Search

Study Objective: We compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous lidocaine with that of hydromorphone for the treatment of acute abdominal pain in the emergency department (ED)., Methods: This 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., Results: We 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)., Conclusion: Intravenous 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., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To test the hypothesis that oxycodone/acetaminophen provides analgesia superior to codeine/acetaminophen following emergency department (ED) discharge., Design: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, trial., Setting: Adult inner city ED., Subjects: ED patients with acute extremity pain who were discharged home., Methods: Patients randomized to oxycodone/acetaminophen (5 mg/325 mg) or codeine/acetaminophen (30 mg/300 mg). The primary outcome, obtained via telephone one day after ED discharge, was the between-group difference in improvement in numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores over a 2-hour period following the most recent ingestion of study drug. Secondary outcomes included proportion of patients with >50% pain reduction, side-effect profile, and patient satisfaction., Results: Two hundred and forty patients were enrolled. Mean baseline NRS scores were 7.9 in both groups. Mean decrease over 2 hours was 4.5 NRS units in the oxycodone/acetaminophen group vs 4.2 NRS units in the codeine/acetaminophen group, for a clinically and statistically nonsignificant difference of 0.2 NRS units (95% CI -0.4-0.9 NRS units). Similarly, 66% vs 61% achieved >50% pain relief for a nonsignificant difference of 5% (95% CI -8% to 17%). Side-effect profile and patient satisfaction were similar., Conclusion: Our hypothesis that oxycodone/acetaminophen provides analgesia superior to codeine/acetaminophen was rejected. Although pain within each group was reduced by more than half, the between-group difference was not significant. Pending independent validation, these unexpected findings suggest that codeine/acetaminophen, a Schedule III agent, may be a clinically reasonable outpatient opioid alternative to oxycodone/acetaminophen, a more tightly restricted Schedule II agent thought to be more prone to misuse., (Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Study Objective: We test the null hypothesis that the "1+1" hydromorphone patient-driven protocol is clinically and statistically equivalent in safety and efficacy to that of traditional physician-driven administration of opioids for emergency department (ED) treatment of acute severe pain., Methods: This was a prospective randomized clinical trial of nonelderly adults presenting to an urban academic ED with acute pain of sufficient severity to warrant intravenous (IV) opioids in the judgment of the attending physician. Patients randomized to the 1+1 hydromorphone patient-driven protocol received 1 mg IV hydromorphone followed by a second 1-mg dose 15 minutes later if the patient responded affirmatively to the question, "Do you want more pain medication?" Patients in the physician-driven group received any IV opioid in the dose chosen by the ED attending physician, with any additional analgesia provided at the discretion of that physician. The primary outcome was the difference in improvement in pain between the 2 groups at 60 minutes, as measured by a validated and reproducible numeric rating scale. Secondary outcomes included incidence of oxygen desaturation, hypoventilation, hypotension, bradycardia, nausea, vomiting, pruritus, and use of naloxone., Results: The mean decrease in numeric rating scale pain scores for the 1+1 hydromorphone patient-driven group was 5.6 versus 4.5 in the physician-driven group. The difference of 1.1 numeric rating scale units (95% confidence interval 0.3 to 1.9) was statistically significant but fell 0.2 numeric rating scale units short of the 1.3 numeric rating scale unit threshold required to attain clinically significant efficacy. Safety profiles were similarly satisfactory in both groups. Ninety-four percent of the 1+1 hydromorphone patient-driven group achieved adequate analgesia (as defined by the patient) within 60 minutes of protocol initiation., Conclusion: The 1+1 hydromorphone patient-driven protocol is statistically superior and at least as clinically efficacious and safe as traditional physician-driven treatment of ED patients with acute severe pain. More than 9 of 10 patients randomized to the study protocol achieved satisfactory pain control, as defined by the patient, within an hour or less.