A randomized, double-blind study comparing morphine with fentanyl in prehospital analgesia

Alfentanil for Pain Relief in a Swedish Emergency Medical Service - An Eleven-Year Follow-up on Safety and Effect

OBJECTIVES

Pain is a common symptom in prehospital emergency care and pain treatment in this context can be challenging. While previous research has assessed the use of morphine and other synthetic opioids for pain management in this setting, the evaluation of alfentanil is limited. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and effect of intravenous alfentanil when administered by ambulance nurses in prehospital emergency care.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study consecutively included patients suffering from pain, treated with alfentanil in a Swedish EMS service from September 2011 to 31 September 2022. Data regarding occurrence of adverse events (AE), serious adverse events (SAE) - were used for safety evaluation and pain scores with a visual analogue scale (VAS) before and after treatment were used for evaluation of pain treatment. These data were extracted from the electronic patients' medical records database for analysis. Univariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify significant predictors of AE following injection of alfentanil by nurses in prehospital emergency care.

RESULTS

During the evaluation period 17,796 patients received pain relief with alfentanil. Adverse events affected 2.5% of the patients, while serious adverse events were identified in 25 cases (0.01%). Out of the 5970 patients with a complete VAS score for pain, the median VAS score was 8 (IQR 3) before treatment and 4 (IQR 3) after treatment. The mean reduction in pain measured by VAS was -4.1 ± 2.6 from the time before, to the evaluation after alfentanil administration. The administration frequency increased during the first year up to a steady level during the later part of the evaluation period.

CONCLUSIONS

This study proposes that alfentanil represents a safe and efficacious alternative for addressing urgent pain relief within the prehospital emergency context. Alfentanil demonstrates efficacy in alleviating pain across various conditions, with a relatively low risk of adverse events or serious adverse events when administered cautiously.

Wilderness Medical Society Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Acute Pain in Austere Environments: 2024 Update

The Wilderness Medical Society (WMS) convened an expert panel to develop evidence-based guidelines for the management of pain in austere environments. Recommendations are graded based on the quality of supporting evidence as defined by criteria put forth by the American College of Chest Physicians. This is an update of the 2014 version of the "WMS Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Acute Pain in Remote Environments" published in Wilderness & Environmental Medicine 2014; 25:41-49.

New Recommendations for the Care of Severely Injured Patients: Revision of the S3 Guideline on Treatment of Polytrauma/Severe Injuries

Die 3. Überarbeitung der S3-Leitlinie Polytrauma/Schwerverletzten-Behandlung wurde unter der Federführung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie (DGU) von insgesamt 26 Fachgesellschaften und Organisationen durchgeführt und stellt eine umfassende Aktualisierung der Handlungsempfehlungen zur Schwerverletzten-Versorgung auf Basis neuer wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnisse und Studien dar. Die Leitlinie enthält 332 Kernempfehlungen unterschiedlicher Empfehlungsgrade und dazugehörige Erläuterungen, die Expertenwissen und über 2400 zitierte Literaturstellen berücksichtigen und somit das höchste Niveau (S3) einer Leitlinie erfüllen. Die Änderungen, insbesondere zur Schockraumalarmierung, sind für den Rettungsdienst von besonderer Bedeutung. Zwei neue Kapitel mit Empfehlungen für die Blutstillung und Schmerzbehandlung in der prähospitalen Versorgung wurden hinzugefügt, insgesamt bleibt die Leitlinie ein wichtiger Standard für Entscheidungsfindungen bei Diagnostik und Therapie von Schwerverletzten.

The effect of age on clinical dose equivalency of fentanyl and morphine analgosedation in mechanically ventilated patients: Findings from the ANALGESIC trial

BACKGROUND

The dose equivalency of fentanyl vs. morphine is widely considered to be approximately 1:100. However, little is known about the effect of age on this ratio when these agents are used as infusions for analgosedation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of age on the clinical dose equivalency of fentanyl and morphine when used as infusions for analgosedation in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients.

METHODS

We performed a post hoc analysis of the Assessment of Opioid Administration to Lead to Analgesic Effects and Sedation in Intensive Care (ANALGESIC) cluster randomised crossover trial of fentanyl and morphine infusions for analgosedation. Dose and analgosedative clinical equivalency of fentanyl and morphine were assessed by age and by using different body-size descriptors.

RESULTS

We studied 663 patients (338 fentanyl, 325 morphine). Median (interquartile range) hourly dose of fentanyl and morphine were 58.1 (40.0-89.2) mcg and 3400 (2200-5000) mcg, respectively. The ratio of total dose of fentanyl:morphine was 1:93 in the 18- to 29-year-old group and 1:25 in the ≥80-year-old group (p = 0.015), respectively, with fentanyl becoming relatively less clinically effective as age increased. This effect was also seen when comparing dosing by different body-size descriptors with the strongest age-related change when using body surface area as body-size descriptor (p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

The analgosedative clinical dose equivalency of fentanyl vs. morphine is heterogeneous when used as infusions for analgosedation, with fentanyl becoming relatively less clinically effective as age increases. This information can help guide prescription of these agents during transition from one agent to the other in critically ill patients.

The Pain Management of Trauma Patients in the Emergency Department

The vast majority of injured patients suffer from pain. Systematic assessment of pain on admission to the emergency department (ED) is a cornerstone of translating the best treatment strategies for patient care into practice. Pain must be measured with severity scales that are validated in clinical practice, including for specific populations (such as children and older adults). Although primary care ED of trauma patients focuses on resuscitation, diagnosis and treatment, pain assessment and management remains a critical element as professionals are not prepared to provide effective and early therapy. To date, most EDs have pain assessment and management protocols that take into account the patient's hemodynamic status and clinical condition and give preference to non-pharmacological approaches where possible. When selecting medications, the focus is on those that are least disruptive to hemodynamic status. Pain relief may still be necessary in hemodynamically unstable patients, but caution should be exercised, especially when using opioids, as absorption may be impaired or shock may be exacerbated. The analgesic dose of ketamine is certainly an attractive option. Fentanyl is clearly superior to other opioids in initial resuscitation and treatment as it has minimal effects on hemodynamic status and does not cause central nervous system depression. Inhaled analgesia techniques and ultrasound-guided nerve blocks are also increasingly effective solutions. A multimodal pain approach, which involves the use of two or more drugs with different mechanisms of action, plays an important role in the relief of trauma pain. All EDs must have policies and promote the adoption of procedures that use multimodal strategies for effective pain management in all injured patients.

