Department of Complementary and Integrative Medicine, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Acupunct Med. 2012 Mar;30(1):21-6. doi: 10.1136/acupmed-2011-010094.
The hypoalgesic effect of electroacupuncture (EA) was directly compared with the analgesic effect of pharmacological interventions using the submaximum effort tourniquet technique (SETT).
125 healthy subjects (mean age 24.44±4.46 years; 62.4% female, 37.6% male) performed SETT at baseline and under one of five experimental conditions (n=25 per group): EA (2 Hz with burst pulses in alternating one-phase-square wave pulses; burst length 180 μs, burst frequency 80 Hz, stimulation time/pulse width 3 s), tramadol (50 mg), ibuprofen (400 mg), placebo pill or non-treatment control. EA was performed at LI4 and LI10 contralaterally with stimulation beginning 20 min before SETT and lasting throughout SETT. The pharmacological interventions were given in a double-blind design 1 h before the SETT assessment.
Subjects showed a hypoalgesic effect of the opiate and of the EA for subjective pain rating (EA p=0.0051; tramadol p=0.0299), and pain tolerance index (time/rating) (EA p=0.043; tramadol p=0.047) analysed using analysis of covariance. More subjects reached the strict time limit of 30 min (analysed by logistic regression and adjusted OR as a post-hoc analysis) under EA compared with most other experimental conditions. Only EA and tramadol were not significantly different (95% Wald confidence limits: non-treatment control vs EA 0.011 to 0.542; placebo pill vs EA 0.009 to 0.438; ibuprofen vs EA 0.021 to 0.766; tramadol vs EA 0.065 to 1.436).
In a laboratory setting, an EA procedure was as effective as a single dose of an orally administered opiate in reducing experimentally induced ischaemic pain.
用电针(EA)的镇痛作用与使用次大努力止血带技术(SETT)的药物干预的镇痛作用进行直接比较。
125 名健康受试者(平均年龄 24.44±4.46 岁;62.4%为女性,37.6%为男性)在基线和以下五种实验条件下进行 SETT(每组 25 名):EA(2 Hz 与单相方波脉冲交替的爆发脉冲;爆发长度 180 μs,爆发频率 80 Hz,刺激时间/脉冲宽度 3 s)、曲马多、布洛芬、安慰剂丸或非治疗对照。EA 在 LI4 和 LI10 处进行对侧刺激,在 SETT 前 20 分钟开始,持续整个 SETT。药物干预以双盲设计在 SETT 评估前 1 小时进行。
使用协方差分析,受试者对主观疼痛评分(EA p=0.0051;曲马多 p=0.0299)和疼痛耐受指数(时间/评分)(EA p=0.043;曲马多 p=0.047)表现出阿片类药物和 EA 的镇痛作用。与大多数其他实验条件相比,更多的受试者在 EA 下达到了严格的 30 分钟时间限制(通过逻辑回归和事后分析调整的优势比进行分析)。只有 EA 和曲马多没有显著差异(95% Wald 置信区间:非治疗对照 vs EA 0.011 至 0.542;安慰剂丸 vs EA 0.009 至 0.438;布洛芬 vs EA 0.021 至 0.766;曲马多 vs EA 0.065 至 1.436)。
在实验室环境中,EA 程序与单次口服阿片类药物一样有效,可减少实验性缺血性疼痛。