EASIER 试验(急诊室肝胆胰疼痛的直立-棘平面阻滞疗法):一项基于队列的单中心开放标签随机对照试验,分析了超声引导下直立-棘平面阻滞疗法与静脉注射吗啡治疗急诊室急性肝胆胰疼痛的疗效比较。

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Sandeep Nathanael David, Vignesh Murali, Pradeep Daniel Kattumala, Kundavaram Paul Prabhakar Abhilash, Ajith Thomas, Sudipta Dhar Chowdury, Reka Karuppusami
{"title":"EASIER 试验(急诊室肝胆胰疼痛的直立-棘平面阻滞疗法):一项基于队列的单中心开放标签随机对照试验,分析了超声引导下直立-棘平面阻滞疗法与静脉注射吗啡治疗急诊室急性肝胆胰疼痛的疗效比较。","authors":"Sandeep Nathanael David, Vignesh Murali, Pradeep Daniel Kattumala, Kundavaram Paul Prabhakar Abhilash, Ajith Thomas, Sudipta Dhar Chowdury, Reka Karuppusami","doi":"10.1136/emermed-2023-213799","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Ultrasound-guided (USG) erector-spinae plane block (ESPB) may be better than intravenous opioids in treating acute hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) pain in the ED.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This open-label randomised controlled trial was conducted in the ED of a tertiary-care hospital between March and August 2023. All adult patients with severe HPB pain were recruited during times that a primary investigator was present. Unconsenting patients, numeric rating scale (NRS) ≤6, age ≤18 and ≥80 years, pregnant, unstable or with allergies to local anaesthetics or opioids were excluded. Patients in the intervention arm received bilateral USG ESPB with 0.2% ropivacaine at T7 level, by a trained ED consultant, and those in the control arm received 0.1 mg/kg intravenous morphine. Pain on a 10-point NRS was assessed by the investigators at presentation and at 1, 3, 5 and 10 hours after intervention by the treatment team, along with rescue analgesia requirements and patient satisfaction. Difference in NRS was analysed using analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) and t-tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>70 participants were enrolled, 35 in each arm. Mean age was 40.4±13.2 years, mean NRS at presentation in the intervention arm was 8.0±0.9 and 7.6±0.6 in the control arm. NRS at 1 hour was significantly lower in the ESPB group (ANCOVA p<0.001). At 1, 3, 5 and 10 hours, reduction of NRS in the intervention arm (7±1.6, 6.7±1.9, 6.6±1.8, 6.1±1.9) was significantly greater than the control arm (4.4±2, 4.6±1.8, 3.7±2.2, 3.8±1.8) (t-test, p<0.001). Fewer patients receiving ESPB required rescue analgesia at 5 (t-test, p=0.031) and 10 hours (t-test, p=0.04). More patients were 'very satisfied' with ESPB compared with receiving only morphine at each time period (p<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ESPB is a promising alternative to morphine in those with HPB pain.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>CTRI/2023/03/050595.</p>","PeriodicalId":11532,"journal":{"name":"Emergency Medicine Journal","volume":" ","pages":"588-594"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11503039/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"EASIER trial (Erector-spinAe analgeSia for hepatopancreaticobiliary pain In the Emergency Room): a single-centre open-label cohort-based randomised controlled trial analysing the efficacy of the ultrasound-guided erector-spinae plane block compared with intravenous morphine in the treatment of acute hepatopancreaticobiliary pain in the emergency department.\",\"authors\":\"Sandeep Nathanael David, Vignesh Murali, Pradeep Daniel Kattumala, Kundavaram Paul Prabhakar Abhilash, Ajith Thomas, Sudipta Dhar Chowdury, Reka Karuppusami\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/emermed-2023-213799\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Ultrasound-guided (USG) erector-spinae plane block (ESPB) may be better than intravenous opioids in treating acute hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) pain in the ED.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This open-label randomised controlled trial was conducted in the ED of a tertiary-care hospital between March and August 2023. All adult patients with severe HPB pain were recruited during times that a primary investigator was present. Unconsenting patients, numeric rating scale (NRS) ≤6, age ≤18 and ≥80 years, pregnant, unstable or with allergies to local anaesthetics or opioids were excluded. Patients in the intervention arm received bilateral USG ESPB with 0.2% ropivacaine at T7 level, by a trained ED consultant, and those in the control arm received 0.1 mg/kg intravenous morphine. Pain on a 10-point NRS was assessed by the investigators at presentation and at 1, 3, 5 and 10 hours after intervention by the treatment team, along with rescue analgesia requirements and patient satisfaction. Difference in NRS was analysed using analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) and t-tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>70 participants were enrolled, 35 in each arm. Mean age was 40.4±13.2 years, mean NRS at presentation in the intervention arm was 8.0±0.9 and 7.6±0.6 in the control arm. NRS at 1 hour was significantly lower in the ESPB group (ANCOVA p<0.001). At 1, 3, 5 and 10 hours, reduction of NRS in the intervention arm (7±1.6, 6.7±1.9, 6.6±1.8, 6.1±1.9) was significantly greater than the control arm (4.4±2, 4.6±1.8, 3.7±2.2, 3.8±1.8) (t-test, p<0.001). Fewer patients receiving ESPB required rescue analgesia at 5 (t-test, p=0.031) and 10 hours (t-test, p=0.04). More patients were 'very satisfied' with ESPB compared with receiving only morphine at each time period (p<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ESPB is a promising alternative to morphine in those with HPB pain.</p><p><strong>Trial registration number: </strong>CTRI/2023/03/050595.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11532,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Emergency Medicine Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"588-594\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11503039/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Emergency Medicine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2023-213799\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency Medicine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2023-213799","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