Intravenous acetaminophen with morphine versus intravenous morphine alone for acute pain in the emergency room: protocol for a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study (ADAMOPA)

BACKGROUND

In emergency medicine, pain is a frequent reason for consultation. However, there is a great variation in its management which is often insufficient. The use intravenous morphine alone or multimodal analgesia with paracetamol is recommended for severe pain. But robust data are lacking to justify the association of paracetamol with morphine versus morphine alone for pain management in the emergency room (ER). The aim of our study is therefore to assess if in patients with acute pain of moderate to severe intensity with a numerical verbal scale (NVS) ≥5 in the ER, the intravenous administration of morphine alone is not inferior to the administration of intravenous morphine combined with paracetamol at 30 min from the first administration of the study drug.

METHODS

ADAMOPA is a prospective, non-inferiority, multicenter, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, randomized (1:1), double-blind trial. Subjects will be enrolled in the ER if they experience moderate to severe, acute, non-traumatic, and traumatic pain, defined as an NVS ≥5. The primary endpoint will be the between-group difference in mean change in NVS pain scores among patients receiving the combination of intravenous morphine plus paracetamol or intravenous morphine given alone, measured from the time before administration of the study medication to 30 min later.

DISCUSSION

This trial will determine the clinical utility of the association of paracetamol with morphine for pain management in the emergency room. The ADAMOPA trial will be conducted in accordance with the International Council on Harmonization Good Clinical Practices.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT number: 2019-002149-39.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov identifier: NCT04148495. Date of trial registration: November 1, 2019.

Opioids for Treatment of Pre-hospital Acute Pain: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Acute pain is a frequent symptom among patients in the pre-hospital setting, and opioids are the most widely used class of drugs for the relief of pain in these patients. However, the evidence base for opioid use in this setting appears to be weak. The aim of this systematic review was to explore the efficacy and safety of opioid analgesics in the pre-hospital setting and to assess potential alternative therapies.

METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Scopus, and Epistemonikos databases were searched for studies investigating adult patients with acute pain prior to their arrival at hospital. Outcomes on efficacy and safety were assessed. Risk of bias for each included study was assessed according to the Cochrane approach, and confidence in the evidence was assessed using the GRADE method.

RESULTS

A total of 3453 papers were screened, of which the full text of 125 was assessed. Twelve studies were ultimately included in this systematic review. Meta-analysis was not undertaken due to substantial clinical heterogeneity among the included studies. Several studies had high risk of bias resulting in low or very low quality of evidence for most of the outcomes. No pre-hospital studies compared opioids with placebo, and no studies assessed the risk of opioid administration for subgroups of frail patients. The competency level of the attending healthcare provider did not seem to affect the efficacy or safety of opioids in two observational studies of very low quality. Intranasal opioids had a similar effect and safety profile as intravenous opioids. Moderate quality evidence supported a similar efficacy and safety of synthetic opioid compared to morphine.

CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence for pre-hospital opioid administration to relieve acute pain is scarce and the overall quality of evidence is low. Intravenous administration of synthetic, fast-acting opioids may be as effective and safe as intravenous administration of morphine. More controlled studies are needed on alternative routes for opioid administration and pre-hospital pain management for potentially more frail patient subgroups.

Hydroxyzine for lowering patient's anxiety during prehospital morphine analgesia: A prospective randomized double blind study

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Hydroxyzine is an antihistamine drug used for symptomatic relief of anxiety and tension. We hypothesized that managing the anxiety of patients with severe pain by adding hydroxyzine to a conventional intravenous morphine titration would relieve their pain more effectively.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, controlled group study of prehospital patients with acute pain scored greater than or equal to 6 on a 0-10 verbal numeric rating scale (NRS). Patients'anxiety was measured with the self-reported Face Anxiety Scale (FAS) ranking from 0 to 4. The percentage of patients with pain relief (NRS score ≤ 3) 15 min after the first injection was the primary outcome.

RESULTS

One hundred forty patients were enrolled. Fifty-one percent (95% CI 39% to 63%) of hydroxyzine patients versus 52% (95% CI 40% to 64%) of placebo patients reported a pain numeric rating scale score of 3 or lower at 15 min. Ninety-one percent (95% CI 83% to 98%) of patients receiving hydroxyzine reported no more severe anxiety versus 78% (95% CI 68% to 88%) of patients with placebo (p > 0.05). Adverse events were minor, with no difference between groups (6% in hydroxyzine patients and 14% in placebo patients).

CONCLUSION

Addition of hydroxyzine to morphine in the prehospital setting did not reduce pain or anxiety in patients with acute severe pain and therefore is not indicated based on our results.

[Analgesia for trauma patients in emergency medicine]

Adequate analgesia is one of the most important measures of emergency care in addition to treatment of vital function disorders and, if indicated, should be promptly undertaken; however, a large proportion of emergency patients receive no or only inadequate pain therapy. The numeric rating scale (NRS) is recommended for pain assessment but is not applicable to every group of patients; therefore, vital signs and body language should be included in the assessment. Pain therapy should reduce the NPRS to <5 points. Ketamine and fentanyl, which have an especially rapid onset of action, and also morphine are suitable for analgesia in spontaneously breathing patients. Basic prerequisites for safe and effective analgesia by healthcare professionals are the use of adequate monitoring, the provision of well-defined emergency equipment, and the mastery of emergency procedures. In a structured competence system, paramedics and nursing personnel can perform safe and effective analgesia.

Assessment of Pain Management During Interfacility Air Medical Transport of Intubated Patients

OBJECTIVE

The management of pain is an important component of care in the prehospital and transport setting. However, recent evidence suggests that pain control is infrequently achieved in these settings. The objective of the current study was to determine the proportion and frequency of opioid analgesia provided to intubated patients during interfacility transport by an air medical transport system.

