Electroacupuncture analgesia for colonoscopy. a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled study

Sedative-sparing effect of acupuncture in gastrointestinal endoscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify the efficacy of acupuncture therapy (including manual acupuncture and electroacupuncture) performed before or during gastrointestinal endoscopy with propofol as the main sedative, compared with placebo, sham acupuncture, or no additional treatment other than the same sedation.

Methods

A systematic search was performed through PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Chinese Biomedical Databases (CBM), Wanfang database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), SinoMed, and Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP) to collect randomized controlled trials published before 5 November 2022. Bias assessment of the included RCTs was performed according to Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2). Stata16.0 software was used to perform statistical analysis, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias analysis. The primary outcome was sedative consumption, and the secondary outcomes included the incidence of adverse events and wake-up time.

Results

A total of 10 studies with 1331 participants were included. The results showed that sedative consumption [mean difference (MD) = -29.32, 95% CI (-36.13, -22.50), P < 0.001], wake-up time [MD = -3.87, 95% CI (-5.43, -2.31), P < 0.001] and the incidence of adverse events including hypotension, nausea and vomiting, and coughing (P < 0.05) were significantly lower in the intervention group than in the control group.

Conclusion

Acupuncture combined with sedation reduces sedative consumption and wake-up time compared with sedation alone in gastrointestinal endoscopy; this combined approach allows patients to regain consciousness more quickly after examination and lower the risk of adverse effects. However, with the limited quantity and quality of relevant clinical studies, caution must be applied until more high-quality clinical studies verify and refine the conclusions.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?, identifier: CRD42022370422.

Effect of Acupuncture on Postoperative Pain in Patients after Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of acupuncture compared to that of parecoxib sodium on postoperative pain (POP), postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and the Bruggemann Comfort Scale (BCS) in patients following laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

Methods

Eligible patients admitted to the hospital for LC were randomly allocated to either acupuncture or control groups in a 1 : 1 ratio. The subjects in the acupuncture group received acupuncture while those in the control group were injected by parecoxib sodium at their requests. The pain score, PONV score, and BCS were assessed at 0 h, 6 h, 9 h, and 12 h after operation. The primary outcome was the pain score. The secondary outcomes included the number of patients asking for parecoxib sodium from the two groups at 0-6 h and 6-12 h, PONV score, and BCS score.

Results

The pain score of the acupuncture group were lower in acupuncture than that in the control group at 6 h and 9 h after operation (P=0.002, P=0.008). However, no difference was found at 12 h. Besides, the number of patients administered parecoxib sodium in acupuncture group was less than that in the control group both at 0-6 h and 6-12 h after operation (P=0.019, P < 0.001). Similarly, there were significantly lower levels of PONV score and higher levels of BCS at 6 h after operation in the acupuncture group than in the control group. However, no difference was found at 9 h and 12 h.

Conclusion

Acupuncture can clinically improve the short-term treatment of postoperative pain after LC and reduce the request for extra analgesics; therefore, acupuncture might be a potential method as one of multimodal analgesia techniques to treat POP following LC. Trial Registrations. This trial is registered with ChiCTR2000036885 (Chinese Clinical Trial Registry).

Effects of Acupuncture on Adverse Events in Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

INTRODUCTION

Acupuncture has gradually penetrated into many disciplines in clinical medicine, such as surgery, anesthesia, and outpatient examinations. Although a number of clinical trials have investigated the effects of acupuncture on colonoscopy, the results were inconsistent. In this meta-analysis, we analyzed the effects of acupuncture on colonoscopy to provide evidence for subsequent research and clinical application of acupuncture in colonoscopy.

METHODS

This meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.4 and Stata version 16 software. The primary outcome was the incidence of adverse events, and the secondary outcomes included patients' anxiety score before colonoscopy, time to insert the colonoscope, total detection time, propofol consumption, patients' pain score, and patient satisfaction rate.

