4.6 Review

Impact of pregabalin on acute and persistent postoperative pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA
卷 114, 期 1, 页码 10-31

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aeu293

关键词

meta-analysis; postoperative pain; pregabalin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We performed this systematic review to assess the analgesic efficacy of perioperative pregabalin. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were performed to assess the impact of individual dose and frequency of pregabalin administration on analgesic efficacy. We included 55 studies. When all doses and administration regimens were combined, pregabalin was associated with a significant reduction in pain scores at rest and during movement and opioid consumption at 24 h compared with placebo {mean difference [95% confidence interval (CI)]=-0.38 (-0.57, -0.20), -0.47 (-0.76, -0.18), and -8.27 mg morphine equivalents (-10.08, -6.47), respectively}. Patients receiving pregabalin had less postoperative nausea and vomiting and pruritus compared with placebo [relative risk (RR) (95% CI)=0.62 (0.48, 0.80) and 0.49 (0.34, 0.70), respectively]. Sedation, dizziness, and visual disturbance were more common with pregabalin compared with placebo [RR (95% CI)=1.46 (1.08, 1.98), 1.33 (1.07, 1.64), and 3.52 (2.05, 6.04), respectively]. All doses of pregabalin tested (a parts per thousand currency sign75, 100-150, and 300 mg) resulted in opioid sparing at 24 h after surgery. There were no significant differences in acute pain outcomes with pregabalin 100-300 mg between single preoperative dosing regimens and those including additional doses repeated after surgery. Data were insufficient to reach conclusions regarding persistent pain, but limited data available from two studies suggested that pregabalin might be effective for the reduction of neuropathic pain. In conclusion, this review suggests that pregabalin improves postoperative analgesia compared with placebo at the expense of increased sedation and visual disturbances.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据