Liposomal Bupivacaine versus Dexamethasone: Comment

医学 布比卡因 麻醉 随机对照试验 类阿片 地塞米松 回廊的 止痛药 臂丛神经阻滞 臂丛神经 外科 内科学 受体
作者
Vincent Yu,Mary DiGiorgi,Roy Winston
出处
期刊:Anesthesiology [Lippincott Williams & Wilkins]
卷期号:138 (2): 225-227 被引量:3
标识
DOI:10.1097/aln.0000000000004408
摘要

A recently published article in Anesthesiology reported results from a randomized trial that compared the analgesic effectiveness of interscalene brachial plexus block with liposomal bupivacaine to standard bupivacaine with perineural dexamethasone.1 This article by Kim et al.1 concluded that the two study drugs provided similar analgesia with no differences in opioid consumption. However, the article contains a statistical error that led to an incorrect conclusion on the primary outcome measure, and the relationship between pain intensity scores and opioid rescue medication was not fully considered.In this blinded study, 112 adult patients undergoing ambulatory arthroscopic shoulder surgery were randomized to receive an interscalene brachial plexus block with either an admixture of 10 ml (133 mg) liposomal bupivacaine and 5 ml 5% bupivacaine or an admixture of 15 ml 0.5% bupivacaine and 4 mg dexamethasone. The primary outcome was the average numerical rating scale pain scores at rest during 72 h. The primary analysis evaluated whether liposomal bupivacaine was noninferior to bupivacaine with dexamethasone at a margin of 1.3 points.2,3 Additional outcomes included opioid consumption, patient satisfaction, and duration of sensory and motor block at predefined time points up to 7 days postsurgery.The article reported that the mean ± SD numerical rating scale pain score during the first 3 postoperative days was 2.4 ± 1.9 in the liposomal bupivacaine group and 3.4 ± 1.9 in the bupivacaine with dexamethasone group, with a mean difference of −1.1 (95% CI, −1.8 to −0.4; P < 0.0001 for noninferiority). The article concluded that liposomal bupivacaine was not superior to bupivacaine with dexamethasone (one-sided P = 0.998). However, this conclusion and associated P value are incorrect because the upper bound of the 95% CI for the difference between groups excludes 0 in favor of liposomal bupivacaine.4 The P value of 0.998 actually corresponds to a test of superiority (with a null value of 0) for bupivacaine with dexamethasone over liposomal bupivacaine. The correct P value for a one-sided test of superiority of liposomal bupivacaine is 0.002, which is statistically significant. Therefore, the conclusion that the treatments provided similarly effective analgesia is not supported, because liposomal bupivacaine demonstrated both noninferiority and superiority to bupivacaine with dexamethasone. Notably, a treatment demonstrates superiority to a comparator when the CI excludes 0, even when a noninferiority study design is used (fig. 1).5,6The analyses presented in the article by Kim et al.1 did not consider the important relationship between pain intensity scores and rescue medication. Consider, for example, a clinical trial of two analgesics in which patients randomized to receive the less effective analgesic study drug required more opioid rescue medications to achieve satisfactory pain control. The difference between the treatment groups in pain intensity scores over time will be attenuated owing to greater rescue medication use in the group that received the less effective study drug. Therefore, assessments of analgesic effectiveness must consider both pain intensity scores and the amount of rescue medication that supplemented the study drug to achieve those scores.The trial used a stepwise approach to opioid rescue pain medication based on patient-reported pain severity (i.e., tramadol for mild or moderate pain and oxycodone or intravenous hydromorphone for severe pain). Kim et al.1 noted that there were no significant differences in opioid consumption at specific time points (i.e., in the postanesthesia care unit and on postoperative days 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7). However, performing repeated statistical tests for each individual postoperative day reduced the statistical power to detect between-group differences. Furthermore, given the primary objective to evaluate the ability of the study drugs to provide prolonged analgesia during 72 h, it is more appropriate to consider cumulative opioid consumption through 72 h as well. The cumulative postoperative opioid consumption during the first 72 h, the same time window as the primary outcome measure, was 33% lower for patients who received liposomal bupivacaine than for those who received bupivacaine with dexamethasone. Therefore, liposomal bupivacaine achieved a statistically significant reduction in pain intensity scores during the primary study period while, during that same time, fewer opioids were used. It naturally follows that the statistically significant effect on pain intensity scores in favor of liposomal bupivacaine would have been larger than the observed difference of –1.1 if the statistical analysis had accounted for differential use of rescue medication.In conclusion, the randomized controlled trial reported by Kim et al.1 was a well-conducted evaluation of two promising treatment options to provide extended analgesia with an interscalene brachial plexus block. Although postsurgical pain was generally well-controlled with both interventions, the conclusions regarding the key study outcomes were inaccurate. In fact, the trial demonstrated that liposomal bupivacaine provided superior pain control with lower opioid consumption in the postoperative period.An erratum has been published regarding Kim et al.: Anesthesiology 2022; 136:434–47, and a corrected version of the manuscript has been posted online.Dr. DiGiorgi, Dr. Winston, and Dr. Yu are employees of Pacira BioSciences, Inc. (Parsippany-Troy Hills, New Jersey) and may own stock or stock options in the company.
最长约 10秒,即可获得该文献文件

科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI
更新
PDF的下载单位、IP信息已删除 (2025-6-4)

科研通是完全免费的文献互助平台,具备全网最快的应助速度,最高的求助完成率。 对每一个文献求助,科研通都将尽心尽力,给求助人一个满意的交代。
实时播报
鲨鱼牙齿关注了科研通微信公众号
1秒前
情怀应助苏叶采纳,获得10
1秒前
2秒前
跳跃太清完成签到 ,获得积分10
2秒前
科目三应助guojin采纳,获得10
3秒前
5秒前
6秒前
pluto应助淡然的铭采纳,获得10
7秒前
7秒前
我是老大应助roser采纳,获得10
8秒前
SciGPT应助有魅力向珊采纳,获得10
8秒前
呱呱乐发布了新的文献求助30
9秒前
量子星尘发布了新的文献求助10
9秒前
11秒前
12秒前
自然的梦松关注了科研通微信公众号
13秒前
徐开心完成签到,获得积分10
15秒前
风吹似夏完成签到,获得积分10
15秒前
moon发布了新的文献求助10
15秒前
16秒前
机灵的飞兰完成签到,获得积分10
16秒前
少华完成签到,获得积分10
16秒前
17秒前
腼腆的斩完成签到,获得积分10
17秒前
18秒前
18秒前
顾矜应助郁金香采纳,获得10
19秒前
无敌kkk发布了新的文献求助10
19秒前
19秒前
万能图书馆应助啦啦咔嘞采纳,获得10
19秒前
大秋哥哈拉少完成签到,获得积分10
21秒前
21秒前
jam发布了新的文献求助10
22秒前
22秒前
23秒前
24秒前
SciGPT应助郁香薇采纳,获得10
26秒前
Billy发布了新的文献求助30
26秒前
26秒前
万能图书馆应助嘟嘟采纳,获得10
27秒前
高分求助中
A new approach to the extrapolation of accelerated life test data 1000
Cognitive Neuroscience: The Biology of the Mind 1000
Technical Brochure TB 814: LPIT applications in HV gas insulated switchgear 1000
ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription, 12th edition 500
Picture Books with Same-sex Parented Families: Unintentional Censorship 500
Nucleophilic substitution in azasydnone-modified dinitroanisoles 500
不知道标题是什么 500
热门求助领域 (近24小时)
化学 材料科学 医学 生物 工程类 有机化学 生物化学 物理 内科学 纳米技术 计算机科学 化学工程 复合材料 遗传学 基因 物理化学 催化作用 冶金 细胞生物学 免疫学
热门帖子
关注 科研通微信公众号,转发送积分 3969557
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 3514377
关于积分的说明 11173836
捐赠科研通 3249692
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 1794979
邀请新用户注册赠送积分活动 875537
科研通“疑难数据库(出版商)”最低求助积分说明 804836