| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Friesgaard, Kristian Dahl, et al.
(author)
-
Opioids for Treatment of Pre-hospital Acute Pain : A Systematic Review
- 2022
-
In: Pain and Therapy. - : Springer. - 2193-8237 .- 2193-651X. ; 11:1, s. 17-36
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Introduction Acute pain is a frequent symptom among patients in the pre-hospital setting, and opioids are the most widely used class of drugs for the relief of pain in these patients. However, the evidence base for opioid use in this setting appears to be weak. The aim of this systematic review was to explore the efficacy and safety of opioid analgesics in the pre-hospital setting and to assess potential alternative therapies. Methods The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Scopus, and Epistemonikos databases were searched for studies investigating adult patients with acute pain prior to their arrival at hospital. Outcomes on efficacy and safety were assessed. Risk of bias for each included study was assessed according to the Cochrane approach, and confidence in the evidence was assessed using the GRADE method. Results A total of 3453 papers were screened, of which the full text of 125 was assessed. Twelve studies were ultimately included in this systematic review. Meta-analysis was not undertaken due to substantial clinical heterogeneity among the included studies. Several studies had high risk of bias resulting in low or very low quality of evidence for most of the outcomes. No pre-hospital studies compared opioids with placebo, and no studies assessed the risk of opioid administration for subgroups of frail patients. The competency level of the attending healthcare provider did not seem to affect the efficacy or safety of opioids in two observational studies of very low quality. Intranasal opioids had a similar effect and safety profile as intravenous opioids. Moderate quality evidence supported a similar efficacy and safety of synthetic opioid compared to morphine. Conclusions Available evidence for pre-hospital opioid administration to relieve acute pain is scarce and the overall quality of evidence is low. Intravenous administration of synthetic, fast-acting opioids may be as effective and safe as intravenous administration of morphine. More controlled studies are needed on alternative routes for opioid administration and pre-hospital pain management for potentially more frail patient subgroups.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Raatiniemi, Lasse, et al.
(author)
-
Femoral nerve blocks for the treatment of acute pre-hospital pain: A systematic review with meta-analysis
- 2020
-
In: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. - : WILEY. - 0001-5172 .- 1399-6576. ; 64:8, s. 1038-1047
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background Pain management is one of the most important interventions in the emergency medical services. The femoral nerve block (FNB) is, among other things, indicated for pre- and post-operative pain management for patients with femoral fractures but its role in the pre-hospital setting has not been determined. The aim of this review was to assess the effect and safety of the FNB in comparison to other forms of analgesia (or no treatment) for managing acute lower extremity pain in adult patients in the pre-hospital setting. Methods A systematic review (PROSPERO registration (CRD42018114399)) was conducted. The Cochrane and GRADE methods were used to assess outcomes. Two authors independently reviewed each study for eligibility, extracted the data and performed risk of bias assessments. Results Four studies with a total of 252 patients were included. Two RCTs (114 patients) showed that FNB may reduce pain more effectively than metamizole (mean difference 32 mm on a 100 mm VAS (95% CI 24 to 40)). One RCT (48 patients) compared the FNB with lidocaine and magnesium sulphate to FNB with lidocaine alone and was only included here for information regarding adverse effects. One case series included 90 patients. Few adverse events were reported in the included studies. The certainty of evidence was very low. We found no studies comparing FNB to inhaled analgesics, opioids or ketamine. Conclusions Evidence regarding the effectiveness and adverse effects of pre-hospital FNB is limited. Studies comparing pre-hospital FNB to inhaled analgesics, opioids or ketamine are lacking.
|
|
| 8. |
- Rehn, Marius, et al.
(author)
-
Awake proning in patients with COVID-19-related hypoxemic acute respiratory failure: Endorsement by the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine
- 2023
-
In: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica. - : WILEY. - 0001-5172 .- 1399-6576.
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: Awake proning in spontaneously breathing patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure was applied during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic to improve oxygenation while avoiding tracheal intubation. An updated systematic review and meta-analysis on the topic was published.Methods: The Clinical practice committee (CPC) of the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (SSAI) assessed the clinical practice guideline "Awake proning in patients with COVID-19-related hypoxemic acute respiratory failure: A rapid practice guideline" for possible endorsement. The Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool was used.Results: Four out of six SSAI CPC members completed the appraisal. The individual domain totals were: Scope and Purpose 90%; Stakeholder Involvement 89%; Rigour of Development 74%; Clarity of Presentation 85%; Applicability 75%; Editorial Independence 98%; Overall Assessment 79%.Conclusion: The SSAI CPC endorses the clinical practice guideline "Awake proning in patients with COVID-19-related hypoxemic acute respiratory failure: A rapid practice guideline". This guideline serves as a useful decision aid for clinicians caring for critically ill patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and can be used to provide guidance on use of prone positioning in this group of patients.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
