Dataset Information

Intranasal Desmopressin Compared with Intravenous Ketorolac for Pain Management of Patients with Renal Colic Referring to the Emergency Department: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:This double-blind randomized clinical trial aimed at comparing the effect of intranasal desmopressin with that of intravenous ketorolac in pain management of patients with renal colic referring to the emergency department. METHODS:The patients were randomly divided to two groups. One group received intravenous ketorolac 30 mg and intranasal normal saline, while, the other one received intranasal desmopressin 40??g and 1 mL of intravenous distilled water. The patients' pain was evaluated using the visual analog scale at the time of admission, 10, 30, and 60 minutes after drug administration. RESULTS:Overall, 40 patients with mean age of 32.53 ± 6.91 participated in this study. Gender ratio (P = 0.288), mean age (P = 0.165), and mean pain score on arrival (P = 0.694) had no significant difference. The mean pain scores, 10, 30, and 60 minutes after drug administration in the ketorolac group was significantly lower than the desmopressin group, and decreased more rapidly (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:It is likely for desmopressin to be less efficacious than ketorolac, and desmopressin leads to a significant alleviation of pain in patients with renal colic.

SUBMITTER: Arhami Dolatabadi A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5556593 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Intranasal Desmopressin Compared with Intravenous Ketorolac for Pain Management of Patients with Renal Colic Referring to the Emergency Department: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Arhami Dolatabadi Ali A Memary Elham E Kariman Hamid H Nasiri Gigloo Kambiz K Baratloo Alireza A

Anesthesiology and pain medicine 20170225 2

<h4>Background</h4>This double-blind randomized clinical trial aimed at comparing the effect of intranasal desmopressin with that of intravenous ketorolac in pain management of patients with renal colic referring to the emergency department.<h4>Methods</h4>The patients were randomly divided to two groups. One group received intravenous ketorolac 30 mg and intranasal normal saline, while, the other one received intranasal desmopressin 40 μg and 1 mL of intravenous distilled water. The patients' p ...[more]

PMID: 28824859

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveIntranasal fentanyl (INF) quickly and noninvasively relieves severe pain, whereas intravenous hydromorphone (IVH) reliably treats severe cancer pain but requires vascular access. The trial evaluated the efficacy of INF relative to IVH for treating cancer patients with severe pain in an emergency department (ED) setting.MethodsWe randomized 82 patients from a comprehensive cancer center ED to receive INF (n = 42) or IVH (n = 40). Eligible patients reported severe pain at randomization (≥7, scale: 0 "none" to 10 "worst pain"). We conducted non-inferiority comparisons (non-inferiority margin = 0.9) of pain change from treatment initiation (T0) to one hour later (T60). T0 pain ratings were unavailable; therefore, we estimated T0 pain by comparing 1) T60 ratings, assuming similar group T0 ratings; 2) pain change, estimating T0 pain = randomization ratings, and 3) pain change, with T0 pain = 10 (IVH group) or T0 pain = randomization rating (INF group).ResultsAt T60, the upper 90% confidence limit (CL) of the mean log-transformed pain ratings for the INF group exceeded the mean IVH group rating by 0.16 points (>pain). Substituting randomization ratings for T0 pain, the lower 90% CL of mean pain change in the INF group extended 0.32 points below (<pain relief) mean change in the IVH group. Finally, assuming all subjects in the IVH group had maximum pain at T0 and that T0 pain for the INF group remained unchanged from randomization, the lower bound of the 90% CL for mean pain decrease in the INF group extended 1.37 points below (<pain relief) mean decrease in the IVH group. Time (minutes) from randomization until T0 was longer for the IVH (Median 23, IQR 12) versus INF (Median 15, IQR 11) group (P<0.001).ConclusionsTwo of three analyses supported non-inferiority of INF versus IVH, while one analysis was inconclusive. Compared to IVH, INF had the advantage of shorter time to administration.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02459964.

