A multi-centre randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the value of a single bolus intravenous alfentanil in CT colonography

BMC Gastroenterology

Jaap Stoker¹  Jeroen AW Tielbeek¹  Jurgen H Runge¹  Giedre Kavaliauskiene¹  Lex J Schouten¹  Jan Peringa²  Susanne Eberl³  Markus W Hollmann³  Marije P van der Paardt¹  Thierry N Boellaard¹ 

[1] Department of Radiology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, 1100 DD, the Netherlands;Department of Radiology, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam 1091 AC, the Netherlands;Department of Anaesthesiology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1100 DD, the Netherlands

关键词: Patient satisfaction;    Opioid;    Analgesics;    Alfentanil;    Computed tomographic;    Colonography;    Randomised controlled trial;   

Others  :  857935
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-230X-13-94

 received in 2013-01-30, accepted in 2013-05-21,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Pain is common during colonic insufflation required for CT colonography. We therefore evaluate whether a single intravenous alfentanil bolus has a clinically relevant analgesic effect compared with placebo in patients undergoing CT colonography.

Methods

A prospective multi-centre randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial was performed in patients scheduled for elective CT colonography. Patients were randomised to receive either a bolus of 7.5 μg/kg alfentanil (n = 45) or placebo (n = 45). The primary outcome was the difference in maximum pain during colonic insufflation on an 11-point numeric rating scale. We defined a clinically relevant effect as a maximum pain reduction of at least 1.3 points. Secondary outcomes included total pain and burden of CT colonography (5-point scale), the most burdensome aspect and side effects. Our primary outcome was tested using a one-sided independent samples t-test.

Results

Maximum pain scores during insufflation were lower with alfentanil as compared with placebo, 5.3 versus 3.0 (P < 0.001). Total CT colonography pain and burden were also lower with alfentanil (2.0 vs. 1.6; P = 0.014 and 2.1 vs. 1.7; P = 0.007, respectively). With alfentanil fewer patients rated the insufflation as most burdensome aspect (56.1% vs. 18.6%; P = 0.001). Episodes with desaturations < 90% SpO2 were more common with alfentanil (8.1% vs. 44.4%; P < 0.001, but no clinically relevant desaturations occurred.

Conclusions

A low-dose intravenous alfentanil bolus provides a clinically relevant reduction of maximum pain during CT colonography and may improve the CT colonography acceptance, especially for patients with a low pain threshold.