RESULTS

The results showed that the incidence of adverse events (odds ratio [OR] 0.27, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16-0.43, P = 0.00, I² = 25%), patients' pain score (mean difference [MD] - 1.03, 95% CI - 1.45 to - 0.62, P = 0.00, I² = 94%), and time to insert the colonoscope (MD = - 2.54, 95% CI - 4.96 to - 0.13, P = 0.04, I² = 0%) were significantly lower in the treatment group than in the control group. Compared with the control group, the satisfaction rate of patients (OR 2.53, 95% CI 1.56-4.10, P = 0.00, I² = 47%) in the treatment group was significantly improved. There was no significant between-group difference in patients' anxiety score, the total detection time, and propofol dosage.

CONCLUSIONS

During colonoscopy, acupuncture can significantly reduce the incidence of adverse events, relieve patients' pain, and improve patient satisfaction.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number CRD42022324428.

Acupuncture to Improve Patient Discomfort During Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and Aims

Severe discomfort during an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) is often a stressful experience for patients undergoing the procedure. An increasing number of studies have shown that acupuncture may reduce discomfort during UGE. A systematic review in 2004 investigated the effect of acupuncture for gastrointestinal endoscopy, but these data have not been recently reviewed. Therefore, this study was conducted to evaluate the current evidence and provide up-to-date knowledge for clinical decision-making.

Methods

Nine databases were searched from inception to June 2021. Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The outcome data were synthesized where necessary, and risks of bias of included studies were assessed using RevMan V.5.3.

Results

Twenty-three eligible RCTs with 3,349 patients were identified. It was found that acupuncture plus topical pharyngeal anesthesia with lidocaine hydrochloride (TPALH) resulted in greater improvements regarding visual analog scale (VAS) scores and the incidence of nausea and vomiting (INV) when compared with TPALH alone. These results were consistent among studies of manual acupuncture, electroacupuncture, auricular-plaster, superficial needle (SFN) and acupressure. In the meta-analysis, SFN plus TPALH showed significant improvement of VAS scores compared to sham SFN plus TPALH (MD -1.11, 95% CI -1.52 to -0.70, P < 0.00001). Most of included studies did not report any side effects in their findings, and were of medium-to-high risk of bias.

Conclusion

Acupuncture, as adjunctive therapy to TPA, may result in less patient discomfort than TPA alone. Findings from this review should be interpreted with caution due to the high heterogeneity identified. There is low-quality evidence supporting the use of acupuncture over sham. More rigorously designed RCTs are needed to inform clinical decision-making.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO [CRD42014008966].

Virtual reality distraction for patients to relieve pain and discomfort during colonoscopy

Background and study aims  Colonoscopy is an invasive procedure that may cause patients pain and discomfort. Routine use of sedation, while effective, is expensive and requires logistical planning. Virtual reality (VR) offers immersive, three-dimensional experiences that distract the attention and might comfort patients. We performed a pilot study to investigate the feasibility of VR distraction during colonoscopy. Patients and methods  Adults referred for colonoscopy were considered for inclusion and divided over two groups: with and without VR glasses. The main outcome was patient acceptance of wearing VR glasses during colonoscopy without compromising the technical success of the procedure. Secondary outcomes were patient comfort, pain, and anxiety before, during and after the procedure, using validated patient questionnaires. Patient comments were collected through a qualitative interview. Results  We included 19 patients, 10 of whom were offered VR glasses. All patients accepted VR glasses without prolonging procedural time. No disadvantages of the VR glasses were reported in terms of communication or change of position of the patient. We found that patient comfort, pain, anxiety, and satisfaction in relation to the procedure were similar in both groups. Patients described a pleasant distracting effect using VR glasses. Conclusion  VR glasses during colonoscopy are accepted by patients and do not compromise endoscopic technical success. Patients reported that the VR experience was pleasant and distracting.

Sham Electroacupuncture Methods in Randomized Controlled Trials

Sham electroacupuncture (EA) control is commonly used to evaluate the specific effects of EA in randomized-controlled trials (RCTs). However, establishing an inert and concealable sham EA control remains methodologically challenging. Here, we aimed to systematically investigate the sham EA methods. Eight electronic databases were searched from their inception to April 2015. Ten out of the 17 sham EA methods were identified from 94 RCTs involving 6134 participants according to three aspects: needle location, depth of needle insertion and electrical stimulation. The top three most frequently used types were sham EA type A, type L and type O ordinally. Only 24 out of the 94 trials reported credibility tests in six types of sham EA methods and the results were mainly as follows: sham EA type A (10/24), type B (5/24) and type Q (5/24). Compared with sham EA controls, EA therapy in 56.2% trials reported the specific effects, of which the highest positive rate was observed in type N (3/4), type F (5/7), type D (4/6) and type M (2/3). In conclusion, several sham EA types were identified as a promising candidate for further application in RCTs. Nonetheless, more evidence for inert and concealable sham EA control methods is needed.

