scholarly journals Premedication with Oral Paracetamol for Reduction of Propofol Injection Pain: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sasikaan Nimmaanrat ◽  
Manasanun Jongjidpranitarn ◽  
Sumidtra Prathep ◽  
Maliwan Oofuvong
Keyword(s):  
Placebo Group ◽  
Intravenous Injection ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Injection Pain ◽  
Rating Score ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Numerical Rating ◽  
Injection Methods ◽  
Different Doses

Abstract Background: To compare the effect of premedication with 2 different doses of oral paracetamol to prevent pain at propofol intravenous injection. Methods: We conducted a double-blind randomized controlled trial in which patients scheduled for induction of general anesthesia with intravenous propofol received either a placebo, 500 mg or 1000 mg of oral paracetamol (P500 and P1000, respectively) 1 hr prior to induction. Two mg/kg of propofol was injected at a rate of 600 ml/hr. After 1/4 of the full dose had been injected, the syringe pump was paused, and patients were asked to rate pain at the injection site using a verbal numerical rating score (VNRS) from 0-10. Results: Three hundred and twenty-four patients were included. Pain intensity was lower in both P500 and P1000 groups (median VNRS [interquartile range] = 2 [0-3] and 4 [2-5], respectively) than in the placebo group (8 [7-10]; P<0.001)*. The rate of pain was lower in the P1000 group (70.4%) than in both the P500 and the placebo group (86.1% and 99.1%, respectively; P<0.001)*. The respective rates of mild (VNRS 1-3), moderate (VNRS 4-6) and severe pain (VNRS 7-10) were 47.2, 23.2 and 0% in the P1000 group, 28.7, 50 and 7.4% in the P500 group, and 0, 22.2 and 76.9% in the placebo group (P<0.001* for between group comparisons). Tolerance was similar in the 3 groups. Conclusions: A premedication with oral paracetamol can dose-dependently reduce pain at propofol intravenous injection. To avoid this common uncomfortable concern for the patients, this well-tolerated, available and cheap treatment appears as an option to be implemented in the current practice.

scholarly journals Premedication with Oral Paracetamol for Reduction of Propofol Injection Pain: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sasikaan Nimmaanrat ◽  
Manasanun Jongjidpranitarn ◽  
Sumidtra Prathep ◽  
Maliwan Oofuvong
Keyword(s):  
Placebo Group ◽  
Intravenous Injection ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Injection Pain ◽  
Rating Score ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Numerical Rating ◽  
Injection Methods ◽  
Different Doses

Abstract Background: To compare the effect of premedication with 2 different doses of oral paracetamol to prevent pain at propofol intravenous injection. Methods: We conducted a double-blind randomized controlled trial in which patients scheduled for induction of general anesthesia with intravenous propofol received either a placebo, 500 mg or 1000 mg of oral paracetamol (P500 and P1000, respectively) 1 hr prior to induction. Two mg/kg of propofol was injected at a rate of 600 ml/hr. After 1/4 of the full dose had been injected, the syringe pump was paused, and patients were asked to rate pain at the injection site using a verbal numerical rating score (VNRS) from 0-10. Results: Three hundred and twenty-four patients were included. Pain intensity was lower in both P500 and P1000 groups (median VNRS [interquartile range] = 2 [0-3] and 4 [2-5], respectively) than in the placebo group (8 [7-10]; P<0.001)*. The rate of pain was lower in the P1000 group (70.4%) than in both the P500 and the placebo group (86.1% and 99.1%, respectively; P<0.001)*. The respective rates of mild (VNRS 1-3), moderate (VNRS 4-6) and severe pain (VNRS 7-10) were 47.2, 23.2 and 0% in the P1000 group, 28.7, 50 and 7.4% in the P500 group, and 0, 22.2 and 76.9% in the placebo group (P<0.001* for between group comparisons). Tolerance was similar in the 3 groups. Conclusions: A premedication with oral paracetamol can dose-dependently reduce pain at propofol intravenous injection. To avoid this common uncomfortable concern for the patients, this well-tolerated, available and cheap treatment appears as an option to be implemented in the current practice.

scholarly journals Premedication with parecoxib sodium for reduction of propofol injection pain: a randomized placebo-controlled trial

