Dataset Information

Comparison of intravenous pantoprazole and ranitidine in patients with dyspepsia presented to the emergency department: a randomized, double blind, controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:This study aimed to compare pantoprazole, a proton-pomp inhibitors (PPIs), and ranitidine, a H2 receptor antagonists (H2RA), in ceasing dyspeptic symptoms in the emergency department (ED). METHODS:This randomized, double-blinded study compared the effectiveness of 50 mg ranitidine (Ulcuran(®)) and 40 mg pantoprazole (Pantpas(®)), given in a 100 mL saline solution by an intravenous rapid infusion within 2-4 minutes in patients with dyspepsia presented to the ED. Pain intensity was measured at baseline, 30 and 60 minutes after the drug administration. RESULTS:A total of 72 patients were eligible for the study. Of these patients, 2 were excluded from the study because the initial visual analogue scale (VAS) scores were under 20 mm and 4 were excluded from the statistical analysis because of being diagnosed as having other causes of epigastric pain despite being allocated to one of the study groups. Thirty-three patients in the pantoprazole group and 33 patients in the ranitidine group were analyzed ultimately. The mean age of the patients was 36.6±15 years, and 26 (39.4%) patients were male. Both of the groups reduced pain effectively at 30 [27.6±28 (18 to 37) vs. 28.3±23 (20 to 37), respectively] and 60 minutes [39.6±39 (26 to 53) vs. 42.3±25 (33 to 51), respectively]. There were 13 (39.4%) patients in the pantoprazole group and 8 (24.2%) patients in the ranitidine group who required additional drug at the end of the study (P=0.186). CONCLUSION:Intravenous pantoprazole and ranitidine are not superior to each other in ceasing dyspeptic symptoms at 30 and 60 minutes in the ED.

SUBMITTER: Senay E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4786495 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of intravenous pantoprazole and ranitidine in patients with dyspepsia presented to the emergency department: a randomized, double blind, controlled trial.

Senay Engin E Eken Cenker C Yildiz Murat M Yilmaz Derya D Alkan Erhan E Akin Mete M Serinken Mustafa M

World journal of emergency medicine 20160101 1

<h4>Background</h4>This study aimed to compare pantoprazole, a proton-pomp inhibitors (PPIs), and ranitidine, a H2 receptor antagonists (H2RA), in ceasing dyspeptic symptoms in the emergency department (ED).<h4>Methods</h4>This randomized, double-blinded study compared the effectiveness of 50 mg ranitidine (Ulcuran(®)) and 40 mg pantoprazole (Pantpas(®)), given in a 100 mL saline solution by an intravenous rapid infusion within 2-4 minutes in patients with dyspepsia presented to the ED. Pain int ...[more]

