Key result
While weight-based protocols for procedural sedation have demonstrable benefit, protocols for postprocedural pain relief after major interventional radiology procedures lack rigorous evaluation.
This narrative review highlights the lack of rigorous evaluation for postprocedural pain relief protocols in interventional radiology, despite the demonstrable benefit of weight-based sedation protocols.
Sparse high-quality evidence on peri- and postprocedural pain control in interventional radiology calls for cautious practice; leaves open need for prospective studies.
Interventional radiology encompasses a wide range of procedures and the degree of associated pain depends predominantly on the procedure being undertaken. Procedures may be painful during but not after the procedure, relatively painless during but painful after the procedure, or relatively painless during and after the procedure. However, there is a lack of good quality publications in interventional radiology that specifically address the subject of peri- and postprocedural pain management. Nevertheless, a variety of more or less complex protocols exist for intraprocedural sedation and for peri- and postprocedural analgesia. While weight-based protocols for procedural sedation have demonstrable benefit, protocols for postprocedural pain relief after major procedures have not been sufficiently rigorously evaluated.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cashman et al. (2017) conducted a review in Peri- and postprocedural pain in interventional radiology. Peri- and postprocedural pain management protocols was evaluated. While weight-based protocols for procedural sedation have demonstrable benefit, protocols for postprocedural pain relief after major interventional radiology procedures lack rigorous evaluation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: