-
Drugs & Aging Jun 2017There is substantial evidence that the use of opioids increases the risk of adverse outcomes such as delirium, but whether this risk differs between the various opioids... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
There is substantial evidence that the use of opioids increases the risk of adverse outcomes such as delirium, but whether this risk differs between the various opioids remains controversial. In this systematic review, we evaluate and discuss possible differences in the risk of delirium from the use of various types of opioids in older patients.
METHODS
We performed a search in MEDLINE by combining search terms on delirium and opioids. A specific search filter for use in geriatric medicine was used. Quality was scored according to the quality assessment for cohort studies of the Dutch Cochrane Institute.
RESULTS
Six studies were included, all performed in surgical departments and all observational. No study was rated high quality, one was rated moderate quality, and five were rated low quality. Information about dose, route, and timing of administration of the opioid was frequently missing. Pain and other important risk factors of delirium were often not taken into account. Use of tramadol or meperidine was associated with an increased risk of delirium, whereas the use of morphine, fentanyl, oxycodone, and codeine were not, when compared with no opioid. Meperidine was also associated with an increased risk of delirium compared with other opioids, whereas tramadol was not. The risk of delirium appeared to be lower with hydromorphone or fentanyl, compared with other opioids. Numbers used for comparisons were small.
CONCLUSION
Some data suggest that meperidine may lead to a higher perioperative risk for delirium; however, high-quality studies that compare different opioids are lacking. Further comparative research is needed.
Topics: Aged; Analgesics, Opioid; Delirium; Humans; Hydromorphone; Meperidine; Morphine; Oxycodone; Pain; Pain Measurement; Risk Factors; Tramadol
PubMed: 28405945
DOI: 10.1007/s40266-017-0455-9 -
Clinical Gastroenterology and... Feb 2017Even though propofol use for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures has increased over the past decade, there is a perception that it causes a higher rate of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND & AIMS
Even though propofol use for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures has increased over the past decade, there is a perception that it causes a higher rate of cardiopulmonary adverse events. The aim of this study was to compare the sedation-related adverse events associated with use of propofol vs nonpropofol agents for endoscopic procedures. We also wanted to determine the influence of duration or complexity of the procedures and endoscopist-directed (gastroenterologist) vs non-gastroenterologist-directed sedation on the outcomes.
METHODS
A search was conducted using Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane controlled trials registry. The following cardiopulmonary adverse events were assessed: hypoxia, hypotension, and arrhythmias. The procedures were divided into 2 groups based on the procedure length: a nonadvanced endoscopic procedure group consisting of esophagogastroduodenoscopy, colonoscopy, and sigmoidoscopy, and an advanced endoscopic procedures group including endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic ultrasonography, balloon enteroscopy, and endoscopic submucosal dissection. Pooled odds ratios for complications were calculated for all the procedures combined and then separately for the 2 groups. Random-effects models were used for 2-proportion comparisons.
RESULTS
Of the 2117 citations identified, 27 original studies qualified for this meta-analysis and included 2518 patients. Of these, 1324 received propofol, and 1194 received midazolam, meperidine, pethidine, remifentanil, and/or fentanyl. Most of the included studies were randomized trials of moderate quality and nonsignificant heterogeneity (Cochran Q, 26.07; P = .13). Compared with traditional sedative agents, the pooled odds ratio with the use of propofol for developing hypoxia for all the procedures combined was 0.82 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-1.07), and for developing hypotension was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.64-1.32). In the nonadvanced endoscopic procedure group, those who received propofol were 39% less likely to develop complications than those receiving traditional sedative agents (odds ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.38-0.99). There was no difference in the complication rate for the advanced endoscopic procedure group (odds ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.56-1.34). A subgroup analysis did not show any difference in adverse events when propofol was administered by gastroenterologists or nongastroenterologists.
CONCLUSIONS
Propofol sedation has a similar risk of cardiopulmonary adverse events compared with traditional agents for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. Propofol use in simple endoscopic procedures was associated with a decreased number of complications. When used for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures of a complex nature and longer duration, propofol was not associated with increased rates of hypoxemia, hypotension, or arrhythmias. Administration of propofol by gastroenterologists does not appear to increase the complication rates.
Topics: Anesthesia; Anesthetics, Intravenous; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Humans; Hypotension; Hypoxia; Propofol; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 27451091
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.07.013 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2015Agitation is a common experience for people living with dementia, particularly as day-to-day function and cognition start to decline more. At the present time there are... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Agitation is a common experience for people living with dementia, particularly as day-to-day function and cognition start to decline more. At the present time there are limited pharmacological options for relieving agitation and little is known about the safety and efficacy of opioid drugs in this setting.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the clinical efficacy and safety of opioids for agitation in people with dementia.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched ALOIS, the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group Specialized Register, on 13 June 2014 using the terms: narcotic OR opioid OR opium OR morphine OR buprenorphine OR codeine OR dextromoramide OR diphenoxylate OR dipipanone OR dextropropoxyphene OR propoxyphene OR diamorphine OR dihydrocodeine OR alfentanil OR fentanyl OR remifentanil OR meptazinol OR methadone OR nalbuphine OR oxycodone OR papaveretum OR pentazocine OR meperidine OR pethidine OR phenazocine OR hydrocodone OR hydromorphone OR levorphanol OR oxymorphone OR butorphanol OR dezocine OR sufentanil OR ketobemidone.ALOIS contains records of clinical trials identified from monthly searches of a number of major healthcare databases such as MEDLINE, EMBASE and PscyINFO, as well as numerous trial registries and grey literature sources.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, controlled trials of opioids compared to placebo for agitation in people with dementia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed the studies identified by the search against the inclusion criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
There are currently no completed randomised, placebo controlled trials of opioids for agitation in dementia. There are two potentially relevant trials still in progress.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found insufficient evidence to establish the clinical efficacy and safety of opioids for agitation in people with dementia. There remains a lack of data to determine if or when opioids either relieve or exacerbate agitation. More evidence is needed to guide the effective, appropriate and safe use of opioids in dementia.
Topics: Analgesics, Opioid; Dementia; Humans; Psychomotor Agitation
PubMed: 25972091
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009705.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2015According to current recommendations a multimodal approach is believed to be the gold standard for postoperative pain treatment in children. However, several surveys in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
According to current recommendations a multimodal approach is believed to be the gold standard for postoperative pain treatment in children. However, several surveys in the last few years demonstrated that postoperative pain in children is still a serious problem, mainly because opioids are avoided. One of the reasons for this is the fear of severe adverse events following opioid administration. Tramadol is a weak mu-opioid agonist and inhibits reuptake of noradrenaline and serotonin (5HT). Because of a relatively wide therapeutic window and a ceiling effect with a lower risk for severe adverse events (for example respiratory depression) tramadol is a widely used opioid in children. However, the exact efficacy and occurrence of adverse events following tramadol (in comparison with placebo or other opioids) for postoperative pain treatment in children and adolescents are currently not clear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and side effect profile of tramadol for postoperative pain relief in children and adolescents undergoing different surgical procedures.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 6), MEDLINE via PubMed (January 1966 to July 2014) and EMBASE via Ovid (January 1947 to July 2014). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. The reference lists of all included trials were checked for additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled clinical trials investigating the perioperative administration of tramadol compared to placebo or other opioids for postoperative pain treatment in children and adolescents were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently assessed the study eligibility, performed the data extraction and assessed the risk of bias of included trials.