Trial registration

Dutch Trial Register:NTR2902

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Boellaard et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Halligan S, Altman DG, Taylor SA, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Bartram CI, Atkin W: CT colonography in the detection of colorectal polyps and cancer: systematic review, meta-analysis, and proposed minimum data set for study level reporting. Radiology 2005, 237:893-904.
• [2]Pickhardt PJ, Hassan C, Halligan S, Marmo R: Colorectal cancer: CT colonography and colonoscopy for detection–systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology 2011, 259:393-405.
• [3]Graser A, Stieber P, Nagel D, Schafer C, Horst D, Becker CR, Nikolaou K, Lottes A, Geisbusch S, Kramer H: Comparison of CT colonography, colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy and faecal occult blood tests for the detection of advanced adenoma in an average risk population. Gut 2009, 58:241-248.
• [4]Kim DH, Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ, Leung WK, Winter TC, Hinshaw JL, Gopal DV, Reichelderfer M, Hsu RH, Pfau PR: CT colonography versus colonoscopy for the detection of advanced neoplasia. N Engl J Med 2007, 357:1403-1412.
• [5]Johnson CD, Chen MH, Toledano AY, Heiken JP, Dachman A, Kuo MD, Menias CO, Siewert B, Cheema JI, Obregon RG: Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. N Engl J Med 2008, 359:1207-1217.
• [6]de Haan MC, van Gelder RE, Graser A, Bipat S, Stoker J: Diagnostic value of CT-colonography as compared to colonoscopy in an asymptomatic screening population: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2011, 21:1747-1763.
• [7]Jover R, Herraiz M, Alarcon O, Brullet E, Bujanda L, Bustamante M, Campo R, Carreno R, Castells A, Cubiella J: Clinical practice guidelines: quality of colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening. Endoscopy 2012, 44:444-451.
• [8]McFarland EG, Levin B, Lieberman DA, Pickhardt PJ, Johnson CD, Glick SN, Brooks D: Revised colorectal screening guidelines: joint effort of the American Cancer Society, U.S. Multisociety Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and American College of Radiology. Radiology 2008, 248:717-720.
• [9]Stoop EM, De Haan MC, de Wijkerslooth TR, Bossuyt PM, Van Ballegooijen M, Nio CY, van de Vijver MJ, Biermann K, Thomeer M, Van Leerdam ME: Participation and yield of colonoscopy versus non-cathartic CT colonography in population-based screening for colorectal cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2012, 13:55-64.
• [10]Fletcher JG, Johnson CD, Welch TJ, MacCarty RL, Ahlquist DA, Reed JE, Harmsen WS, Wilson LA: Optimization of CT colonography technique: prospective trial in 180 patients. Radiology 2000, 216:704-711.
• [11]Akerkar GA, Yee J, Hung R, McQuaid K: Patient experience and preferences toward colon cancer screening: a comparison of virtual colonoscopy and conventional colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2001, 54:310-315.
• [12]Jung HS, Park DK, Kim MJ, Yu SK, Kwon KA, Ku YS, Kim YK, Kim JH: A comparison of patient acceptance and preferences between CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening. Korean J Intern Med 2009, 24:43-47.
• [13]Jensch S, Bipat S, Peringa J, de Vries AH, Heutinck A, Dekker E, Baak LC, van Swijndregt AD M, Stoker J: CT colonography with limited bowel preparation: prospective assessment of patient experience and preference in comparison to optical colonoscopy with cathartic bowel preparation. Eur Radiol 2010, 20:146-156.
• [14]Van Gelder RE, Birnie E, Florie J, Schutter MP, Bartelsman JF, Snel P, Lameris JS, Bonsel GJ, Stoker J: CT colonography and colonoscopy: assessment of patient preference in a 5-week follow-up study. Radiology 2004, 233:328-337.
• [15]De Wijkerslooth TR, De Haan MC, Stoop EM, Bossuyt PM, Thomeer M, Essink-Bot ML, Van Leerdam ME, Fockens P, Kuipers EJ, Stoker J: Burden of colonoscopy compared to non-cathartic CT-colonography in a colorectal cancer screening programme: randomised controlled trial. Gut 2011, 61:1552-1559.
• [16]Bosworth HB, Rockey DC, Paulson EK, Niedzwiecki D, Davis W, Sanders LL, Yee J, Henderson J, Hatten P, Burdick S: Prospective comparison of patient experience with colon imaging tests. Am J Med 2006, 119:791-799.
• [17]von Wagner C, Ghanouni A, Halligan S, Smith S, Dadswell E, Lilford RJ, Morton D, Atkin W, Wardle J: Patient Acceptability and Psychologic Consequences of CT Colonography Compared with Those of Colonoscopy: Results from a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial of Symptomatic Patients. Radiology 2012, 263:723-731.
• [18]Ziegelstein RC: Acute emotional stress and cardiac arrhythmias. JAMA 2007, 298:324-329.
• [19]Miner JR: Randomized double-blind placebo controlled crossover study of acetaminophen, ibuprofen, acetaminophen/hydrocodone, and placebo for the relief of pain from a standard painful stimulus. Acad Emerg Med 2009, 16:911-914.
• [20]Talamo G, Liao J, Bayerl MG, Claxton DF, Zangari M: Oral administration of analgesia and anxiolysis for pain associated with bone marrow biopsy. Support Care Cancer 2010, 18:301-305.