PMID: 27006735

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPain is one of the main reasons to present to emergency departments (EDs). Opioids are indispensable for acute pain management but are associated with side effects, misuse, and dependence. The aim of this study was to test whether a single dose of intravenous (IV) acetaminophen (paracetamol) can reduce the use of morphine for pain relief and/or morphine-related adverse events (AEs).MethodsED patients >18 years with acute pain (i.e., Numeric Rating Scale [NRS] > 4) were screened for eligibility. Patients with analgesia in the past 6 h, chronic pain, or clinical instability were excluded. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either morphine 0.1 mg/kg and 1 g acetaminophen IV or morphine 0.1 mg/kg and placebo IV. The intervention was double-blinded. Additional morphine 0.05 mg/kg IV was administered every 15 minutes until pain relief (defined as NRS < 4) and whether the pain recurred. The primary outcome was the mean morphine dose for pain relief. Secondary outcomes were the total amount of morphine given, time to achieve pain relief, and AEs.ResultsA total of 220 patients were randomized and 202 evaluated for the primary outcome. The mean morphine dose for pain relief was similar in both groups (acetaminophen 0.15 mg ± 0.07 mg/kg, placebo 0.16 ± 0.07 mg/kg). There were no differences in the total amount of morphine given (acetaminophen 0.19 ± 0.09 mg/kg, placebo 0.19 ± 0.1 mg/kg), the time to achieve pain relief (acetaminophen 30 min [95% CI 17-31 min], placebo 30 min [95% CI 30-35 min]), and the frequency of AEs (overall 27.4%). Time to pain recurrence did not differ significantly between the groups (hazard ratio 1.23 [0.76-1.98], p = 0.40).ConclusionsIn ED patients, acetaminophen had no additional effect on pain control or morphine-sparing effect at the time of first morphine administration. Titrated morphine with the algorithm used was highly effective, with 80% of all patients reporting pain relief within 60 min of starting therapy.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Hip fracture causes moderate to severe pain and while fascia iliaca block has been reported to provide analgesic benefit, most previous trials were unblinded, with subsequent high risks of performance, selection and detection biases. In this randomized, control double-blind trial, we tested the hypothesis that a fascia iliaca block provides effective analgesia for patients suffering from hip fracture. METHODS:Thirty ASA I-III hip fracture patients over 70?years old, who received prehospital morphine, were randomized to receive either a fascia iliaca block using 30?ml of bupivacaine 0.5% with epinephrine 1:200,000 or a sham injection with normal saline. The fascia iliaca block was administered by emergency medicine physicians trained to perform an anatomic landmark-based technique. The primary outcome was the comparison between groups of the longitudinal pain score profiles at rest over the first 45?min following the procedure (numeric rating scale, 0-10). Secondary outcomes included the longitudinal pain score profiles on movement and the comparison over 4?h, 8?h, 12?h, and 24?h after the procedure, along with cumulative intravenous morphine consumption at 24?h. RESULTS:At baseline, the fascia iliaca group had a lower mean pain score than the sham injection group, both at rest (difference?=?-?0.9, 95%CI [-?2.4, 0.5]) and on movement (difference?=?-?0.9, 95%CI [-?2.7; 0.9]). These differences remained 45?min after the procedure and the two longitudinal pain score profiles were parallel both for patients at rest and on movement (test of parallelism for patients at rest p?=?0.53 and on movement p?=?0.45). The same parallel change in pain scores over time was observed over 24?h of follow-up (test of parallelism for patients at rest p?=?0.82 and on movement p?=?0.12). These results were confirmed after adjustment for gender, ASA score, and cumulative sums of intravenous morphine received pre-procedure and during-follow-up. In addition, there was no difference between the two groups in total cumulative intravenous morphine consumption at 24?h. CONCLUSION:Fascia iliaca block following anatomic landmarks may not provide supplementary analgesia for patients suffering from hip fracture, when low pain scores are reported after prehospital morphine. Additional larger trials will help reach definitive conclusion. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:Clinicaltrials.gov - NCT02433548 . The study was registered retrospectively.

Project description:BackgroundGreater occipital nerve blocks (GONB) are used increasingly to treat acute migraine.ObjectiveWe conducted a randomized controlled trial to determine whether GONB was as effective as intravenous metoclopramide for migraine.MethodsThis was a double-dummy, double-blind, parallel-arm, non-inferiority study conducted in 2 emergency departments (EDs). Patients with migraine of moderate or severe intensity were randomized to receive bilateral GONB with each side administered 3 mL of bupivacaine 0.5% or metoclopramide 10 mg IV, the putative standard of care. The primary outcome was improvement in pain on a 0-10 scale between time 0 and 1 hour later. To reject the null hypothesis that metoclopramide would be more efficacious in relieving pain, we required that the lower limit of the 95% CI for the difference in pain improvement between those randomized to GONB vs those randomized to metoclopramide be >-1.3, a validated minimum clinically important difference. Secondary outcomes included sustained headache relief, defined as achieving and maintaining for 48 hours a headache level of mild or none without the use of additional analgesic medication, and the use of rescue medication in the ED.ResultsOver a 2.5-year study period, 1358 patients were screened for participation and 99 were randomized, 51 to GONB and 48 to metoclopramide. All of these patients were included in the primary analysis. Patients who received the GONB reported mean improvement of 5.0 (95% CI: 4.1, 5.8) while those who received metoclopramide reported a larger mean improvement of 6.1 (95% CI: 5.2, 6.9). The 95% CI for the between group difference of -1.1 was -2.3, 0.1. Sustained headache relief was reported by 11/51 (22%) GONB and 18/47 (38%) metoclopramide patients (95% CI for rounded difference of 17%: -1, 35%). Of the 51 GONB patients, 17 (33%) required rescue medication in the ED vs 8/48 (17%) metoclopramide patients (95% CI for rounded difference of 17%: 0, 33%). An adverse event was reported by 16/51 (31%) GONB patients and 18/48 (38%) metoclopramide patients (95% CI for (rounded) difference of 6%: -13, 25%).ConclusionGONB with bupivacaine was not as efficacious as IV metoclopramide for the first-line treatment of migraine in the ED.