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty randomised controlled trials involving 1170 patients were included in this systematic review. The overall risk of bias in included trials was assessed as unclear, because concealment of allocation processes and blinding of outcome assessors were poorly described. Due to inconsistent outcome reporting, data from 17 included trials could be pooled for some endpoints only. Eight trials compared tramadol administration with placebo and five trials found that the need for rescue analgesia in the postoperative care unit (PACU) was reduced in children receiving tramadol (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.20 to 0.78; low quality evidence). Only one trial investigated the number of patients with moderate to severe pain, but a non-validated pain scale was used (very low quality evidence). Four trials compared morphine with tramadol administration. There was no clear evidence of difference in the need for rescue analgesia in the PACU (RR 1.25; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.89; low quality evidence) with tramadol compared with morphine. No trials could be pooled for the outcome 'number of patients with moderate to severe pain'. Three trials were included for the comparison of tramadol with nalbuphine. There was no clear evidence for the need for rescue analgesia in the PACU (RR 0,63; 95% CI 0.16 to 2.45; low quality evidence). Only one trial reported the number of patients with moderate to severe pain, but used a non-validated pain scale (very low quality evidence). Two out of six included trials, which compared pethidine with tramadol, reported the number of children with a need for rescue analgesia within the PACU and showed no clear evidence (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.43 to 2.02; very low quality evidence). Two trials reported the number of patients with moderate to severe pain and showed a lower RR in patients treated with tramadol (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.36 to 1.16; low quality evidence). Only one trial was included, which compared tramadol with fentanyl, reporting the number of patients with the need for rescue analgesia (very low quality evidence). Generally, adverse events were poorly reported. Most data could be pooled for the comparison with placebo focusing on the RR for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in the postoperative care unit and 24 h postoperation. Children treated with tramadol, compared to placebo, did not show clear evidence of benefit for PONV in the postoperative care unit (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.28 to 2.52; moderate quality evidence) and 24 h postoperation (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.54 to 1.12; moderate quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The overall evidence regarding tramadol for postoperative pain in children is currently low or very low and should be interpreted with caution due to small studies and methodological problems (different validated and non-validated pain scales with different pain triggers, missing sample size calculations and missing intention-to-treat analysis). Nevertheless, we demonstrated that tramadol administration might provide appropriate analgesia when compared to placebo; this is based on results showing reduced rescue analgesia in children treated with tramadol compared to placebo. In contrast, the evidence regarding the comparison with other opioids (for example morphine) was uncertain. Adverse events were only poorly reported, so an accurate risk-benefit analysis was not possible.
Topics: Adolescent; Analgesics, Opioid; Child; Child, Preschool; Female; Fentanyl; Humans; Infant; Male; Meperidine; Morphine; Nalbuphine; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tramadol
PubMed: 25785365
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009574.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2014Several surveys over the past few years have demonstrated that postoperative pain in children is not treated appropriately. One pharmacological treatment option in a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Several surveys over the past few years have demonstrated that postoperative pain in children is not treated appropriately. One pharmacological treatment option in a multimodal approach for postoperative pain treatment is the systemic administration of opioids. However, opioids are rarely used for postoperative pain treatment in children due to fear of adverse events. One long-standing opioid for systemic use is nalbuphine, a kappa-receptor agonist and µ-receptor antagonist. The efficacy of nalbuphine is believed to be similar to morphine. Increased dosing might result in a ceiling effect, and thus less analgesia than expected. In addition, there might be a lower risk for opioid-induced side effects (nausea, vomiting) and severe adverse events (respiratory depression) due to the antagonistic effect of the µ-receptor. Nalbuphine may be an useful opioid for postoperative use in children, but exact efficacy (e.g. compared to other commonly used opioids) has not been determined yet.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and adverse events of nalbuphine for acute postoperative pain treatment in children undergoing surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We systematically searched the following databases: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 7), MEDLINE via Pubmed (January 1966 to July 2013) and EMBASE via Ovid (January 1947 to July 2013). We did not impose any restrictions regarding language or publication date. We checked all reference lists of retrieved articles for additional references.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating nalbuphine compared with placebo or other opioids were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently scanned the retrieved articles and made a decision regarding inclusion or exclusion of studies for this review. The same authors also performed the data extraction and the assessment of risk of bias.
