Prabhakar Hemanshu, Singh Gyaninder Pal, Ali Zulfiqar, Kalaivani Mani, Smith Martha A
Department of Neuroanaesthesiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, India, 110029.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Feb 12;2(2):CD009346. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009346.pub2.
Rocuronium bromide is a routinely used muscle relaxant in anaesthetic practice. Its use, however, is associated with intense pain on injection. While it is well established that rocuronium bromide injection causes pain in awake patients, anaesthetized patients also tend to show withdrawal movements of the limbs when this muscle relaxant is administered. Various strategies, both pharmacological and non-pharmacological, have been studied to reduce the incidence and severity of pain on rocuronium bromide injection. We wanted to find out which of the existing modalities was best to reduce pain on rocuronium injection.
The objectives of this review were to assess the ability of both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions to reduce or eliminate the pain that accompanies rocuronium bromide administration.
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2013, Issue 7), MEDLINE via Ovid SP (1966 to July 2013) and EMBASE via Ovid SP (1980 to July 2013). We also searched specific websites. We reran the searches in February 2015 and will deal with the 11 studies of interest found through this search when we update the review.
We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the use of any drug or a non-pharmacological method with control patients, or those receiving no treatment to reduce the severity of pain with rocuronium injection. Our primary outcome was pain on rocuronium bromide injection measured by a pain score assessment. Our secondary outcomes were rise in heart rate and blood pressure following administration of rocuronium and adverse events related to the interventions.
We used the standardized methods for conducting a systematic review as described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Two authors independently extracted details of trial methodology and outcome data from reports of all trials considered eligible for inclusion. We made all analyses on an intention-to-treat basis. We used a fixed-effect model where there was no evidence of significant heterogeneity between studies and a random-effects model if heterogeneity was likely.
We included 66 studies with 7840 participants in the review, though most analyses were based on data from fewer participants. In total there are 17 studies awaiting classification. No studies were at a low risk of bias. We noted substantial statistical and clinical heterogeneity between trials. Most of the studies reported the primary outcome pain as assessed by verbal response from participants in an awake state but some trials reported withdrawal of the injected limb as a proxy for pain after induction of anaesthesia in response to rocuronium administration. Few studies reported adverse events and no study reported heart rate and blood pressure changes after administration of rocuronium. Lidocaine was the most commonly studied intervention drug, used in 29 trials with 2256 participants. The risk ratio (RR) of pain on injection if given lidocaine compared to placebo was 0.23 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.31; I² = 65%, low quality of evidence). The RR of pain on injection if fentanyl and remifentanil were given compared to placebo was 0.42 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.70; I² = 79%, low quality of evidence) and (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.26; I² = 74%, low quality of evidence), respectively. Pain on injection of intervention drugs was reported with the use of lidocaine and acetaminophen in one study. Cough was reported with the use of fentanyl (one study), remifentanil (five studies, low quality evidence) and alfentanil (one study). Breath holding and chest tightness were reported with the use of remifentanil in two studies (very low quality evidence) and one study (very low quality evidence), respectively. The overall rate of complications was low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence to suggest that the most commonly investigated pharmacological interventions reduce pain on injection of rocuronium is of low quality due to risk of bias and inconsistency. There is low or very low quality evidence for adverse events, due to risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision of effect. We did not compare the various interventions with one another and so cannot comment on the superiority of one intervention over another. Complications were reported more often with use of opioids.
罗库溴铵是麻醉实践中常用的肌肉松弛剂。然而,其使用与注射时的剧痛有关。虽然罗库溴铵注射会使清醒患者感到疼痛这一点已得到充分证实,但在给予这种肌肉松弛剂时,麻醉患者也往往会出现肢体退缩动作。为降低罗库溴铵注射时疼痛的发生率和严重程度,人们研究了多种药理学和非药理学策略。我们想找出哪种现有方法最能减轻罗库溴铵注射时的疼痛。
本综述的目的是评估药理学和非药理学干预措施减轻或消除罗库溴铵给药时伴随疼痛的能力。
我们检索了Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL 2013年第7期)、通过Ovid SP检索的MEDLINE(1966年至2013年7月)以及通过Ovid SP检索的EMBASE(1980年至2013年7月)。我们还检索了特定网站。2015年2月重新进行了检索,在更新本综述时将处理通过此次检索找到的11项相关研究。
我们纳入了所有随机对照试验(RCT),这些试验比较了任何药物或非药理学方法与对照患者(即未接受治疗的患者),以降低罗库溴铵注射时疼痛的严重程度。我们的主要结局是通过疼痛评分评估来衡量罗库溴铵注射时的疼痛。次要结局是给予罗库溴铵后心率和血压的升高以及与干预措施相关的不良事件。
我们采用了《Cochrane干预措施系统评价手册》中描述的标准化方法进行系统评价。两位作者独立从所有被认为符合纳入标准的试验报告中提取试验方法细节和结局数据。我们所有分析均基于意向性分析。如果研究之间没有显著异质性的证据,我们使用固定效应模型;如果可能存在异质性,则使用随机效应模型。
本综述纳入了66项研究,共7840名参与者,不过大多数分析基于较少参与者的数据。总共有17项研究等待分类。没有研究处于低偏倚风险。我们注意到各试验之间存在大量统计学和临床异质性。大多数研究报告了主要结局——清醒状态下参与者通过言语反应评估的疼痛,但一些试验报告了在给予罗库溴铵诱导麻醉后注射肢体的退缩作为疼痛的替代指标。很少有研究报告不良事件,没有研究报告给予罗库溴铵后心率和血压的变化。利多卡因是研究最常用的干预药物,在29项试验、2256名参与者中使用。与安慰剂相比,给予利多卡因时注射疼痛的风险比(RR)为0.23(95%置信区间(CI)0.17至0.31;I² = 65%,证据质量低)。与安慰剂相比,给予芬太尼和瑞芬太尼时注射疼痛的RR分别为0.42(95% CI 0.26至0.70;I² = 79%,证据质量低)和(RR 0.10,95% CI 0.04至0.26;I² = 74%,证据质量低)。一项研究报告了使用利多卡因和对乙酰氨基酚时注射干预药物的疼痛情况。使用芬太尼(一项研究)、瑞芬太尼(五项研究,证据质量低)和阿芬太尼(一项研究)时报告了咳嗽情况。两项研究(证据质量极低)和一项研究(证据质量极低)分别报告了使用瑞芬太尼时的屏气和胸闷情况。总体并发症发生率较低。
由于存在偏倚风险和不一致性,表明最常研究的药理学干预措施可减轻罗库溴铵注射时疼痛的证据质量较低。由于存在偏倚风险、不一致性和效应不精确性,不良事件的证据质量低或极低。我们没有对各种干预措施进行相互比较,因此无法评论一种干预措施相对于另一种干预措施的优越性。使用阿片类药物时报告的并发症更常见。