Literature DB >> 8000731

Overview of current development in patient-controlled analgesia.

C Lindley1.   

Abstract

Over the past two decades, numerous trials have assessed the safety and efficacy of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). Advantages over conventional parenteral narcotics reported from these trials include equivalent to superior pain relief, superior patient satisfaction, decreased sedation and anxiety, faster return to normal functional status, and reduction in nursing time and hospitalization. The majority of these trials have been conducted in the postoperative patient population. In the mid to late 1980s, interest arose in applying PCA technology to the management of cancer pain. Factors that served as an impetus for the use of PCA in cancer pain included favorable reports from the postoperative setting and the often-cited statistics regarding the magnitude of the cancer pain problem. Advances in PCA technology coupled with advances in vascular access technology that allow the placement of long-term ports and catheters to facilitate intravenous, epidural, or intrathecal administration of opioid analgesics have made the applicability of PCA in ambulatory cancer patients an attractive option. The greatest breakthrough in PCA technology came with the introduction of devices making it possible to choose between intermittent (demand bolus) and continuous administration (continuous infusion) or both intermittent and continuous modes. A comparison of these types of PCA devices is described. The limitations of the literature involving PCA therapy in cancer patients make it difficult to identify optimal patient selection criteria, PCA administration schedules, drug selection and dosing, and optimal route of administration. The current status and pertinent issues related to these topics are addressed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8000731     DOI: 10.1007/BF00365586

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Support Care Cancer        ISSN: 0941-4355            Impact factor:   3.603


  21 in total

Review 1.  Treatment of the patient with cancer using parenteral electronic drug administration.

Authors:  H L Shaw
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1992-08-15       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  Self-administration of intravenous analgesics.

Authors:  W H Forrest; P W Smethurst; M E Kienitz
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  1970-09       Impact factor: 7.892

3.  Chronic intrathecal morphine for intractable pain.

Authors:  R D Penn; J A Paice
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  1987-08       Impact factor: 5.115

4.  Intrathecal morphine tolerance: use of intrathecal clonidine, DADLE, and intraventricular morphine.

Authors:  D W Coombs; R L Saunders; D Lachance; S Savage; T S Ragnarsson; L E Jensen
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  1985-03       Impact factor: 7.892

5.  Patient-controlled analgesia for chronic cancer pain in the ambulatory setting: a report of 117 patients.

Authors:  G Swanson; J Smith; R Bulich; P New; R Shiffman
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1989-12       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Long-term intrathecal morphine and bupivacaine in "refractory" cancer pain. I. Results from the first series of 52 patients.

Authors:  M Sjöberg; L Appelgren; S Einarsson; E Hultman; L E Linder; P Nitescu; I Curelaru
Journal:  Acta Anaesthesiol Scand       Date:  1991-01       Impact factor: 2.105

7.  Comparison of hydromorphone continuous subcutaneous infusion and basal rate subcutaneous infusion plus PCA in cancer pain: a pilot study.

Authors:  Marie-Claude Vanier; Gaston Labrecque; Dolorès Lepage-Savary; Éric Poulin; Louise Provencher; Claude Lamontagne
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 6.961

8.  Patient-controlled analgesic infusions: alfentanil versus morphine.

Authors:  Harlan F Hill; Barbara A Coda; Adam M Mackie; Karen Iverson
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1992-06       Impact factor: 6.961

9.  Patient-controlled subcutaneous hydromorphone versus continuous subcutaneous infusion for the treatment of cancer pain.

Authors:  E Bruera; C Brenneis; M Michaud; K MacMillan; J Hanson; R N MacDonald
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1988-09-21       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Patient-controlled analgesic administration. A comparison of steady-state morphine infusions with bolus doses.

Authors:  H F Hill; A M Mackie; B A Coda; K Iverson; C R Chapman
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1991-02-15       Impact factor: 6.860

View more
  1 in total

1.  Randomised controlled trial of patient controlled analgesia compared with nurse delivered analgesia in an emergency department.

Authors:  E Evans; N Turley; N Robinson; M Clancy
Journal:  Emerg Med J       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 2.740

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.