MAIN RESULTS
Ten RCTs including 658 patients were finally included in this systematic review. Five trials compared nalbuphine with placebo. Data from one out of five studies for the outcome moderate/severe pain following nalbuphine compared to placebo gave a risk ratio (RR) 1 hour postoperatively (postop) of 0.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 0.71; low quality evidence) and a RR 2 hours postop of 0.14 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.06; low quality evidence). The estimated RR based on data from a single study indicated that nalbuphine reduced the requirement for analgesia two hours postop (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.27 to 0.84; low quality evidence). Two included trials compared nalbuphine with morphine and showed a nonsignificant lower or comparable RR for moderate/severe pain at 1 hour postop (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.12 to 5.74; low quality evidence), and 2 hours postop (RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.59 to 2.01; low quality evidence) for nalbuphine versus morphine. Four trials compared nalbuphine with tramadol for postoperative pain; data from one trial (per outcome) revealed a lower but nonsignificant RR for the need of additional rescue analgesics in children receiving nalbuphine (RR 2 hours postop 0.75; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.43; low quality evidence) (RR 12 hours postop 0.33; 95% CI 0.04 to 2.77; low quality evidence). One out of three trials comparing nalbuphine with pethidine demonstrated that the RR was not significantly lower following nalbuphine administration compared to pethidine (RR 2 hours postop 1.07; 95% CI 0.52 to 2.23; low quality evidence) (RR 24 hours postop 1.13; 95% CI 0.52 to 2.44; very low quality evidence). The most common adverse event was postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). Only one included trial reported that the RR for PONV in the postoperative care unit (PACU) was not significantly higher following nalbuphine compared to placebo (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.16 to 6.42; low quality evidence) nor to morphine (RR 1.33; 95% CI 0.64 to 2.77; low quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Because the overall quality of available evidence was low, this systematic review could not definitively show that the analgesic efficacy of nalbuphine is superior compared to placebo. Furthermore, due to the lack of significant results the comparison with other common opioids is also unclear. The same holds true for the evidence focusing on adverse events following nalbuphine compared to placebo or other opioid administration. The evidence is limited, because studies did not report conclusively all important postoperative pain outcomes (e.g. number of patients with the need for rescue analgesia, postoperative pain scores). Thus, a quantitative analysis was not possible for many major aspects (e.g. rescue analgesia, pain scores) and heterogeneity could not be further explored.
Topics: Adolescent; Analgesics, Opioid; Child; Child, Preschool; Humans; Meperidine; Morphine; Nalbuphine; Pain, Postoperative; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tramadol; Young Adult
PubMed: 25079857
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009583.pub2 -
Cephalalgia : An International Journal... Mar 2015There is a considerable amount of practice variation in managing migraines in emergency settings, and evidence-based therapies are often not used first line. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
There is a considerable amount of practice variation in managing migraines in emergency settings, and evidence-based therapies are often not used first line.
METHODS
A peer-reviewed search of databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL) was carried out to identify randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials of interventions for acute pain relief in adults presenting with migraine to emergency settings. Where possible, data were pooled into meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Two independent reviewers screened 831 titles and abstracts for eligibility. Three independent reviewers subsequently evaluated 120 full text articles for inclusion, of which 44 were included. Individual studies were then assigned a US Preventive Services Task Force quality rating. The GRADE scheme was used to assign a level of evidence and recommendation strength for each intervention.
INTERPRETATION
We strongly recommend the use of prochlorperazine based on a high level of evidence, lysine acetylsalicylic acid, metoclopramide and sumatriptan, based on a moderate level of evidence, and ketorolac, based on a low level of evidence. We weakly recommend the use of chlorpromazine based on a moderate level of evidence, and ergotamine, dihydroergotamine, lidocaine intranasal and meperidine, based on a low level of evidence. We found evidence to recommend strongly against the use of dexamethasone, based on a moderate level of evidence, and granisetron, haloperidol and trimethobenzamide based on a low level of evidence. Based on moderate-quality evidence, we recommend weakly against the use of acetaminophen and magnesium sulfate. Based on low-quality evidence, we recommend weakly against the use of diclofenac, droperidol, lidocaine intravenous, lysine clonixinate, morphine, propofol, sodium valproate and tramadol.
Topics: Canada; Emergency Medical Services; Humans; Migraine Disorders; Pain Management; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Societies, Medical; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24875925
DOI: 10.1177/0333102414535997 -
Headache Feb 2014Tension-type headache is highly prevalent in the general population and is a consistent if not frequent cause of visits to acute care settings. Analgesics such as... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Tension-type headache is highly prevalent in the general population and is a consistent if not frequent cause of visits to acute care settings. Analgesics such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, and salicylates are considered first-line therapy for treatment of tension-type headache. For patients who present to an acute care setting with persistent tension-type headache despite analgesic therapy, it is not clear which parenteral agent should be administered. We performed a systematic review of the medical literature to determine whether parenteral therapies other than salicylates or nonsteroidals are efficacious for acute tension-type headache.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review of Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Google scholar, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials from inception through August, 2012 using the search terms "tension-type headache" and "parenteral or subcutaneous or intramuscular or intravenous." Our goal was to identify randomized trials in which one parenteral treatment was compared to another active comparator or to placebo for the acute relief of tension-type headache. Parenteral was defined as intravenous, intramuscular, or subcutaneous administration. We only included studies that distinguished tension-type headache from other primary headache disorders, such as migraine. The primary outcome for this review was measures of efficacy one hour after medication administration. Data abstraction was performed by two authors. Disagreements were resolved by a third author. We assessed the internal validity of trials using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Because of the small number of trials identified, and the substantial heterogeneity among study design and medications, we decided that combining data and reporting summary statistics would serve no useful function. The results of individual studies are presented using Number Needed to Treat (NNT) with 95%CI when dichotomous outcomes were available and continuous outcomes otherwise.
