimoria ,&nbsp;Anthony D. Yang","doi":"10.1016/j.sopen.2024.06.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Subcutaneous injection of unfractionated heparin (UH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is frequently utilized for venous thromboembolism chemoprophylaxis. We previously discovered that nurses believe patients experience more pain with UH compared to the LMWH enoxaparin; however, no published studies that are appropriately powered exist comparing pain associated with subcutaneous chemoprophylaxis. Our objective was to assess if differences exist in pain associated with subcutaneous administration of UH and enoxaparin. We conducted an observational study of patients who underwent major abdominal surgery between 11/2017–4/2019. All patients received one of three prophylactic regimens: (1) UH only, (2) Initial dose of UH followed by enoxaparin, or (3) enoxaparin only. Of the 74 patients observed, 40 patients received UH followed by enoxaparin, 17 received UH only, and 17 received enoxaparin only. There was a significant difference in patients' mean perceived pain between subcutaneous UH and enoxaparin injections (mean post-injection pain after UH 3.3 vs. enoxaparin 1.5; <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001). There was no significant difference in perceived pain for patients who received consecutive UH or enoxaparin injections. Differences in pain associated with different chemoprophylaxis agents may be an unrecognized driver of patient refusals of VTE chemoprophylaxis and may lead to worse VTE outcomes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":74892,"journal":{"name":"Surgery open science","volume":"20 ","pages":"Pages 98-100"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589845024000873/pdfft?md5=0f9bf5cde71b22b28003d013f50a5c37&pid=1-s2.0-S2589845024000873-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of pain after prophylactic anticoagulant injections to prevent venous thromboembolism\",\"authors\":\"Margaret Shyu ,&nbsp;Tyler P. Robinson ,&nbsp;Allison M. Morgan ,&nbsp;Julie K. Johnson ,&nbsp;Ying Shan ,&nbsp;Karl Y. Bilimoria ,&nbsp;Anthony D. Yang\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.sopen.2024.06.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Subcutaneous injection of unfractionated heparin (UH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is frequently utilized for venous thromboembolism chemoprophylaxis. We previously discovered that nurses believe patients experience more pain with UH compared to the LMWH enoxaparin; however, no published studies that are appropriately powered exist comparing pain associated with subcutaneous chemoprophylaxis. Our objective was to assess if differences exist in pain associated with subcutaneous administration of UH and enoxaparin. We conducted an observational study of patients who underwent major abdominal surgery between 11/2017–4/2019. All patients received one of three prophylactic regimens: (1) UH only, (2) Initial dose of UH followed by enoxaparin, or (3) enoxaparin only. Of the 74 patients observed, 40 patients received UH followed by enoxaparin, 17 received UH only, and 17 received enoxaparin only. There was a significant difference in patients' mean perceived pain between subcutaneous UH and enoxaparin injections (mean post-injection pain after UH 3.3 vs. enoxaparin 1.5; <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001). There was no significant difference in perceived pain for patients who received consecutive UH or enoxaparin injections. Differences in pain associated with different chemoprophylaxis agents may be an unrecognized driver of patient refusals of VTE chemoprophylaxis and may lead to worse VTE outcomes.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74892,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Surgery open science\",\"volume\":\"20 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 98-100\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589845024000873/pdfft?md5=0f9bf5cde71b22b28003d013f50a5c37&pid=1-s2.0-S2589845024000873-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Surgery open science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589845024000873\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgery open science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589845024000873","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

皮下注射非分数肝素(UH)或低分子量肝素(LMWH)经常用于静脉血栓栓塞的化学预防。我们以前曾发现,护士们认为使用 UH 比使用 LMWH 依诺肝素会给患者带来更多疼痛;但是,目前还没有任何已发表的研究对与皮下化学预防相关的疼痛进行比较。我们的目的是评估皮下注射 UH 和依诺肝素时的疼痛是否存在差异。我们对 2017 年 11 月至 2019 年 4 月期间接受腹部大手术的患者进行了一项观察性研究。所有患者均接受了三种预防方案中的一种:(1)仅使用 UH,(2)首次使用 UH 后再使用依诺肝素,或(3)仅使用依诺肝素。在接受观察的 74 名患者中,有 40 名患者接受了超高浓度尿液治疗后再接受依诺肝素治疗,17 名患者只接受了超高浓度尿液治疗,还有 17 名患者只接受了依诺肝素治疗。皮下注射超高剂量尿素和依诺肝素时,患者的平均疼痛感有明显差异(超高剂量尿素注射后的平均疼痛感为 3.3,依诺肝素为 1.5;p <0.001)。连续接受超高压注射或恩诺肝素注射的患者的疼痛感没有明显差异。与不同化学预防药物相关的疼痛差异可能是患者拒绝接受 VTE 化学预防的一个未被发现的原因,并可能导致 VTE 治疗效果更差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of pain after prophylactic anticoagulant injections to prevent venous thromboembolism

Subcutaneous injection of unfractionated heparin (UH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is frequently utilized for venous thromboembolism chemoprophylaxis. We previously discovered that nurses believe patients experience more pain with UH compared to the LMWH enoxaparin; however, no published studies that are appropriately powered exist comparing pain associated with subcutaneous chemoprophylaxis. Our objective was to assess if differences exist in pain associated with subcutaneous administration of UH and enoxaparin. We conducted an observational study of patients who underwent major abdominal surgery between 11/2017–4/2019. All patients received one of three prophylactic regimens: (1) UH only, (2) Initial dose of UH followed by enoxaparin, or (3) enoxaparin only. Of the 74 patients observed, 40 patients received UH followed by enoxaparin, 17 received UH only, and 17 received enoxaparin only. There was a significant difference in patients' mean perceived pain between subcutaneous UH and enoxaparin injections (mean post-injection pain after UH 3.3 vs. enoxaparin 1.5; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in perceived pain for patients who received consecutive UH or enoxaparin injections. Differences in pain associated with different chemoprophylaxis agents may be an unrecognized driver of patient refusals of VTE chemoprophylaxis and may lead to worse VTE outcomes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
66 days
×
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