Elliott Chinn1, Benjamin W Friedman2, Farnia Naeem3, Eddie Irizarry4, Freda Afrifa5, Eleftheria Zias5, Michael P Jones1, Scott Pearlman4, Andrew Chertoff4, Andrew Wollowitz4, E John Gallagher4. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore, Bronx, NY; Department of Emergency Medicine, Jacobi Medical Center, Bronx, NY. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore, Bronx, NY. Electronic address: bwfriedmanmd@gmail.com. 3. Medical College, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore, Bronx, NY. 4. Department of Emergency Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore, Bronx, NY. 5. Pharmacy Department, Montefiore, Bronx, NY.
Abstract
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 receivedlidocaine 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.
RCT Entities:
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 lidocainepatients (51%) and 20 of 77 hydromorphonepatients (26%) (difference 25%; 95% confidence interval 10% to 40%). Adverse events were comparable between groups. Among the subset of 22 patients with nephrolithiasis, lidocainepatients reported a mean improvement of 3.4 points on the pain scale, whereas hydromorphonepatients 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.
Authors: David A Tanen; Mai Shimada; D Chris Danish; Frank Dos Santos; Martin Makela; Robert H Riffenburgh Journal: J Emerg Med Date: 2014-04-24 Impact factor: 1.484
Authors: Sultan Tuna Akgol Gur; Elif Oral Ahiskalioglu; Muhammed Enes Aydin; Abdullah Osman Kocak; Pelin Aydin; Ali Ahiskalioglu Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2021-09-16 Impact factor: 2.953