McNicol Ewan D, Ferguson McKenzie C, Schumann Roman
Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Pharmacy Practice, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, Edwardsville, IL, USA.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 May 17;5(5):CD013263. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013263.pub2.
Postoperative pain is common and may be severe. Postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces patient opioid requirements and, in turn, may reduce the incidence and severity of opioid-induced adverse events (AEs).
To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose intravenous ketorolac, compared with placebo or an active comparator, for moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults.
We searched the following databases without language restrictions: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS on 20 April 2020. We checked clinical trials registers and reference lists of retrieved articles for additional studies.
Randomized double-blind trials that compared a single postoperative dose of intravenous ketorolac with placebo or another active treatment, for treating acute postoperative pain in adults following any surgery.
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was the number of participants in each arm achieving at least 50% pain relief over a four- and six-hour period. Our secondary outcomes were time to and number of participants using rescue medication; withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, adverse events (AEs), and for any other cause; and number of participants experiencing any AE, serious AEs (SAEs), and NSAID-related or opioid-related AEs. For subgroup analysis, we planned to analyze different doses of parenteral ketorolac separately and to analyze results based on the type of surgery performed. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.
We included 12 studies, involving 1905 participants undergoing various surgeries (pelvic/abdominal, dental, and orthopedic), with 17 to 83 participants receiving intravenous ketorolac in each study. Mean study population ages ranged from 22.5 years to 67.4 years. Most studies administered a dose of ketorolac of 30 mg; one study assessed 15 mg, and another administered 60 mg. Most studies had an unclear risk of bias for some domains, particularly allocation concealment and blinding, and a high risk of bias due to small sample size. The overall certainty of evidence for each outcome ranged from very low to moderate. Reasons for downgrading certainty included serious study limitations, inconsistency and imprecision. Ketorolac versus placebo Very low-certainty evidence from eight studies (658 participants) suggests that ketorolac results in a large increase in the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over four hours compared to placebo, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 2.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.80 to 4.37). The number needed to treat for one additional participant to benefit (NNTB) was 2.4 (95% CI 1.8 to 3.7). Low-certainty evidence from 10 studies (914 participants) demonstrates that ketorolac may result in a large increase in the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over six hours compared to placebo (RR 3.26, 95% CI 1.93 to 5.51). The NNTB was 2.5 (95% CI 1.9 to 3.7). Among secondary outcomes, for time to rescue medication, moderate-certainty evidence comparing intravenous ketorolac versus placebo demonstrated a mean median of 271 minutes for ketorolac versus 104 minutes for placebo (6 studies, 633 participants). For the number of participants using rescue medication, very low-certainty evidence from five studies (417 participants) compared ketorolac with placebo. The RR was 0.60 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.00), that is, it did not demonstrate a difference between groups. Ketorolac probably results in a slight increase in total adverse event rates compared with placebo (74% versus 65%; 8 studies, 810 participants; RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.19; number needed to treat for an additional harmful event (NNTH) 16.7, 95% CI 8.3 to infinite, moderate-certainty evidence). Serious AEs were rare. Low-certainty evidence from eight studies (703 participants) did not demonstrate a difference in rates between ketorolac and placebo (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.13 to 3.03). Ketorolac versus NSAIDs Ketorolac was compared to parecoxib in four studies and diclofenac in two studies. For our primary outcome, over both four and six hours there was no evidence of a difference between intravenous ketorolac and another NSAID (low-certainty and moderate-certainty evidence, respectively). Over four hours, four studies (337 participants) produced an RR of 1.04 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.21) and over six hours, six studies (603 participants) produced an RR of 1.06 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.19). For time to rescue medication, low-certainty evidence from four studies (427 participants) suggested that participants receiving ketorolac waited an extra 35 minutes (mean median 331 minutes versus 296 minutes). For the number of participants using rescue medication, very low-certainty evidence from three studies (260 participants) compared ketorolac with another NSAID. The RR was 0.90 (95% CI 0.58 to 1.40), that is, there may be little or no difference between groups. Ketorolac probably results in a slight increase in total adverse event rates compared with another NSAID (76% versus 68%, 5 studies, 516 participants; RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.23; NNTH 12.5, 95% CI 6.7 to infinite, moderate-certainty evidence). Serious AEs were rare. Low-certainty evidence from five studies (530 participants) did not demonstrate a difference in rates between ketorolac and another NSAID (RR 3.18, 95% CI 0.13 to 76.99). Only one of the five studies reported a single serious AE.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The amount and certainty of evidence for the use of intravenous ketorolac as a treatment for postoperative pain varies across efficacy and safety outcomes and amongst comparators, from very low to moderate. The available evidence indicates that postoperative intravenous ketorolac administration may offer substantial pain relief for most patients, but further research may impact this estimate. Adverse events appear to occur at a slightly higher rate in comparison to placebo and to other NSAIDs. Insufficient information is available to assess whether intravenous ketorolac has a different rate of gastrointestinal or surgical-site bleeding, renal dysfunction, or cardiovascular events versus other NSAIDs. There was a lack of studies in cardiovascular surgeries and in elderly populations who may be at increased risk for adverse events.
