Basurto Ona Xavier, Rigau Comas David, Urrútia Gerard
Emergency Department, Hospital de Figueres, Fundació Salut Empordà, Figueres, Spain.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jul 26;2013(7):CD009179. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009179.pub2.
Acute pancreatitis is an acute inflammatory process of the pancreas that may also involve adjacent tissues and/or remote organ systems. Abdominal pain is the main symptom and is usually accompanied by nausea, vomiting and fever. Opoids are commonly used to manage pain in acute pancreatitis but there are still some uncertainties about their clinical effectiveness and safety.
To assess the effectiveness and safety of opioids for treating acute pancreatitis pain.
The search strategy included the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases Review Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (2013, Issue 6), MEDLINE (from 1950 to June 2013) and EMBASE (from 1980 to June 2013). There were no restrictions by language or publication status.
We considered randomised clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of any opioid drug used for treating acute pancreatitis pain.
Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risks of bias and extracted data. We estimated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and calculated a 95% confidence interval (CI) for each RR. We performed an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. We undertook meta-analysis for some outcomes.
We included five RCTs with a total of 227 participants (age range 23 to 76 years; 65% men) with acute pancreatitis pain. The opioids assessed were intravenous and intramuscular buprenorphine, intramuscular pethidine, intravenous pentazocine, transdermal fentanyl and subcutaneous morphine.One RCT, comparing subcutaneous morphine with intravenous metamizole reported non-significant reduction in the number of participants with improvements in pain intensity (primary outcome) (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.33). Three studies compared analgesia using opioids with non-opioid treatments. After excluding one study that used opioids through continuous intravenous infusion, there was a decrease in the number of patients requiring supplementary analgesia (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.93). In a single study, there were no differences in the number of patients requiring supplementary analgesia between buprenorphine and pethidine (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.10).Pancreatitis complications were not associated with a significant difference between the drugs tested. No clinically serious or life-threatening adverse events occurred related to treatment. No differences for this outcome were found between opioid and non-opioid treatments, or for type of adverse event (nausea-vomiting and somnolence-sedation). One death in the procaine group was reported across all the trials.One RCT comparing pethidine with intramuscular buprenorphine reported non-significant differences of supplementary analgesic, adverse events or deaths. One RCT comparing fentanyl with placebo found no difference in adverse events.The findings of this review are limited by the lack of information to allow full appraisal of the risk of bias, the measurement of relevant outcomes and the small numbers of participants and events covered by the trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Opioids may be an appropriate choice in the treatment of acute pancreatitis pain. Compared with other analgesic options, opioids may decrease the need for supplementary analgesia. There is currently no difference in the risk of pancreatitis complications or clinically serious adverse events between opioids and other analgesia options.Future research should focus on the design of trials with larger samples and the measurement of relevant outcomes for decision-making, such as the number of participants showing reductions in pain intensity. The reporting of these RCTs should also be improved to allow users of the medical literature to appraise their results accurately. Large longitudinal studies are also needed to establish the risk of pancreatitis complications and adverse events related to drugs.
急性胰腺炎是胰腺的一种急性炎症过程,可能还会累及邻近组织和/或远处器官系统。腹痛是主要症状,通常伴有恶心、呕吐和发热。阿片类药物常用于治疗急性胰腺炎的疼痛,但关于其临床有效性和安全性仍存在一些不确定性。
评估阿片类药物治疗急性胰腺炎疼痛的有效性和安全性。
检索策略包括Cochrane上消化道和胰腺疾病综述小组专业注册库、Cochrane图书馆(2013年第6期)中的Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE(1950年至2013年6月)和EMBASE(1980年至2013年6月)。没有语言或出版状态的限制。
我们纳入了评估任何用于治疗急性胰腺炎疼痛的阿片类药物有效性的随机临床试验(RCT)。
两位综述作者独立选择研究、评估偏倚风险并提取数据。我们估计二分数据的风险比(RRs),并为每个RR计算95%置信区间(CI)。我们进行了意向性分析(ITT)。我们对一些结局进行了荟萃分析。
我们纳入了5项RCT,共有227名患有急性胰腺炎疼痛的参与者(年龄范围23至76岁;65%为男性)。评估的阿片类药物有静脉注射和肌肉注射丁丙诺啡、肌肉注射哌替啶、静脉注射喷他佐辛、透皮芬太尼和皮下注射吗啡。一项将皮下注射吗啡与静脉注射安乃近进行比较的RCT报告,疼痛强度改善的参与者数量无显著减少(主要结局)(RR 0.50,95%CI 0.19至1.33)。三项研究将使用阿片类药物的镇痛与非阿片类药物治疗进行了比较。在排除一项通过持续静脉输注使用阿片类药物的研究后,需要补充镇痛的患者数量有所减少(RR 0.53,95%CI 0.30至0.93)。在一项单独的研究中,丁丙诺啡和哌替啶之间需要补充镇痛的患者数量没有差异(RR 0.82,95%CI 0.61至1.10)。胰腺炎并发症在受试药物之间没有显著差异。未发生与治疗相关的临床严重或危及生命的不良事件。在阿片类药物和非阿片类药物治疗之间,或不良事件类型(恶心呕吐和嗜睡镇静)方面,未发现此结局有差异。在所有试验中,普鲁卡因组报告有1例死亡。一项将哌替啶与肌肉注射丁丙诺啡进行比较的RCT报告,补充镇痛、不良事件或死亡方面无显著差异。一项将芬太尼与安慰剂进行比较的RCT发现不良事件无差异。本综述的结果受到以下限制:缺乏信息以全面评估偏倚风险、相关结局的测量,以及试验涵盖的参与者和事件数量较少。
阿片类药物可能是治疗急性胰腺炎疼痛的合适选择。与其他镇痛选择相比,阿片类药物可能减少补充镇痛的需求。目前,阿片类药物与其他镇痛选择在胰腺炎并发症风险或临床严重不良事件方面没有差异。未来的研究应侧重于设计更大样本量的试验,并测量用于决策的相关结局,如疼痛强度降低的参与者数量。这些RCT的报告也应得到改进,以便医学文献的使用者能够准确评估其结果。还需要进行大型纵向研究,以确定与药物相关的胰腺炎并发症和不良事件的风险。