Intranasal ketamine for acute pain management in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Study objective
To assess the efficacy and safety of intranasal analgesic-dose ketamine as compared to intranasal fentanyl for pediatric acute pain.Methods
A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed following the PRISMA guidelines. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases for randomized controlled trials from inception to December 2019. We conducted meta-analysis with random-effects models to evaluate pain reduction, rescue analgesia, adverse events and sedation between intranasal ketamine and intranasal fentanyl. Random-effects models were used to estimate weighted mean differences (WMD) and pooled relative risks (RR).Results
A total of 546 studies were screened and 4 trials were included. In the meta-analysis of 4 studies including 276 patients, ketamine had similar reductions in pain scores from baseline to all post-intervention times (10 to 15 min: WMD -1.42, 95% CI -9.95 to 7.10; 30 min: WMD 0.40, 95% CI -6.29 to 7.10; 60 min: WMD -0.64, 95% CI -6.76 to 5.47). Ketamine was associated with similar rates of rescue analgesia (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.25). Ketamine had a higher risk of non-serious adverse events (RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.43 to 2.79), and no patients receiving ketamine had a serious adverse event. There was one serious adverse event (hypotension) with fentanyl that self-resolved. No patients receiving either IN fentanyl or ketamine had significant sedation.Conclusion
Intranasal analgesic-dose ketamine may be considered as an alternative to opioids for acute pain management in children. Its accepted use will depend on the tolerability of non-serious adverse events and the desire to avoid opioids.
SUBMITTER: Oliveira J E Silva L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7572639 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Due to overcrowding, personnel shortages, or problematic intravenous (IV) cannulation, acute pain management is often sub-optimal in emergency departments (EDs). The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intranasal (IN) ketamine for adult acute pain in the emergency setting. We searched and identified studies up to 21 May 2021 via PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Database, and Google Scholar. The random-effects model with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was used to estimate mean differences (MDs) and odds ratios (ORs). The I2 statistic and Cochran's Q test were used to determine heterogeneity. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020213391). Seven randomised controlled trials were included with a total of 1760 patients. There was no significant difference in pain scores comparing IN ketamine with IV analgesics or placebo at 5 (MD 0.94, p = 0.26), 15 (MD 0.15, p = 0.74), 25 (MD 0.24, p = 0.62), 30 (MD -0.05, p = 0.87), and 60 (MD -0.42, p = 0.53) minutes. There was also no significant difference in the need for rescue analgesics between IN ketamine and IV analgesics (OR 1.66, 95% CI: 0.57-4.86, p = 0.35, I2 = 70%). Only mild adverse effects were observed in patients who received IN ketamine. Our results suggest that IN ketamine is non-inferior to IV analgesics and may have a role in acute pain management among adults in the ED.
| S-EPMC8432265 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGiven the inadequate control of pain in patients with the trauma that refer to the emergency departments, the rapid onset of action of intranasal administration in pain management, and the avoidance of administering opioid medications, the present study aimed at evaluating the effect of intranasal ketamine versus intranasal fentanyl on pain management in isolated traumatic patients.Materials and methodsThe current study was performed on 125 patients that were divided into the following three groups: control group (n = 41), 1 mg/kg intranasal ketamine group (n = 40), and 1 μg/kg intranasal fentanyl group (n = 44). Then pain scores, heart rate, respiratory rate, blood pressure, and oxygen saturation were recorded at baseline, 5, 10, 15, 30, and 40 min after the intervention.ResultsVisual analog scale (VAS) scores of patients in the intranasal ketamine group 5 and 10 min after the intervention were 61.50 ± 20.45 and 55.00 ± 21.96, respectively. The mentioned scores were significantly lower than the VAS scores of patients in the control group with the mean of 72.44 ± 22.11 and 66.59 ± 24.25 and the VAS scores of patients in the intranasal fentanyl group with the mean of 71.59 ± 22.09 and 65.00 ± 22.87 at 5 and 10 min after the intervention, respectively (P < 0.05).ConclusionGiven the onset of action in < 10 min, intranasal ketamine can be proposed as an appropriate analgesic medication in pain reduction of patients with isolated limb injuries. Moreover, the incidence rate and severity of adverse effects were insignificantly higher in the intranasal ketamine group as compared with the intranasal fentanyl group.