A randomised controlled trial: can acupuncture reduce drug requirement during analgosedation with propofol and alfentanil for colonoscopy? A study protocol

BACKGROUND

The number of colonoscopies tremendously increased in recent years and will further rise in the near future. Because of patients' growing expectation on comfort during medical procedures, it is not surprising that the demand for sedation also expands. Propofol in combination with alfentanil is known to provide excellent analgosedation, however, its use is associated with respiratory and cardiovascular depression. Acupuncture could be a technique to reduce drug requirement while providing the same level of sedation and analgesia.

METHODS/DESIGN

The study will be performed as a single centre, randomised, placebo controlled trial. 153 patients scheduled for propofol/alfentanil sedation during colonoscopy will be randomly assigned to receive electroacupuncture (P6, ST36, LI4), sham acupuncture, or placebo acupuncture. Following endoscopy patients and gastroenterologists have to fill in questionnaires about their sedation experiences. Additionally, patients have to accomplish the Trieger test before and after the procedure. Patient monitoring includes time adapted HR, SpO2, ECG, NIBP, exCO2, OAA/S, and the Aldrete score. The primary outcome parameter is the dosage of propofol necessary for an adequate level of sedation to tolerate the procedure (OAA/S < 4). Effectiveness of sedation, classified by satisfaction levels measured by questionnaires is the secondary outcome parameter.

DISCUSSION

Moderate to deep sedation using propofol is increasingly applied during colonoscopies with a high satisfaction level among patients despite well-known hemodynamic and respiratory side effects of this hypnotic agent. Acupuncture is known to attenuate gastrointestinal discomfort and pain. We hypothesize that the combination of conventional sedation techniques with acupuncture may result in equally satisfied patients with a lower risk of respiratory and hemodynamic events during colonoscopies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered in the Nederland's Trial Register NTR 4325 . The first patient was randomized on 13 February 2014.

Unsedated colonoscopy: A neverending story

Although sedation and analgesia for patients undergoing colonoscopy is the standard practice in Western countries, unsedated colonoscopy is still routinely provided in Europe and the Far East. This variation in sedation practice relies on the different cultural attitudes of both patients and endoscopists across these countries. Data from the literature consistently report that, in unsedated patients, the use of alternative techniques, such as warm water irrigation or carbon dioxide insufflation, can allow a high quality and well tolerated examination.

Three-armed trials including placebo and no-treatment groups may be subject to publication bias: systematic review

Background

It has been argued that placebos may not have important clinical impacts in general. However, there is increasing evidence of a publication bias among trials published in journals. Therefore, we explored the potential for publication bias in randomized trials with active treatment, placebo, and no-treatment groups.

Methods

Three-armed randomized trials of acupuncture, acupoint stimulation, and transcutaneous electrical stimulation were obtained from electronic databases. Effect sizes between treatment and placebo groups were calculated for treatment effect, and effect sizes between placebo and no-treatment groups were calculated for placebo effect. All data were then analyzed for publication bias.

Results

For the treatment effect, small trials with fewer than 100 patients per arm showed more benefits than large trials with at least 100 patients per arm in acupuncture and acupoint stimulation. For the placebo effect, no differences were found between large and small trials. Further analyses showed that the treatment effect in acupuncture and acupoint stimulation may be subject to publication bias because study design and any known factors of heterogeneity were not associated with the small study effects. In the simulation, the magnitude of the placebo effect was smaller than that calculated after considering publication bias.

Conclusions

Randomized three-armed trials, which are necessary for estimating the placebo effect, may be subject to publication bias. If the magnitude of the placebo effect is assessed in an intervention, the potential for publication bias should be investigated using data related to the treatment effect.

