Randomized clinical trial of morphine in acute abdominal pain

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.

The pain in the Emergency Department: Choosing and treating wisely before and during the COVID-19 era

Pain is a frequent reason for referral to the Emergency Department (ED). Adequate management of pain is a moral and ethical imperative. If not correctly treated, acute pain can cause physical and psychological complications, and become chronic with severe consequences such as anxiety, depression, and social isolation. As consequence, emergency clinicians should treat pain as soon as possible, avoiding delays even in case of acute abdominal pain. Pain management is particularly complex in the elderly and emergency clinicians should always consider AGS Beers criteria ® to avoid inappropriate medications, severe side-effects, and drug-drug interactions. Pain is also a common cause of delirium in older patients. The SARS CoV-2 infection not only can cause acute pain, but also exacerbate chronic pain, particularly in the elderly, who are at high risk to be infected. Looking at all this evidence, emergency clinicians should treat pain with different strategies according to their experience and cultural background, making the right choice for each patient. This work is a critical review of the pain management in the ED, with a particular attention on the effects of COVID-19 in the EDs. We conducted a systematic search of the following databases: PubMed, Google Scholar, Science Direct, Medline from 2000 to 2020, using the keywords of “pain”, “emergency”, “COVID19”, “elderly”, “palliative care”, “ketamine”, “dexmedetomidine”, and “post-traumatic stress disorder”. The aim of this review is to help emergency clinicians to correctly manage pain in the ED with a new point of view regarding the pain management in COVID-19 patients.

Perfecting the Gastrointestinal Physical Exam: Findings and Their Utility and Examination Pearls

The physical examination of the patient is the cornerstone of the practice of medicine, and the skills to complete a thorough abdominal examination are critical in the care of patients. When performed correctly, the abdominal examination can be revealing when it comes to the overall health of the patient as well as acute pathology. The examination of the abdomen has the potential to minimize further testing or radiation and serves as a key diagnostic tool. In this article, we will discuss each portion of the abdominal examination in detail as well as pathologic findings, abdomen-specific signs, special patient populations, and clinical pearls.

To Use or Not to Use Opioid Analgesia for Acute Abdominal Pain Before Definitive Surgical Diagnosis? A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background

Despite the existing evidence, many physicians are reluctant to use opioid analgesia for acute abdominal pain.

Methods

We performed updated conventional and network meta-analyses. For the first time to our knowledge, direct and indirect evidence of any type of opioid analgesia was estimated and compared using network meta-analysis.

Results

There was no significant difference in the intensity of pain between the two cohorts (mean difference (MD) = 0.43 (-0.05 to 0.91), P = 0.08). In addition, no significant difference was detected in the rate of incorrect diagnoses between the opioid analgesia and the placebo cohorts (odds ratio (OR) = 0.79 (0.54 to 1.17), P = 0.24). Network meta-analysis demonstrated that the results of direct evidence of head-to-head comparisons of opioid analgesics with placebo were in accordance with the results of conventional meta-analysis. Moreover, estimation and comparison of the indirect evidence on the four opioid analgesics did not demonstrate significant differences in effect size.

Conclusions

Any type of opioid analgesic can be used safely for acute abdominal pain without risk of impairment of diagnostic accuracy.

Feasibility of initial endoscopic common bile duct stone removal in patients with acute cholangitis

AIM

To investigate the feasibility of initial endoscopic common bile duct (CBD) stone removal in patients with acute cholangitis (AC).

METHODS

A single-center, retrospective study was conducted between April 2013 and December 2014 and was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee at our institution. Written informed consent was obtained from each patient prior to the procedure. The cohort comprised 31 AC patients with CBD stones who underwent endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) for naïve papilla within 48 h after AC onset. We retrospectively divided the participants into two groups: 19 patients with initial endoscopic CBD stone removal (initial group) and 12 patients with delayed endoscopic CBD stone removal (delayed group). We evaluated the feasibility of initial endoscopic CBD stone removal in patients with AC.

RESULTS

We observed no significant differences between the groups regarding patient characteristics. According to the assessments based on the Tokyo Guidelines, the AC severity of patients with initial endoscopic CBD stone removal was mild to moderate. The use of antithrombotic agents before EBD was less frequent in the initial group than in the delayed group (11% vs 58%, respectively; P = 0.004). All the patients underwent successful endoscopic CBD stone removal and adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups. The number of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures was significantly lower in the initial group than in the delayed group [median (interquartile range) 1 (1-1) vs 2 (2-2), respectively; P < 0.001]. The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter for the initial group than for the delayed group [10 (9-15) vs 17 (14-20), respectively; P = 0.010].