RESULTS
Our search returned 640 results. One hundred eighty-seven abstracts were reviewed, and 8 studies involving 486 patients were included in our analysis. The most common reasons for exclusion of abstracts were no assessment of acute pain relief, use of nonparenteral medications only, and no differentiation of headache type. Risk of bias ranged from low to high. The following medications were more effective than placebo for acute pain (NNT, 95%CI): metamizole (4, 2-26), chlorpromazine (4, 2-26), and metoclopramide (2, 1-3). The combination of metoclopramide + diphenhydramine was superior to ketorolac (4, 2-8) The following medications were not more effective than placebo: mepivacaine, meperidine + promethazine, and sumatriptan.
CONCLUSIONS
Various parenteral medications other than salicylates or nonsteroidals provide acute relief of tension-type headache. Comparative efficacy studies are needed.
Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Chlorpromazine; Dipyrone; Humans; Injections, Intramuscular; Injections, Subcutaneous; Metoclopramide; Tension-Type Headache; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24433525
DOI: 10.1111/head.12287 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2013Acute pancreatitis is an acute inflammatory process of the pancreas that may also involve adjacent tissues and/or remote organ systems. Abdominal pain is the main... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acute pancreatitis is an acute inflammatory process of the pancreas that may also involve adjacent tissues and/or remote organ systems. Abdominal pain is the main symptom and is usually accompanied by nausea, vomiting and fever. Opoids are commonly used to manage pain in acute pancreatitis but there are still some uncertainties about their clinical effectiveness and safety.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of opioids for treating acute pancreatitis pain.
SEARCH METHODS
The search strategy included the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases Review Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (2013, Issue 6), MEDLINE (from 1950 to June 2013) and EMBASE (from 1980 to June 2013). There were no restrictions by language or publication status.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We considered randomised clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of any opioid drug used for treating acute pancreatitis pain.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risks of bias and extracted data. We estimated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and calculated a 95% confidence interval (CI) for each RR. We performed an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. We undertook meta-analysis for some outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five RCTs with a total of 227 participants (age range 23 to 76 years; 65% men) with acute pancreatitis pain. The opioids assessed were intravenous and intramuscular buprenorphine, intramuscular pethidine, intravenous pentazocine, transdermal fentanyl and subcutaneous morphine.One RCT, comparing subcutaneous morphine with intravenous metamizole reported non-significant reduction in the number of participants with improvements in pain intensity (primary outcome) (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.33). Three studies compared analgesia using opioids with non-opioid treatments. After excluding one study that used opioids through continuous intravenous infusion, there was a decrease in the number of patients requiring supplementary analgesia (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.93). In a single study, there were no differences in the number of patients requiring supplementary analgesia between buprenorphine and pethidine (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.10).Pancreatitis complications were not associated with a significant difference between the drugs tested. No clinically serious or life-threatening adverse events occurred related to treatment. No differences for this outcome were found between opioid and non-opioid treatments, or for type of adverse event (nausea-vomiting and somnolence-sedation). One death in the procaine group was reported across all the trials.One RCT comparing pethidine with intramuscular buprenorphine reported non-significant differences of supplementary analgesic, adverse events or deaths. One RCT comparing fentanyl with placebo found no difference in adverse events.The findings of this review are limited by the lack of information to allow full appraisal of the risk of bias, the measurement of relevant outcomes and the small numbers of participants and events covered by the trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Opioids may be an appropriate choice in the treatment of acute pancreatitis pain. Compared with other analgesic options, opioids may decrease the need for supplementary analgesia. There is currently no difference in the risk of pancreatitis complications or clinically serious adverse events between opioids and other analgesia options.Future research should focus on the design of trials with larger samples and the measurement of relevant outcomes for decision-making, such as the number of participants showing reductions in pain intensity. The reporting of these RCTs should also be improved to allow users of the medical literature to appraise their results accurately. Large longitudinal studies are also needed to establish the risk of pancreatitis complications and adverse events related to drugs.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Acute Disease; Analgesics, Opioid; Buprenorphine; Fentanyl; Humans; Meperidine; Morphine; Pancreatitis; Pentazocine; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 23888429
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009179.pub2 -
Pancreatology : Official Journal of the... 2013To assess the efficiency and safety of parenteral analgesics for pain relief in acute pancreatitis. (Review)
Review
AIM
To assess the efficiency and safety of parenteral analgesics for pain relief in acute pancreatitis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We carried out an electronic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, WEIPU, CNKI and CBM and a manual search for eligible studies. The methodological quality of included trials and quality of evidence were examined by the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias and GRADE, respectively. The data were mainly analyzed descriptively and some were pooled by Review manager 5.
