A randomized clinical trial of a brief hypnosis intervention to control side effects in breast surgery patients

Guy H. Montgomery, Dana H. Bovbjerg, Julie B. Schnur, Daniel David, Alisan Goldfarb, Christina R. Weltz, Clyde B. Schechter, Joshua Graff-Zivin, Kristin Tatrow, Donald D. Price, Jeffrey H. Silverstein

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

159 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: Patients in the hypnosis group required less propofol (means = 64.01 versus 96.64 μg; 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. Conclusions: 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1304-1312
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of the National Cancer Institute
Volume99
Issue number17
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 5 2007

Fingerprint

Hypnosis
Breast
Randomized Controlled Trials
Confidence Intervals
Analgesics
Costs and Cost Analysis
Pain
Propofol
Lidocaine
Nausea
Breast Neoplasms
Fatigue
Recovery Room
Midazolam
Fentanyl
Anesthesia
Control Groups
Segmental Mastectomy
Operating Rooms
Operative Time

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Oncology

Cite this

Montgomery, G. H., Bovbjerg, D. H., Schnur, J. B., David, D., Goldfarb, A., Weltz, C. R., ... Silverstein, J. H. (2007). A randomized clinical trial of a brief hypnosis intervention to control side effects in breast surgery patients. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 99(17), 1304-1312. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djm106

A randomized clinical trial of a brief hypnosis intervention to control side effects in breast surgery patients. / Montgomery, Guy H.; Bovbjerg, Dana H.; Schnur, Julie B.; David, Daniel; Goldfarb, Alisan; Weltz, Christina R.; Schechter, Clyde B.; Graff-Zivin, Joshua; Tatrow, Kristin; Price, Donald D.; Silverstein, Jeffrey H.

In: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 99, No. 17, 05.09.2007, p. 1304-1312.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Montgomery, GH, Bovbjerg, DH, Schnur, JB, David, D, Goldfarb, A, Weltz, CR, Schechter, CB, Graff-Zivin, J, Tatrow, K, Price, DD & Silverstein, JH 2007, 'A randomized clinical trial of a brief hypnosis intervention to control side effects in breast surgery patients', Journal of the National Cancer Institute, vol. 99, no. 17, pp. 1304-1312. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djm106
Montgomery, Guy H. ; Bovbjerg, Dana H. ; Schnur, Julie B. ; David, Daniel ; Goldfarb, Alisan ; Weltz, Christina R. ; Schechter, Clyde B. ; Graff-Zivin, Joshua ; Tatrow, Kristin ; Price, Donald D. ; Silverstein, Jeffrey H. / A randomized clinical trial of a brief hypnosis intervention to control side effects in breast surgery patients. In: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2007 ; Vol. 99, No. 17. pp. 1304-1312.
@article{4842b82973754ff6b6ebd8994ee8706d,
title = "A randomized clinical trial of a brief hypnosis intervention to control side effects in breast surgery patients",
abstract = "Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: Patients in the hypnosis group required less propofol (means = 64.01 versus 96.64 μg; 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. Conclusions: 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.",
author = "Montgomery, {Guy H.} and Bovbjerg, {Dana H.} and Schnur, {Julie B.} and Daniel David and Alisan Goldfarb and Weltz, {Christina R.} and Schechter, {Clyde B.} and Joshua Graff-Zivin and Kristin Tatrow and Price, {Donald D.} and Silverstein, {Jeffrey H.}",
year = "2007",
month = "9",
day = "5",
doi = "10.1093/jnci/djm106",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "99",
pages = "1304--1312",
journal = "Journal of the National Cancer Institute",
issn = "0027-8874",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "17",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A randomized clinical trial of a brief hypnosis intervention to control side effects in breast surgery patients

AU - Montgomery, Guy H.

AU - Bovbjerg, Dana H.

AU - Schnur, Julie B.

AU - David, Daniel

AU - Goldfarb, Alisan

AU - Weltz, Christina R.

AU - Schechter, Clyde B.

AU - Graff-Zivin, Joshua

AU - Tatrow, Kristin

AU - Price, Donald D.

AU - Silverstein, Jeffrey H.

PY - 2007/9/5

Y1 - 2007/9/5

N2 - Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: Patients in the hypnosis group required less propofol (means = 64.01 versus 96.64 μg; 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. Conclusions: 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.

AB - Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: Patients in the hypnosis group required less propofol (means = 64.01 versus 96.64 μg; 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. Conclusions: 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34548577130&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34548577130&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/jnci/djm106

DO - 10.1093/jnci/djm106

M3 - Article

VL - 99

SP - 1304

EP - 1312

JO - Journal of the National Cancer Institute

JF - Journal of the National Cancer Institute

SN - 0027-8874

IS - 17

ER -