A randomized clinical trail of a brief hypnosis intervention to control side effects in breast surgery patients

被引:182
作者
Montgomery, Guy H.
Bovbjerg, Dana H.
Schnur, Julie B.
David, Daniel
Goldfarb, Alisan
Weltz, Christina R.
Schechter, Clyde
Graff-Zivin, Joshua
Tatrow, Kristin
Price, Donald D.
Silverstein, Jeffrey H.
机构
[1] CUNY Mt Sinai Sch Med, Dept Oncol Sci, New York, NY 10029 USA
[2] CUNY Mt Sinai Sch Med, Dept Surg, New York, NY 10029 USA
[3] CUNY Mt Sinai Sch Med, Dept Anesthesiol Sci, New York, NY 10029 USA
[4] Univ Babes Bolyai, Dept Clin Psychol & Pschotherapy, R-3400 Cluj Napoca, Romania
[5] Albert Einstein Coll Med, Dept Family & Social Med, Bronx, NY 10467 USA
[6] Columbia Univ, Dept Hlth Policy & Management, New York, NY USA
[7] Good Shepherd Rehabil Hosp, Dept Psychol, Allentown, PA USA
[8] Univ Florida, Dept Oral & Maxillofacial Surg, Gainesville, FL 32610 USA
[9] Univ Florida, Dept Neurosci, Gainesville, FL 32610 USA
来源
JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE | 2007年 / 99卷 / 17期
关键词
D O I
10.1093/jnci/djm106
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background Breast cancer surgery is associated with side effects, including postsurgical pain, nausea, and fatigue. We carried out a randomized clinical trial to test the hypotheses that a brief presurgery hypnosis intervention would decrease intraoperative anesthesia and analgesic use and side effects associated with breast cancer surgery and that it would be cost effective. Methods We randomly assigned 200 patients who were scheduled to undergo excisional breast biopsy or lumpectomy (mean age 48.5 years) to a 15-minute presurgery hypnosis session conducted by a psychologist or nondirective empathic listening (attention control). Patients were not blinded to group assignment. Intraoperative anesthesia use (i.e., of the analgesics lidocaine and fentanyl and the sedatives propofol and midazolam) was assessed. Patient-reported pain and other side effects as measured on a visual analog scale (0-100) were assessed at discharge, as was use of analgesics in the recovery room. Institutional costs and time in the operating room were assessed via chart review. Results Patients in the hypnosis group required less propofol (means = 64.01 versus 96.64 mu g; difference = 32.63; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.95 to 61.30) and lidocaine (means = 24.23 versus 31.09 mL; difference = 6.86; 95% CI = 3.05 to 10.68) than patients in the control group. Patients in the hypnosis group also reported less pain intensity (means = 22.43 versus 47.83; difference = 25.40; 95% CI = 17.56 to 33.25), pain unpleasantness (means = 21.19 versus 39.05; difference = 17.86; 95% CI = 9.92 to 25.80), nausea (means = 6.57 versus 25.49; difference = 18.92; 95% CI = 12.98 to 24.87), fatigue (means = 29.47 versus 54.20; difference = 24.73; 95% CI = 16.64 to 32.83), discomfort (means = 23.01 versus 43.20; difference = 20.19; 95% CI = 12.36 to 28.02), and emotional upset (means = 8.67 versus 33.46; difference = 24.79; 95% CI = 18.56 to 31.03). No statistically significant differences were seen in the use of fentanyl, midazolam, or recovery room analgesics. Institutional costs for surgical breast cancer procedures were $8561 per patient at Mount Sinai School of Medicine. Patients in the hypnosis group cost the institution $772.71 less per patient than those in the control group (95% CI = 75.10 to 1469.89), mainly due to reduced surgical time. Conclusions Hypnosis was superior to attention control regarding propofol and lidocaine use; pain, nausea, fatigue, discomfort, and emotional upset at discharge; and institutional cost. Overall, the present data support the use of hypnosis with breast cancer surgery patients.
引用
收藏
页码:1304 / 1312
页数:9
相关论文
共 53 条
[1]  
*AM CANC SOC, 2006, CANC FACTS FIG 2006
[2]  
[Anonymous], 1993, Handbook of clinical hypnosis
[3]   Reliability of the visual analog scale for measurement of acute pain [J].
Bijur, PE ;
Silver, W ;
Gallagher, EJ .
ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2001, 8 (12) :1153-1157
[4]   Assessment of postoperative nausea using a visual analogue scale [J].
Boogaerts, JG ;
Vanacker, E ;
Seidel, L ;
Albert, A ;
Bardiau, FM .
ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 2000, 44 (04) :470-474
[5]  
CHERNIK DA, 1990, J CLIN PSYCHOPHARM, V10, P244
[6]   Postoperative pain in ambulatory surgery [J].
Chung, F ;
Ritchie, E ;
Su, J .
ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA, 1997, 85 (04) :808-816
[7]   A POST-ANESTHETIC DISCHARGE SCORING SYSTEM FOR HOME READINESS AFTER AMBULATORY SURGERY [J].
CHUNG, F ;
CHAN, VWS ;
ONG, D .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ANESTHESIA, 1995, 7 (06) :500-506
[8]  
Cleeland C S, 1984, Cancer, V54, P2635, DOI 10.1002/1097-0142(19841201)54:2+<2635::AID-CNCR2820541407>3.0.CO
[9]  
2-P
[10]   A POWER PRIMER [J].
COHEN, J .
PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN, 1992, 112 (01) :155-159