Tei Yo, Morita Tatsuya, Nakaho Toshimichi, Takigawa Chizuko, Higuchi Akiko, Suga Akihiko, Tajima Tsukasa, Ikenaga Masayuki, Higuchi Hitomi, Shimoyama Naohito, Fujimoto Mayumi
Seirei Hospice, Seirei Mikatahara General Hospital, Hamamatsu, Japan.
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2008 Nov;36(5):461-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.11.009. Epub 2008 May 27.
More than 85% of cancer-related pain is pharmacologically controllable, but some patients require interventional treatments. Although audit assessment of these interventions is of importance to clarify the types of patients likely to receive benefits, there have been no multicenter studies in Japan. The primary aims of this study were (1) to clarify the frequency of neural blockade in certified palliative care units and palliative care teams, (2) determine the efficacy of interventions, and (3) explore the predictors of successful or unsuccessful intervention. All patients who received neural blockade were consecutively recruited from seven certified palliative care units and five hospital palliative care teams in Japan. Primary responsible physicians reported pain intensity on the Support Team Assessment Schedule, performance status, communication levels on the Communication Capacity Scale, presence or absence of delirium, opioid consumption, and adverse effects before and one week after the procedure on the basis of retrospective chart review. A total of 162 interventions in 136 patients were obtained, comprising 3.8% of all patients receiving specialized palliative care services during the study period. Common procedures were epidural nerve block with local anesthetic and/or opioids (n = 84), neurolytic sympathetic plexus block (n = 24), and intrathecal nerve block with phenol (n = 21). There were significant differences in the frequency of neural blockade between palliative care units and palliative care teams (3.1% vs. 4.6%, respectively, P = 0.018), and between institutions whose leading physicians are anesthesiologists or have other specialties (4.8% vs. 1.5%, respectively, P < 0.001). Pain intensity measured on the Support Team Assessment Schedule (2.9 +/- 0.8 to 1.7 +/- 0.9, P < 0.001), performance status (2.7 +/- 1.0 to 2.4 +/- 1.0, P < 0.001), and opioid consumption (248 +/- 348 to 186 +/- 288 mg morphine equivalent/day, P < 0.001) were significantly improved after interventions. There was a tendency toward improvement in the communication level measured on the Communication Capacity Scale. There was no significant improvement in the prevalence of delirium, but six patients (32%) recovered from delirium after interventions. Adverse effects occurred in 9.2%, but all were predictable or transient. No fatal complications were reported. Pain intensity was significantly more improved in patients who survived 28 days or longer than others (P = 0.002). There were no significant correlations of changes in pain intensity with the performance status or previous opioid consumption. In conclusion, neural blockade was performed in 3.8% of cancer patients who received specialized palliative care services in Japan. Neural blockade could contribute to the improvement of pain intensity, performance service status, and opioid consumption without unpredictable serious side effects.
超过85%的癌症相关疼痛在药物治疗上是可控的,但一些患者需要介入治疗。尽管对这些介入治疗进行审核评估对于明确可能受益的患者类型很重要,但日本尚未开展多中心研究。本研究的主要目的是:(1)明确认证姑息治疗病房和姑息治疗团队中神经阻滞的频率;(2)确定介入治疗的疗效;(3)探索介入治疗成功或失败的预测因素。在日本,从7个认证姑息治疗病房和5个医院姑息治疗团队中连续招募所有接受神经阻滞的患者。主要负责医生通过回顾病历,报告在支持团队评估量表上的疼痛强度、体能状态、沟通能力量表上的沟通水平、谵妄的有无、阿片类药物的消耗量以及治疗前和治疗后一周的不良反应。共获得136例患者的162次介入治疗,占研究期间接受专科姑息治疗服务所有患者的3.8%。常见的治疗方法包括局部麻醉药和/或阿片类药物的硬膜外神经阻滞(n = 84)、神经溶解交感神经丛阻滞(n = 24)以及酚的鞘内神经阻滞(n = 21)。姑息治疗病房和姑息治疗团队之间神经阻滞的频率存在显著差异(分别为3.1%和4.6%,P = 0.018),主要医生为麻醉医生或其他专科医生的机构之间也存在显著差异(分别为4.8%和1.5%,P < 0.001)。根据支持团队评估量表测量的疼痛强度(从2.9±0.8降至1.7±0.9,P < 0.001)、体能状态(从2.7±1.0降至2.4±1.0,P < 0.001)以及阿片类药物消耗量(从248±348降至186±288毫克吗啡当量/天,P < 0.001)在介入治疗后均有显著改善。沟通能力量表测量的沟通水平有改善的趋势。谵妄的发生率没有显著改善,但6例患者(32%)在介入治疗后从谵妄中恢复。不良反应发生率为9.2%,但均为可预测的或短暂的。未报告致命并发症。存活28天或更长时间的患者疼痛强度改善明显大于其他患者(P = 0.002)。疼痛强度的变化与体能状态或先前的阿片类药物消耗量无显著相关性。总之,在日本接受专科姑息治疗服务的癌症患者中,3.8%接受了神经阻滞。神经阻滞有助于改善疼痛强度、体能状态和阿片类药物消耗量,且无不可预测的严重副作用。