与传统阿片类麻醉相比,保留阿片类麻醉的安全性和有效性:一项范围综述。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Maria P Lauretta, Luca Marino, Federico Bilotta
{"title":"与传统阿片类麻醉相比,保留阿片类麻醉的安全性和有效性:一项范围综述。","authors":"Maria P Lauretta, Luca Marino, Federico Bilotta","doi":"10.1097/AJP.0000000000001261","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The rationale of adoption opioid-sparing anesthesia (OSA) is to achieve perioperative analgesia with a minimal amount of opioids combined with nonopioid adjuvants during and after surgery, namely multimodal anesthesia. The OSA approach was originally developed to overcome the known complications of opioid-based anesthesia (OA), and the present scoping review (ScR) aims at providing clinical evidence of the safety and efficacy of OSA with respect to OA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This ScR is mainly focused on studies presenting evidence on the safety and efficacy of OSA versus OA. PubMed and EMBASE databases were utilized to find relevant studies. The search strategy included the following keywords: \"opioid sparing anesthesia complications, opioid sparing anesthesia efficacy, opioid sparing anesthesia safety.\" The findings from the 25 included studies were categorized into the following subsections: article characteristics, goals of the studies, OSA protocols, and surgical settings analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the 25 reviewed studies, evidence related to the impact of OSA versus OA was considered. Intraoperative safety and efficacy end points include hemodynamic stability and anesthetic/analgesic requirements. Postoperative end points include early cognitive dysfunction, opioid-induced bowel disorder, the physical status of mothers and newborns after labor and emergency cesarean, systemic immune and inflammation modifications, postoperative recovery, in-hospital and long-term opioid requirement, early postoperative pain, and chronic postsurgical pain. The studies reported lower intraoperative mean arterial pressure and heart rate fluctuations when α 2 agonists were adopted, while no differences were recorded for other complication rates. Analysis of OSA approaches for the postoperative conditions includes α 2 agonists, NMDA receptor blocking agents, gabapentinoids, nefopam hydrochloride, and locoregional anesthesia techniques with a positive impact on most of the end points considered.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The clinical implementation of OSA encompasses the perioperative use of nonopioid drugs and locoregional anesthesia techniques. The reviewed studies reported OSA as a feasible approach to reduce opioid-related complications with no impact on patient safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":50678,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Journal of Pain","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Safety and Efficacy of Opioid-sparing Anesthesia Compared With Traditional Opioid Anesthesia: A Scoping Review.\",\"authors\":\"Maria P Lauretta, Luca Marino, Federico Bilotta\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/AJP.0000000000001261\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The rationale of adoption opioid-sparing anesthesia (OSA) is to achieve perioperative analgesia with a minimal amount of opioids combined with nonopioid adjuvants during and after surgery, namely multimodal anesthesia. The OSA approach was originally developed to overcome the known complications of opioid-based anesthesia (OA), and the present scoping review (ScR) aims at providing clinical evidence of the safety and efficacy of OSA with respect to OA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This ScR is mainly focused on studies presenting evidence on the safety and efficacy of OSA versus OA. PubMed and EMBASE databases were utilized to find relevant studies. The search strategy included the following keywords: \\\"opioid sparing anesthesia complications, opioid sparing anesthesia efficacy, opioid sparing anesthesia safety.\\\" The findings from the 25 included studies were categorized into the following subsections: article characteristics, goals of the studies, OSA protocols, and surgical settings analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the 25 reviewed studies, evidence related to the impact of OSA versus OA was considered. Intraoperative safety and efficacy end points include hemodynamic stability and anesthetic/analgesic requirements. Postoperative end points include early cognitive dysfunction, opioid-induced bowel disorder, the physical status of mothers and newborns after labor and emergency cesarean, systemic immune and inflammation modifications, postoperative recovery, in-hospital and long-term opioid requirement, early postoperative pain, and chronic postsurgical pain. The studies reported lower intraoperative mean arterial pressure and heart rate fluctuations when α 2 agonists were adopted, while no differences were recorded for other complication rates. Analysis of OSA approaches for the postoperative conditions includes α 2 agonists, NMDA receptor blocking agents, gabapentinoids, nefopam hydrochloride, and locoregional anesthesia techniques with a positive impact on most of the end points considered.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The clinical implementation of OSA encompasses the perioperative use of nonopioid drugs and locoregional anesthesia techniques. The reviewed studies reported OSA as a feasible approach to reduce opioid-related complications with no impact on patient safety.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50678,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Journal of Pain\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Journal of Pain\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000001261\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Journal of Pain","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/AJP.0000000000001261","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:采用阿片类药物保留麻醉(OSA)的基本原理是在手术中和手术后以少量阿片类药物联合非阿片类药物佐剂实现围手术期镇痛,即多模式麻醉。OSA方法最初是为了克服阿片类药物麻醉(OA)的已知并发症而开发的,目前的范围审查(ScR)旨在提供OSA在OA方面的安全性和有效性的临床证据。方法:本ScR主要集中于提供OSA与OA安全性和有效性证据的研究。利用PubMed、EMBASE数据库查找相关研究。搜索策略包括以下关键词:“阿片保留麻醉并发症、阿片保留麻醉疗效、阿片保留麻醉安全性”。纳入的25项研究的结果可分为以下几部分:文章特征、研究目标、OSA方案和分析的手术环境。结果:在回顾的25项研究中,考虑了OSA与OA影响的相关证据。术中安全性和有效性终点包括血流动力学稳定性和麻醉/镇痛要求。术后终点包括早期认知功能障碍、阿片类药物引起的肠道疾病、分娩和紧急剖宫产后母亲和新生儿的身体状况、全身免疫和炎症改变、术后恢复、住院和长期阿片类药物需求、术后早期疼痛、术后慢性疼痛。研究报道,采用α2激动剂时术中平均动脉压和心率波动较低,而其他并发症发生率无差异。对术后情况的OSA入路分析包括α2激动剂、NMDA受体阻滞剂、加巴喷丁类药物、盐酸奈福泮和局部麻醉技术,这些技术对大多数考虑的终点都有积极影响。讨论:OSA的临床实施包括围手术期非阿片类药物的使用和局部麻醉技术。所回顾的研究报告称,OSA是一种减少阿片类药物相关并发症且不影响患者安全的可行方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Safety and Efficacy of Opioid-sparing Anesthesia Compared With Traditional Opioid Anesthesia: A Scoping Review.

