BACKGROUND: Many studies have shown the efficacy of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). However, it is not clear whether PCA has clinical or economic benefits in addition to efficient analgesia. The current study was designed to evaluate these issues by comparing PCA with regularly administered intramuscular injections of opioids after hysterectomy. METHODS: This prospective study included 126 patients who underwentabdominal hysterectomy and were randomly assigned to receive PCA or regularly timed intramuscular injections of morphine during a period of 48 h. Doses were adjusted to provide satisfactory analgesia in both treatment groups. Pain at rest and with movement, functional recovery, drug side effects, and patient satisfaction were measured using rating scales and questionnaires. The costs of PCA and intramuscular therapy were calculated based on personnel time and drug and material requirements. RESULTS: Comparable analgesia was observed with the two treatment methods, with no significant differences in the incidence of side effects or patient satisfaction. The medication dosage had to be adjusted significantly more frequently in the intramuscular group than in the PCA patients. The PCA did not favor a faster recuperation time compared with intramuscular therapy in terms of times to ambulation, resumption of liquid and solid diet, passage of bowel gas, or hospital discharge. The results of the economic evaluation, which used a cost-minimization model and sensitivity analyses, showed that PCA was more costly than regular intramuscular injections despite the fact that no costs for the pump were included in the analyses. Cost differences in nursing time favoring PCA were offset by drug and material costs associated with this type of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with regularly scheduled intramuscular dosing, PCA is more costly and does not have clinical advantages for pain management after hysterectomy. Because of the comparable outcomes, the general use of PCA in similar patients should be questioned.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Many studies have shown the efficacy of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). However, it is not clear whether PCA has clinical or economic benefits in addition to efficient analgesia. The current study was designed to evaluate these issues by comparing PCA with regularly administered intramuscular injections of opioids after hysterectomy. METHODS: This prospective study included 126 patients who underwent abdominal hysterectomy and were randomly assigned to receive PCA or regularly timed intramuscular injections of morphine during a period of 48 h. Doses were adjusted to provide satisfactory analgesia in both treatment groups. Pain at rest and with movement, functional recovery, drug side effects, and patient satisfaction were measured using rating scales and questionnaires. The costs of PCA and intramuscular therapy were calculated based on personnel time and drug and material requirements. RESULTS: Comparable analgesia was observed with the two treatment methods, with no significant differences in the incidence of side effects or patient satisfaction. The medication dosage had to be adjusted significantly more frequently in the intramuscular group than in the PCA patients. The PCA did not favor a faster recuperation time compared with intramuscular therapy in terms of times to ambulation, resumption of liquid and solid diet, passage of bowel gas, or hospital discharge. The results of the economic evaluation, which used a cost-minimization model and sensitivity analyses, showed that PCA was more costly than regular intramuscular injections despite the fact that no costs for the pump were included in the analyses. Cost differences in nursing time favoring PCA were offset by drug and material costs associated with this type of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with regularly scheduled intramuscular dosing, PCA is more costly and does not have clinical advantages for pain management after hysterectomy. Because of the comparable outcomes, the general use of PCA in similar patients should be questioned.
Authors: Jason E Smith; Mark Rockett; Rosalyn Squire; Christopher J Hayward; Siobhan Creanor; Paul Ewings; Andy Barton; Colin Pritchard; Jonathan Richard Benger Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2013-02-14 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Yang Cui; Tuo Yang; Chao Zeng; Jie Wei; Xi Xie; Liangjun Li; Xiang Ding; Yi Zhang; Guanghua Lei Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-07-12 Impact factor: 2.692