Department of Anesthesiology, University of Tsukuba Hospital, Tsukuba, Japan.
Department of Anesthesiology, University of Tsukuba Hospital, Tsukuba, Japan.
Brachytherapy. 2021 Jul-Aug;20(4):765-770. doi: 10.1016/j.brachy.2021.03.006. Epub 2021 Apr 16.
PURPOSE Interstitial brachytherapy for gynecologic malignancies is stressful physically and mentally; however, optimal analgesic methods remain unclear. We investigated the effect of analgesic methods on pain and adverse events during interstitial brachytherapy for gynecologic malignancies. METHODS The data of 73 patients who underwent interstitial brachytherapy for gynecologic malignancies between April 2015 and March 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. Patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA), patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA), and conventional intravenous opioid administration were used for analgesia during treatment. We compared the analgesic effects based on a numerical rating scale (NRS), the number of additional analgesics, and the adverse events associated with analgesia. The NRS score was calculated as an average value for every 12 h (NRS1: treatment on the 1st day from 12 to 24 o'clock; NRS2: treatment on the 2nd day from 0 to 12 o'clock; NRS3: treatment on the 2nd day from 12 to 24 o'clock). The mean NRS score differences between the methods were evaluated using mixed models for repeated-measures analyses. RESULTS The NRS score was significantly lower at all times for PCEA (NRS1: p = 0.003; NRS2: p = 0.011; NRS3: p < 0.001). NRS2 and NRS3 were significantly lower for PCIA (NRS2: p = 0.043; NRS3: p < 0.001) than for the conventional method. The NRS scores for PCEA and PCIA were not significantly different. Moreover, additional analgesics and adverse events did not differ between the three treatments. CONCLUSION PCEA and PCIA were superior to conventional intravenous opioids for analgesia in interstitial brachytherapy for gynecologic malignancies. However, adverse events associated with PCEA and PCIA were not reduced.
妇科恶性肿瘤间质内近距离治疗对患者身心压力较大,但其最佳镇痛方法仍不明确。本研究旨在探讨不同镇痛方法对妇科恶性肿瘤间质内近距离治疗患者疼痛及不良反应的影响。
回顾性分析 2015 年 4 月至 2020 年 3 月期间 73 例行间质内近距离治疗的妇科恶性肿瘤患者的临床资料。患者分别接受患者自控硬膜外镇痛(PCEA)、患者自控静脉镇痛(PCIA)和常规静脉阿片类药物镇痛。比较 3 种镇痛方法的镇痛效果(数字评分法 NRS 评分、追加镇痛药的例数)和不良反应。NRS 评分于治疗第 1 天(12:00-24:00)计算第 1 个 12 h 平均值(NRS1),第 2 天(0:00-12:00)计算第 2 个 12 h 平均值(NRS2),第 2 天(12:00-24:00)计算第 3 个 12 h 平均值(NRS3)。采用重复测量混合模型分析比较不同镇痛方法的 NRS 评分差异。
PCEA 组各时间点 NRS 评分均显著低于其他两组(NRS1:p=0.003;NRS2:p=0.011;NRS3:p<0.001)。PCIA 组 NRS2 和 NRS3 评分均显著低于常规组(NRS2:p=0.043;NRS3:p<0.001),而 PCEA 组与常规组之间 NRS 评分差异无统计学意义。3 种镇痛方法的追加镇痛药例数和不良反应发生率差异均无统计学意义。
PCEA 和 PCIA 较常规静脉阿片类药物在妇科恶性肿瘤间质内近距离治疗中具有更好的镇痛效果,但并未减少不良反应的发生。