25
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      A Randomized Clinical Trial of a Brief Hypnosis Intervention to Control Side Effects in Breast Surgery Patients

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          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. 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. Patients in the hypnosis group required less propofol (means = 64.01 versus 96.64 microg; 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. 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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A comparison of pain measurement characteristics of mechanical visual analogue and simple numerical rating scales.

          Numerical rating scales and mechanical visual analogue scales (M-VAS) were compared for their capacity to provide ratio scale measures of experimental pain. Separate estimates of experimental pain sensation intensity and pain unpleasantness were obtained by each method, as were estimates of clinical pain. Orofacial pain patients made numerical scale and VAS ratings in response to noxious thermal stimuli (45-51 degrees C) applied for 5 sec to the forearm by a contact thermode. The derived stimulus-response function was well fit as a power function only in the case of sensory M-VAS. The power function derived from sensory M-VAS ratings predicted temperatures chosen as twice as intense as standard temperatures of 47 degrees C and 48 degrees C, thereby providing evidence for ratio scale characteristics of M-VAS. The stimulus-response function derived from sensory numerical ratings differed from that obtained with M-VAS and did not provide accurate predictions of temperatures perceived as twice intense at 47 degrees C or 48 degrees C. Both M-VAS and numerical rating scales produced reliably different stimulus response functions for pain sensation intensity as compared to pain unpleasantness and both provided consistent measures of experimental and clinical pain intensity. Finally, both mechanical and pencil-and-paper VAS produced very similar stimulus-response functions. The ratio scale properties of M-VAS combined with its ease of administration and scoring in clinical settings offer the possibility of a simple yet powerful pain measurement technology in both research and health care settings.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Pain: an overview.

            Until the 1960s, pain was considered an inevitable sensory response to tissue damage. There was little room for the affective dimension of this ubiquitous experience, and none whatsoever for the effects of genetic differences, past experience, anxiety, or expectation. In recent years, great advances have been made in our understanding of the mechanisms that underlie pain and in the treatment of people who complain of pain. The roles of factors outside the patient's body have also been clarified. Pain is probably the most common symptomatic reason to seek medical consultation. All of us have headaches, burns, cuts, and other pains at some time during childhood and adult life. Individuals who undergo surgery are almost certain to have postoperative pain. Ageing is also associated with an increased likelihood of chronic pain. Health-care expenditures for chronic pain are enormous, rivalled only by the costs of wage replacement and welfare programmes for those who do not work because of pain. Despite improved knowledge of underlying mechanisms and better treatments, many people who have chronic pain receive inadequate care.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Adjunctive non-pharmacological analgesia for invasive medical procedures: a randomised trial.

              Non-pharmacological behavioural adjuncts have been suggested as efficient safe means in reducing discomfort and adverse effects during medical procedures. We tested this assumption for patients undergoing percutaneous vascular and renal procedures in a prospective, randomised, single-centre study. 241 patients were randomised to receive intraoperatively standard care (n=79), structured attention (n=80), or self-hypnotic relaxation (n=82). All had access to patient-controlled intravenous analgesia with fentanyl and midazolam. Patients rated their pain and anxiety on 0-10 scales before, every 15 min during and after the procedures. Pain increased linearly with procedure time in the standard group (slope 0.09 in pain score/15 min, p<0.0001), and the attention group (slope 0.04/15 min; p=0.0425), but remained flat in the hypnosis group. Anxiety decreased over time in all three groups with slopes of -0.04 (standard), -0.07 (attention), and -0.11 (hypnosis). Drug use in the standard group (1.9 units) was significantly higher than in the attention and hypnosis groups (0.8 and 0.9 units, respectively). One hypnosis patient became haemodynamically unstable compared with ten attention patients (p=0.0041), and 12 standard patients (p=0.0009). Procedure times were significantly shorter in the hypnosis group (61 min) than in the standard group (78 min, p=0.0016) with procedure duration of the attention group in between (67 min). Structured attention and self-hypnotic relaxation proved beneficial during invasive medical procedures. Hypnosis had more pronounced effects on pain and anxiety reduction, and is superior, in that it also improves haemodynamic stability.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
                JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
                Oxford University Press (OUP)
                0027-8874
                1460-2105
                September 04 2007
                September 05 2007
                August 28 2007
                September 05 2007
                : 99
                : 17
                : 1304-1312
                Article
                10.1093/jnci/djm106
                17728216
                164ea343-c750-44bc-b084-d13e79ffea1b
                © 2007
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article