Suppr超能文献

一项随机临床试验,比较静脉注射氢吗啡酮的患者驱动滴定方案与传统医生驱动的急诊科急性重度疼痛患者管理方案。

Randomized clinical trial comparing a patient-driven titration protocol of intravenous hydromorphone with traditional physician-driven management of emergency department patients with acute severe pain.

作者信息

Chang Andrew K, Bijur Polly E, Davitt Michelle, Gallagher E John

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, NY 10467, USA.

出版信息

Ann Emerg Med. 2009 Oct;54(4):561-567.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2009.05.003. Epub 2009 Jun 28.

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We test the null hypothesis that the "1+1" hydromorphone patient-driven protocol is clinically and statistically equivalent in safety and efficacy to that of traditional physician-driven administration of opioids for emergency department (ED) treatment of acute severe pain.

METHODS

This was a prospective randomized clinical trial of nonelderly adults presenting to an urban academic ED with acute pain of sufficient severity to warrant intravenous (IV) opioids in the judgment of the attending physician. Patients randomized to the 1+1 hydromorphone patient-driven protocol received 1 mg IV hydromorphone followed by a second 1-mg dose 15 minutes later if the patient responded affirmatively to the question, "Do you want more pain medication?" Patients in the physician-driven group received any IV opioid in the dose chosen by the ED attending physician, with any additional analgesia provided at the discretion of that physician. The primary outcome was the difference in improvement in pain between the 2 groups at 60 minutes, as measured by a validated and reproducible numeric rating scale. Secondary outcomes included incidence of oxygen desaturation, hypoventilation, hypotension, bradycardia, nausea, vomiting, pruritus, and use of naloxone.

RESULTS

The mean decrease in numeric rating scale pain scores for the 1+1 hydromorphone patient-driven group was 5.6 versus 4.5 in the physician-driven group. The difference of 1.1 numeric rating scale units (95% confidence interval 0.3 to 1.9) was statistically significant but fell 0.2 numeric rating scale units short of the 1.3 numeric rating scale unit threshold required to attain clinically significant efficacy. Safety profiles were similarly satisfactory in both groups. Ninety-four percent of the 1+1 hydromorphone patient-driven group achieved adequate analgesia (as defined by the patient) within 60 minutes of protocol initiation.

CONCLUSION

The 1+1 hydromorphone patient-driven protocol is statistically superior and at least as clinically efficacious and safe as traditional physician-driven treatment of ED patients with acute severe pain. More than 9 of 10 patients randomized to the study protocol achieved satisfactory pain control, as defined by the patient, within an hour or less.

摘要

研究目的

我们检验零假设,即对于急诊科(ED)急性重度疼痛的治疗,“1+1”氢吗啡酮患者驱动方案在安全性和有效性方面在临床和统计学上与传统医生驱动的阿片类药物给药方案相当。

方法

这是一项前瞻性随机临床试验,研究对象为非老年成年人,他们因急性疼痛到城市学术性急诊科就诊,且经主治医生判断疼痛严重程度足以使用静脉注射(IV)阿片类药物。随机分配到“1+1”氢吗啡酮患者驱动方案组的患者先静脉注射1mg氢吗啡酮,若患者对“你想要更多止痛药吗?”这个问题回答肯定,则在15分钟后再注射1mg。医生驱动组的患者接受急诊科主治医生选择剂量的任何静脉注射阿片类药物,并由该医生酌情提供额外镇痛。主要结局是两组在60分钟时疼痛改善程度的差异,通过经过验证且可重复的数字评分量表进行测量。次要结局包括氧饱和度降低、通气不足、低血压、心动过缓、恶心、呕吐、瘙痒的发生率以及纳洛酮的使用情况。

结果

“1+1”氢吗啡酮患者驱动组数字评分量表疼痛评分的平均降低值为5.6,而医生驱动组为4.5。1.1个数字评分量表单位的差异(95%置信区间为0.3至1.9)具有统计学意义,但比达到临床显著疗效所需的1.3个数字评分量表单位的阈值低0.2个数字评分量表单位。两组的安全性概况同样令人满意。“1+1”氢吗啡酮患者驱动组中94%的患者在方案启动后60分钟内达到了充分镇痛(由患者定义)。

结论

“1+1”氢吗啡酮患者驱动方案在统计学上更具优势,并且在临床有效性和安全性方面至少与传统医生驱动的急诊科急性重度疼痛患者治疗方案相当。随机分配到该研究方案的患者中,超过十分之九在一小时或更短时间内达到了患者定义的满意疼痛控制。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验