Nitescu P, Dahm P, Appelgren L, Curelaru I
Department of Anesthesiology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg University, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Clin J Pain. 1998 Mar;14(1):17-28. doi: 10.1097/00002508-199803000-00004.
To explore the possibility of obtaining pain relief by continuous intrathecal infusion of bupivacaine and opioid in patients with intractable nonmalignant pain.
Prospective, cohort, nonrandomized, consecutive trial.
Tertiary care center, institutional practice, hospitalized, and ambulatory care.
A total of 90 patients, 40 men and 50 women, 20 to 96 years old (median, 70 years), with various nonmalignant "refractory" pain conditions lasting for 0.3 to 50 years (median, 3 years) with nociceptive (n = 9), neurogenic/neuropathic (n = 17), and mixed pain (n = 64) were consecutively included in the study when (a) the pain dominated their lives totally, (b) other methods failed to provide acceptable pain relief, and (c) unacceptable side effects from opioids had occurred. Moribund patients and those with overt psychoses at the time of the assessment were excluded from the study.
(a) Insertion of externalized, tunnelled intrathecal catheters (101 in 90 patients). (b) Intrathecal infusion of opioid (morphine 0.5 mg/ml, or buprenorphine 0.015 mg/ml, and/or bupivacaine 4.75-5.0 mg/ml) from external electronic pumps was started in the operating room at a basic rate of 0.2 ml/hour, with optional bolus doses (0.1 ml 1-4 times/hour) by patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). Thereafter, the daily volumes were tailored to give the patients satisfactory to excellent (60-100%) pain relief, with acceptable side effects from the infused drugs, by increase or decrease of the basic rates and/or of the bolus doses, and their timing. (c) Supervision of the patients for 24 hours after catheterization in the postoperative ward. (d) Daily phone contact with the patients, their families, or the nurses in charge. (e) The patients had ad libitum access to nonopioid analgesics/sedatives and to opioids administered by various routes, until they obtained satisfactory pain and anxiolytic relief.
(a) Pain intensity (visual analog scores 0-10) and pain relief (0-100%). (b) Daily dosages (opioid administered by intrathecal and other routes, and intrathecal bupivacaine). (c) Scores (0-5) of nonopioid analgesics, gait and ambulation, duration of nocturnal sleep, and (d) rates of adverse effects.
During the intrathecal period [range, 3-1,706 days; median, 60 days; totaling 14,686 days, 7,460 (50% of which were spent at home)], 86 patients (approximately 95%) obtained acceptable (60-100%) pain relief. The nocturnal sleep duration increased from <4 to 7 hours (median values), nonopioid analgesic and sedative daily consumption became approximately two times lower, whereas the gait ability and ambulation patterns remained practically unchanged. Five patients still had ongoing treatment after durations of 30 to 1,707 (median, 206) days at the close of the study. In the remaining 85 patients, the intrathecal treatment was terminated because of patients' death (n = 23), replacement of the intrathecal treatment by dorsal column stimulation (n = 1), pain resolution (n = 32), refusal to continue the intrathecal treatment (n = 19), lack of cooperation due to delirium or to manipulation of the pump (n = 8), and loss of efficacy of the intrathecal treatment (n = 2). Thus, in the long run, the intrathecal treatment failed in 29 of the 85 patients with terminated treatment (34%). The principal side-effects and complications, except those attributed to the dural puncture, the equipment, and the long-term catheterization of the subarachnoid space, which are presented separately, were severe bradypnea (n = 1), transient paresthesiae (n = 26), short-lasting pareses (n = 16), temporary urine retention (n = 34), episodic orthostatic arterial hypotension (n = 11), and attempted suicide (n = 5, 3 of which were successful). No neurologic sequelae or death could be attributed to the intrathecal procedure. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)
探讨通过持续鞘内输注布比卡因和阿片类药物缓解顽固性非恶性疼痛患者疼痛的可能性。
前瞻性、队列、非随机、连续试验。
三级医疗中心、机构实践、住院及门诊护理。
共90例患者,40例男性,50例女性,年龄20至96岁(中位数70岁),患有各种非恶性“难治性”疼痛,病程0.3至50年(中位数3年),包括伤害性疼痛(n = 9)、神经源性/神经性疼痛(n = 17)和混合性疼痛(n = 64)。当(a)疼痛完全主宰他们的生活;(b)其他方法未能提供可接受的疼痛缓解;(c)出现阿片类药物不可接受的副作用时,这些患者被连续纳入研究。评估时处于濒死状态的患者和明显患有精神病的患者被排除在研究之外。
(a)插入外置式隧道鞘内导管(90例患者共101根)。(b)在手术室从外部电子泵开始鞘内输注阿片类药物(吗啡0.5mg/ml,或丁丙诺啡0.015mg/ml,和/或布比卡因4.75 - 5.0mg/ml),基本速率为0.2ml/小时,可通过患者自控镇痛(PCA)选择推注剂量(0.1ml,每小时1 - 4次)。此后,根据患者疼痛缓解情况(60 - 100%)令人满意至极佳且输注药物副作用可接受,通过增加或减少基本速率和/或推注剂量及其给药时间来调整每日输注量。(c)术后病房导管插入后对患者进行24小时监护。(d)每天与患者、其家属或负责护士进行电话联系。(e)患者可随意使用非阿片类镇痛药/镇静剂以及通过各种途径给药的阿片类药物,直至获得满意的疼痛缓解和抗焦虑效果。
(a)疼痛强度(视觉模拟评分0 - 10分)和疼痛缓解程度(0 - 100%)。(b)每日剂量(鞘内及其他途径使用的阿片类药物,以及鞘内布比卡因)。(c)非阿片类镇痛药评分(0 - 5分)、步态和行走情况、夜间睡眠时间,以及(d)不良反应发生率。
在鞘内治疗期间[范围3 - 1706天;中位数60天;总计14686天,其中7460天(50%)患者在家中度过],86例患者(约95%)获得可接受的(60 - 100%)疼痛缓解。夜间睡眠时间从中位数<4小时增加到7小时,非阿片类镇痛药和镇静剂的每日消耗量降低约两倍,而步态能力和行走模式基本保持不变。研究结束时,5例患者在持续30至1707天(中位数206天)后仍在接受治疗。在其余85例患者中,鞘内治疗因患者死亡(n = 23)、被背柱刺激替代鞘内治疗(n = 1)、疼痛缓解(n = 32)、拒绝继续鞘内治疗(n = 19)、因谵妄或泵操作不配合(n = 8)以及鞘内治疗无效(n = 2)而终止。因此,从长远来看,85例终止治疗的患者中有29例(34%)鞘内治疗失败。除了分别列出的归因于硬膜穿刺、设备和蛛网膜下腔长期置管的副作用和并发症外,主要的副作用和并发症包括严重呼吸过缓(n = 1)、短暂感觉异常(n = 26)、短暂性轻瘫(n = 16)、暂时性尿潴留(n = 34)、发作性直立性动脉低血压(n = 11)以及自杀未遂(n = 5,其中3例成功)。没有神经后遗症或死亡可归因于鞘内操作。(摘要截断)