Trial reportActa anaesthesiologica Scandinavica2026
Patient-Controlled Sedation in Port Implantation (PACSPI 2)-A Randomised Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05688384 (Patient-Controlled Sedation in Port Implantation), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Patient-Controlled Sedation in Port Implantation (PACSPI-2) -a Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Patient-Controlled Sedation in Port Implantation (PACSPI 2)-A Randomised Clinical Trial.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Optimising pain management during subcutaneous venous port (SVP) implantation is essential for patient-centred cancer care. However, evidence-based approaches to minimise intraoperative pain remain underexplored. This trial evaluated the clinical effectiveness and safety of the propofol-alfentanil patient-controlled sedation (PCS) technique as an adjunct to local anaesthesia (LA) for pain reduction during SVP implantation. Adult cancer patients at two Swedish anaesthesia departments received either LA + PCS or LA alone for SVP implantation. The primary outcome was the maximum intraoperative pain score on an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS). Safety outcomes included respiratory, haemodynamic and insertion-related complications. Secondary outcomes assessed patient satisfaction and procedural measurements. A total of 340 patients (median age 70 [interquartile range, [IQR] 61-76], 51.8% male) were recruited between January 2023 and November 2024. Median intraoperative NRS pain scores were similar between groups (2 [0-3] vs. 2 [0-3], p = 0.292), with pain scores ≥ 4 reported in 22.9% (LA + PCS) and 22.2% (LA) (OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.57-1.60; p = 0.872). Hypoxia or obstructed airway occurred in 2/166 (1.2%) patients in the LA + PCS group and none in the LA group. Patient satisfaction was high in both groups (10 [10-10], p = 0.102). Optimal procedural conditions were reported more frequently with LA + PCS (96.4% vs. 82.0%; OR 5.84; 95% CI 2.36-14.44; p < 0.001), without affecting perioperative workflow. Propofol-alfentanil PCS does not significantly reduce intraoperative pain in patients during SVP implantation. Its routine use for pain reduction cannot be recommended. However, PCS may reasonably be offered to patients who prefer procedural sedation. EDITORIAL COMMENT: This randomised clinical trial found that adding patient-controlled sedation with propofol-alfentanil to standard local anaesthesia for subcutaneous venous port implantation does not have an impact on pain scores or patient satisfaction. Additional studies focusing on patients experiences and safety are recommended before implementing propofol-alfentanil patient-controlled sedation. Trial Registration: EudraCT number: 2021-003821-31; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05688384.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.