These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Chronic pain during dialysis. Pharmacologic therapy and its costs].
    Author: Fortina F, Agllata S, Ragazzoni E, Sacco A, Cardillo V, Travaglini S, Brini P, Cavagnino A.
    Journal: Minerva Urol Nefrol; 1999 Jun; 51(2):85-7. PubMed ID: 10429417.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: There is very little research into the problem of chronic pain in dialysed patients, despite the fact that pain is a widely diffused phenomena amongst these patients. This work proposes to evaluate the intensity of pain, supply a scale of levels of intervention, with an indication of the consumption and relative costs of pharmacological therapies. METHODS: 37 out of 100 patients undergoing haemodialysis suffer chronic pain. Aetiological research has shown that osteoarticular pain (24 cases), is the most common, peripheral vascular pain (3 cases), is subjectively and indirectly considered to be the most serious form. Nine cases have presented pain of a neuromuscular origin, whilst one case of a neoplastic origin. The degree of personal invalidism shows serious invalidism in 11 cases. RESULTS: The therapeutic file that forsaw four levels of pharmacological intervention (1st levels: FANS, 2nd level: Codeine+paracetamol, 3rd level: Buprenorphine, 4th level: Morphine for os), accompanied by instrumental and pharmacological support intervention, has proved to be indispensable in confronting the problem. Through pharmacy data, we have noticed a progressive increase over the year in the use of analgesic medicines, of which we can confirm the effectiveness, tolerability, low level of side-effects, at low costs. CONCLUSIONS: In our opinion chronic pain in dialysed patients should not be neglected. The perfection of diagnostic techniques, the discovery of pain-killers with reduced side-effects, the multidisciplinary approach, and reduced costs of treatment, are all valid arguments in favour of an intervention that improves the quality of life of these patients, already so compromised by the nature of the illness itself.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]