CONCLUSION

Initial endoscopic CBD stone removal in patients with AC may be feasible when AC severity and the use of antithrombotic agents are carefully considered.

Reported provision of analgesia to patients with acute abdominal pain in Canadian paediatric emergency departments

Objectives

Evidence exists that analgesics are underutilized, delayed, and insufficiently dosed for emergency department (ED) patients with acute abdominal pain. For physicians practicing in a Canadian paediatric ED setting, we (1) explored theoretical practice variation in the provision of analgesia to children with acute abdominal pain; (2) identified reasons for withholding analgesia; and (3) evaluated the relationship between providing analgesia and surgical consultation.

Methods

Physician members of Paediatric Emergency Research Canada (PERC) were prospectively surveyed and presented with three scenarios of undifferentiated acute abdominal pain to assess management. A modified Dillman’s Tailored Design method was used to distribute the survey from June to July 2014.

Results

Overall response rate was 74.5% (149/200); 51.7% of respondents were female and mean age was 44 (SD 8.4) years. The reported rates of providing analgesia for case scenarios representative of renal colic, appendicitis, and intussusception, were 100%, 92.1%, and 83.4%, respectively, while rates of providing intravenous opioids were 85.2%, 58.6%, and 12.4%, respectively. In all 60 responses where the respondent indicated they would obtain a surgical consultation, analgesia would be provided. In the 35 responses where analgesia would be withheld, 21 (60%) believed pain was not severe enough, while 5 (14.3%) indicated it would obscure a surgical condition.

Conclusions

Pediatric emergency physicians self-reported rates of providing analgesia for acute abdominal pain scenarios were higher than previously reported, and appeared unrelated to request for surgical consultation. However, an unwillingness to provide opioid analgesia, belief that analgesia can obscure a surgical condition, and failure to take self-reported pain at face value remain, suggesting that the need exists for further knowledge translation efforts.

Prehospital personnel’s attitudes to pain management

Objectives

Pain is one of the most common reasons for patients to seek acute medical care. The management of pain is often inadequate both in the prehospital setting and in the emergency department. Our aim was to evaluate the attitudes towards pain management among prehospital personnel in two Scandinavian metropolitan areas.

Methods

A questionnaire with 36 items was distributed to prehospital personnel working in Helsinki, Finland (n=70) and to prehospital personnel working in Stockholm, Sweden (n=634). Each item was weighted on a five-level Likert scale. Factor loading of the questionnaire was made using maximum likelihood analysis and varimax rotation. Six scales were constructed (Hesitation, Encouragement, Side effects, Evaluation, Perceptions, Pain metre). A Student’s t-test, ANOVA, and Pearson Correlation were used for analysis of significance.

Results

: The response rate among the Finnish prehospital personnel was 66/70 (94.2%) while among the Swedish personnel it was 127/634 (20.0%). The prehospital personnel from Sweden showed significantly more Hesitation to administer pain relief compared to the Finnish personnel (mean 2.01 SD 0.539 vs. 1.67 SD 0.530, p < 0.001). Those who had received pain education at their workplace showed significantly less Hesitation than those who had not participated in education. There was a significant negative correlation (p < 0.01) between Hesitation and Side effects. There was also astatistically significant(p < 0.01) correlation between Perceptions and Hesitation, indicating that a stoic attitude towards pain was associated with indifference to possible Side effects of pain medication (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

The results show that there was a significant correlation between the extent of education and the prehospital personnel’s attitudes to pain management. Gender and age among the prehospital personnel also affected the attitudes to pain management. The main discrepancy between the Swedish and Finnish personnel was that the participants from Stockholm showed statistically significantly more hesitation about administering pain medication compared to the participants from Helsinki.

Implications

The results of the study highlight the need for continuous medical education (CME) for prehospital personnel. CME and discussions among prehospital personnel may help to make a change in the personnel’s attitudes towards pain and pain management in the prehospital context.

Guideline for the diagnostic pathway in patients with acute abdominal pain

INTRODUCTION

Diagnostic practice for acute abdominal pain at the Emergency Department varies widely and is mostly based on doctor's preferences. We aimed at developing an evidence-based guideline for the diagnostic pathway of patients with abdominal pain of non-traumatic origin.

