Literature DB >> 17728216

A randomized clinical trial of a brief hypnosis intervention to control side effects in breast surgery patients.

Guy H Montgomery1, Dana H Bovbjerg, Julie B Schnur, Daniel David, Alisan Goldfarb, Christina R Weltz, Clyde Schechter, Joshua Graff-Zivin, Kristin Tatrow, Donald D Price, Jeffrey H Silverstein.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer surgery is associated with side effects, including postsurgical pain, nausea, and fatigue. We carried out a randomized clinical trial to test the hypotheses that a brief presurgery hypnosis intervention would decrease intraoperative anesthesia and analgesic use and side effects associated with breast cancer surgery and that it would be cost effective.
METHODS: We randomly assigned 200 patients who were scheduled to undergo excisional breast biopsy or lumpectomy (mean age 48.5 years) to a 15-minute presurgery hypnosis session conducted by a psychologist or nondirective empathic listening (attention control). Patients were not blinded to group assignment. Intraoperative anesthesia use (i.e., of the analgesics lidocaine and fentanyl and the sedatives propofol and midazolam) was assessed. Patient-reported pain and other side effects as measured on a visual analog scale (0-100) were assessed at discharge, as was use of analgesics in the recovery room. Institutional costs and time in the operating room were assessed via chart review.
RESULTS: Patients in the hypnosis group required less propofol (means = 64.01 versus 96.64 microg; difference = 32.63; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.95 to 61.30) and lidocaine (means = 24.23 versus 31.09 mL; difference = 6.86; 95% CI = 3.05 to 10.68) than patients in the control group. Patients in the hypnosis group also reported less pain intensity (means = 22.43 versus 47.83; difference = 25.40; 95% CI = 17.56 to 33.25), pain unpleasantness (means = 21.19 versus 39.05; difference = 17.86; 95% CI = 9.92 to 25.80), nausea (means = 6.57 versus 25.49; difference = 18.92; 95% CI = 12.98 to 24.87), fatigue (means = 29.47 versus 54.20; difference = 24.73; 95% CI = 16.64 to 32.83), discomfort (means = 23.01 versus 43.20; difference = 20.19; 95% CI = 12.36 to 28.02), and emotional upset (means = 8.67 versus 33.46; difference = 24.79; 95% CI = 18.56 to 31.03). No statistically significant differences were seen in the use of fentanyl, midazolam, or recovery room analgesics. Institutional costs for surgical breast cancer procedures were $8561 per patient at Mount Sinai School of Medicine. Patients in the hypnosis group cost the institution $772.71 less per patient than those in the control group (95% CI = 75.10 to 1469.89), mainly due to reduced surgical time.
CONCLUSIONS: Hypnosis was superior to attention control regarding propofol and lidocaine use; pain, nausea, fatigue, discomfort, and emotional upset at discharge; and institutional cost. Overall, the present data support the use of hypnosis with breast cancer surgery patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17728216     DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djm106

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  70 in total

1.  Presurgery psychological factors predict pain, nausea, and fatigue one week after breast cancer surgery.

Authors:  Guy H Montgomery; Julie B Schnur; Joel Erblich; Michael A Diefenbach; Dana H Bovbjerg
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.612

2.  Hypnosis for symptom management in women with breast cancer: a pilot study.

Authors:  Mark P Jensen; Julie R Gralow; Alan Braden; Kevin J Gertz; Jesse R Fann; Karen L Syrjala
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Hypn       Date:  2012

3.  Virtual reality hypnosis for pain associated with recovery from physical trauma.

Authors:  David R Patterson; Mark P Jensen; Shelley A Wiechman; Sam R Sharar
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Hypn       Date:  2010-07

4.  Intentions to use hypnosis to control the side effects of cancer and its treatment.

Authors:  Stephanie J Sohl; Lauren Stossel; Julie B Schnur; Kristin Tatrow; Amfiana Gherman; Guy H Montgomery
Journal:  Am J Clin Hypn       Date:  2010-10

Review 5.  A systematic review of therapeutic alliance, group cohesion, empathy, and goal consensus/collaboration in psychotherapeutic interventions in cancer: Uncommon factors?

Authors:  Julie B Schnur; Guy H Montgomery
Journal:  Clin Psychol Rev       Date:  2009-11-27

Review 6.  Clinical practice guidelines on the evidence-based use of integrative therapies during and after breast cancer treatment.

Authors:  Heather Greenlee; Melissa J DuPont-Reyes; Lynda G Balneaves; Linda E Carlson; Misha R Cohen; Gary Deng; Jillian A Johnson; Matthew Mumber; Dugald Seely; Suzanna M Zick; Lindsay M Boyce; Debu Tripathy
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2017-04-24       Impact factor: 508.702

7.  Impact of a complementary/integrative medicine program on the need for supportive cancer care-related medications.

Authors:  Ilanit Shalom-Sharabi; Noah Samuels; Efraim Lev; Ofer Lavie; Lital Keinan-Boker; Elad Schiff; Eran Ben-Arye
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2017-04-22       Impact factor: 3.603

Review 8.  A meta-analysis of the relationship between response expectancies and cancer treatment-related side effects.

Authors:  Stephanie J Sohl; Julie B Schnur; Guy H Montgomery
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2009-09-23       Impact factor: 3.612

9.  Effects of Music Therapy on Anesthesia Requirements and Anxiety in Women Undergoing Ambulatory Breast Surgery for Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Jaclyn Bradley Palmer; Deforia Lane; Diane Mayo; Mark Schluchter; Rosemary Leeming
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-08-17       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Pre-biopsy psychological factors predict patient biopsy experience.

Authors:  Sarah J Miller; Stephanie J Sohl; Julie B Schnur; Laurie Margolies; Jaclyn Bolno; Janet Szabo; George Hermann; Guy H Montgomery
Journal:  Int J Behav Med       Date:  2014-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.