• [21]Anserini P, Delfino F, Ferraiolo A, Remorgida V, Menoni S, De Caro G: Strategies to minimize discomfort during diagnostic hysterosalpingography with disposable balloon catheters: a randomized placebo-controlled study with oral nonsteroidal premedication. Fertil Steril 2008, 90:844-848.
• [22]Basu S, Krishnamurthy B, Walsh TH: Value of fentanyl in flexible sigmoidoscopy. World J Surg 2004, 28:930-934.
• [23]Pox CP, Schmiegel W: Role of CT colonography in colorectal cancer screening: risks and benefits. Gut 2010, 59:692-700.
• [24]Janssen-Cilag bv: Rapifen (alfentail) Summary of Product Characteristics. 2009. http://db.cbg-meb.nl/IB-teksten/h09860.pdf webcite
• [25]Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Van Ballegooijen M, Zauber AG, Boer R, Wilschut J, Habbema JD: At what costs will screening with CT colonography be competitive? A cost-effectiveness approach. Int J Cancer 2009, 124:1161-1168.
• [26]Liu SS, Wu CL: Effect of postoperative analgesia on major postoperative complications: a systematic update of the evidence. Anesth Analg 2007, 104:689-702.
• [27]Cepeda MS, Africano JM, Polo R, Alcala R, Carr DB: What decline in pain intensity is meaningful to patients with acute pain? Pain 2003, 105:151-157.
• [28]Todd KH, Funk KG, Funk JP, Bonacci R: Clinical significance of reported changes in pain severity. Ann Emerg Med 1996, 27:485-489.
• [29]Boellaard TN, van der Paardt MP, Eberl S, Hollmann MW, Stoker J: A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the value of a single bolus intravenous alfentanil in CT colonography. BMC Gastroenterol 2011, 11:128. BioMed Central Full Text
• [30]Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D: CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010, 340:c332.
• [31]Liedenbaum MH, De Vries AH, Gouw CI, Van Rijn AF, Bipat S, Dekker E, Stoker J: CT colonography with minimal bowel preparation: evaluation of tagging quality, patient acceptance and diagnostic accuracy in two iodine-based preparation schemes. Eur Radiol 2010, 20:367-376.
• [32]Liedenbaum MH, Denters MJ, Zijta FM, Van Ravesteijn VF, Bipat S, Vos FM, Dekker E, Stoker J: Reducing the oral contrast dose in CT colonography: evaluation of faecal tagging quality and patient acceptance. Clin Radiol 2011, 66:30-37.
• [33]Neri E, Halligan S, Hellstrom M, Lefere P, Mang T, Regge D, Stoker J, Taylor S, Laghi A: The second ESGAR consensus statement on CT colonography. Eur Radiol 2012. Epub ahead of print; PMID: 22983280
• [34]Taylor SA, Laghi A, Lefere P, Halligan S, Stoker J: European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR): consensus statement on CT colonography. Eur Radiol 2007, 17:575-579.
• [35]Taylor SA, Halligan S, O’Donnell C, Morley S, Mistry H, Saunders BP, Vance M, Bassett P, Windsor A, Stern Y: Cardiovascular effects at multi-detector row CT colonography compared with those at conventional endoscopy of the colon. Radiology 2003, 229:782-790.
• [36]Mazanikov M, Udd M, Kylanpaa L, Mustonen H, Lindstrom O, Halttunen J, Farkkila M, Poyhia R: Patient-controlled sedation for ERCP: a randomized double-blind comparison of alfentanil and remifentanil. Endoscopy 2012, 44:487-492.
• [37]Levitzky BE, Lopez R, Dumot JA, Vargo JJ: Moderate sedation for elective upper endoscopy with balanced propofol versus fentanyl and midazolam alone: a randomized clinical trial. Endoscopy 2012, 44:13-20.
• [38]Aldrete JA: The post-anesthesia recovery score revisited. J Clin Anesth 1995, 7:89-91.
• [39]Holzer P: Opioid receptors in the gastrointestinal tract. Regul Pept 2009, 155:11-17.
• [40]De Haan MC, Boellaard TN, Bossuyt PM, Stoker J: Colon distension, perceived burden and side-effects of CT-colonography for screening using hyoscine butylbromide or glucagon hydrochloride as bowel relaxant. Eur J Radiol 2012, 81:e910-916.
• [41]Sosna J, Bar-Ziv J, Libson E, Eligulashvili M, Blachar A: CT colonography: positioning order and intracolonic pressure. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008, 191:1100.
• [42]Farrar JT, Berlin JA, Strom BL: Clinically important changes in acute pain outcome measures: a validation study. J Pain Symptom Manage 2003, 25:406-411.
• [43]Conti G, Pierdominici S, Ferro G, Bocci MG, Antonelli M, Proietti R: Effects of low-dose alfentanil administration on central respiratory drive and respiratory pattern in spontaneously breathing ASA 1 patients. Anaesthesia 2002, 57:540-543.
• [44]Williamson A, Hoggart B: Pain: a review of three commonly used pain rating scales. J Clin Nurs 2005, 14:798-804.
• [45]Cho HB, Kwak HJ, Park SY, Kim JY: Comparison of the incidence and severity of cough after alfentanil and remifentanil injection. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2010, 54:717-720.
• [46]Svensson MH, Svensson E, Lasson A, Hellstrom M: Patient acceptance of CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy: prospective comparative study in patients with or suspected of having colorectal disease. Radiology 2002, 222:337-345.
• [47]Hoppe H, Netzer P, Spreng A, Quattropani C, Mattich J, Dinkel HP: Prospective comparison of contrast enhanced CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasms in a single institutional study using second-look colonoscopy with discrepant results. Am J Gastroenterol 2004, 99:1924-1935.