Irish journal of medical science · 2000
A comparison of papaveretum-promethazine with morphine-ondansetron for patient-controlled analgesia.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
O'Brien B, Nevin B, Patterson K
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with intravenous morphine is commonplace. Antiemetics are often added to reduce side-effects. In our institution an unusual combination of papaveretum-promethazine is in use.
AIMS: We set out to compare this combination with a more commonly used one (morphine-ondansetron) by auditing the records of our pain-control team assessing analgesia and control of side-effects.
METHODS: The records of two groups of 100 consecutive patients were studied. Pain scores were recorded 24 hours post-operatively on a scale of zero to ten. Also recorded were sedation scores, pruritus, emesis, and usage of breakthrough analgesia. The groups contained the work of a variety of anaesthetists and surgeons, though the majority were orthopaedic cases. All results were recorded by one pain-control nurse, using the same question, over a nine-month period.
RESULTS: Sedation scores were identical, while side-effects were few and similar in both groups. The use of breakthrough analgesia was also similar. However, the median pain-score of zero in the papaveretum group was significantly lower than that of two in the morphine group, (p < 0.001, Mann-Whitney U).
CONCLUSION: Papaveretum-promethazine appeared to be effective for PCA. This combination is also much less expensive than morphine-ondansetron. A previously described synergistic interaction between promethazine and opiates may be a factor in its success. Further evaluation of these drugs in PCA is warranted.
AIMS: We set out to compare this combination with a more commonly used one (morphine-ondansetron) by auditing the records of our pain-control team assessing analgesia and control of side-effects.
METHODS: The records of two groups of 100 consecutive patients were studied. Pain scores were recorded 24 hours post-operatively on a scale of zero to ten. Also recorded were sedation scores, pruritus, emesis, and usage of breakthrough analgesia. The groups contained the work of a variety of anaesthetists and surgeons, though the majority were orthopaedic cases. All results were recorded by one pain-control nurse, using the same question, over a nine-month period.
RESULTS: Sedation scores were identical, while side-effects were few and similar in both groups. The use of breakthrough analgesia was also similar. However, the median pain-score of zero in the papaveretum group was significantly lower than that of two in the morphine group, (p < 0.001, Mann-Whitney U).
CONCLUSION: Papaveretum-promethazine appeared to be effective for PCA. This combination is also much less expensive than morphine-ondansetron. A previously described synergistic interaction between promethazine and opiates may be a factor in its success. Further evaluation of these drugs in PCA is warranted.