Objectives: The rationale of adoption opioid-sparing anesthesia (OSA) is to achieve perioperative analgesia with a minimal amount of opioids combined with nonopioid adjuvants during and after surgery, namely multimodal anesthesia. The OSA approach was originally developed to overcome the known complications of opioid-based anesthesia (OA), and the present scoping review (ScR) aims at providing clinical evidence of the safety and efficacy of OSA with respect to OA.

Methods: This ScR is mainly focused on studies presenting evidence on the safety and efficacy of OSA versus OA. PubMed and EMBASE databases were utilized to find relevant studies. The search strategy included the following keywords: "opioid sparing anesthesia complications, opioid sparing anesthesia efficacy, opioid sparing anesthesia safety." The findings from the 25 included studies were categorized into the following subsections: article characteristics, goals of the studies, OSA protocols, and surgical settings analyzed.

Results: In the 25 reviewed studies, evidence related to the impact of OSA versus OA was considered. Intraoperative safety and efficacy end points include hemodynamic stability and anesthetic/analgesic requirements. Postoperative end points include early cognitive dysfunction, opioid-induced bowel disorder, the physical status of mothers and newborns after labor and emergency cesarean, systemic immune and inflammation modifications, postoperative recovery, in-hospital and long-term opioid requirement, early postoperative pain, and chronic postsurgical pain. The studies reported lower intraoperative mean arterial pressure and heart rate fluctuations when α 2 agonists were adopted, while no differences were recorded for other complication rates. Analysis of OSA approaches for the postoperative conditions includes α 2 agonists, NMDA receptor blocking agents, gabapentinoids, nefopam hydrochloride, and locoregional anesthesia techniques with a positive impact on most of the end points considered.

Discussion: The clinical implementation of OSA encompasses the perioperative use of nonopioid drugs and locoregional anesthesia techniques. The reviewed studies reported OSA as a feasible approach to reduce opioid-related complications with no impact on patient safety.

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
Clinical Journal of Pain
Clinical Journal of Pain 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
3.40%
发文量
118
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: ​​​The Clinical Journal of Pain explores all aspects of pain and its effective treatment, bringing readers the insights of leading anesthesiologists, surgeons, internists, neurologists, orthopedists, psychiatrists and psychologists, clinical pharmacologists, and rehabilitation medicine specialists. This peer-reviewed journal presents timely and thought-provoking articles on clinical dilemmas in pain management; valuable diagnostic procedures; promising new pharmacological, surgical, and other therapeutic modalities; psychosocial dimensions of pain; and ethical issues of concern to all medical professionals. The journal also publishes Special Topic issues on subjects of particular relevance to the practice of pain medicine.
×
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