| S-EPMC8943598 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSubanesthetic ketamine has been used for treatment-resistant depression and is popular as an opioid-sparing agent.ObjectiveThe present study aimed to investigate the dose-dependent antinociceptive effect of intranasal ketamine (INK) along with behavioral and neurophysiological safety in mice.MethodsAntinociceptive efficacy was evaluated in the terms of thermal nociceptive response and formalin test. The safety studies were carried out separately in healthy mice using telemetry-based cortical electroencephalography, hemodynamic changes, and spontaneous behavioral functions, including anxiety, stereotypic movement, and locomotor functions.ResultsINK administration significantly augmented the thermal nociceptive threshold and alleviated the pain response in the tonic phase of the formalin test. The results showed the dose-independent effectiveness of ketamine for thermal nociceptive responses because there were no significant differences among different INK dose groups. Behavioral safety analysis using the open field exploratory test revealed no significant effect of INK on anxiety-like functions in healthy mice. However, INK mice showed significantly more stereotypic movement but slower locomotor activities. The electroencephalography signal power spectrum density analysis revealed no significant changes by INK administration except a lower value in the α range. No significant changes were reported in heart rate, diastolic blood pressure, or systolic blood pressure at the higher dose equivalent used in the pain model.ConclusionsThe study demonstrated the behavioral and neurophysiological safety of INK, although it had a mild sedative effect. Therefore, INK is suggested as a potentially safe candidate for the management of acute pain. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2021; 82:XXX-XXX)© 2021 Elsevier HS Journals, Inc.
| S-EPMC8296084 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundKetamine is commonly used for procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in children. Evidence suggests it can be administered intranasally (IN). We sought to review the evidence for IN ketamine for PSA in children.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of randomized trials of IN ketamine in PSA that reported any sedation-related outcome in children 0 to 19 years. Trials were identified through electronic searches of MEDLINE (1946-2016), EMBASE (1947-2016), Google Scholar (2016), CINAHL (1981-2016), The Cochrane Library (2016), Web of Science (2016), Scopus (2016), clinical trial registries, and conference proceedings (2000-2016) without language restrictions. The methodological qualities of studies and the overall quality of evidence were evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system, respectively.ResultsThe review included 7 studies (n = 264) of children ranging from 0 to 14 years. Heterogeneity in study design precluded meta-analysis. Most studies were associated with a low or unclear risk of bias and outcome-specific ratings for quality of evidence were low or very low. In four of seven studies, IN ketamine provided superior sedation to comparators and resulted in adequate sedation for 148/175 (85%) of participants. Vomiting was the most common adverse effect; reported by 9/91 (10%) of participants.ConclusionsIN ketamine administration is well tolerated and without serious adverse effects. Although most participants were deemed adequately sedated with IN ketamine, effectiveness of sedation with respect to superiority over comparators was inconsistent, precluding a recommendation for PSA in children.
| S-EPMC5358746 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesPain after thoracoscopic surgery may increase the incidence of postoperative complications and impair recovery. Guidelines lack consensus regarding postoperative analgesia. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the mean pain scores of different analgesic techniques (thoracic epidural analgesia, continuous or single-shot unilateral regional analgesia and only systemic analgesia) after thoracoscopic anatomical lung resection.MethodsMedline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched until 1 October 2022. Patients undergoing at least >70% anatomical resections through thoracoscopy reporting postoperative pain scores were included. Due to a high inter-study variability an explorative meta-analysis next to an analytic meta-analysis was performed. The quality of evidence has been evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system.ResultsA total of 51 studies comprising 5573 patients were included. Mean 24, 48 and 72 h pain scores with 95% confidence interval on a 0-10 scale were calculated. Length of hospital stay, postoperative nausea and vomiting, additional opioids and the use of rescue analgesia were analysed as secondary outcomes. A common-effect size was estimated with an extreme high heterogeneity for which pooling of the studies was not appropriate. An exploratory meta-analysis demonstrated acceptable mean pain scores of Numeric Rating Scale <4 for all analgesic techniques.ConclusionsThis extensive literature review and attempt to pool mean pain scores for meta-analysis demonstrates that unilateral regional analgesia is gaining popularity over thoracic epidural analgesia in thoracoscopic anatomical lung resection, despite great heterogeneity and limitations of current studies precluding such recommendations.Prospero registrationID number 205311.
