Sultan Tuna Akgol Gur1, Elif Oral Ahiskalioglu2,3, Muhammed Enes Aydin4,5, Abdullah Osman Kocak1, Pelin Aydin6, Ali Ahiskalioglu4,5. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Ataturk University School of Medicine, Erzurum, Turkey. 2. Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Ataturk University School of Medicine, 25070, Erzurum, Turkey. drelforl@hotmail.com. 3. Clinical Research, Development and Design Application and Research Center, Ataturk University School of Medicine, 25240, Erzurum, Turkey. drelforl@hotmail.com. 4. Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Ataturk University School of Medicine, 25070, Erzurum, Turkey. 5. Clinical Research, Development and Design Application and Research Center, Ataturk University School of Medicine, 25240, Erzurum, Turkey. 6. Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Erzurum State Hospital, Erzurum, Turkey.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although different forms of lidocaine are used for migraine attack headaches, the effect of intravenous lidocaine is still limited. This study aimed to investigate the effects of intravenous lidocaine infusion for the treatment of migraine attack headaches. METHODS: A hundred patients with migraine attacks, aged between 18 and 65, were randomly divided into two groups. The lidocaine group (n = 50) received a 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine bolus and a 1 mg/kg infusion (first 30 min), followed by a 0.5 mg/kg infusion for a further 30 min intravenously. The non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) group (n = 50) received 50 mg dexketoprofen trometamol and saline at the same volume as the lidocaine at the same time intervals intravenously. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores, additional analgesia requirement, side effects, and revisits to the emergency department were recorded. RESULTS: The VAS score was significantly lower in the lidocaine group than in the NSAID group for the first 20th and 30th minutes (p = 0.014 and p = 0.024, respectively). There was no difference between the VAS scores for the remaining evaluation times (p > 0.05). In terms of secondary outcomes, rescue medication requirement was not different between the two groups at both the 60th and 90th minutes (p > 0.05). However, the number of patients revisiting ED within 48-72 h was statistically less in the lidocaine group than in the NSAID group (1/50 vs. 8/50; p = 0.031). CONCLUSION: Intravenous lidocaine may be an alternative treatment method for patients with migraine attack headaches in the emergency department.
PURPOSE: Although different forms of lidocaine are used for migraine attack headaches, the effect of intravenous lidocaine is still limited. This study aimed to investigate the effects of intravenous lidocaine infusion for the treatment of migraine attack headaches. METHODS: A hundred patients with migraine attacks, aged between 18 and 65, were randomly divided into two groups. The lidocaine group (n = 50) received a 1.5 mg/kg lidocaine bolus and a 1 mg/kg infusion (first 30 min), followed by a 0.5 mg/kg infusion for a further 30 min intravenously. The non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) group (n = 50) received 50 mg dexketoprofen trometamol and saline at the same volume as the lidocaine at the same time intervals intravenously. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores, additional analgesia requirement, side effects, and revisits to the emergency department were recorded. RESULTS: The VAS score was significantly lower in the lidocaine group than in the NSAID group for the first 20th and 30th minutes (p = 0.014 and p = 0.024, respectively). There was no difference between the VAS scores for the remaining evaluation times (p > 0.05). In terms of secondary outcomes, rescue medication requirement was not different between the two groups at both the 60th and 90th minutes (p > 0.05). However, the number of patients revisiting ED within 48-72 h was statistically less in the lidocaine group than in the NSAID group (1/50 vs. 8/50; p = 0.031). CONCLUSION: Intravenous lidocaine may be an alternative treatment method for patients with migraine attack headaches in the emergency department.
Authors: Trisha Benish; Danny Villalobos; Sue Love; Monica Casmaer; Curtis J Hunter; Shane M Summers; Michael D April Journal: J Emerg Med Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 1.484