Panchal Sunil J, Damaraju C V, Nelson Winnie W, Hewitt David J, Schein Jeff R
Coalition for Pain Education Foundation, Tampa, Florida, USA.
Anesth Analg. 2007 Nov;105(5):1437-41, table of contents. doi: 10.1213/01.ane.0000281442.36582.81.
Analgesic gaps (interruptions in analgesic delivery) contribute to ineffective postoperative pain management. In this analysis, we evaluated the incidence of analgesic gaps resulting from system-related events (SREs) for patients using the fentanyl iontophoretic transdermal system (ITS), a noninvasive patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) system, or morphine IV PCA for postoperative pain management.
Data were pooled from two open-label, randomized, active-controlled trials that evaluated the efficacy and safety of fentanyl ITS and morphine IV PCA after total hip replacement, abdominal, or pelvic surgery. The incidence and duration of analgesic gaps resulting from SREs were assessed, along with SRE resolution times.
A total of 1305 patients received fentanyl ITS (n = 647) or morphine IV PCA (n = 658). Fentanyl ITS was associated with a significantly lower incidence of analgesic gaps per 100 patients compared with morphine IV PCA (5.87 vs 12.01, respectively; P < 0.001). Compared with patients receiving morphine IV PCA, patients receiving fentanyl ITS had both a numerically lower median total analgesic gap time (15.0 min vs 20.0 min) and a numerically lower median total SRE resolution time (11.0 min vs 20.0 min). Most fentanyl ITS SREs were resolved by applying a new system, whereas many different SRE resolution methods were used for morphine IV PCA.
Fentanyl ITS was associated with a significantly lower incidence of analgesic gaps relative to morphine IV PCA. Fentanyl ITS may provide patients with fewer interruptions and more continuous analgesic delivery.
镇痛间隙(镇痛给药中断)会导致术后疼痛管理效果不佳。在本分析中,我们评估了使用芬太尼离子导入透皮系统(ITS)、一种无创患者自控镇痛(PCA)系统或吗啡静脉PCA进行术后疼痛管理的患者中,由系统相关事件(SREs)导致的镇痛间隙发生率。
数据汇总自两项开放标签、随机、活性对照试验,这些试验评估了芬太尼ITS和吗啡静脉PCA在全髋关节置换术、腹部或盆腔手术后的疗效和安全性。评估了由SREs导致的镇痛间隙的发生率和持续时间,以及SRE解决时间。
共有1305例患者接受了芬太尼ITS(n = 647)或吗啡静脉PCA(n = 658)。与吗啡静脉PCA相比,芬太尼ITS每100例患者的镇痛间隙发生率显著更低(分别为5.87和12.01;P < 0.001)。与接受吗啡静脉PCA的患者相比,接受芬太尼ITS的患者的总镇痛间隙时间中位数在数值上更低(15.0分钟对20.0分钟),总SRE解决时间中位数在数值上也更低(11.0分钟对20.0分钟)。大多数芬太尼ITS的SREs通过应用新系统得以解决,而吗啡静脉PCA则使用了许多不同的SRE解决方法。
相对于吗啡静脉PCA,芬太尼ITS的镇痛间隙发生率显著更低。芬太尼ITS可能为患者提供更少的中断和更持续的镇痛给药。