METHODS

This was a health records review examining electronic records of intubated patients transported by Ornge from July 2015 to November 2015. Cases were identified using Ornge database, and intubated patients were selected based on the inclusion criteria. A standardized data extraction form was piloted and used by a single trained data extractor. The primary outcome was whether analgesia was provided. Secondary outcomes included the frequency of administration and dose adequacy of an opioid analgesia; the analgesic used; adverse events; and the impact of age, sex, past medical history of chronic pain, or reason for transfer on pain management.

RESULTS

Of the 500 potential patient transports, 448 met our inclusion criteria. Among the 448 patients, 295 (65.8%) were men, 327 (73.0%) received analgesia, and 211 (64.3%) received more than 1 dose during transport (median frequency of 2 doses, interquartile range = 1 to 3). The average transport time was 135 minutes, and repeated dosing (> 1 repeat dose) occurred primarily (45.5%) in transports of over 180 minutes. Fentanyl was the most commonly used analgesic (97.9%), and the most common dose was 50 µg (51.8%). Adverse events occurred in 8 patients (2.5%), most commonly new hypotension (mean arterial pressure < 65 mm Hg, n = 5). There was no significant difference in the administration of analgesia based on the patient's age or sex (68.0% of female patients and 75.6% of male patients received analgesia). Interestingly, only 30.8% of patients repatriated to their originating hospital received analgesia compared with 72.3% of patients undergoing their initial transfer to a higher level of care.

CONCLUSION

Seventy-three percent of intubated patients transported by Ornge received an opioid analgesic, most commonly fentanyl. We found no clinically relevant difference in the administration of analgesics based on age, sex, past medical history of chronic pain, or reason for transfer other than repatriation to the originating hospital.

Prehospital intravenous fentanyl administered by ambulance personnel: a cluster-randomised comparison of two treatment protocols

Background

Prehospital acute pain is a frequent symptom that is often inadequately managed. The concerns of opioid induced side effects are well-founded. To ensure patient safety, ambulance personnel are therefore provided with treatment protocols with dosing restrictions, however, with the concomitant risk of insufficient pain treatment of the patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of a liberal intravenous fentanyl treatment protocol on efficacy and safety measures.

Methods

A two-armed, cluster-randomised trial was conducted in the Central Denmark Region over a 1-year period. Ambulance stations (stratified according to size) were randomised to follow either a liberal treatment protocol (3 μg/kg) or a standard treatment protocol (2 μg/kg). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with sufficient pan relief (numeric rating scale (NRS, 0–10) < 3) at hospital arrival. Secondary outcomes included abnormal vital parameters as proxy measures of safety. A multi-level mixed effect logistic regression model was applied.

Results

In total, 5278 patients were included. Ambulance personnel following the liberal protocol administered higher doses of fentanyl [117.7 μg (95% CI 116.7–118.6)] than ambulance personnel following the standard protocol [111.5 μg (95% CI 110.7–112.4), P = 0.0001]. The number of patient with sufficient pain relief at hospital arrival was higher in the liberal treatment group than the standard treatment group [44.0% (95% CI 41.8–46.1) vs. 37.4% (95% CI 35.2–39.6), adjusted odds ratio 1.47 (95% CI 1.17–1.84)]. The relative decrease in NRS scores during transport was less evident [adjusted odds ratio 1.18 (95% CI 0.95–1.48)]. The occurrences of abnormal vital parameters were similar in both groups.

Conclusions

Liberalising an intravenous fentanyl treatment protocol applied by ambulance personnel slightly increased the number of patients with sufficient pain relief at hospital arrival without compromising patient safety. Future efforts of training ambulance personnel are needed to further improve protocol adherence and quality of treatment.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02914678). Date of registration: 26th September, 2016.

Comparison between intravenous morphine versus fentanyl in acute pain relief in drug abusers with acute limb traumatic injury

BACKGROUND

Rapid and effective pain relief in acute traumatic limb injuries (ATLI) is one of the most important roles of emergency physicians. In these situations, opioid addiction is an important concern because of the dependency on opioids. The study aims to compare the effectiveness of intravenous (IV) fentanyl versus morphine in reducing pain in patients with opioid addiction who suffered from ATLI.

METHODS

In this double-blind randomized clinical trial, 307 patients with ATLI, who presented to the emergency department (ED) from February 2016 to April 2016, were randomly divided into two groups. One group (152 patients) received 0.1 mg/kg IV morphine. The other group (155 patients) received 1 mcg/kg IV fentanyl. Patients' demographic data, pain score at specific intervals, vital signs, side effects, satisfaction and the need for rescue analgesia were recorded.

RESULTS

Eight patients in the morphine group and five patients in the fentanyl group were excluded. Pain score in the fentanyl group had a significant decrease at 5-minute follow-up (P value=0.00). However, at 10, 30, and 60-minute follow-ups no significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of pain score reduction. The rescue analgesia was required in 12 (7.7%) patients in the fentanyl group and in 48 (31.6%) patients in the morphine group (P value=0.00). No significant difference was observed regarding side effects, vital signs and patients' satisfaction between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Fentanyl might be an effective and safe drug in opioid addicts suffering from ATLI.

Administration of intravenous morphine for acute pain in the emergency department inflicts an economic burden in Europe

BACKGROUND

Acute pain is among the leading causes of referral to the emergency department (ED) in industrialized countries. Its management mainly depends on intensity. Moderate-to-severe pain is treated with intravenous (IV) administered opioids, of which morphine is the most commonly used in the ED. We have estimated the burden of IV administration of morphine in the five key European countries (EU5) using a micro-costing approach.

SCOPE

A structured literature review was conducted to identify clinical guidelines for acute pain management in EU5 and clinical studies conducted in the ED setting. The data identified in this literature review constituted the source for all model input parameters, which were clustered as analgesic (morphine), material used for IV morphine administration, nurse workforce time and management of morphine-related adverse events and IV-related complications.

FINDINGS

The cost per patient of IV morphine administration in the ED ranges between €18.31 in Spain and €28.38 in Germany. If costs associated with the management of morphine-related adverse events and IV-related complications are also considered, the total costs amount to €121.13-€132.43. The main driver of those total costs is the management of IV-related complications (phlebitis, extravasation and IV prescription errors; 73% of all costs) followed by workforce time (14%).