Project description:Study objectiveWe compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous lidocaine with that of hydromorphone for the treatment of acute abdominal pain in the emergency department (ED).MethodsThis was a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial conducted in 2 EDs in the Bronx, NY. Adults weighing 60 to 120 kg were randomized to receive 120 mg of intravenous lidocaine or 1 mg of intravenous hydromorphone. Thirty minutes after administration of the first dose of the study drug, participants were asked whether they needed a second dose of the investigational medication to which they were randomized. Patients were also stratified according to clinical suspicion of nephrolithiasis. The primary outcome was improvement in pain scores of 0 to 10 between baseline and 90 minutes. An important secondary outcome was need for "off-protocol" parenteral analgesics, including opioids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.ResultsWe enrolled 154 patients, of whom 77 received lidocaine and 77 received hydromorphone. By 90 minutes, patients randomized to lidocaine improved by a mean of 3.8 points on the 0-to-10 scale, whereas those randomized to hydromorphone improved by a mean of 5.0 points (mean difference 1.2; 95% confidence interval 0.3 to 2.2). Need for off-protocol "rescue" analgesics occurred for 39 of 77 lidocaine patients (51%) and 20 of 77 hydromorphone patients (26%) (difference 25%; 95% confidence interval 10% to 40%). Adverse events were comparable between groups. Among the subset of 22 patients with nephrolithiasis, lidocaine patients reported a mean improvement of 3.4 points on the pain scale, whereas hydromorphone patients reported a mean improvement of 6.4 points (mean difference 3.0; 95% confidence interval 0.5 to 5.5).ConclusionIntravenous hydromorphone was superior to intravenous lidocaine both for general abdominal pain and a subset of patients with nephrolithiasis. A majority of patients randomly allocated to lidocaine required additional analgesics.

Project description:ImportanceRenal colic is described as one of the worst types of pain, and effective analgesia in the shortest possible time is of paramount importance.ObjectivesTo examine whether acupuncture, as an adjunctive therapy to analgesics, could accelerate pain relief in patients with acute renal colic.Design, setting, and participantsThis single-center, sham-controlled, randomized clinical trial was conducted in an emergency department in China between March 2020 and September 2020. Participants with acute renal colic (visual analog scale [VAS] score ≥4) due to urolithiasis were recruited. Data were analyzed from October 2020 to January 2022.InterventionsAfter diagnosis and randomization, all patients received 50 mg/2 mL of diclofenac sodium intramuscular injection immediately followed by 30-minute acupuncture or sham acupuncture.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the response rate at 10 minutes after needle manipulation, which was defined as the proportion of participants whose VAS score decreased by at least 50% from baseline. Secondary outcomes included response rates at 0, 5, 15, 20, 30, 45, and 60 minutes, rescue analgesia, and adverse events.ResultsA total of 115 participants were screened and 80 participants (66 men [82.5%]; mean [SD] age, 45.8 [13.8] years) were enrolled, consisting of 40 per group. The response rates at 10 minutes were 77.5% (31 of 40) and 10.0% (4 of 40) in the acupuncture and sham acupuncture groups, respectively. The between-group differences were 67.5% (95% CI, 51.5% to 83.4%; P < .001). The response rates of acupuncture were also significantly higher than sham acupuncture at 0, 5, 15, 20 and 30 minutes, whereas no significant difference was detected at 45 and 60 minutes. However, there was no difference between the 2 groups in rescue analgesia rate (difference 2.5%; 95% CI -8.8% to 13.2%; P > .99). No adverse events occurred during the trial.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that acupuncture plus intramuscular injection of diclofenac is safe and provides fast and substantial pain relief for patients with renal colic compared with sham acupuncture in the emergency setting. However, no difference in rescue analgesia was found, possibly because of the ceiling effect caused by subsequent but robust analgesia of diclofenac. Acupuncture can be considered an optional adjunctive therapy in relieving acute renal colic.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR1900025202.

Dataset Information

Intranasal Desmopressin Compared with Intravenous Ketorolac for Pain Management of Patients with Renal Colic Referring to the Emergency Department: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Publications

Intranasal Desmopressin Compared with Intravenous Ketorolac for Pain Management of Patients with Renal Colic Referring to the Emergency Department: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets