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 [Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer)]
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
1秒前
耍酷静槐发布了新的文献求助50
1秒前
1秒前
ZXCVB给ZXCVB的求助进行了留言
1秒前
顾矜应助小黄采纳,获得10
2秒前
Albee发布了新的文献求助30
2秒前
顾矜应助乐观小之采纳,获得10
2秒前
娃哈哈哈哈完成签到 ,获得积分10
3秒前
倩倩发布了新的文献求助10
3秒前
3秒前
ShawnJohn发布了新的文献求助10
3秒前
Owen应助梵墨采纳,获得10
4秒前
CCH完成签到,获得积分10
4秒前
5秒前
Bonnie发布了新的文献求助10
5秒前
居九九关注了科研通微信公众号
5秒前
5秒前
汤圆呢醒醒完成签到,获得积分10
5秒前
qc完成签到,获得积分20
6秒前
大Lee发布了新的文献求助10
6秒前
7秒前
鲁远望完成签到,获得积分10
7秒前
sean完成签到,获得积分10
8秒前
小龙完成签到 ,获得积分10
8秒前
罗梦完成签到,获得积分20
9秒前
LBX发布了新的文献求助20
9秒前
坦率灵槐发布了新的文献求助10
9秒前
Ronalsen完成签到 ,获得积分10
9秒前
10秒前
专一的铃铛完成签到,获得积分10
10秒前
怡然如凡完成签到,获得积分10
10秒前
wlscj应助小余同学采纳,获得20
11秒前
费飞扬完成签到,获得积分10
11秒前
桐桐应助冷酷的水壶采纳,获得10
11秒前
柔弱的幻灵完成签到,获得积分10
11秒前
zwangxia完成签到,获得积分10
11秒前
zlf完成签到,获得积分10
12秒前
momo发布了新的文献求助10
13秒前
今后应助科研通管家采纳,获得10
14秒前
浮游应助科研通管家采纳,获得10
15秒前
高分求助中
Encyclopedia of Quaternary Science Third edition 2025 12000
(应助此贴封号)【重要!!请各用户(尤其是新用户)详细阅读】【科研通的精品贴汇总】 10000
The Social Work Ethics Casebook: Cases and Commentary (revised 2nd ed.). Frederic G. Reamer 800
Beyond the sentence : discourse and sentential form / edited by Jessica R. Wirth 600
Holistic Discourse Analysis 600
Vertébrés continentaux du Crétacé supérieur de Provence (Sud-Est de la France) 600
Reliability Monitoring Program 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 纳米技术 计算机科学 内科学 化学工程 复合材料 物理化学 基因 遗传学 催化作用 冶金 量子力学 光电子学
热门帖子
关注 科研通微信公众号,转发送积分 5340559
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 4476999
关于积分的说明 13933590
捐赠科研通 4372846
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 2402602
邀请新用户注册赠送积分活动 1395511
关于科研通互助平台的介绍 1367572