RESULTS
Eight randomized controlled trials with a total of 356 patients were finally included in this systematic review. Compared with procaine, pentazocine led to lower pain severity: day 1, Mean Difference (MD), 95%CI: 40.0 [35.3, 44.7]; day 2, MD, 95%CI: 24.00 [20.88, 27.12]; day 3, MD, 95%CI: 5.00 [2.17, 7.83], and it decreased the requirement for additional analgesics, Relative Risk, 95%CI: 2.23 [1.63, 3.05]. The combination of fentanyl, atropine, droperidol and lidocaine rendered lower pain score: day 1, MD, 95%CI: -5.46 [-6.95, -3.97]; day 2, MD, 95%CI: -5.78 [-7.39, -4.17]. Patients treated with metamizole tended to had lower pain than those treated with morphine, MD, 95%CI: -2.60 [-2.95, -2.25]. Nausea, emesis and vomiting were the common adverse events reported and there was almost no significant difference between different agents on safety.
CONCLUSIONS
The systemic review showed that the randomized controlled trials comparing different analgesics were of low quality and did not favor clearly any particular analgesic for pain relief in acute pancreatitis.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Adult; Analgesics; Atropine; Buprenorphine; Dipyrone; Droperidol; Drug Combinations; Female; Fentanyl; Humans; Lidocaine; Male; Meperidine; Middle Aged; Morphine; Pain Management; Pancreatitis; Pentazocine
PubMed: 23719588
DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2013.02.003 -
Headache Feb 2013This systematic review examined the effectiveness of parenteral ketorolac (KET) in acute migraine. Acute migraine headaches are common emergency department... (Review)
Review
This systematic review examined the effectiveness of parenteral ketorolac (KET) in acute migraine. Acute migraine headaches are common emergency department presentations, and despite evidence for various treatments, there is conflicting evidence regarding the use of KET. Searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL, and gray literature sources were conducted. Included studies were randomized controlled trials in which KET alone or in combination with abortive therapy was compared with placebo or other standard therapy in adult patients with acute migraine. Two reviewers assessed relevance, inclusion, and study quality independently, and agreement was measured using kappa (k). Weighted mean differences (WMD) and relative risks are reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Overall, the computerized search identified 418 citations and 1414 gray literature citations. From a list of 34 potentially relevant studies (k = 0.915), 8 trials were included, involving over 321 (141 KET) patients. The median quality scores were 3 (interquartile range: 2-4), and two used concealed allocation. There were no baseline differences in 10-point pain scores (WMD = 0.07; 95% CI: -0.39, 0.54). KET and meperidine resulted in similar pain scores at 60 minutes (WMD = 0.31; -0.68, 1.29); however, KET was more effective than intranasal sumatriptan (WMD = -4.07; 95% CI: -6.02 to -2.12). While there was no difference in pain relief at 60 minutes between KET and phenothiazine agents (WMD = 0.82; 95% CI: -1.33 to 2.98), heterogeneity was high (I(2) = 70%). Side effect profiles were similar between KET and comparison groups. Overall, KET is an effective alternative agent for the relief of acute migraine headache in the emergency department. KET results in similar pain relief, and is less potentially addictive than meperidine and more effective than sumatriptan; however, it may not be as effective as metoclopramide/phenothiazine agents.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Databases, Bibliographic; Humans; Ketorolac; Migraine Disorders; Pain Measurement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 23298250
DOI: 10.1111/head.12009