Parenteral opioids in emergency medicine – A systematic review of efficacy and safety

2011 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 187-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leila Niemi-Murola ◽  
Jani Unkuri ◽  
Katri Hamunen

AbstractIntroduction and aimPain is a frequent symptom in emergency patients and opioids are commonly used to treat it at emergency departments and at pre-hospital settings. The aim of this systematic review is to examine the efficacy and safety of parenteral opioids used for acute pain in emergency medicine.MethodQualitative review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on parenteral opioids for acute pain in adult emergency patients. Main outcome measures were: type and dose of the opioid, analgesic efficacy as compared to either placebo or another opioid and adverse effects.ResultsTwenty double-blind RCTs with results on 2322 patients were included. Seven studies were placebo controlled. Majority of studies were performed in the emergency department. Only five studies were in prehospital setting.Prehospital studiesFour studies were on mainly trauma-related pain, one ischemic chest pain. One study compared two different doses of morphine in mainly trauma pain showing faster analgesia with the larger dose but no difference at 30 min postdrug. Three other studies on the same pain model showed equal analgesic effects with morphine and other opioids. Alfentanil was more effective than morphine in ischemic chest pain.Emergency department studiesPain models used were acute abdominal pain seven, renal colic four, mixed (mainly abdominal pain) three and trauma pain one study. Five studies compared morphine to placebo in acute abdominal pain and in all studies morphine was more effective than placebo. In four out of five studies on acute abdominal pain morphine did not change diagnostic accuracy, clinical or radiological findings. Most commonly used morphine dose in the emergency department was 0.1 mg/kg (five studies). Other opioids showed analgesic effect comparable to morphine.Adverse effectsRecording and reporting of adverse effects was very variable. Vital signs were recorded in 15 of the 20 studies (including all prehospital studies). Incidence of adverse effects in the opioid groups was 5–38% of the patients in the prehospital setting and 4–46% of the patients in the emergency department. Nausea or vomiting was reported in 11–25% of the patients given opioids. Study drug was discontinued because of adverse effects five patients (one placebo, two sufentanil, two morphine). Eight studies commented on administration of naloxone for reversal of opioid effects. One patient out of 1266 was given naloxone for drowsiness. Ventilatory depression defined by variable criteria occurred in occurred in 7 out of 756 emergency department patients.ConclusionEvidence for selection of optimal opioid and dose is scarce. Opioids, especially morphine, are effective in relieving acute pain also in emergency medicine patients. Studies so far are small and reporting of adverse effects is very variable. Therefore the safety of different opioids and doses remains to be studied. Also the optimal titration regimens need to be evaluated in future studies. The prevention and treatment of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting is an important clinical consideration that requires further clinical and scientific attention in this patient group.

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanna von Plato ◽  
Vesa Kontinen ◽  
Katri Hamunen

AbstractBackground and aims:Treatment of pain following major limb amputations is often a clinical challenge in a patient population consisting mainly of elderly with underlying diseases. Literature on management of acute post-amputation pain is scarce. We performed a systematic review on this topic to evaluate the efficacy and safety of analgesic interventions for acute pain following major limb amputation.Methods:A literature search was performed in PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews using the following key words: [(amputation) AND (pain OR analgesi* OR pain relief)] AND (acute OR postoperative). Randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and observational studies investigating treatment of acute pain following major amputations for any indication (peripheral vascular disease, malignant disease, trauma) were included. The review was performed according to the standards described in the PRISMA statement. The Cochrane quality assessment tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias in the RCTs.Results:Nineteen studies with total of 949 patients were included. The studies were generally small and heterogeneous on outcomes, study designs and quality. There were 16 studies on epidural or continuous perineural analgesia (CPI). Based on five RCTs (n=268) and two observational studies (n=49), epidural analgesia decreased the intensity of acute stump pain as compared to systemic analgesics, during the first 24 h after the operation. Based on one study epidural analgesia caused more adverse effects like sedation, nausea and motor block than continuous perineural local anesthetic infusion. Based on one RCT (n=21) and eight observational studies (n=501) CPI seemed to decrease opioid consumption as compared to systemic analgesics only, on the first three postoperative days, and was well tolerated. Only three trials investigated systemic analgesics (oral memantine, oral gabapentine, iv ketamine). Ketamine did not decrease acute pain or opioid consumption after amputation as compared to other systemic analgesics. Gabapentin did not decrease acute pain when combined to epidural analgesia as compared to epidural analgesia and opioid treatment, and caused adverse effects.Conclusions:The main finding of this systematic review is that evidence regarding pain management after major limb amputation is very limited. Epidural analgesia may be effective, but firm evidence is lacking. Epidural causes more adverse effects than CPI. The results on efficacy of CPI are indecisive. The data on adjuvant medications combined to epidural analgesia or CPI is limited. Studies on efficacy and adverse effects of systemic analgesics for amputation pain, especially concentrating on elderly patients, are needed.