| S-EPMC9931052 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Currently ketamine is not used often as an analgesic in the emergency department (ED). Nonetheless, it can increase the efficiency of opioids and decrease their side effects. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate whether low-dose ketamine in the ED provides better analgesia with fewer adverse effects.The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched by two reviewers independently (last search performed on January 2016). Data were also extracted independently.A total of 6 trials involving 438 patients were included in the current analysis. Our subgroup analysis of pain reduction indicates that the favorable effects of ketamine were similar or superior to those of placebo or opioids, although these effects were heterogeneous. However, low-dose ketamine was associated with a higher risk of neurological (relative risk [RR] = 2.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.37-3.42, P < 0.001) and psychological events (RR = 13.86, 95% CI = 4.85-39.58, P < 0.001). In contrast, the opioid group had a higher risk of major cardiopulmonary events (RR = 0.22, 95% CI = 0.05-1.01, P = 0.05).The efficiency of ketamine varies depending on the pain site, but low-dose ketamine may be a key agent for pain control in the ED, as it has no side effects. It may also help to reduce the side effects of opioids.
| S-EPMC5082866 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: The utility of acupuncture in managing osteoarthritis symptoms is uncertain. Trial results are conflicting and previous systematic reviews may have overestimated the benefits of acupuncture. METHODS: Two reviewers independently identified randomized controlled trials (up to May 2014) from multiple electronic sources (including PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL) and reference lists of relevant articles, extracted data and assessed risk of bias (Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool). Pooled data are expressed as mean differences (MD), with 95% confidence intervals (CI) (random-effects model). RESULTS: We included 12 trials (1763 participants) comparing acupuncture to sham acupuncture, no treatment or usual care. We adjudicated most trials to be unclear (64%) or high (9%) risk of bias. Acupuncture use was associated with significant reductions in pain intensity (MD -0.29, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.02, I2 0%, 10 trials, 1699 participants), functional mobility (standardized MD -0.34, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.14, I2 70%, 9 trials, 1543 participants), health-related quality of life (standardized MD -0.36, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.14, I2 50%, 3 trials, 958 participants). Subgroup analysis of pain intensity by intervention duration suggested greater pain intensity reduction with intervention periods greater than 4 weeks (MD -0.38, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.06, I2 0%, 6 trials, 1239 participants). CONCLUSIONS: The use of acupuncture is associated with significant reductions in pain intensity, improvement in functional mobility and quality of life. While the differences are not as great as shown by other reviews, current evidence supports the use of acupuncture as an alternative for traditional analgesics in patients with osteoarthritis. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: CRD42013005405.
| S-EPMC4158087 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background: Pain management is an important priority in the treatment of acute pancreatitis (AP). Current evidence and guideline recommendations are inconsistent on the most effective analgesic protocol. This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of analgesics for pain relief in AP. Methods: A literature search was performed to identify all RCTs assessing analgesics in patients with AP. The primary outcome was the number of participants who needed rescue analgesia. Study quality was assessed using Jadad score. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) or weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were analysed using a random-effects model. Results: Twelve studies comprising 699 patients with AP (83% mild AP) were analysed. The tested analgesics significantly decreased the need for rescue analgesia (3 studies, OR.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.60) vs. placebo or conventional treatment. The analgesics also improved the pain score [Visual Analogue Scale (Δ-VAS)] at 24 h (WMD 18.46, 0.84 to 36.07) and by the 3rd to 7th days (WMD 11.57, 0.87 to 22.28). Opioids vs. non-opioids were associated with a decrease in the need for rescue analgesia (6 studies, OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.86, p = 0.03) but without significance in pain score. In subgroup analyses, opioids were similar to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) regarding the primary outcome (4 studies, OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.32, p = 0.18). There were no significant differences in other clinical outcomes and rate of adverse events. Other studies, comparing epidural anaesthesia vs. patient-controlled analgesia and opioid (buprenorphine) vs. opioid (pethidine) did not show significant difference in primary outcome. Study quality issues significantly contributed to overall study heterogeneity. Conclusions: NSAIDs and opioids are equally effective in decreasing the need for rescue analgesia in patients with mild AP. The relative paucity of trials and high-quality data in this setting is notable and the optimal analgesic strategy for patients with moderately severe and severe AP still requires to be determined.
