Fujii Yoshitaka, Itakura Michiyo
First Department of Anesthesiology, Toho University School of Medicine, Ohta-ku, Tokyo, Japan.
Clin Ther. 2009 Apr;31(4):721-7. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2009.04.014.
Pain on injection of propofol is a common clinical problem. Flurbiprofen axetil, an injectable prodrug of flurbiprofen, with or without venous occlusion has been reported to reduce this pain. A search of the existing literature did not identify comparative studies of 3 different techniques, including pretreatment with flurbiprofen axetil, flurbiprofen axetil preceded by venous occlusion, and mixture of propofol and flurbiprofen axetil, for reducing pain on injection of propofol.
The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of these 3 different techniques of flurbiprofen axetil administration in reducing pain on injection of propofol.
This prospective, randomized, doubleblind, placebo-controlled study was conducted at the Department of Anesthesiology, Ushiku Aiwa General Hospital, Ibaraki, Japan. Japanese elective surgical patients, aged 20 to 65 years, were enrolled and were randomly divided into 6 groups: the control group received placebo (saline) before administration of IV propofol 0.5 mg/kg; the flurbiprofen group was pretreated with IV flurbiprofen axetil 50 mg before injection of propofol 0.5 mg/kg; the tourniquet control group received placebo (saline) with a tourniquet for 2 minutes followed by administering propofol 0.5 mg/kg; the tourniquet flurbiprofen group was pretreated with flurbiprofen axetil 50 mg with a tourniquet for 2 minutes followed by administering propofol 0.5 mg/kg; the mixed control group was induced with a mixture of placebo (saline) and propofol 0.5 mg/kg; and the mixed flurbiprofen group was induced with a mixture of flurbiprofen axetil 50 mg and propofol 0.5 mg/kg. Immediately after administering propofol into the largest vein of the hand through a 20-gauge intravenous cannula, an investigator blinded to group assignment asked the patient to assess pain intensity at the injection site using a 4-point verbal rating scale: 0 = none, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, and 3 = severe. Adverse effects (AEs) at the injection site (pain, edema, wheal, or inflammation) were assessed by the investigator for 24 hours after surgery using spontaneous reporting and patient interview.
One hundred fifty-five patients were assessed for inclusion. A total of 150 patients (71 males, 79 females; mean [SD] age, 41 [10] years; mean [SD] height, 161 [9] cm; mean [SD] body weight, 58 [9] kg) were enrolled and completed the study. Each treatment group comprised 25 patients. No significant differences in the demographic characteristics were observed among the 6 groups. The overall incidence of pain on injection of propofol was 92% (23 of 25 patients) in the control group versus 60% (15/ 25) in the flurbiprofen group (P = 0.009); 84% (21/25) in the tourniquet control group versus 32% (8/25) in the tourniquet flurbiprofen group (P = 0.001); and 92% (23/25) in the mixed control group versus 80% (20/25) in the mixed flurbiprofen group (P = NS). The median pain score was significantly lower in the flurbiprofen group (1) compared with the control group (2) (P = 0.002); this score was significantly lower in the tourniquet flurbiprofen group (0) compared with the tourniquet control group (2) (P = 0.001); the score was comparable between the mixed control and mixed flurbiprofen groups (2 vs 2, respectively; P = NS). The incidence and severity of pain on injection of propofol were significantly less in the tourniquet flurbiprofen group compared with the flurbiprofen group (both, P < 0.05). No AEs at the injection site were observed or reported.
In this study of adult Japanese surgical patients, pretreatment with flurbiprofen axetil 50 mg preceded by venous occlusion was found to be more effective in reducing pain on injection of propofol than the other flurbiprofen axetil administration strategies tested.
丙泊酚注射痛是常见的临床问题。据报道,氟比洛芬酯(一种氟比洛芬的可注射前体药物)无论有无静脉闭塞,均可减轻这种疼痛。检索现有文献未发现关于三种不同技术(包括氟比洛芬酯预处理、静脉闭塞后使用氟比洛芬酯以及丙泊酚与氟比洛芬酯混合)减轻丙泊酚注射痛的比较研究。
本研究旨在比较这三种不同的氟比洛芬酯给药技术在减轻丙泊酚注射痛方面的有效性。
本前瞻性、随机、双盲、安慰剂对照研究在日本茨城县铫子爱和综合医院麻醉科进行。纳入年龄在20至65岁的日本择期手术患者,并将其随机分为6组:对照组在静脉注射0.5mg/kg丙泊酚前接受安慰剂(生理盐水);氟比洛芬组在注射0.5mg/kg丙泊酚前静脉注射50mg氟比洛芬酯;止血带对照组使用止血带2分钟后接受安慰剂(生理盐水),随后注射丙泊酚0.5mg/kg;止血带氟比洛芬组使用止血带2分钟并静脉注射50mg氟比洛芬酯后,再注射丙泊酚0.5mg/kg;混合对照组使用安慰剂(生理盐水)与丙泊酚0.5mg/kg的混合物诱导麻醉;混合氟比洛芬组使用50mg氟比洛芬酯与丙泊酚0.5mg/kg的混合物诱导麻醉。通过20号静脉留置针将丙泊酚注入手部最大静脉后,一名对分组不知情的研究者让患者使用4级语言评定量表评估注射部位的疼痛强度:0 = 无,1 = 轻度,2 = 中度,3 = 重度。研究者在术后24小时通过自发报告和患者访谈评估注射部位的不良反应(AEs)(疼痛、水肿、风团或炎症)。
共评估了155例患者是否符合纳入标准。总共150例患者(71例男性,79例女性;平均[标准差]年龄,41[10]岁;平均[标准差]身高,161[9]cm;平均[标准差]体重,58[9]kg)被纳入并完成研究。每个治疗组包含25例患者。6组患者的人口统计学特征无显著差异。丙泊酚注射痛的总体发生率在对照组为92%(25例患者中的23例),而氟比洛芬组为60%(15/25)(P = 0.009);止血带对照组为84%(21/25),而止血带氟比洛芬组为32%(8/25)(P = 0.001);混合对照组为92%(23/25),而混合氟比洛芬组为80%(20/25)(P = 无统计学意义)。氟比洛芬组的疼痛评分中位数(1)显著低于对照组(2)(P = 0.002);止血带氟比洛芬组(0)的评分显著低于止血带对照组(2)(P = 0.001);混合对照组和混合氟比洛芬组的评分相当(分别为2对2;P = 无统计学意义)。与氟比洛芬组相比,止血带氟比洛芬组丙泊酚注射痛的发生率和严重程度均显著更低(均P < 0.05)。未观察到或报告注射部位的不良反应。
在这项针对成年日本手术患者的研究中,发现静脉闭塞前使用50mg氟比洛芬酯预处理在减轻丙泊酚注射痛方面比其他测试的氟比洛芬酯给药策略更有效。