METHODS

All available international literature on patients with acute abdominal pain was identified and graded according to their methodological quality by members of the multidisciplinary steering group. A guideline was synthetized, providing evidence-based recommendations together with considerations based on expertise of group members, patient preferences, costs, availability of facilities, and organizational aspects.

DEFINITION

Uniform terminology is needed in patients with acute abdominal pain to avoid difficulty in interpretation and ease comparison of findings between studies. We propose the use of the following definition for acute abdominal pain: pain of nontraumatic origin with a maximum duration of 5 days. Clinical diagnosis: Clinical evaluation is advised to differentiate between urgent and nonurgent causes. The diagnostic accuracy of clinical assessment is insufficient to identify the correct diagnosis but can discriminate between urgent and nonurgent causes. Patients suspected of nonurgent diagnoses can safely be reevaluated the next day. Based on current literature, no conclusions can be drawn on the differences in accuracy between residents and specialists. No conclusions can be drawn on the influence of a gynecological consultation. In patients suspected of an urgent condition, additional imaging is justified. CRP and WBC count alone are insufficient to discriminate urgent from nonurgent diagnoses. Diagnostic imaging: There is no place for conventional radiography in the work-up of patients with acute abdominal pain due to the lack of added value on top of clinical assessment. Computed tomography leads to the highest sensitivity and specificity in patients with acute abdominal pain. Positive predictive value of ultrasound is comparable with CT and therefore preferred as the first imaging modality due to the downsides of computed tomography; negative or inconclusive ultrasound is followed by CT. Based on current literature, no conclusions can be drawn on the added value of a diagnostic laparoscopy in the work-up of patients with acute abdominal pain. Antibiotic treatment should be started within the first hour after recognition of sepsis. Administration of opioids (analgesics) decreases the intensity of the pain and does not affect the accuracy of physical examination.

Treatment of acute abdominal pain in the emergency room: a systematic review of the literature

Appropriate pain therapy prior to diagnosis in patients with acute abdominal pain remains controversial. Several recent studies have demonstrated that pain therapy does not negatively influence either the diagnosis or subsequent treatment of these patients; however, current practice patterns continue to favour withholding pain medication prior to diagnosis and surgical treatment decision. A systematic review of PubMed, Web-of-Science and The-Cochrane-Library from 1929 to 2011 was carried out using the key words of 'acute', 'abdomen', 'pain', 'emergency' as well as different pain drugs in use, revealed 84 papers. The results of the literature review were incorporated into six sections to describe management of acute abdominal pain: (1) Physiology of Pain; (2) Common Aetiologies of Abdominal Pain; (3) Pre-diagnostic Analgesia; (4) Pain Therapy for Acute Abdominal Pain; (5) Analgesia for Acute Abdominal Pain in Special Patient Populations; and (6) Ethical and Medico-legal Considerations in Current Analgesia Practices. A comprehensive algorithm for analgesia for acute abdominal pain in the general adult population was developed. A review of the literature of common aetiologies and management of acute abdominal pain in the general adult population and special patient populations seen in the emergency room revealed that intravenous administration of paracetamol, dipyrone or piritramide are currently the analgesics of choice in this clinical setting. Combinations of non-opioids and opioids should be administered in patients with moderate, severe or extreme pain, adjusting the treatment on the basis of repeated pain assessment, which improves overall pain management.

Management of Pain in the Emergency Department

Since pain is a primary impetus for patient presentation to the Emergency Department (ED), its treatment should be a priority for acute care providers. Historically, the ED has been marked by shortcomings in both the evaluation and amelioration of pain. Over the past decade, improvements in the science of pain assessment and management have combined to facilitate care improvements in the ED. The purpose of this review is to address selected topics within the realm of ED pain management. Commencing with general principles and definitions, the review continues with an assessment of areas of controversy and advancing knowledge in acute pain care. Some barriers to optimal pain care are discussed, and potential mechanisms to overcome these barriers are offered. While the review is not intended as a resource for specific pain conditions or drug information, selected agents and approaches are mentioned with respect to evolving evidence and areas for future research.

Early analgesic treatment regimens for patients with acute abdominal pain: a nationwide survey among general surgeons

INTRODUCTION

Early pain relief in patients with acute nontraumatic abdominal pain in emergency departments has been discussed for years. Some randomized trials have addressed this issue but conclusive data are lacking. In this study, we assessed the current treatment practice in German hospitals in order to evaluate the necessity of a further clinical trial.

METHODS

An online survey containing 27 questions was sent to general and visceral surgeons at attending level using a mailing list provided by the Professional Board of German Surgeons (BDC) using a standard interview software. The questionnaire collected demographic data, current treatment policies about frequency of early analgesia, types of pain medication, and opinions about their use and effects.