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
xiaoxia gu ◽  
Weiming Huang ◽  
Jingjing Wang ◽  
Yue Lu ◽  
Jinxian Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Placebo Group ◽  
Intravenous Injection ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Injection Pain ◽  
Rating Score ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Numerical Rating ◽  
Injection Methods ◽  
Different Doses

Abstract Background To compare the effect of premedication with two different doses of parecoxib sodium to prevent pain at propofol intravenous injection. Methods We conducted a double-blind randomized controlled trial in which patients scheduled for induction of general anesthesia with intravenous propofol received either a placebo, 20 mg or 40 mg of parecoxib sodium (P20 and P40, respectively) 30min prior to induction. 2mg/kg of propofol was injected at a rate of 600 ml/hr. After 1/4 of the full dose had been injected, the syringe pump was paused, and patients were asked to rate pain at the injection site using a verbal numerical rating score (VNRS) from 0 to 10. Results Three hundred and twenty-four patients were included. Pain intensity was lower in both P20 and P40 groups (median VNRS [interquartile range] = 2 [0–3] and 4 [3–6], respectively) than in the placebo group (8 [7–10]; P < 0.001)*. The rate of pain was lower in the P40 group (62.9%) than in both the P20 and the placebo group (87.0 and 98.2%, respectively; P < 0.001)*. The respective rates of mild (VNRS 1–3), moderate (VNRS 4–6) and severe pain (VNRS 7–10) were 46.1, 22.3 and 0% in the P40 group, 29.7, 55.4 and 8.5% in the P20 group, and 0, 24.2 and 77.8% in the placebo group (P < 0.001* for between group comparisons). Tolerance was similar in the 3 groups. Conclusions A premedication with parecoxib sodium can dose-dependently reduce pain at propofol intravenous injection. To avoid this common uncomfortable concern for the patients, this well-tolerated, available and cheap treatment appears as an option to be implemented in the current practice.

scholarly journals The Effect of a Transdermal Scopolamine Patch on Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting after Retromastoid Craniectomy with Microvascular Decompression: A Preliminary Single Center, Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hyun Hee Lee ◽  
Hyun-Mi Kim ◽  
Ji Eun Lee ◽  
Young-Tae Jeon ◽  
Sanghon Park ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Placebo Group ◽  
Microvascular Decompression ◽  
Postoperative Nausea ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Postoperative Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Nausea And Vomiting ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
The Mean

Background: We performed this prospective double-blind randomized controlled trial to identify the effect of a preoperative prophylactic transdermal scopolamine (TDS) patch on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after retromastoid craniectomy with microvascular decompression (RMC-MVD). Methods: We recruited 38 patients undergoing RMC-MVD and randomized them into two groups: the TDS group (n = 19, application of the TDS patch) and placebo group (n = 19, application of a sham patch). Nausea (as a self-reported 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) score; range, 0 (no nausea) to 10 (worst nausea)), vomiting, and the use of antiemetics were the primary endpoints. Results: There was no significant difference in terms of the incidence of PONV (73.7% in the TDS group and 78.9% in the placebo group; p = 1.00) between the groups. However, the mean nausea VAS score was significantly different at arrival to the general ward (0.93 ± 1.71 in the TDS group vs. 2.52 ± 2.85 in the placebo group; p = 0.046), and throughout the study period (0.03 ± 0.07 in the TDS group vs. 0.44 ± 0.71 in the placebo group; p = 0.029). Rescue antiemetics were more frequently used in the placebo group than in the TDS group (9 (47.4%) vs. 2 (10.5%), respectively; p = 0.029). The mean number of antiemetics used throughout the study period was significantly higher in the placebo group than in the TDS group (1.37 ± 2.19 vs. 0.16 ± 0.50, respectively; p = 0.029). Conclusions: The preoperative prophylactic use of a TDS patch was safe and effective in the management of PONV after RMC-MVD in terms of the severity of PONV and the use of rescue antiemetics.

