Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong.
Anesth Analg. 2010 Oct;111(4):1042-50. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181ed1317. Epub 2010 Aug 12.
Acute pain services have received widespread acceptance and formal support from institutions and organizations, but available evidence on their costs and benefits is scarce. Although there is good agreement on the provision of acute pain services after many major surgical procedures, there are other procedures for which the benefits are unclear. Data are required to justify any expansion of acute pain services. In this randomized, controlled clinical trial we compared the costs and effects of acute pain service care on clinical outcomes with conventional pain management on the ward. Patients included in the trial were considered by their anesthesiologist to have either arm be suitable for the procedure.
Four hundred twenty-three patients undergoing major elective surgery were randomized either to an anesthesiologist-led, nurse-based acute pain service group with patient-controlled analgesia or to a control group with IM or IV boluses of opioid analgesia. Both groups were treated with medications to treat opioid-related adverse effects and received the usual care from health professionals assigned to the ward. The main outcome measures were quality of recovery scores, pain intensity measures, global measure of treatment effectiveness, and overall pain treatment cost. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were drawn to detect a difference in the joint cost-effect relationship between groups.
There was no difference in quality of recovery score on postoperative day 1 between treatment and control groups (mean difference, 0; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.7 to 0.7; P = 0.94) or in the rate of improvement in quality of recovery score (mean difference, -0.1; 95% CI, -0.4 to 0.1; P = 0.34). The proportion of patients with 1 or more days of highly effective pain management was higher in the acute pain service group than in the control group (86% vs. 75%; P < 0.01). Costs were higher in the acute pain service group (mean difference, US$46; 95% CI, $44 to $48 per patient; P < 0.001). A cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed that the acute pain service was more cost effective than was control for providing highly effective pain management if the decision maker was willing to pay more than US$546 per patient per 1 day with highly effective treatment.
In extending the role of the acute pain service to a specific group of major surgical procedures, the acute pain service was likely to be cost effective.
急性疼痛服务已得到机构和组织的广泛认可和正式支持,但关于其成本和效益的可用证据很少。尽管在许多大手术后提供急性疼痛服务已达成共识,但对于其他手术,其益处尚不清楚。需要数据来证明急性疼痛服务的任何扩展都是合理的。在这项随机对照临床试验中,我们比较了急性疼痛服务护理对临床结果的影响,与常规病房疼痛管理相比。参与试验的患者被他们的麻醉师认为适合进行该手术。
423 名接受大择期手术的患者被随机分配到以麻醉师为主导、以护士为基础的急性疼痛服务组,接受患者自控镇痛,或分配到对照组,接受 IM 或 IV 阿片类药物冲击疗法。两组均使用治疗阿片类药物相关不良反应的药物,并接受分配到病房的卫生专业人员的常规护理。主要结局指标为康复质量评分、疼痛强度测量、总体治疗效果测量和整体疼痛治疗成本。绘制成本-效果关系接受曲线以检测两组之间联合成本-效果关系的差异。
治疗组和对照组在术后第 1 天的康复质量评分(平均差值,0;95%置信区间[CI],-0.7 至 0.7;P = 0.94)或康复质量评分的改善率(平均差值,-0.1;95%CI,-0.4 至 0.1;P = 0.34)方面没有差异。急性疼痛服务组有 1 天或以上高效疼痛管理的患者比例高于对照组(86%比 75%;P < 0.01)。急性疼痛服务组的成本较高(平均差值,46 美元;95%CI,每位患者 44 至 48 美元;P < 0.001)。成本-效果关系接受曲线显示,如果决策者愿意为每位患者每 1 天的高效治疗支付超过 546 美元,那么急性疼痛服务比对照组提供高效疼痛管理更具成本效益。
在将急性疼痛服务扩展到特定的大型手术群体中时,急性疼痛服务可能具有成本效益。