CONCLUSIONS

IV morphine provides effective pain relief in the ED, but the costs associated with the IV administration inflict an economic burden on the respective national health services in EU5. An equally rapid-onset and efficacious analgesic that does not require IV administration could reduce this burden.

Böttiger B, Bouillon B, Fischer M, Gaier G, Gliwitzky B, Helm M, Hilbert-Carius P, Hossfeld B, Meisner C, Schempf B, Wafaisade A, Bernhard M. Analgesia in Patients with Trauma in Emergency Medicine

BACKGROUND

Suitable analgesic drugs and techniques are needed for the acute care of the approximately 18 200-18 400 seriously injured patients in Germany each year.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis of analgesia in trauma patients was carried out on the basis of randomized, controlled trials and observational studies. A systematic search of the literature over the 10-year period ending in February 2016 was carried out in the PubMed, Google Scholar, and Springer Link Library databases. Some of the considered trials and studies were included in a meta-analysis. Mean differences (MD) of pain reduction or pain outcome as measured on the Numeric Rating Scale were taken as a summarizing measure of treatment efficacy.

RESULTS

Out of 685 studies, 41 studies were considered and 10 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Among the drugs and drug combinations studied, none was clearly superior to another with respect to pain relief. Neither fentanyl versus morphine (MD -0.10 with a 95% confidence interval of [-0.58; 0.39], p = 0.70) nor ketamine versus morphine (MD -1.27 [-3.71; 1.16], p = 0.31), or the combination of ketamine and morphine versus morphine alone (MD -1.23 [-2.29; -0.18], p = 0.02) showed clear superiority regarding analgesia.

CONCLUSION

Ketamine, fentanyl, and morphine are suitable for analgesia in spontaneously breathing trauma patients. Fentanyl and ketamine have a rapid onset of action and a strong analgesic effect. Our quantitative meta-analysis revealed no evidence for the superiority of any of the three substances over the others. Suitable monitoring equipment, and expertise in emergency procedures are prerequisites for safe and effective analgesia by healthcare professionals..

Impact of an Offline Pain Management Protocol on Prehospital Provider Self-Efficacy: A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Pain in children is inadequately treated in the prehospital setting despite the reported recognition by prehospital providers (PHPs) of pain treatment as an important part of patient care. The impact of pediatric pain management protocol (PPP) implementation on PHP self-efficacy (SE), a measure congruent with performance, is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of PPP implementation and pain management education on PHP SE.

METHODS

This was a prospective study evaluating the change in PHP SE after a PPP was implemented. Prehospital providers were randomized to 3 groups: protocol introduction alone, protocol introduction with education, and protocol introduction with education and a 3-month interim review. Prehospital provider SE was assessed for pain management given 3 age-based scenarios. Self-efficacy was measured with a tool that uses a ranked ordinal scale ranging from "certain I cannot do it" (0) to "completely certain I can do it" (100) for 10 pain management actions: pain assessment (3), medication administration (4), dosing (1), and reassessment (2). An averaged composite score (0-100) was calculated for each of the 3 age groups (adult, child, toddler). Paired-sample t tests compared post-PPP and 13-month scores to pre-PPP scores.

RESULTS

Of 264 PHPs who completed initial surveys, 142 PHPs completed 13-month surveys. Ninety-three (65%) received education with protocol review, and 49 (35%) had protocol review only. Self-efficacy scores increased over the study period, most notably for pain assessment. This increase persisted at 13 months for child (6.6 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.4-11.8]) and toddler pain assessment (22.3 [95% CI, 16.4-28.3]). Composite SE scores increased immediately for all age groups (adult, 3.1 [95% CI, 1.3-4.9]; child, 6.1 [95% CI, 3.8-8.5]; toddler, 12.0 [95% CI, 9.5-14.5]) and persisted at 13 months for the toddler group alone (7.0 [95% CI, 4.3-9.7]). There was no difference between groups who received protocol review alone compared with those with education or education plus a 3-month interim review.

CONCLUSIONS

After a pain management protocol was introduced, SE scores among PHPs increased immediately and remained elevated for some individual actions involved in pain management, most notably pain assessment. Prehospital provider pain assessment SE scores declined 13 months after protocol introduction for adults, but remained elevated compared with baseline for the pediatric age groups.

Cost of Intravenous Analgesia for the Management of Acute Pain in the Emergency Department is Substantial in the United States

Background: Pain is a leading cause of admission to the emergency department (ED) and moderate-to-severe acute pain in medically supervised settings is often treated with intravenous (IV) opioids. With novel noninvasive analgesic products in development for this indication, it is important to assess the costs associated with IV administration of opioids. Materials and Methods: A retrospective observational study of data derived from the Premier database was conducted. All ED encounters of adult patients treated with IV opioids during a 2-year time period, who were charged for at least one IV opioid administration in the ED were included. Hospital reported costs were used to estimate the costs to administer IV opioids. Results: Over a 24 month-period, 7.3 million encounters, which included the administration of IV opioids took place in 614 US EDs. The mean cost per encounter of IV administration of an initial dose of the three most frequently prescribed opioids were: morphine $145, hydromorphone $146, and fentanyl $147. The main driver of the total costs is the cost of nursing time and equipment cost to set up and maintain an IV infusion ($140 ± 60). Adding a second dose of opioid, brings the average costs to $151-$154. If costs associated with the management of opioid-related adverse events and IV-related complications are also added, the total costs can amount to $269-$273. Of these 7.3 million encounters, 4.3 million (58%) did not lead to hospital admission of the patient and, therefore, the patient may have only required an IV catheter for opioid administration. Conclusions: IV opioid use in the ED is indicated for moderate-to-severe pain but is associated with significant costs. In subjects who are discharged from the ED and may not have required an IV for reasons other than opioid administration, rapid-onset analgesics for moderate-to-severe pain that do not require IV administration could lead to direct cost reductions and improved care.

Opioid Conversions in Acute Care

Objective:

To discuss the historical basis and limitations of opioid conversion tables, review the relevant literature, and establish an evidence-based equianalgesic dose ratio (EDR) table for performing conversions in the acute care setting.

Data Sources:

Articles were identified through searches of MEDLINE (1966–January 2007) using the key words opioid, tolerance, conversion, dose, equianalgesic, equipotent, acute care, morphine, hydromorphone, fentanyl, methadone, and oxycodone. Additional references were located through a review of the bibliographies of articles cited and references cited in conversion tables.

Study Selection and Data Extraction:

All data sources identified were evaluated, and all information deemed relevant was included, with the exception of case series and case reports when higher level evidence was available.

Data Synthesis:

Opioid conversion tables are published in major textbooks, medical references, national guidelines, and review articles. Some conversion tables do not accurately reflect the dose ratios for which evidence is available. There is marginal evidence-based clinical data to support the dose ratios cited in these tables, particularly in the acute care setting where the clinical status of patients often changes rapidly. The barriers when performing route and opioid-to-opioid conversions in the acute care setting are formidable, but EDRs are provided, based on the best available evidence.

Conclusions:

In the acute care setting, calculation of dose ratios for opioids, based solely on opioid conversion tables, is an oversimplification of pain management, with a potential for adverse consequences. The calculation of EDRs is one step in an interdisciplinary process that must take into account patient- and institution-specific factors.

Predicting morphine related side effects in the ED: An international cohort study

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Morphine is the reference treatment for severe acute pain in an emergency department. The purpose of this study was to describe and analyse opioid-related ADRs (adverse drug reactions) in a large cohort of emergency department patients, and to identify predictive factors for those ADRs.

METHODS

In this prospective, observational, pharmaco-epidemiological international cohort study, all patients aged 18years or older who were treated with morphine were enrolled. The study was done in 23 emergency departments in the US and France. Baseline numerical rating scale score and initial and total doses of morphine titration were recorded. Logistic regression analysis was used to study the effects of demographic, clinical and medical history covariates on the occurrence of opioid-induced ADRs within 6h after treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 1128 patients were included over 10months. Median baseline initial pain scores were 8/10 (7-10) versus 3/10 (1-4) after morphine administration. Median titration duration was 10min (IQR, 1-30). The occurrence of opioid-induced ADRs was 25% and 2% were serious. Patients experienced mainly nausea and drowsiness. Medical history of travel sickness (odds ratio [OR], 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-2.86) and history of nausea or vomiting post morphine (OR, 3.86; 95% CI, 2.29-6.51) were independent predictors of morphine related ADRs.

CONCLUSION

Serious morphine related ADRs are rare and unpredictable. Prophylactic antiemetic therapy could be proposed to patients with history of travel sickness and history of nausea or vomiting in a postoperative setting or after morphine administration.

Efficacy and safety of intravenous fentanyl administered by ambulance personnel

BACKGROUND

Management of pain in the pre-hospital setting is often inadequate. In 2011, ambulance personnel were authorized to administer intravenous fentanyl in the Central Denmark Region. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravenous fentanyl administered by ambulance personnel.

METHODS

Pre-hospital medical charts from 2348 adults treated with intravenous fentanyl by ambulance personnel during a 6-month period were reviewed. The primary outcome was the change in pain intensity on a numeric rating scale (NRS) from before fentanyl treatment to hospital arrival. Secondary outcomes included the number of patients with reduction in pain intensity during transport (NRS ≥ 2), the number of patients with NRS > 3 at hospital arrival, and potential fentanyl-related side effects.

RESULTS

Fentanyl reduced pain from before treatment (8, IQR 7-9) to hospital arrival (4, IQR 3-6) (NRS reduction: 3, IQR 2-5; P = 0.001), 79.3% of all patients had a reduction in > 2 on the NRS during transport, and 58.4% of patients experienced pain at hospital arrival (NRS > 3). Twenty-one patients (0.9%) had oxygen saturation < 90%. A decrease in Glasgow Coma Scale was seen in 31 patients (1.3%) and hypotension observed in 71 patients (3.0%).

CONCLUSION

Intravenous fentanyl caused clinically meaningful pain reduction in most patients and was safe in the hands of ambulance personnel. Many patients had moderate to severe pain at hospital arrival. As the protocol allowed higher doses of fentanyl, feedback on effect and safety should be part of continuous education of ambulance personnel.

Wilderness Medical Society practice guidelines for the treatment of acute pain in remote environments: 2014 update

The Wilderness Medical Society convened an expert panel to develop evidence-based guidelines for the management of pain in austere environments. Recommendations are graded on the basis of the quality of supporting evidence as defined by criteria put forth by the American College of Chest Physicians. This is an updated version of the original WMS Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Acute Pain in Remote Environments published in Wilderness & Environmental Medicine 2014;25(1):41-49.

Comparison of Fentanyl and Morphine in the Prehospital Treatment of Ischemic Type Chest Pain

In the treatment of acute coronary syndromes, reduction of sympathetic stress and catecholamine release is an important therapeutic goal. One method used to achieve this goal is pain reduction through the systemic administration of analgesia. Historically, morphine has been the analgesic of choice in ischemic cardiac pain. This randomized double-blind controlled trial seeks to prove the utility of fentanyl as an alternate first-line analgesic for ischemic-type chest pain in the prehospital setting. Successive patients who were treated for suspected ischemic chest pain in the emergency medical services system were considered eligible. Once chest pain was confirmed, patients received oxygen, aspirin, and nitroglycerin therapy. If the ischemic-type chest pain continued the patient was randomized in a double-blinded fashion to treatment with either morphine or fentanyl. Pain scale scores, necessity for additional dosing, and rate of adverse events between the groups were assessed every 5 minutes and were compared using t-testing, Fisher's Exact test, or Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) where appropriate. The primary outcome of the study was incidence of hypotension and the secondary outcome was pain reduction as measured by the visual analog score and numeric rating score. A total of 207 patients were randomized with 187 patients included in the final analysis. Of the 187 patients, 99 were in the morphine group and 88 in the fentanyl group. No statistically significant difference between the two groups with respect to hypotension was found (morphine 5.1% vs. fentanyl 0%, p = 0.06). Baseline characteristics, necessity for additional dosing, and other adverse events between the two groups were not statistically different. There were no significant differences between the changes in visual analog scores and numeric rating scale scores for pain between the two groups (p = 0.16 and p = 0.15, respectively). This study supports that fentanyl and morphine are comparable in providing analgesia for ischemic-type chest pain. Fentanyl appears to be a safe and effective alternative to morphine for the management of chest pain in the prehospital setting.

