Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2020 Aug;45(8):628-633. doi: 10.1136/rapm-2019-101120. Epub 2020 Jun 4.
Effective analgesia is essential in managing traumatic rib fractures. Intravenous lidocaine (IVL) is effective in treating perioperative pain, acute pain in the emergency department, cancer pain in hospice, and outpatient chronic neuropathic pain. Our study examined the associations between IVL versus epidural analgesia (EA) and pain for the treatment of acute rib fracture in the inpatient setting.
We performed a retrospective study involving adults admitted to an academic level I trauma center from June 1, 2011 to June 1, 2016 with consults to the pain service for acute rib fracture pain. Eighty-nine patients were included in the final analysis (54 IVL and 35 EA patients). Both groups had usual access to opioid medications. The primary outcome was absolute change in numeric pain scores during 0-24 and 24-48 hours after initiating IVL or EA, compared with baseline. Secondary outcomes include opioid consumption, incentive spirometry, supplemental oxygens, pneumonia, endotracheal intubation and length of hospital stay.
Numeric pain scores differed at baseline (mean 5.6 for IVL vs 4.5 for EA, p=0.01), while age, injury severity, and number of fractured ribs were similar. IVL and EA were associated with similar reductions in numeric pain scores within 0-24 and 24-48 hours (mean -2.9 for IVL vs -2.3 for EA during both periods, p=0.19 and p=0.17 respectively) . There was greater non-neuraxial opioid consumption with IVL compared with EA (98.6 vs 22.3 mg morphine equivalents (MME) at 0-24 hours, p=0.0005; 105.6 vs 18.9 MME at 24-48 hours, p<0.0001). When epidural opioids were analyzed, the EA group was exposed to higher total MME at 0-24 hours (655.2 vs 98.6 MME, p<0.0001) and 24-48 hours (586 vs 105.6 MME, p=0.0001), suggesting an opioid sparing effect of IVL.
Our results suggest that IVL is similar to EA in numeric pain score reduction, and that IVL may have an opioid sparing effect when taking neuraxial opioids into account. IVL may be an effective alternative to epidurals for the treatment of rib fracture pain. It should be considered for patients who have contraindications to epidurals or are unable to receive an epidural in a timely manner.
有效镇痛对于外伤性肋骨骨折的治疗至关重要。静脉注射利多卡因(IVL)在治疗围手术期疼痛、急诊急性疼痛、临终关怀癌症疼痛和门诊慢性神经性疼痛方面均有疗效。我们的研究旨在探讨 IVL 与硬膜外镇痛(EA)治疗住院患者急性肋骨骨折疼痛的效果差异。
我们开展了一项回顾性研究,纳入 2011 年 6 月 1 日至 2016 年 6 月 1 日期间因急性肋骨骨折疼痛而向疼痛科就诊的入住我院的成年患者。最终共有 89 例患者纳入研究(54 例 IVL 治疗患者和 35 例 EA 治疗患者)。两组患者均常规应用阿片类药物。主要结局为与基线相比,IVL 或 EA 治疗后 0-24 小时和 24-48 小时的数字疼痛评分的绝对变化。次要结局包括阿片类药物用量、呼吸激励、补充氧气、肺炎、气管插管和住院时间。
IVL 组和 EA 组的基线数字疼痛评分存在差异(IVL 组为 5.6,EA 组为 4.5,p=0.01),但两组的年龄、损伤严重程度和肋骨骨折数量相似。IVL 和 EA 在 0-24 小时和 24-48 小时内的数字疼痛评分均显著降低(IVL 组分别为-2.9,EA 组分别为-2.3,两个时间点的 p 值分别为 0.19 和 0.17)。IVL 组的非神经轴索阿片类药物用量明显多于 EA 组(0-24 小时时分别为 98.6mg 吗啡当量(MME)和 22.3 MME,p=0.0005;24-48 小时时分别为 105.6mg MME 和 18.9 MME,p<0.0001)。分析硬膜外阿片类药物后,0-24 小时时 EA 组的总 MME 明显更高(655.2mg MME 和 98.6mg MME,p<0.0001),24-48 小时时也更高(586mg MME 和 105.6mg MME,p=0.0001),这提示 IVL 具有阿片类药物节省效应。
我们的研究结果表明,IVL 与 EA 降低数字疼痛评分的效果相似,而考虑到使用神经轴索阿片类药物时,IVL 可能具有节省阿片类药物的作用。IVL 可能是治疗肋骨骨折疼痛的一种有效的硬膜外替代方案。对于存在硬膜外禁忌证或无法及时接受硬膜外治疗的患者,可考虑使用 IVL。