Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for advanced cancer pain inpatients in specialist palliative care-a blinded, randomized, sham-controlled pilot cross-over trial.
Siemens, Waldemar; Boehlke, Christopher; Bennett, Michael I; Offner, Klaus; Becker, Gerhild; Gaertner, Jan.
Afiliação
  • Siemens W; Clinic for Palliative Care, Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Robert-Koch-Str 3, 79106, Freiburg, Germany. waldemar.siemens@googlemail.com.
  • Boehlke C; Clinic for Palliative Care, Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Robert-Koch-Str 3, 79106, Freiburg, Germany.
  • Bennett MI; Academic Unit of Palliative Care, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences (LIHS), School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
  • Offner K; Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
  • Becker G; Clinic for Palliative Care, Medical Center, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Robert-Koch-Str 3, 79106, Freiburg, Germany.
  • Gaertner J; Center for Palliative Care Hildegard, Basel, Switzerland.
Support Care Cancer ; 28(11): 5323-5333, 2020 Nov.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32128614
PURPOSE: Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is a treatment option for cancer pain, but the evidence is inconclusive. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TENS. METHODS: A blinded, randomized, sham-controlled pilot cross-over trial (NCT02655289) was conducted on an inpatient specialist palliative care ward. We included adult inpatients with cancer pain ≥ 3 on an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS). Intensity-modulated high TENS (IMT) was compared with placebo TENS (PBT). Patients used both modes according to their preferred application scheme during 24 h with a 24-h washout phase. The primary outcome was change in average pain intensity on the NRS during the preceding 24 h. Responders were patients with at least a "slight improvement." RESULTS: Of 632 patients screened, 25 were randomized (sequence IMT-PBT = 13 and PBT-IMT = 12). Finally, 11 patients in IMT-PBT and 9 in PBT-IMT completed the study (N = 20). The primary outcome did not differ between groups (IMT minus PBT: - 0.2, 95% confidence interval - 0.9 to 0.6). However, responder rates were higher in IMT (17/20 [85%] vs. 10/20 [50%], p = 0.0428). Two patients experienced an uncomfortable feeling caused by the current, one after IMT and one after PBT. Seven patients (35%) desired a TENS prescription. Women and patients with incident pain were most likely to benefit from TENS. CONCLUSION: TENS was safe, but IMT was unlikely to offer more analgesic effects than PBT. Even though many patients desired a TENS prescription, 50% still reported at least "slight pain relief" from PBT. Differences for gender and incident pain aspects demand future trials.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Cuidados Paliativos / Estimulação Elétrica Nervosa Transcutânea / Dor do Câncer / Neoplasias Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials Limite: Adult / Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged País como assunto: Europa Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Cuidados Paliativos / Estimulação Elétrica Nervosa Transcutânea / Dor do Câncer / Neoplasias Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials Limite: Adult / Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged País como assunto: Europa Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article