Randomized clinical trial of an intravenous hydromorphone titration protocol versus usual care for management of acute pain in older emergency department patients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Opioid titration is an effective strategy for treating pain; however, titration is generally impractical in the busy emergency department (ED) setting. Our objective was to test a rapid, two-step, hydromorphone titration protocol against usual care in older patients presenting to the ED with acute severe pain.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized clinical trial of patients 65 years of age and older presenting to an adult, urban, academic ED with acute severe pain. The study was registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01429285). Patients randomized to the hydromorphone titration protocol initially received 0.5 mg intravenous hydromorphone. Patients randomized to usual care received any dose of any intravenous opioid. At 15 min, patients in both groups were asked, 'Do you want more pain medication?' Patients in the hydromorphone titration group who answered 'yes' received a second dose of 0.5 mg intravenous hydromorphone. Patients in the usual care group who answered 'yes' had their ED attending physician notified, who then could administer any (or no) additional medication. The primary efficacy outcome was satisfactory analgesia defined a priori as the patient declining additional analgesia at least once when asked at 15 or 60 min after administration of the initial opioid. Dose was calculated in morphine equivalent units (MEU: 1 mg hydromorphone = 7 mg morphine). The need for naloxone to reverse adverse opioid effects was the primary safety outcome.

RESULTS

83.0 % of 153 patients in the hydromorphone titration group achieved satisfactory analgesia compared with 82.5 % of 166 patients in the usual care group (p = 0.91). Patients in the hydromorphone titration group received lower mean initial doses of opioids at baseline than patients in the usual care group (3.5 MEU vs. 4.7 MEU, respectively; p ≤ 0.001) and lower total opioids through 60 min (5.3 MEU vs. 6.0 MEU; p = 0.03). No patient needed naloxone.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose titration of intravenous hydromorphone in increments of 0.5 mg provides comparable analgesia to usual care with less opioid over 60 min.

Does midazolam enhance pain control in prehospital management of traumatic severe pain?

PURPOSE

Midazolam comedication with morphine is a routine practice in pre and postoperative patients but has not been evaluated in prehospital setting. We aimed to evaluate the comedication effect of midazolam in the prehospital traumatic adults.

METHODS

A prehospital prospective randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of intravenous morphine 0.10 mg/kg and midazolam 0.04 mg/kg vs morphine 0.10 mg/kg and placebo. Pain assessment was done using a validated numeric rating scale (NRS). The primary end point was to achieve an efficient analgesic effect (NRS≤3) 20 minutes after the baseline. The secondary end points were treatment safety, total morphine dose required until obtaining NRS≤3, and efficient analgesic effect 30 minutes after the baseline.

FINDINGS

Ninety-one patients were randomized into midazolam (n=41) and placebo (n=50) groups. No significant difference in proportion of patients with a pain score≤3 was observed between midazolam (43.6%) and placebo (45.7%) after 20 minutes (P=.849). Secondary end points were similar in regard with proportion of patients with a pain score≤3 at T30, the side effects and adverse events except for drowsiness in midazolam vs placebo, 43.6% vs 6.5% (P<.001). No significant difference in total morphine dose was observed, that is, midazolam (14.09 mg±6.64) vs placebo (15.53 mg±6.27) (P=.315).

CONCLUSIONS

According to our study, midazolam does not enhance pain control as an adjunctive to morphine regimen in the management of trauma-induced pain in prehospital setting. However, such midazolam use seems to be associated with an increase in drowsiness.

Wilderness Medical Society practice guidelines for the treatment of acute pain in remote environments

The Wilderness Medical Society convened an expert panel to develop evidence-based guidelines for the management of pain in austere environments. Recommendations are graded based on the quality of supporting evidence as defined by criteria put forth by the American College of Chest Physicians.

An Evidence-based Guideline for prehospital analgesia in trauma

BACKGROUND

The management of acute traumatic pain is a crucial component of prehospital care and yet the assessment and administration of analgesia is highly variable, frequently suboptimal, and often determined by consensus-based regional protocols.

OBJECTIVE

To develop an evidence-based guideline (EBG) for the clinical management of acute traumatic pain in adults and children by advanced life support (ALS) providers in the prehospital setting. Methods. We recruited a multi-stakeholder panel with expertise in acute pain management, guideline development, health informatics, and emergency medical services (EMS) outcomes research. Representatives of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (sponsoring agency) and a major children's research center (investigative team) also contributed to the process. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology to guide the process of question formulation, evidence retrieval, appraisal/synthesis, and formulation of recommendations. The process also adhered to the National Prehospital Evidence-Based Guideline (EBG) model process approved by the Federal Interagency Council for EMS and the National EMS Advisory Council.

RESULTS

Four strong and three weak recommendations emerged from the process; two of the strong recommendations were linked to high- and moderate-quality evidence, respectively. The panel recommended that all patients be considered candidates for analgesia, regardless of transport interval, and that opioid medications should be considered for patients in moderate to severe pain. The panel also recommended that all patients should be reassessed at frequent intervals using a standardized pain scale and that patients should be re-dosed if pain persists. The panel suggested the use of specific age-appropriate pain scales.

CONCLUSION

GRADE methodology was used to develop an evidence-based guideline for prehospital analgesia in trauma. The panel issued four strong recommendations regarding patient assessment and narcotic medication dosing. Future research should define optimal approaches for implementation of the guideline as well as the impact of the protocol on safety and effectiveness metrics.

Randomized clinical trial of efficacy and safety of a single 2-mg intravenous dose of hydromorphone versus usual care in the management of acute pain

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to test the efficacy and safety of 2 mg of intravenous (IV) hydromorphone (Dilaudid) against "usual care" in emergency department (ED) patients with acute severe pain.