| S-EPMC8718672 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAcutely painful procedures are commonplace. Current approaches to pain most often involve pharmacotherapy, however, there is interest in virtual reality (VR) as a non-pharmacological alternative. A methodologically rigorous systematic review and meta-analysis is lacking.MethodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, we searched the Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ERIC, NIHR Centre for Review and Dissemination, Proquest, the System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to 5 November 2017. Included studies were randomised with an experimental trial design, included a non-VR control group and examined the efficacy of VR with regards to an acutely painful clinical intervention. Bias was assessed along Cochrane guidelines, with performance bias not assessed due to the non-blindable nature of VR. We extracted summary data for maximal pain score and used standard mean difference DerSimonian-Laird random-effects meta-analysis (RevMan 5.3). This review was prospectively registered (PROSPERO CRD42017058204).FindingsOf the 12,450 studies identified, 20 studies were eligible for the systematic review. No trials reported in sufficient detail to judge their risk of bias, and 10 studies were at high risk of bias in at least one domain. 16 studies (9 randomised controlled trials, 7 crossover studies) examining 656 individuals were included in quantitative synthesis. Pain scales were heterogenous, but mostly employed 100-point scales. Across all trials, meta-analysis was suggestive of a -0.49 (95%CI -0.83 to -0.41, p = 0.006) standardised mean difference reduction in pain score with VR. However there was a high degree of statistical heterogeneity (χ2 p<0.001, I2 81%, 95%CI for I2 70-88%), driven by randomised studies, with substantial clinical heterogeneity.ConclusionThese data suggest that VR may have a role in acutely painful procedures, however included studies were clinically and statistically heterogenous. Further research is required to validate findings, establish cost efficacy and optimal clinical settings for usage. Future trials should report in accordance with established guidelines.
| S-EPMC6063420 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is growing interest in glutamatergic agents as a treatment for depression, especially intranasal ketamine, which has become a hot topic in recent years. We aim to assess the efficacy and safety of intranasal ketamine in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD), especially treatment-resistant depression (TRD).MethodsWe searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library until April 1, 2020 to identify double-blind, randomized controlled trials with allocation concealment evaluating intranasal ketamine in major depressive episodes. Clinical remission, response, and depressive symptoms were extracted by two independent raters. The outcome measures were Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score improved from baseline, clinical response and remission, dissociative symptoms, and common adverse events. The analyses employed a random-effects model.ResultsData were synthesized from five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) employing an intranasal esketamine and one RCT employing intranasal ketamine, representing 840 subjects in parallel arms, and 18 subjects in cross-over designs (n = 858 with MDD, n = 792 with TRD). The weighted mean difference of MADRS score was observed to decrease by 6.16 (95% CI 4.44-7.88) in 2-4 h, 9.96 (95% CI 8.97-10.95) in 24 h, and 4.09 (95% CI 2.18-6.00) in 28 day. The pooled relative risk (RR) was 3.55 (95% CI 1.5-8.38, z = 2.89, and p < 0.001) for clinical remission and 3.22 (95% CI 1.85-5.61, z = 4.14, and p < 0.001) for clinical response at 24 h, while the pooled RR was 1.7 (95% CI 1.28-2.24, z = 3.72, and p < 0.001) for clinical remission and 1.48 (95% CI 1.17-1.86, z = 3.28, and p < 0.001) for clinical response at 28 day. Intranasal ketamine was associated with the occurrence of transient dissociative symptoms and common adverse events, but no persistent psychoses or affective switches.ConclusionOur meta-analysis suggests that repeated intranasal ketamine conducted a fast-onset antidepression effect in unipolar depression, while the mild and transient adverse effects were acceptable.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO, CRD42020196856.
| S-EPMC8204747 | biostudies-literature