Project description:BackgroundAcute asthma in children can be life-threatening and must be treated promptly in the emergency setting. Intravenous magnesium sulfate is recommended by various guidelines for cases of acute asthma that have not responded to first-line treatment with bronchodilators and steroids. The treatment has recently been shown to reduce the need for hospital admission for adults compared with placebo, but it is unclear whether it is equally effective for children.ObjectivesTo assess the safety and efficacy of intravenous magnesium sulfate (IV MgSO4) in children treated for acute asthma in the emergency department (ED).Search methodsWe identified studies by searching the Cochrane Airways Review Group Specialised Register up to 23 February 2016. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and reference lists of other reviews, and we contacted study authors to ask for additional information.Selection criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials of children treated in the ED for exacerbations of asthma if they compared any dose of IV MgSO4 with placebo.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors screened the results of the search and independently extracted data from studies meeting the inclusion criteria. We resolved disagreements through discussion and contacted study authors in cases of missing data and other uncertainties relating to the studies.We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios and continuous data as mean differences, both using fixed-effect models. We assessed each study for risk of bias and rated the quality of evidence for each outcome with GRADE and presented the results in a 'Summary of findings' table. There was insufficient evidence to conduct the planned subgroup analyses.Main resultsFive studies (182 children) met the inclusion criteria, and four contributed data to at least one meta-analysis. The included studies were overall at low risk of bias, but our confidence in the evidence was generally low, mainly due to the small sample sizes. Treatment with IV MgSO4 reduced the odds of admission to hospital by 68% (odds ratio (OR) 0.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.74; children = 115; studies = 3; I(2) = 63%). This result was based on data from just three studies including 115 children. Meta-analysis for the secondary outcomes was extremely limited by paucity of data. We performed meta-analysis for the outcome 'return to the emergency department within 48 hours', which showed a very imprecise effect estimate that was not statistically significant (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.02 to 10.30; children = 85; studies = 2; I(2) = 0%). Side effects and adverse events were not consistently reported and meta-analysis was not possible, however few side effects or adverse events were reported.Authors' conclusionsIV MgSO4 may reduce the need for hospital admission in children presenting to the ED with moderate to severe exacerbations of asthma, but the evidence is extremely limited by the number and size of studies. Few side effects of the treatment were reported, but the data were extremely limited.

Project description:IntroductionAcute pain remains highly prevalent in the Emergency Department (ED) setting. This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled UK study investigated the efficacy and safety of low-dose methoxyflurane analgesia for the treatment of acute pain in the ED in the adult population of the STOP! trial.MethodsPatients presenting to the ED requiring analgesia for acute pain (pain score of 4-7 on the Numerical Rating Scale) due to minor trauma were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive methoxyflurane (up to 6 mL) or placebo (normal saline), both via a Penthrox® (Medical Developments International Limited, Scoresby, Australia) inhaler. Rescue medication (paracetamol/opioids) was available immediately upon request. Change from baseline in visual analog scale (VAS) pain intensity was the primary endpoint.Results300 adult and adolescent patients were randomized; data are presented for the adult subgroup (N = 204). Mean baseline VAS pain score was ~66 mm in both groups. The mean change from baseline to 5, 10, 15 and 20 min was greater for methoxyflurane (-20.7, -27.4, -33.3 and -34.8 mm, respectively) than placebo (-8.0, -11.1, -12.3 and -15.2 mm, respectively). The primary analysis showed a highly significant treatment effect overall across all four time points (-17.4 mm; 95% confidence interval: -22.3 to -12.5 mm; p < 0.0001). Median time to first pain relief was 5 min with methoxyflurane [versus 20 min with placebo; (hazard ratio: 2.32; 95% CI: 1.63, 3.30; p < 0.0001)]; 79.4% of methoxyflurane-treated patients experienced pain relief within 1-10 inhalations. 22.8% of placebo-treated patients requested rescue medication within 20 min compared with 2.0% of methoxyflurane-treated patients (p = 0.0003). Methoxyflurane treatment was rated 'Excellent', 'Very Good' or 'Good' by 77.6% of patients, 74.5% of physicians and 72.5% of nurses. Treatment-related adverse events (mostly dizziness/headache) were reported by 42.2% of patients receiving methoxyflurane and 14.9% of patients receiving placebo; none caused withdrawal and the majority were mild and transient.ConclusionThe results of this study support the evidence from previous trials that low-dose methoxyflurane administered via the Penthrox inhaler is a well-tolerated, efficacious and rapid-acting analgesic.FundingMedical Developments International (MDI) Limited and Mundipharma Research GmbH & Co.KG.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01420159, EudraCT number: 2011-000338-12.

Dataset Information

Comparison of intravenous pantoprazole and ranitidine in patients with dyspepsia presented to the emergency department: a randomized, double blind, controlled trial.

Publications

Comparison of intravenous pantoprazole and ranitidine in patients with dyspepsia presented to the emergency department: a randomized, double blind, controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets