Child Health Evaluative Sciences, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario.
Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, Women and Children's Health Research Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.
Pediatr Emerg Care. 2024 Feb 1;40(2):88-97. doi: 10.1097/PEC.0000000000003020. Epub 2023 Jul 25.
To systematically appraise the literature on the relative effectiveness of pharmacologic procedural distress management agents for children undergoing laceration repair.
Six databases were searched in August 2021, and the search was updated in January 2023. We included completed randomized or quasi-randomized trials involving ( a ) children younger than 15 years undergoing laceration repair in the emergency department; ( b ) randomization to at least one anxiolytic, sedative, and/or analgesic agent versus any comparator agent or placebo; ( c ) efficacy of procedural distress management measured on any scale. Secondary outcomes were pain during the procedure, administration acceptance, sedation duration, additional sedation, length of stay, and stakeholder satisfaction. Cochrane Collaboration's risk-of-bias tool assessed individual studies. Ranges and proportions summarized results where applicable.
Among 21 trials (n = 1621 participants), the most commonly studied anxiolytic agents were midazolam, ketamine, and N 2 O. Oral midazolam, oral ketamine, and N 2 O were found to reduce procedural distress more effectively than their comparators in 4, 3, and 2 studies, respectively. Eight studies comparing routes, doses, or volumes of administration of the same agent led to indeterminate results. Meta-analysis was not performed because of heterogeneity in comparators, routes, and outcome measures across studies.
Based on procedural distress reduction, this study favors oral midazolam and oral ketamine. However, this finding should be interpreted with caution because of heterogeneous comparators across studies and minor conflicting results. An optimal agent for procedural distress management cannot be recommended based on the limited evidence. Future research should seek to identify the minimal, essential measures of patient distress during pharmacologic anxiolysis and/or sedation in laceration repair to guide future trials and reviews.
系统评价用于行清创缝合术的儿童的药理学程序相关痛苦管理药物的相对有效性的文献。
2021 年 8 月检索了 6 个数据库,并于 2023 年 1 月进行了更新。我们纳入了涉及以下内容的完成的随机或半随机试验:(a)在急诊科接受清创缝合术的年龄小于 15 岁的儿童;(b)至少随机分配到一种抗焦虑药、镇静剂和/或镇痛药与任何对照药物或安慰剂;(c)采用任何量表评估程序相关痛苦管理的效果。次要结局是手术过程中的疼痛、给药接受度、镇静持续时间、额外镇静、住院时间和利益相关者满意度。Cochrane 协作组的偏倚风险工具评估了各个研究。在适用的情况下,范围和比例总结了结果。
在 21 项试验(n=1621 名参与者)中,最常研究的抗焦虑药物是咪达唑仑、氯胺酮和 N2O。4 项研究表明,口服咪达唑仑、口服氯胺酮和 N2O 比各自的对照药物更有效地减轻了程序相关痛苦,3 项研究表明这三种药物比各自的对照药物更有效地减轻了程序相关痛苦,2 项研究表明这两种药物比各自的对照药物更有效地减轻了程序相关痛苦。8 项比较相同药物的给药途径、剂量或容量的研究得出了不确定的结果。由于研究之间的对照药物、途径和结局测量存在异质性,因此未进行荟萃分析。
基于减轻程序相关痛苦,本研究支持口服咪达唑仑和口服氯胺酮。然而,由于研究之间的对照药物存在异质性以及存在相互矛盾的结果,因此该发现应谨慎解释。根据有限的证据,不能推荐用于程序相关痛苦管理的最佳药物。未来的研究应致力于确定在药理学抗焦虑和/或镇静期间患者痛苦的最小、必要措施,以指导未来的试验和综述。