Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
Mais filtros








Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Clin Orthop Relat Res ; 482(2): 291-300, 2024 Feb 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37594401

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Pharmacogenomics is an emerging and affordable tool that may improve postoperative pain control. One challenge to successful pain control is the large interindividual variability among analgesics in their efficacy and adverse drug events. Whether preoperative pharmacogenomic testing is worthwhile for patients undergoing TKA is unclear. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Are the results of preoperative pharmacogenetic testing associated with lower postoperative pain scores as measured by the Overall Benefit of Analgesic Score (OBAS)? (2) Do the results of preoperative pharmacogenomic testing lead to less total opioids given? (3) Do the results of preoperative pharmacogenomic testing lead to changes in opioid prescribing patterns? METHODS: Participants of this randomized trial were enrolled from September 2018 through December 2021 if they were aged 18 to 80 years and were undergoing primary TKA under general anesthesia. Patients were excluded if they had chronic kidney disease, a history of chronic pain or narcotic use before surgery, or if they were undergoing robotic surgery. Preoperatively, patients completed pharmacogenomic testing (RightMed, OneOME) and a questionnaire and were randomly assigned to the experimental group or control group. Of 99 patients screened, 23 were excluded, one before randomization; 11 allocated patients in each group did not receive their allocated interventions for reasons such as surgery canceled, patients ultimately undergoing spinal anesthesia, and change in surgery plan. Another four patients in each group were excluded from the analysis because they were missing an OBAS report. This left 30 patients for analysis in the control group and 38 patients in the experimental group. The control and experimental groups were similar in age, gender, and race. Pharmacogenomic test results for patients in the experimental group were reviewed before surgery by a pharmacist, who recommended perioperative medications to the clinical team. A pharmacist also assessed for clinically relevant drug-gene interactions and recommended drug and dose selection according to guidelines from the Clinical Pharmacogenomics Implementation Consortium for each patient enrolled in the study. Patients were unaware of their pharmacogenomic results. Pharmacogenomic test results for patients in the control group were not reviewed before surgery; instead, standard perioperative medications were administered in adherence to our institutional care pathways. The OBAS (maximum 28 points) was the primary outcome measure, recorded 24 hours postoperatively. A two-sample t-test was used to compare the mean OBAS between groups. Secondary measures were the mean 24-hour pain score, total morphine milligram equivalent, and frequency of opioid use. Postoperatively, patients were assessed for pain with a VAS (range 0 to 10). Opioid use was recorded preoperatively, intraoperatively, in the postanesthesia care unit, and 24 hours after discharge from the postanesthesia care unit. Changes in perioperative opioid use based on pharmacogenomic testing were recorded, as were changes in prescription patterns for postoperative pain control. Preoperative characteristics were also compared between patients with and without various phenotypes ascertained from pharmacogenomic test results. RESULTS: The mean OBAS did not differ between groups (mean ± SD 4.7 ± 3.7 in the control group versus 4.2 ± 2.8 in the experimental group, mean difference 0.5 [95% CI -1.1 to 2.1]; p = 0.55). Total opioids given did not differ between groups or at any single perioperative timepoint (preoperative, intraoperative, or postoperative). We found no difference in opioid prescribing pattern. After adjusting for multiple comparisons, no difference was observed between the treatment and control groups in tramadol use (41% versus 71%, proportion difference 0.29 [95% CI 0.05 to 0.53]; nominal p = 0.02; adjusted p > 0.99). CONCLUSION: Routine use of pharmacogenomic testing for patients undergoing TKA did not lead to better pain control or decreased opioid consumption. Future studies might focus on at-risk populations, such as patients with chronic pain or those undergoing complex, painful surgical procedures, to test whether pharmacogenomic results might be beneficial in certain circumstances. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, therapeutic study.


Assuntos
Artroplastia do Joelho , Dor Crônica , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Analgésicos , Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapêutico , Artroplastia do Joelho/efeitos adversos , Dor Crônica/diagnóstico , Dor Crônica/tratamento farmacológico , Dor Crônica/genética , Dor Pós-Operatória/genética , Dor Pós-Operatória/prevenção & controle , Testes Farmacogenômicos , Padrões de Prática Médica , Adolescente , Adulto Jovem , Adulto , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais
2.
Anesth Pain Med (Seoul) ; 18(4): 340-348, 2023 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37919918

RESUMO

Centrally acting skeletal muscle relaxants (CASMR) are widely prescribed as adjuncts for acute and chronic pain. Given the recent interest in multimodal analgesia and reducing opioid consumption, there has been an increase in its use for perioperative/postoperative pain control. The mechanism of action, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetics of these drugs vary. Their use has been studied in a wide range of operative and non-operative settings. The best evidence for the efficacy of CASMRs is in acute, nonoperative musculoskeletal pain and, in the operative setting, in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty and abdominal surgery, including inguinal herniorrhaphy and hemorrhoidectomy. The risk of complications and side effects, coupled with the limited evidence of efficacy, should prompt careful consideration of individual patient circumstances when prescribing CASMRs as part of perioperative pain management strategies.

3.
J Osteopath Med ; 123(3): 167-176, 2023 03 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36259531

RESUMO

CONTEXT: Mask wearing to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 and other viral infections may raise concerns on the effects of face masks on breathing and cardiopulmonary health. Non-evidence-based apprehensions may limit the use of masks in public. OBJECTIVES: We will assess the parameters related to heart and lung physiology between healthy male and female adults exposed to wearing face masks (or not) under conditions of rest and graded exercise. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study including 20 male and 20 female adults who met our inclusion criteria. Adults with underlying respiratory and cardiac conditions were excluded. Physiologic parameters were measured while the participants underwent three activity levels (10 min each) in a randomly assigned order: rest, walking, and stair climbing. Each activity level was conducted under three mask conditions: no mask, surgical mask, and N95 respirator. Heart rate (HR) and blood oxygen saturation (SpO2) were recorded via pulse oximeter after each activity. Perceived exertion was recorded utilizing a Borg 15-point scale. A mixed-effects analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized to interpret the results. RESULTS: A significant increase in perceived exertion was reported for N95 users (p<0.0001). There was also a significant increase in mean HR for N95 users in comparison to no-mask users (p=0.0031). The mean SpO2 in females was higher than males under rest and walking conditions (p=0.0055). There was no change in SpO2 between mask type overall, nor between mask type vs. exercise intensity, nor between mask type and sex. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide evidence that surgical masks and N95 respirators do not influence SpO2 at rest or during exercise.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Adulto , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Estudos Transversais , Exercício Físico , Máscaras , Saturação de Oxigênio
4.
Clin Case Rep ; 10(10): e6417, 2022 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36245453

RESUMO

Extended-release liposomal bupivacaine is frequently used in surgical infiltration for postoperative pain control. The manufacturer recommends against subsequent local anesthetics within 96 hours. We administered epidural bupivacaine one day after local liposomal bupivacaine infiltration for staged hemipelvectomy without symptoms of LAST. Further pharmacokinetic and clinical safety studies are needed.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA