Yoon Won Jae, Oh Yul, Yoo Changhoon, Jang Sunguk, Cho Seong-Sik, Suh Jeong-Hun, Choi Seong-Soo, Park Do Hyun
Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, Ewha Womans University, Seoul 07804, Korea.
Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul 05505, Korea.
J Clin Med. 2020 Jun 1;9(6):1666. doi: 10.3390/jcm9061666.
Although endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac neurolysis (EUS-CN) and percutaneous celiac neurolysis (PCN) are utilized to manage intractable pain in pancreatic cancer patients, no direct comparison has been made between the two methods. We compared the efficacy and safety of EUS-CN and PCN in managing intractable pain in such patients. Sixty pancreatic cancer patients with intractable pain were randomly assigned to EUS-CN ( = 30) or PCN ( = 30). The primary outcomes were pain reduction in numerical rating scale (NRS) and opioid requirement reduction. Secondary outcomes were: successful pain response (NRS decrease ≥50% or ≥3-point reduction from baseline); quality of life; patient satisfaction; adverse events; and survival rate at 3 months postintervention. Both groups reported sustained decreases in pain scores up to 3 months postintervention (mean reductions in abdominal pain: 0.9 (95% confidence interval (CI): -0.8 to 4.2) and 1.7 (95% CI: -0.3 to 2.1); back pain: 1.3 (95% CI: -0.9 to 3.4) and 2.5 (95% CI: -0.2 to 5.2) in EUS-CN, and PCN groups, respectively). The differences in mean pain scores between the two groups at baseline and 3 months were -0.5 ( = 0.46) and -1.4 ( = 0.11) for abdominal pain and 0.1 ( = 0.85) and -0.9 ( = 0.31) for back pain in favor of PCN. No significant differences were noted in opioid requirement reduction and other outcomes. EUS-CN and PCN were similarly effective and safe in managing intractable pain in pancreatic cancer patients. Either methods may be used depending on the resources and expertise of each institution.
虽然内镜超声引导下腹腔神经丛毁损术(EUS-CN)和经皮腹腔神经丛毁损术(PCN)都用于治疗胰腺癌患者的顽固性疼痛,但尚未对这两种方法进行直接比较。我们比较了EUS-CN和PCN在治疗此类患者顽固性疼痛方面的疗效和安全性。60例患有顽固性疼痛的胰腺癌患者被随机分为EUS-CN组(n = 30)或PCN组(n = 30)。主要结局指标为数字评分量表(NRS)疼痛减轻和阿片类药物需求量减少。次要结局指标为:疼痛缓解成功(NRS降低≥50%或较基线降低≥3分);生活质量;患者满意度;不良事件;以及干预后3个月的生存率。两组在干预后3个月内均报告疼痛评分持续下降(EUS-CN组和PCN组腹痛平均减轻分别为0.9(95%置信区间(CI):-0.8至4.2)和1.7(95%CI:-0.3至2.1);背痛分别为1.3(95%CI:-0.9至3.4)和2.5(95%CI:-0.2至5.2))。两组在基线和3个月时腹痛的平均疼痛评分差异为-0.5(P = 0.46)和-1.4(P = 0.11),背痛差异为0.1(P = 0.85)和-0.9(P = 0.31),PCN组更优。在阿片类药物需求量减少和其他结局指标方面未观察到显著差异。EUS-CN和PCN在治疗胰腺癌患者顽固性疼痛方面同样有效且安全。可根据各机构的资源和专业知识选择使用其中任何一种方法。