METHODS

This was a randomized clinical trial. Patients allocated to 2 mg of IV hydromorphone received their medication in a single dose. Those randomized to usual care received any IV opioid, with type, dose, and frequency chosen by the ED attending. All patients received 2 L/min. nasal cannula oxygen. The primary outcome was the difference in the proportion of patients who achieved clinically satisfactory analgesia by 30 minutes. This was defined as the patient declining additional analgesia when asked the question, "Do you want more pain medicine?" A 10% absolute difference was chosen a priori as the minimum difference considered clinically significant.

RESULTS

Of 175 subjects randomized to each group, 164 in the 2 mg hydromorphone group and 161 in the usual care group had sufficient data for analysis. Additional pain medication was declined by 77.4% of patients in the 2 mg hydromorphone group at 30 minutes, compared to 65.8% in the usual care group. This difference of 11.6% was statistically and clinically significant (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.8% to 21.1%). Safety profiles were similar and no patient required naloxone. There was more pruritus in the hydromorphone group (18.3% vs. 8.7%; difference = 9.6%, 95% CI = 2.6% to 16.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Using a simple dichotomous patient-centered endpoint in which a difference of 10% in proportion obtaining adequate analgesia was considered clinically significant, 2 mg of hydromorphone in a single IV dose is clinically and statistically more efficacious when compared to usual care for acute pain management in the ED.

Nitrous oxide for early analgesia in the emergency setting: a randomized, double-blind multicenter prehospital trial

OBJECTIVES

Although 50% nitrous oxide (N(2) O) and oxygen is a widely used treatment, its efficacy had never been evaluated in the prehospital setting. The objective of this study was to demonstrate the efficacy of premixed N(2) O and oxygen in patients with out-of-hospital moderate traumatic acute pain.

METHODS

This prospective, randomized, multicenter, double-blind trial enrolled patients with acute moderate pain (numeric rating scale [NRS] score between 4 and 6 out of 10) caused by trauma. Patients were assigned to receive either 50/50 N(2) O and oxygen 9 L/min (N(2) O group) or medical air (MA) 9 L/min (MA group), in ambulances from two nurse-staffed fire department centers. After the first 15 minutes, every patient received N(2) O and oxygen. The primary endpoint was pain relief at 15 minutes (T15), defined as a NRS ≤ 3 of 10. The NRS was measured every 5 minutes. Secondary endpoints were treatment safety and adverse events, time to analgesia, and patient and investigator satisfaction with analgesia.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were included with no differences between groups in age (median = 34 years, interquartile range [IQR] = 23 to 53 years), sex (37 males, 66%), and initial median NRS of 6 (IQR = 5 to 6). At T15, 67% of the patients in the N(2) O group had an NRS score of 3 or lower versus 27% of those in the MA group (delta = 40%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 17% to 63%; p < 0.001). The median pain scores were lower in the N(2) O group at T15, 2 (IQR = 1 to 4) versus 5 (IQR = 3 to 6). There was a difference at 5 minutes that persisted at all subsequent time points. Four patients (one in the N(2) O group) experienced adverse events (nausea) during the protocol.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the efficacy of N(2) O for the treatment of pain from acute trauma in adults in the prehospital setting.

Prehospital nausea and vomiting after trauma: Prevalence, risk factors, and development of a predictive scoring system

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting are common problems in trauma patients and potentially dangerous during trauma resuscitation. These symptoms are present in up to 10% of ambulance patients, but their prevalence in trauma patients is largely unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of prehospital nausea and vomiting in trauma patients and evaluate antiemetic usage.

METHODS

Prospective, cohort study of trauma resuscitation patients transported by ambulance to a major trauma centre. Patients with hemodynamic instability (systolic blood pressure <90, heart rate >120) or Glasgow Coma Scale score <14 on arrival were excluded. Nausea, vomiting, and antiemetic use were recorded.

RESULTS

Convenience sample of 196 trauma resuscitation patients (68% men; age, 42 ± 18 years, mean Injury Severity Score 8 ± 7) were interviewed over the 5-month study period, of a total 369 admitted trauma patients (53%). Seventy-five (38%) patients reported some degree of nausea, 57 (29%) moderate or severe nausea, and 15 (8%) vomited. Older age and female gender were associated with vomiting (p < 0.01). Seventy-nine patients (40%) received a prophylactic antiemetic. Of these, four became nauseous (5%), compared with 71 of 117 (61%) for patients not given an antiemetic (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Prehospital nausea and vomiting are more common in our cohort of trauma patients than the reported rates in the literature for nontrauma patients transported to hospital by ambulance. Only 40% of patients receive prophylactic antiemetics, but those patients are less likely to develop symptoms.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

V, epidemiological study.

Pain after earthquake

INTRODUCTION

On 6 April 2009, at 03:32 local time, an Mw 6.3 earthquake hit the Abruzzi region of central Italy causing widespread damage in the City of L Aquila and its nearby villages. The earthquake caused 308 casualties and over 1,500 injuries, displaced more than 25,000 people and induced significant damage to more than 10,000 buildings in the L'Aquila region.

OBJECTIVES

This observational retrospective study evaluated the prevalence and drug treatment of pain in the five weeks following the L'Aquila earthquake (April 6, 2009).

METHODS

958 triage documents were analysed for patients pain severity, pain type, and treatment efficacy.

RESULTS

A third of pain patients reported pain with a prevalence of 34.6%. More than half of pain patients reported severe pain (58.8%). Analgesic agents were limited to available drugs: anti-inflammatory agents, paracetamol, and weak opioids. Reduction in verbal numerical pain scores within the first 24 hours after treatment was achieved with the medications at hand. Pain prevalence and characterization exhibited a biphasic pattern with acute pain syndromes owing to trauma occurring in the first 15 days after the earthquake; traumatic pain then decreased and re-surged at around week five, owing to rebuilding efforts. In the second through fourth week, reports of pain occurred mainly owing to relapses of chronic conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that pain is prevalent during natural disasters, may exhibit a discernible pattern over the weeks following the event, and current drug treatments in this region may be adequate for emergency situations.

