Seo Young-Gyun, Kim Se Hee, Choi Sang Sik, Lee Mi Kyoung, Lee Chung Hun, Kim Jung Eun
Department of Family Medicine, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, Anyang, Gyeonggi-do Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Korea University Guro Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Feb;97(5):e9837. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000009837.
Despite early treatment of herpes zoster (HZ), postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) can persist. This study was designed to compare the therapeutic and pain relief effects of continuous epidural analgesia (CEA) on the chronic phase as well as the acute phase of HZ with standard medical treatment.Medical records of 227 patients with moderate to severe zoster-associated pain that had not responded to standard medications were retrospectively reviewed. Patients received standard treatment alone (medical group) or standard treatment plus concurrent CEA (epidural group). The acute and chronic groups were classified according to a 4-week cut-off with regard to time between the onset of the rash and the first treatment. Four groups were studied: Group A (acute/medical group); Group B (acute/epidural group); Group C (chronic/medical group); and Group D (chronic/epidural group). Pain was assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS) and measured every 2 weeks for 6 months. We compared the pain rating at 6 months after the first treatment with the initial pain rating. Response to treatment was defined as a ≥50% reduction in pain severity since the initial visit. Remission was considered complete for patients whose VAS pain score was ≤2 for >3 successive visits and who no longer needed medical support.Patients who received a combination of standard treatment plus CEA (Groups B and D) had significantly higher response to treatment (P = .001) than patients receiving standard treatment alone (Groups A and C). The adjusted odds ratio (OR) for response to treatment in the epidural group versus the medical group was 5.17 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.75-15.23) in the acute group and 5.37 (95% CI: 1.62-17.79) in the chronic groups. The adjusted OR for complete remission in the epidural group versus the medical group was 3.05 (95% CI: 1.20-7.73) in the acute group and 4.46 (95% CI: 1.20-16.54) in the chronic group.CEA can effectively relieve pain caused by PHN and acute HZ and increase remission rates. Combining CEA with standard medical treatment may offer a clinical advantage in the management of pain caused by PHN as well as acute HZ.
尽管对带状疱疹(HZ)进行了早期治疗,但疱疹后神经痛(PHN)仍可能持续存在。本研究旨在比较持续硬膜外镇痛(CEA)与标准药物治疗对HZ急性期和慢性期的治疗效果及疼痛缓解效果。回顾性分析了227例中度至重度带状疱疹相关性疼痛且对标准药物治疗无反应患者的病历。患者单独接受标准治疗(药物组)或标准治疗加同期CEA(硬膜外组)。根据皮疹出现至首次治疗的时间间隔以4周为界分为急性期和慢性期组。研究了四组:A组(急性期/药物组);B组(急性期/硬膜外组);C组(慢性期/药物组);D组(慢性期/硬膜外组)。使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)评估疼痛,每2周测量一次,持续6个月。我们比较了首次治疗后6个月时的疼痛评分与初始疼痛评分。治疗反应定义为自初次就诊以来疼痛严重程度降低≥50%。对于VAS疼痛评分连续>3次≤2且不再需要医疗支持的患者,视为完全缓解。接受标准治疗加CEA联合治疗的患者(B组和D组)比单独接受标准治疗的患者(A组和C组)对治疗的反应显著更高(P = 0.001)。硬膜外组与药物组治疗反应的调整优势比(OR)在急性期组为5.17(95%置信区间[CI]:1.75 - 15.23),在慢性期组为5.37(95%CI:1.62 - 17.79)。硬膜外组与药物组完全缓解的调整OR在急性期组为3.05(95%CI:1.20 - 7.73),在慢性期组为4.46(95%CI:1.20 - 16.54)。CEA可有效缓解PHN和急性HZ引起的疼痛,并提高缓解率。将CEA与标准药物治疗相结合可能在管理PHN以及急性HZ引起的疼痛方面具有临床优势。