How large are the nonspecific effects of acupuncture? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

While several recent large randomized trials found clinically relevant effects of acupuncture over no treatment or routine care, blinded trials comparing acupuncture to sham interventions often reported only minor or no differences. This raises the question whether (sham) acupuncture is associated with particularly potent nonspecific effects. We aimed to investigate the size of nonspecific effects associated with acupuncture interventions.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials and reference lists were searched up to April 2010 to identify randomized trials of acupuncture for any condition, including both sham and no acupuncture control groups. Data were extracted by one reviewer and verified by a second. Pooled standardized mean differences were calculated using a random effects model with the inverse variance method.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven trials with a total of 5754 patients met the inclusion criteria. The included studies varied strongly regarding patients, interventions, outcome measures, methodological quality and effect sizes reported. Among the 32 trials reporting a continuous outcome measure, the random effects standardized mean difference between sham acupuncture and no acupuncture groups was -0.45 (95% confidence interval, -0.57, -0.34; I2 = 54%; Egger's test for funnel plot asymmetry, P = 0.25). Trials with larger effects of sham over no acupuncture reported smaller effects of acupuncture over sham intervention than trials with smaller nonspecific effects (β = -0.39, P = 0.029).

CONCLUSIONS

Sham acupuncture interventions are often associated with moderately large nonspecific effects which could make it difficult to detect small additional specific effects. Compared to inert placebo interventions, effects associated with sham acupuncture might be larger, which would have considerable implications for the design and interpretation of clinical trials.

Placebo interventions for all clinical conditions

BACKGROUND

Placebo interventions are often claimed to substantially improve patient-reported and observer-reported outcomes in many clinical conditions, but most reports on effects of placebos are based on studies that have not randomised patients to placebo or no treatment. Two previous versions of this review from 2001 and 2004 found that placebo interventions in general did not have clinically important effects, but that there were possible beneficial effects on patient-reported outcomes, especially pain. Since then several relevant trials have been published.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary aims were to assess the effect of placebo interventions in general across all clinical conditions, and to investigate the effects of placebo interventions on specific clinical conditions. Our secondary aims were to assess whether the effect of placebo treatments differed for patient-reported and observer-reported outcomes, and to explore other reasons for variations in effect.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2007), MEDLINE (1966 to March 2008), EMBASE (1980 to March 2008), PsycINFO (1887 to March 2008) and Biological Abstracts (1986 to March 2008). We contacted experts on placebo research, and read references in the included trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised placebo trials with a no-treatment control group investigating any health problem.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. Trials with binary data were summarised using relative risk (a value of less than 1 indicates a beneficial effect of placebo), and trials with continuous outcomes were summarised using standardised mean difference (a negative value indicates a beneficial effect of placebo).

MAIN RESULTS

Outcome data were available in 202 out of 234 included trials, investigating 60 clinical conditions. We regarded the risk of bias as low in only 16 trials (8%), five of which had binary outcomes.In 44 studies with binary outcomes (6041 patients), there was moderate heterogeneity (P < 0.001; I(2) 45%) but no clear difference in effects between small and large trials (symmetrical funnel plot). The overall pooled effect of placebo was a relative risk of 0.93 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 0.99). The pooled relative risk for patient-reported outcomes was 0.93 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.00) and for observer-reported outcomes 0.93 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.02). We found no statistically significant effect of placebo interventions in four clinical conditions that had been investigated in three trials or more: pain, nausea, smoking, and depression, but confidence intervals were wide. The effect on pain varied considerably, even among trials with low risk of bias.In 158 trials with continuous outcomes (10,525 patients), there was moderate heterogeneity (P < 0.001; I(2) 42%), and considerable variation in effects between small and large trials (asymmetrical funnel plot). It is therefore a questionable procedure to pool all the trials, and we did so mainly as a basis for exploring causes for heterogeneity. We found an overall effect of placebo treatments, standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.23 (95% CI -0.28 to -0.17). The SMD for patient-reported outcomes was -0.26 (95% CI -0.32 to -0.19), and for observer-reported outcomes, SMD -0.13 (95% CI -0.24 to -0.02). We found an effect on pain, SMD -0.28 (95% CI -0.36 to -0.19)); nausea, SMD -0.25 (-0.46 to -0.04)), asthma (-0.35 (-0.70 to -0.01)), and phobia (SMD -0.63 (95% CI -1.17 to -0.08)). The effect on pain was very variable, also among trials with low risk of bias. Four similarly-designed acupuncture trials conducted by an overlapping group of authors reported large effects (SMD -0.68 (-0.85 to -0.50)) whereas three other pain trials reported low or no effect (SMD -0.13 (-0.28 to 0.03)). The pooled effect on nausea was small, but consistent. The effects on phobia and asthma were very uncertain due to high risk of bias. There was no statistically significant effect of placebo interventions in the seven other clinical conditions investigated in three trials or more: smoking, dementia, depression, obesity, hypertension, insomnia and anxiety, but confidence intervals were wide.Meta-regression analyses showed that larger effects of placebo interventions were associated with physical placebo interventions (e.g. sham acupuncture), patient-involved outcomes (patient-reported outcomes and observer-reported outcomes involving patient cooperation), small trials, and trials with the explicit purpose of studying placebo. Larger effects of placebo were also found in trials that did not inform patients about the possible placebo intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We did not find that placebo interventions have important clinical effects in general. However, in certain settings placebo interventions can influence patient-reported outcomes, especially pain and nausea, though it is difficult to distinguish patient-reported effects of placebo from biased reporting. The effect on pain varied, even among trials with low risk of bias, from negligible to clinically important. Variations in the effect of placebo were partly explained by variations in how trials were conducted and how patients were informed.