RESULTS

Four hundred ninety-five completed questionnaires were returned. Many surgeons were cautious about early analgesia in the emergency department. Forty-five percent of the surgeons would provide analgesia prior to diagnosis to the majority of patients. Within the departments, differing opinions existed regarding the analgesic treatment (41 %). Thirty-two percent of all the respondents knew about a false diagnosis after early analgesia. There was heterogeneity in the estimation of the impact of pain medication on masking of clinical symptoms. A randomized controlled trial would be supported by the majority of respondents. As influencing factors for withdrawing early analgesia, we found the examiner being over 40 years of age (p < 0.05), low experience with the clinical picture of acute abdominal pain (p < 0.05), high estimation of the masking of clinical findings (p < 0.001), and knowing about a false diagnosis after early analgesia (p < 0.001) to be significant.

CONCLUSION

Discordance in the analgesic treatment regimens in patients with acute abdominal pain still exists in German hospitals. The topic remains subject of frequent discussions. More high quality data are needed before a clear guideline can be given for implementation in clinical routine management.

[Unclear abdominal pain in central emergency admissions. An algorithm]

One of the chief complaints in the emergency department is abdominal pain which is associated with a large spectrum of possible underlying diagnoses. Life-threatening diseases have to be identified urgently to treat them rapidly either conservatively or by surgical intervention. The algorithm presented in this article starts with the triage in the emergency department. After triage the first step in the algorithm is an interdisciplinary communication to start the standardized diagnostic process which includes medical history, clinical examination, laboratory analyses, ultrasound and electrocardiogram. Further diagnostic escalation should be done in unspecific and urgent cases of abdominal pain after consulting a specialist. In approximately 30 % of patients with abdominal pain on admittance to an emergency department the cause remains unclear after undergoing the diagnostic process. In these cases it can be useful for risk stratification to transfer the patient to a ward related to the emergency department for observation und further diagnostics.

An Evaluation of the Effect of Morphine on Abdominal Pain and PeritonealIrritation Signs in Patients with Acute Surgical Abdomen

INTRODUCTION

Acute surgical abdomen is one of the most common emergency surgical causes all over the world and also one of the most important abdominal pain causes which is sometimes intolerable for the patients referring to the emergency departments. Diagnosis and planning for operation in these cases is based on time-demanding serial examinations and results of paraclinical data. In this waiting period, patients have to tolerate pain.Therefore, we aimed to study the hypothesis that relieving pain has no influence on valuable findings in physical examination.

METHODS

This double blind randomized clinical trial was carried out on 120 patients above 12 years old referred to an emergency department of a referral hospital with acute abdomen. Patients were divided into two groups of receiving intravenous placebo and Morphine randomly. Pain score, change in tenderness as well as change in rebound tenderness before and after receiving morphine or placebo were measured based on Numeric Pain Assessment Scale.

RESULTS

Statistically significant difference was observed between both groups regarding the mean pain score. Prevalence of tenderness and rebound tenderness after medication administration revealed a significant difference between two groups. Furthermore, pain and tenderness showed a significant decrease in patients receiving morphine also a significant difference occurred in rebound tenderness between two groups.

CONCLUSION

Despite the fact that opioid analgesics decrease pain in patients with acute surgical abdomen, they do not tend to eliminate required diagnostic data being obtained from physical examination like tenderness and rebound tenderness. Surprisingly, all the acute abdomen cases had rebound tenderness after morphine administration. Therefore, this research advises a cautious usage of morphine in patients with acute abdomen.

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.

Approach to acute abdominal pain

Evaluation of the emergency department patient with acute abdominal pain may be challenging. Many factors can obscure the clinical findings leading to incorrect diagnosis and subsequent adverse outcomes. Clinicians must consider multiple diagnoses with limited time and information, giving priority to life-threatening conditions that require expeditious management to avoid morbidity and mortality. This article seeks to provide the clinician with the clinical tools to achieve these goals by reviewing the anatomic and physiological basis of abdominal pain and key components of the history and the physical examination. In addition, this article discusses the approach to unstable patients with abdominal pain.

Respiratory distress and chest pain: a perforated peptic ulcer with an unusual presentation

Background

Dyspnea and chest pain are common presenting complaints to the ED, and coupled together can present a challenging diagnostic dilemma in patients in extremis. A thoughtful evaluation is required, giving due diligence to the immediate life threats as well as multiple etiologies which can cause serious morbidity. A perforated peptic ulcer is one such possibility and requires rapid diagnosis and prompt intervention to avoid the associated high risk of morbidity and mortality.