Safety of prehospital intravenous fentanyl for adult trauma patients

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the safety of intravenous fentanyl for adult trauma patients in the prehospital setting. Our objective was to study the hemodynamic effect of prehospital intravenous fentanyl in initially normotensive adult trauma patients.

METHODS

A quasi-experimental design was used to compare adult trauma patients who received intravenous fentanyl and those who did not receive fentanyl in a large regional prehospital system and its affiliated Level I trauma center. Emergent adult trauma patients were included with an initial prehospital Glasgow Coma Scale score of ≥13 and systolic blood pressure >90 mm Hg. Patients were stratified into two groups, those who received a single dose of intravenous fentanyl (100 μg) and those who did not. The outcome was initial emergency department (ED) shock index (heart rate divided by systolic blood pressure). Multivariable linear regression was used to estimate the effect of fentanyl on ED shock index while adjusting for prehospital shock index, age, gender, Trauma Injury Severity Score, and the propensity for receiving fentanyl.

RESULTS

Seven hundred sixty-three patients were included, of whom 217 (28%) received fentanyl. The groups had comparable demographics (age, gender, and race/ethnicity) but different clinical characteristics (ED vital signs, Injury Severity Score, mechanism, and ED disposition). The adjusted ED shock index of fentanyl patients improved (-0.03; 95% confidence interval: -0.05 to 0.00; p = 0.02) compared with no fentanyl.

CONCLUSION

Prehospital intravenous fentanyl did not adversely affect the initial ED shock index in adult trauma patients. Additional research should be performed to confirm and extend our findings.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

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

Introduction and aim Pain 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. Method Qualitative 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. Results Twenty 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 studies Four 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 studies Pain 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 effects Recording 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. Conclusion Evidence 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.

Neurodevelopmental outcome following exposure to sedative and analgesic drugs for complex cardiac surgery in infancy

OBJECTIVES/AIM

To determine whether sedation/analgesia drugs used before, during, and after infant cardiac surgery are associated with neurodevelopmental outcome.

BACKGROUND

Animal models suggest detrimental effects of anesthetic drugs on the developing brain. Whether these results can be extrapolated to human neonates is unclear.

METHODS/MATERIALS

This is a prospective follow-up project conducted in Western Canada. In all infants ≤6 weeks of age having surgery for congenital heart disease between April 2003 and December 2006, demographic and perioperative variables were collected prospectively. Sedation/analgesia variables were collected retrospectively. For each drug class (inhalationals, opioids, benzodiazepines, ketamine, and chloral hydrate), we calculated the cumulative dose received during hospitalization, average dose received per day, and cumulative number of days the patient received the drug. The outcomes at 18-24 months were as follows: General Adaptive Composite and motor scaled scores of the Adaptive Behavior Assessment System, significant mental, motor, and vocabulary delay. Multivariable logistic and linear regression was used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-five neonates underwent open heart surgery; 19 died, 16 had chromosomal abnormality, and five were lost to follow up, leaving 95 survivors for analysis. Multiple linear regression analysis found no evidence of an association between sedation/analgesia variables and ABAS-GAC score or motor scale score. Multiple logistic regression analysis found no evidence of an association between sedation/analgesia variables and significant mental, motor, or vocabulary delay.

CONCLUSION

We found no evidence of an association between dose and duration of sedation/analgesia drugs during the operative and perioperative period and adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes.

Review article: Prophylactic metoclopramide for patients receiving intravenous morphine in the emergency setting: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The objective of the present study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, comparing metoclopramide with placebo, for preventing vomiting in patients who have received i.v. morphine for acute pain in the emergency setting, and to determine the level of evidence supporting the use of prophylactic metoclopramide in this population. Comprehensive systematic electronic searches were conducted of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials addressing the clinical question. Reference lists of identified articles were hand-searched. Methodologically appropriate clinical trials identified in the search process were included in a meta-analysis to provide a pooled estimate of effect. Three randomized controlled trials fulfilled the search criteria. All three studies were included in the final meta-analysis that demonstrated an overall result of no difference between metoclopramide and placebo for the primary outcome of vomiting (odds ratios 0.72; 95% confidence intervals 0.11-4.58). There was little evidence that routine prophylactic administration of metoclopramide following the administration of i.v. morphine for acute pain management in the emergency setting is clinically beneficial. Routine metoclopramide administration might expose patients to a risk of harm which is not justifiable given a lack of evidence of benefit.

Intravenous Opioids for Severe Acute Pain in the Emergency Department

Objective:

To review clinical trials of intravenous opioids for severe acute pain in the emergency department (ED) and to provide an approach for optimization of therapy.

Data Sources:

Articles were identified through a search of Ovid/MEDLINE (1948-August 2010), PubMed (1950-August 2010), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1991-August 2010), and Google Scholar (1900-August 2010). The search terms used were pain, opioid, and emergency department.

Study Selection and Data Extraction:

The search was limited by age group to adults and by publication type to comparative studies. Studies comparing routes of administration other than intravenous or using non-opioid comparators were not included. Bibliographies of all retrieved articles were reviewed to obtain additional articles. The focus of the search was to identify original research that compared intravenous opioids used for treatment of severe acute pain for adults in the ED.

Data Synthesis:

At equipotent doses, randomized controlled trials have not shown clinically significant differences in analgesic response or adverse effects between opioids studied. Single opioid doses less than 0.1 mg/kg of intravenous morphine, 0.015 mg/kg of intravenous hydromorphone, or 1 μg/kg of intravenous fentanyl are likely to be inadequate for severe, acute pain and the need for additional doses should be anticipated. In none of the randomized controlled trials did patients develop respiratory depression requiring the use of naloxone. Future trials could investigate the safety and efficacy of higher doses of opioids. Implementation of nurse-initiated and patient-driven pain management protocols for opioids in the ED has shown improvements in timely provision of appropriate analgesics and has resulted in better pain reduction.

Conclusions:

Currently, intravenous administration of opioids for severe acute pain in the ED appears to be inadequate. Opioid doses in the ED should be high enough to provide adequate analgesia without additional risk to the patient. EDs could implement institution-specific protocols to standardize the management of pain.