Trigger Finger Corticosteroid Injection With and Without Local Anesthetic: A Randomized, Double-Blind Controlled Trial

Hand ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 155894471988466
Author(s):  
J. Randall Patrinely ◽  
Shepard P. Johnson ◽  
Brian C. Drolet
Keyword(s):  
Local Anesthetic ◽  
Corticosteroid Injection ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Treatment Method ◽  
Trigger Finger ◽  
Injection Pain ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Pain Scores ◽  
Injection Methods ◽  
To Receive

Background: The first-line treatment for trigger finger is a corticosteroid injection. Although the injectable solution is often prepared with a local anesthetic, we hypothesize that patients receiving an injection with anesthetic will experience more pain at the time of injection. Methods: C Patients with trigger finger were prospectively randomized into 2 cohorts to receive triamcinolone (1 mL, 40 mg) plus 1% lidocaine with epinephrine (1 mL) or triamcinolone (1 mL, 40 mg) plus normal saline (1 mL, placebo). Both patient and surgeon were blinded to the treatment arm. The primary outcome was pain measured using a (VAS) immediately following the injection. Results: Seventy-three patients with a total of 110 trigger fingers were enrolled (57 lidocaine with epinephrine and 53 placebo). Immediate postinjection pain scores were significantly higher for injections containing lidocaine with epinephrine compared with placebo (VAS 3.5 vs 2.0). Conclusions: In the treatment of trigger finger, corticosteroid injections are effective and have relatively little associated pain. This study shows there is more injection-associated pain when lidocaine with epinephrine is included with the corticosteroid. Therefore, surgeons looking to decrease injection pain should exclude the anesthetic, but they should discuss the trade-off of foregoing short-term anesthesia with patients. Using only a single drug (ie, corticosteroid alone) is not only less painful but is also more simple, efficient, and safe; this has therefore become our preferred treatment method.

scholarly journals Effects of 4-Week Intervention withUlmus macrocarpaHance Extract on Immune Function Biomarkers in Healthy Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
A Ra Cho ◽  
Sang Yeoup Lee ◽  
Young Hye Cho ◽  
Cheol Min Kim ◽  
Sung Goo Kim
Keyword(s):  
Placebo Group ◽  
Immune Function ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Interleukin 2 ◽  
Optimal Dosage ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Term Administration

Ulmus macrocarpaextract has been shown to have immune-related effects in animals, but no studies have yet been performed in humans. This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted to determine the effect of short-term administration ofUlmus macrocarpaHance extract (UME) on immune function biomarkers and its safety in human subjects. Fifty-eight subjects were randomly assigned to a UME group or a placebo group. Subjects in the UME group were given 500 mg per day of UME orally for 4 weeks. Mean fluorescence intensity (MFI) of tumor necrotic factor-αincreased only in the UME group at 1 week(P=0.027). The MFI of interleukin-2 decreased less significantly in the UME group than in the placebo group at 1 week(P=0.028). However, unfortunately, at 4 weeks, no intergroup differences were detected in MFIs of cytokine. In conclusion, administration of UME for 1 week increased serum TNF-αand sustains IL-2 in human, which suggests that UME increases Th1-related immune function in the short term in healthy people. However, additional studies are needed to confirm the results of this first-stage study and further trials are required to decide on optimal dosage and duration of administration. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT02414412.

scholarly journals Levothyroxine versus Levothyroxine with Iodine in Reduction of Thyroid Nodule Volume: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-19
Author(s):  
Donnie Jan D. Segocio ◽  
Joseph E. Cachuela
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Placebo Group ◽  
Thyroid Nodule ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Therapeutic Use ◽  
Volume Reduction ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Nodule Volume

Objective: To compare levothyroxine alone and in combination with iodine on thyroid nodule volume reduction. Methods:           Design:           Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial           Setting:           Tertiary Government Hospital           Participants: Nineteen (19) euthyroid patients age 19­-54 with at least 1 cytologically benign thyroid nodule were randomized to receive either levothyroxine + iodine or levothyroxine + placebo, taken once a day for 6 months with ultrasound and thyroid stimulating hormone monitoring on the 3rd and 6th month of intervention. Results: Main outcome measures included thyroid nodule volume reduction after six months of intervention. The mean change in volume from baseline to six months of levothyroxine + iodine group showed no statistically significant difference in nodule volume across time between  levothyroxine + placebo group, -0.010 ± 1.250 (CI -0.521 - 0.501) versus 0.507 ± 1.128 (CI 0.025 - 0.990), p=.158.  There were also new nodules (4 nodules) in the placebo group and none in the iodine group. No major adverse events were noted during the study. Conclusion: The two groups did not significantly differ in terms of nodule volume reduction. Keywords: thyroid nodule, prevention and control; drug therapy; iodine compounds, therapeutic use; levothyroxine, therapeutic use

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document