Method

We present a case report of a 54 year old man with respiratory distress and chest pain as the initial Emergency Department presentation of a perforated duodenal ulcer.

Results

We discuss an unusual presentation of a perforated duodenal ulcer that was recognized in the emergency department and treated promptly. The patient was surgically treated immediately, had a prolonged and complicated post-operative course, but is ultimately doing well. We also provide a brief literature review of the risk factors, imaging choices, and management decision required to treat a perforated ulcer.

Conclusions

Perforated ulcers can have highly varied presentations and are occasionally difficult to diagnose in a complicated patient. Knowledge of the risk factors and a thorough history and physical can point to the diagnosis, but timely and appropriate imaging is often required because delays in diagnosis and treatment lead to poor outcomes. Early administration of antibiotics and immediate surgical repair are necessary to limit morbidity and mortality.

Analgesia in patients with acute abdominal pain

BACKGROUND

For decades, the indication of analgesia in patients with Acute Abdominal Pain (AAP) has been deferred until the definitive diagnosis has been made, for fear of masking symptoms, generating a change in the physical exploration or obstructing the diagnosis of a disease requiring surgical treatment. This strategy has been questioned by some studies that have shown that the use of analgesia in the initial evaluation of patients with AAP leads to a significant reduction in pain without affecting diagnostic accuracy.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether the evidence available supports the use of opioid analgesics in the diagnostic process of patients with AAP.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were identified through searches in Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, issue 2, 2009), MEDLINE (1966 to 2009) and EMBASE (1980 to 2009). A randomised controlled trial (RCT) filter for a MEDLINE search was applied (with appropriate modification for an EMBASE search). Trials also were identified through "related articles". The search was not limited by language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published RCTs which included adult patients with AAP, without gender restriction, comparing any opioids analgesia regimen with the non-use of analgesic before any intervention and independent of the results.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two independent reviewers assessed the studies identified via the electronic search. Articles that were relevant and pertinent to the aims of the study were selected and their respective full-text versions were collected for subsequent blinded evaluation. The allocation concealment was considered in particular as an option to diminish the biases.The data collected from the studies were reviewed qualitatively and quantitatively using the Cochrane Collaboration statistical software RevMan 5.0. After performing the meta-analysis, the chi-squared test for heterogeneity was applied. In situations of significant clinical heterogeneity, statistical analyses were not applied to the pool of results. In situations of heterogeneity, the random effect model was used to perform the meta-analysis of the results. A sensitivity analysis was also applied based on the evaluation to the methodological quality of the primary studies.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Differences with use of opioid analgesia were verified in variables: Change in the intensity of the pain, change in the patients comfort level.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The use of opioid analgesics in the therapeutic diagnosis of patients with AAP does not increase the risk of diagnosis error or the risk of error in making decisions regarding treatment.

Administration of analgesics in patients with acute abdominal pain: a survey of the practice of doctors in a developing country

Background

Analgesic use, particularly opioids in the emergency situation in patients with acute abdominal pain, generally has been avoided in the past; however, newer evidence has shown that the practice should be encouraged. In spite of this, many physicians still withhold analgesics in this clinical situation.

Aims

The aim of the study was to evaluate the current opinion and practice of Nigerian doctors regarding the use of analgesics for patients with acute abdominal pain during the initial evaluation.

Methods

A one-page survey was distributed by two of the authors to Nigerian doctors from different parts of the country during conferences, seminars and meetings on different occasions in 2007. Demographic data and information regarding medical specialty, post-qualification experience, analgesic use in acute abdominal pain, and effects on diagnosis and outcome were included. The respondents were then classed into two sets of two groups using specialty (surgical and non-surgical) and post-qualification experience (less than 10 years, “less experienced;” over 10 years, “experienced”).

Results

There were 539 respondents. The male:female ratio was 12:1. Of the respondents, 50.4% would withhold analgesics if the diagnosis was unclear, and a further 12% would do the same if a surgical opinion was required. Reasons for withholding analgesics were (1) believing that analgesics interfered with evolution of signs (84.4%), (2) believing that the diagnosis would be impaired (77.9%) and (3) believing that analgesics would have an adverse effect on outcome (54.5%). Specialty or length of post-qualification experience did not significantly influence this practice (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

The study has shown that the dogma that analgesics are harmful in patients with acute abdominal pain is still firmly entrenched in the practice of the surveyed Nigerian doctors. This belief is not significantly affected by specialty or post-qualification experience.