术后疼痛很常见,且可能较为严重。术后使用非甾体类抗炎药(NSAIDs)可减少患者对阿片类药物的需求,进而可能降低阿片类药物引起的不良事件(AE)的发生率和严重程度。
评估单剂量静脉注射酮咯酸与安慰剂或活性对照药相比,用于成人中度至重度术后疼痛的镇痛效果和不良反应。
我们于2020年4月20日检索了以下无语言限制的数据库:Cochrane中心对照试验注册库(CENTRAL)、医学期刊数据库(MEDLINE)、荷兰医学文摘数据库(Embase)和拉丁美洲及加勒比地区卫生科学数据库(LILACS)。我们检查了临床试验注册库以及检索到的文章的参考文献列表,以寻找其他研究。
随机双盲试验,比较术后单次静脉注射酮咯酸与安慰剂或另一种活性治疗药物,用于治疗任何手术后成人的急性术后疼痛。
我们采用了Cochrane期望的标准方法程序。我们的主要结局是每组中在4小时和6小时内疼痛缓解至少50%的参与者人数。我们的次要结局包括使用解救药物的时间和参与者人数;因疗效不佳、不良事件(AE)及其他任何原因导致的退出人数;以及经历任何AE、严重AE(SAE)、NSAID相关或阿片类药物相关AE的参与者人数。对于亚组分析,我们计划分别分析不同剂量的胃肠外给予的酮咯酸,并根据所进行手术的类型分析结果。我们使用GRADE评估证据确定性。
我们纳入了12项研究,涉及1905例接受各种手术(盆腔/腹部、牙科和骨科)的参与者,每项研究中有17至83名参与者接受静脉注射酮咯酸。研究人群的平均年龄范围为22.5岁至67.4岁。大多数研究给予的酮咯酸剂量为30mg;一项研究评估了15mg,另一项研究给予了60mg。大多数研究在某些领域的偏倚风险不明确,尤其是分配隐藏和盲法,且由于样本量小存在高偏倚风险。每个结局的总体证据确定性范围从极低到中等。降低确定性的原因包括严重的研究局限性、不一致性和不精确性。
来自8项研究(658名参与者)的极低确定性证据表明,与安慰剂相比,酮咯酸使在4小时内疼痛缓解至少50%的参与者人数大幅增加,但证据非常不确定(风险比(RR)2.81,95%置信区间(CI)1.80至4.37)。额外1名参与者受益所需的治疗人数(NNTB)为2.4(95%CI 1.8至3.7)。来自10项研究(914名参与者)的低确定性证据表明,与安慰剂相比,酮咯酸可能使在6小时内疼痛缓解至少50%的参与者人数大幅增加(RR 3.26,95%CI 1.93至5.51)。NNTB为2.5(95%CI 1.9至3.7)。在次要结局中,对于解救药物使用时间,比较静脉注射酮咯酸与安慰剂的中等确定性证据表明,酮咯酸的平均中位数为271分钟,而安慰剂为104分钟(6项研究,633名参与者)。对于使用解救药物的参与者人数,来自5项研究(417名参与者)的极低确定性证据比较了酮咯酸与安慰剂。RR为0.60(95%CI 0.36至1.00),即未显示出组间差异。与安慰剂相比,酮咯酸可能使总不良事件发生率略有增加(74%对65%;8项研究,810名参与者;RR 1.09,95%CI 1.00至1.19;额外1例有害事件所需的治疗人数(NNTH)16.7,95%CI 8.3至无穷大,中等确定性证据)。严重AE很少见。来自8项研究(703名参与者)的低确定性证据未显示酮咯酸与安慰剂之间的发生率差异(RR 0.62,95%CI 0.13至3.03)。
酮咯酸与NSAIDs:在4项研究中将酮咯酸与帕瑞昔布进行了比较,在两项研究中将其与双氯芬酸进行了比较。对于我们的主要结局,在4小时和6小时内,均无证据表明静脉注射酮咯酸与另一种NSAID之间存在差异(分别为低确定性和中等确定性证据)。在4小时内,4项研究(337名参与者)得出RR为1.04(95%CI 0.89至1.21),在6小时内,6项研究(603名参与者)得出RR为1.06(95%CI 0.95至1.19)。对于解救药物使用时间,来自4项研究(427名参与者)的低确定性证据表明,接受酮咯酸的参与者多等待了35分钟(平均中位数331分钟对296分钟)。对于使用解救药物的参与者人数,来自3项研究(260名参与者)的极低确定性证据比较了酮咯酸与另一种NSAID。RR为0.90(95%CI 0.58至1.40),即组间可能几乎没有差异。与另一种NSAID相比,酮咯酸可能使总不良事件发生率略有增加(76%对68%,5项研究,516名参与者;RR 1.11,95%CI 1.