Bispectral index evaluation of the sedative effect of acupuncture in healthy volunteers

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the sedative effect of acupuncture in healthy volunteers by means of the BIS monitor. Secondary end-points were the evaluation of subjective sedative sensation induced by acupuncture and possible lasting of the sedative effect post needles removal.

METHODS

We performed a cross-over, single-blinded study on 10 healthy volunteers to evaluate objective and subjective sedative effect of acupuncture compared to sham acupuncture. We recorded heart rate, pulse-oxymetry, BIS at baseline, during a 20-min. stimulation period, and for the following 20 minutes after needles removal. Besides, we asked volunteers to score their subjective state by VAS at baseline, after the stimulation period (20th minute) and 20 minutes after needles removal.

RESULTS

BIS values were not significantly different between true and sham acupuncture. A suggestive but not statistically significant difference was evident in VAS score, with true- better than sham acupuncture. There was no difference in the incidence of sleep during the experimental phases, nor in the incidence of insomnia or somnolence in the following 24 hours. HR and SpO2 remained always in a normal range.

CONCLUSIONS

The sedative effect of true acupuncture was not different from that of sham acupuncture in healthy volunteers. We suggest that acupuncture could have a mild sedative action that can be demonstrated only treating anxious patients and not calm volunteers. In our opinion, the low potency of this technique can be an advantage allowing acupuncture safe application in a wide range of settings.

Is the placebo powerless? Update of a systematic review with 52 new randomized trials comparing placebo with no treatment

BACKGROUND

It is widely believed that placebo interventions induce powerful effects. We could not confirm this in a systematic review of 114 randomized trials that compared placebo-treated with untreated patients.

AIM

To study whether a new sample of trials would reproduce our earlier findings, and to update the review.

METHODS

Systematic review of trials that were published since our last search (or not previously identified), and of all available trials.

RESULTS

Data was available in 42 out of 52 new trials (3212 patients). The results were similar to our previous findings. The updated review summarizes data from 156 trials (11 737 patients). We found no statistically significant pooled effect in 38 trials with binary outcomes, relative risk 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.89-1.01). The effect on continuous outcomes decreased with increasing sample size, and there was considerable variation in effect also between large trials; the effect estimates should therefore be interpreted cautiously. If this bias is disregarded, the pooled standardized mean difference in 118 trials with continuous outcomes was -0.24 (-0.31 to -0.17). For trials with patient-reported outcomes the effect was -0.30 (-0.38 to -0.21), but only -0.10 (-0.20 to 0.01) for trials with observer-reported outcomes. Of 10 clinical conditions investigated in three trials or more, placebo had a statistically significant pooled effect only on pain or phobia on continuous scales.

CONCLUSION

We found no evidence of a generally large effect of placebo interventions. A possible small effect on patient-reported continuous outcomes, especially pain, could not be clearly distinguished from bias.