摘要

背景:在治疗急诊室急性肝胆胰(HPB)疼痛方面,超声引导(USG)直立肌-脊柱平面阻滞(ESPB)可能优于静脉注射阿片类药物:这项开放标签随机对照试验于2023年3月至8月在一家三级甲等医院的急诊室进行。在主要研究人员在场期间,招募了所有患有严重HPB疼痛的成年患者。未经同意、数字评分量表(NRS)≤6、年龄≤18 岁和≥80 岁、怀孕、病情不稳定或对局麻药或阿片类药物过敏的患者被排除在外。干预组患者由受过培训的急诊科顾问在 T7 水平使用 0.2% 罗哌卡因进行双侧 USG ESPB,对照组患者则静脉注射 0.1 mg/kg 吗啡。研究人员在患者就诊时和治疗小组干预后的 1、3、5 和 10 小时内用 10 点 NRS 对疼痛进行了评估,同时还评估了抢救性镇痛需求和患者满意度。采用方差分析(ANCOVA)和t检验分析NRS的差异:共有 70 人参加,每组 35 人。平均年龄为(40.4±13.2)岁,干预组患者就诊时的平均 NRS 为(8.0±0.9)分,对照组为(7.6±0.6)分。ESPB组1小时后的NRS明显降低(ANCOVA pConclusion):ESPB是HPB疼痛患者吗啡的一种很有前途的替代药物:试验注册号: CTRI/2023/03/050595。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
EASIER trial (Erector-spinAe analgeSia for hepatopancreaticobiliary pain In the Emergency Room): a single-centre open-label cohort-based randomised controlled trial analysing the efficacy of the ultrasound-guided erector-spinae plane block compared with intravenous morphine in the treatment of acute hepatopancreaticobiliary pain in the emergency department.

Background: Ultrasound-guided (USG) erector-spinae plane block (ESPB) may be better than intravenous opioids in treating acute hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) pain in the ED.

Methods: This open-label randomised controlled trial was conducted in the ED of a tertiary-care hospital between March and August 2023. All adult patients with severe HPB pain were recruited during times that a primary investigator was present. Unconsenting patients, numeric rating scale (NRS) ≤6, age ≤18 and ≥80 years, pregnant, unstable or with allergies to local anaesthetics or opioids were excluded. Patients in the intervention arm received bilateral USG ESPB with 0.2% ropivacaine at T7 level, by a trained ED consultant, and those in the control arm received 0.1 mg/kg intravenous morphine. Pain on a 10-point NRS was assessed by the investigators at presentation and at 1, 3, 5 and 10 hours after intervention by the treatment team, along with rescue analgesia requirements and patient satisfaction. Difference in NRS was analysed using analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) and t-tests.

Results: 70 participants were enrolled, 35 in each arm. Mean age was 40.4±13.2 years, mean NRS at presentation in the intervention arm was 8.0±0.9 and 7.6±0.6 in the control arm. NRS at 1 hour was significantly lower in the ESPB group (ANCOVA p<0.001). At 1, 3, 5 and 10 hours, reduction of NRS in the intervention arm (7±1.6, 6.7±1.9, 6.6±1.8, 6.1±1.9) was significantly greater than the control arm (4.4±2, 4.6±1.8, 3.7±2.2, 3.8±1.8) (t-test, p<0.001). Fewer patients receiving ESPB required rescue analgesia at 5 (t-test, p=0.031) and 10 hours (t-test, p=0.04). More patients were 'very satisfied' with ESPB compared with receiving only morphine at each time period (p<0.001).

Conclusion: ESPB is a promising alternative to morphine in those with HPB pain.

Trial registration number: CTRI/2023/03/050595.

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
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信