2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 324-327 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamed Abd El Bagi ◽  
Badr Almutairi ◽  
Sami Alsolamy

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (17) ◽  
pp. 3978
Author(s):  
Yee Sin Seak ◽  
Junainah Nor ◽  
Tuan Hairulnizam Tuan Kamauzaman ◽  
Ariff Arithra ◽  
Md Asiful Islam

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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (spe) ◽  
Author(s):  
Antonio Rosa de Sousa Neto ◽  
Ana Raquel Batista de Carvalho ◽  
Erika Morganna Neves de Oliveira ◽  
Rosilane de Lima Brito Magalhães ◽  
Maria Eliete Batista Moura ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT Objective To identify symptoms of COVID-19 in adults in the scientific literature. Method Systematic review of studies published from December 1, 2019 to April 21, 2020 from the Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed databases, in order to answer the following research question: “What are the symptoms caused by COVID-19 in adults?” using the keywords “Symptoms”, “Clinical Manifestations”, “Coronavirus”, “COVID-19”. Results Of the total 105 references, 13 references that addressed the symptoms of COVID-19 were selected. Fever and normal or dry cough were symptoms present in all studies. Conclusion The symptoms identified in adult patients were fever, normal or dry cough, headache, pharyngalgia, dyspnea, diarrhea, myalgia, vomiting, sputum or expectoration, anxiety or chest pain, fatigue, nausea, anorexia, abdominal pain, rhinorrhea, runny nose or nasal congestion, dizziness, chills, systemic pain, mental confusion, hemoptysis, asthma, taste disorder, smell disorder, belching and tachycardia.


Medical Care ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 53 (12) ◽  
pp. 1000-1009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adil A. Shah ◽  
Cheryl K. Zogg ◽  
Syed Nabeel Zafar ◽  
Eric B. Schneider ◽  
Lisa A. Cooper ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (9) ◽  
pp. 678-683 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsten J de Burlet ◽  
Andrew J Ing ◽  
Peter D Larsen ◽  
Elizabeth R Dennett

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (10) ◽  
pp. 1086-1097 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Karlow ◽  
Charles H. Schlaepfer ◽  
Carolyn R. T. Stoll ◽  
Michelle Doering ◽  
Christopher R. Carpenter ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 104 (Suppl. 1) ◽  
pp. S40-S43

Background: Abdominal pain is a common complaint for patients revisiting the Emergency Department (ED). Evaluating the cause of the revisit can improve the quality of ED patient care. Objective: We aimed to analyzed unscheduled revisits after diagnosis of abdominal pain at emergency department. Materials and Methods: In order to determine the characteristics of their abdominal pain and the causes for the revisits, the charts of 90 patients were reviewed. These patients had experienced acute abdominal pain and had returned to the Emergency Department within 48 hours after their initial treatment during the period between January 2019 and December 2019. Results: During that time period, 44,000 patients visited the ED. Of these, 90 patients (0.2%) with acute abdominal pain or related symptoms had revisited the ED within the following 48 hours. Most of these patients had been 20 to 60 years of age and had had no co-morbid diseases. Almost half of patient revisits had occurred during the evening shift (45.6%). There were 74% of these patients, who had been admitted to hospital for observation or for procedures. No in-hospital mortality was reported for this study. The signs and symptoms of abdominal pain in these patients had not been specific. The factors, which most often contributed to the ED revisits, had been inappropriate consultations and inappropriate discharges or advises. Conclusion: The majority of the acute abdominal pain patients, who revisited the ED within 48 hours, had been admitted. The most common cause of revisits had been inappropriate consultations and inappropriate discharges. Improving ED patient care can be managed by contributing to effective consultations and to establishing an effective discharge system for the ED. Keywords: Revisits, Emergency medicine department, Acute abdominal pain


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document