Cargando…

Comparative effectiveness analysis of two regional analgesia techniques for the pain management of isolated multiple rib fractures

Background: Catheter-based regional analgesia has been proposed as an alternative to systemic analgesia for patients with multiple rib fractures (MRF). This study sought to compare the efficacy of regional techniques for decreasing pain and improving clinical outcomes. Study design: This was a multi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lynch, Neal, Salottolo, Kristin, Foster, Krislyn, Orlando, Alessandro, Koola, Catherine, Portillo, Victor, Tanner, Allen, Mains, Charles W, Bar-Or, David
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6538881/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31213882
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S198350
_version_ 1783422256158867456
author Lynch, Neal
Salottolo, Kristin
Foster, Krislyn
Orlando, Alessandro
Koola, Catherine
Portillo, Victor
Tanner, Allen
Mains, Charles W
Bar-Or, David
author_facet Lynch, Neal
Salottolo, Kristin
Foster, Krislyn
Orlando, Alessandro
Koola, Catherine
Portillo, Victor
Tanner, Allen
Mains, Charles W
Bar-Or, David
author_sort Lynch, Neal
collection PubMed
description Background: Catheter-based regional analgesia has been proposed as an alternative to systemic analgesia for patients with multiple rib fractures (MRF). This study sought to compare the efficacy of regional techniques for decreasing pain and improving clinical outcomes. Study design: This was a multi-institutional, retrospective cohort study of adult (≥18 years) patients admitted to four nonacademic trauma centers over two years (from 07/1/2014 to 06/30/2016). Study inclusion was MRF (≥3 fractures) with no other severe injuries. Two primary regional analgesia techniques were utilized and compared: continuous intercostal nerve blocks (CINB) and epidural (EPI) analgesia. The primary outcome, average pain scores on treatment, was examined using a repeated measures, linear regression mixed model. Secondary outcomes included hospital LOS, ICU LOS, ICU admission and hospital readmission, pulmonary complications, and incentive spirometry volumes during treatment, and were examined with univariate statistics. Results: There were 339 patients with isolated MRF; 85 (25%) required regional analgesia (CINB, n=41; EPI, n=44) and the remaining 75% received systemic analgesia only (IV, n=195; PO, n=59). There were demographic and clinical differences between regional analgesia and systemic analgesia groups; on the contrary, there were no demographic or clinical differences between the CINB and EPI groups. Adjusted pain scores were similar for the EPI and CINB groups (4.0 vs 4.4, p=0.49). Secondary outcomes were worse in the EPI group compared to the CINB group: less improvement in incentive spirometry volume (p=0.004), longer ICU LOS (p=0.03), longer hospital LOS (p<0.001), and more ICU admission (p<0.001). Conclusion: In patients requiring regional analgesia, pain management was equivalent with CINB and EPI, but CINB was associated with significantly better clinical outcomes. CINB might offer an efficient alternative for pain control in patients with MRF.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6538881
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Dove
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65388812019-06-18 Comparative effectiveness analysis of two regional analgesia techniques for the pain management of isolated multiple rib fractures Lynch, Neal Salottolo, Kristin Foster, Krislyn Orlando, Alessandro Koola, Catherine Portillo, Victor Tanner, Allen Mains, Charles W Bar-Or, David J Pain Res Original Research Background: Catheter-based regional analgesia has been proposed as an alternative to systemic analgesia for patients with multiple rib fractures (MRF). This study sought to compare the efficacy of regional techniques for decreasing pain and improving clinical outcomes. Study design: This was a multi-institutional, retrospective cohort study of adult (≥18 years) patients admitted to four nonacademic trauma centers over two years (from 07/1/2014 to 06/30/2016). Study inclusion was MRF (≥3 fractures) with no other severe injuries. Two primary regional analgesia techniques were utilized and compared: continuous intercostal nerve blocks (CINB) and epidural (EPI) analgesia. The primary outcome, average pain scores on treatment, was examined using a repeated measures, linear regression mixed model. Secondary outcomes included hospital LOS, ICU LOS, ICU admission and hospital readmission, pulmonary complications, and incentive spirometry volumes during treatment, and were examined with univariate statistics. Results: There were 339 patients with isolated MRF; 85 (25%) required regional analgesia (CINB, n=41; EPI, n=44) and the remaining 75% received systemic analgesia only (IV, n=195; PO, n=59). There were demographic and clinical differences between regional analgesia and systemic analgesia groups; on the contrary, there were no demographic or clinical differences between the CINB and EPI groups. Adjusted pain scores were similar for the EPI and CINB groups (4.0 vs 4.4, p=0.49). Secondary outcomes were worse in the EPI group compared to the CINB group: less improvement in incentive spirometry volume (p=0.004), longer ICU LOS (p=0.03), longer hospital LOS (p<0.001), and more ICU admission (p<0.001). Conclusion: In patients requiring regional analgesia, pain management was equivalent with CINB and EPI, but CINB was associated with significantly better clinical outcomes. CINB might offer an efficient alternative for pain control in patients with MRF. Dove 2019-05-24 /pmc/articles/PMC6538881/ /pubmed/31213882 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S198350 Text en © 2019 Lynch et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).
spellingShingle Original Research
Lynch, Neal
Salottolo, Kristin
Foster, Krislyn
Orlando, Alessandro
Koola, Catherine
Portillo, Victor
Tanner, Allen
Mains, Charles W
Bar-Or, David
Comparative effectiveness analysis of two regional analgesia techniques for the pain management of isolated multiple rib fractures
title Comparative effectiveness analysis of two regional analgesia techniques for the pain management of isolated multiple rib fractures
title_full Comparative effectiveness analysis of two regional analgesia techniques for the pain management of isolated multiple rib fractures
title_fullStr Comparative effectiveness analysis of two regional analgesia techniques for the pain management of isolated multiple rib fractures
title_full_unstemmed Comparative effectiveness analysis of two regional analgesia techniques for the pain management of isolated multiple rib fractures
title_short Comparative effectiveness analysis of two regional analgesia techniques for the pain management of isolated multiple rib fractures
title_sort comparative effectiveness analysis of two regional analgesia techniques for the pain management of isolated multiple rib fractures
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6538881/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31213882
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/JPR.S198350
work_keys_str_mv AT lynchneal comparativeeffectivenessanalysisoftworegionalanalgesiatechniquesforthepainmanagementofisolatedmultipleribfractures
AT salottolokristin comparativeeffectivenessanalysisoftworegionalanalgesiatechniquesforthepainmanagementofisolatedmultipleribfractures
AT fosterkrislyn comparativeeffectivenessanalysisoftworegionalanalgesiatechniquesforthepainmanagementofisolatedmultipleribfractures
AT orlandoalessandro comparativeeffectivenessanalysisoftworegionalanalgesiatechniquesforthepainmanagementofisolatedmultipleribfractures
AT koolacatherine comparativeeffectivenessanalysisoftworegionalanalgesiatechniquesforthepainmanagementofisolatedmultipleribfractures
AT portillovictor comparativeeffectivenessanalysisoftworegionalanalgesiatechniquesforthepainmanagementofisolatedmultipleribfractures
AT tannerallen comparativeeffectivenessanalysisoftworegionalanalgesiatechniquesforthepainmanagementofisolatedmultipleribfractures
AT mainscharlesw comparativeeffectivenessanalysisoftworegionalanalgesiatechniquesforthepainmanagementofisolatedmultipleribfractures
AT barordavid comparativeeffectivenessanalysisoftworegionalanalgesiatechniquesforthepainmanagementofisolatedmultipleribfractures