The association between emergency department crowding and analgesia administration in acute abdominal pain patients

OBJECTIVES

The authors assessed the effect of emergency department (ED) crowding on the nontreatment and delay in treatment for analgesia in patients who had acute abdominal pain.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of prospectively enrolled nonpregnant adult patients presenting to an urban teaching ED with abdominal pain during a 9-month period. Each patient had four validated crowding measures assigned at triage. Main outcomes were the administration of and delays in time to analgesia. A delay was defined as waiting more than 1 hour for analgesia. Relative risk (RR) regression was used to test the effects of crowding on outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 976 abdominal pain patients (mean [+/-standard deviation] age = 41 [+/-16.6] years; 65% female, 62% black) were enrolled, of whom 649 (67%) received any analgesia. Of those treated, 457 (70%) experienced a delay in analgesia from triage, and 320 (49%) experienced a delay in analgesia after room placement. After adjusting for possible confounders of the ED administration of analgesia (age, sex, race, triage class, severe pain, final diagnosis of either abdominal pain not otherwise specified or gastroenteritis), increasing delays in time to analgesia from triage were independently associated with all four crowding measures, comparing the lowest to the highest quartile of crowding (total patient-care hours RR = 1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.32 to 1.80; occupancy rate RR = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.42 to 1.91; inpatient number RR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.36 to 1.81; and waiting room number RR = 1.53, 95% CI = 1.31 to 1.77). Crowding measures were not associated with the failure to treat with analgesia.

CONCLUSIONS

Emergency department crowding is associated with delays in analgesic treatment from the time of triage in patients presenting with acute abdominal pain.

The relative efficacy of meperidine for the treatment of acute migraine: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Despite guidelines recommending against opioids as first-line treatment for acute migraine, meperidine is the agent used most commonly in North American emergency departments. Clinical trials performed to date have been small and have not arrived at consistent conclusions about the efficacy of meperidine. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the relative efficacy and adverse effect profile of opioids compared with nonopioid active comparators for the treatment of acute migraine.

METHODS

We searched multiple sources (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and LILACS, emergency and headache medicine conference proceedings) for randomized controlled trials comparing parenteral opioid and nonopioid active comparators for the treatment of acute migraine headache. Our primary outcome was relief of headache. If this was unavailable, we accepted rescue medication use or we transformed visual analog scale change scores by using an established procedure. We grouped studies by comparator: a regimen containing dihydroergotamine, antiemetic alone, or ketorolac. For each study, we calculated an odds ratio (OR) of headache relief and then assessed clinical and statistical heterogeneity for the group of studies. We then pooled the ORs of headache relief with a random-effects model.

RESULTS

From 899 citations, 19 clinical trials were identified, of which 11 were appropriate and had available data. Four trials involving 254 patients compared meperidine to dihydroergotamine, 4 trials involving 248 patients compared meperidine to an antiemetic, and 3 trials involving 123 patients compared meperidine to ketorolac. Meperidine was less effective than dihydroergotamine at providing headache relief (OR=0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09 to 0.97) and trended toward less efficacy than the antiemetics (OR=0.46; 95% CI 0.19 to 1.11); however, the efficacy of meperidine was similar to that of ketorolac (OR=1.75; 95% CI 0.84 to 3.61). Compared to dihydroergotamine, meperidine caused more sedation (OR=3.52; 95% CI 0.87 to 14.19) and dizziness (OR=8.67; 95% CI 2.66 to 28.23). Compared to the antiemetics, meperidine caused less akathisia (OR=0.10; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.57). Meperidine and ketorolac use resulted in similar rates of gastrointestinal adverse effects (OR=1.27; 95% CI 0.31 to 5.15) and sedation (OR=1.70; 95% CI 0.23 to 12.72).

CONCLUSION

Clinicians should consider alternatives to meperidine when treating acute migraine with injectable agents.

Gender disparity in analgesic treatment of emergency department patients with acute abdominal pain

OBJECTIVES

Oligoanalgesia for acute abdominal pain historically has been attributed to the provider's fear of masking serious underlying pathology. The authors assessed whether a gender disparity exists in the administration of analgesia for acute abdominal pain.

METHODS

This was a prospective cohort study of consecutive nonpregnant adults with acute nontraumatic abdominal pain of less than 72 hours' duration who presented to an urban emergency department (ED) from April 5, 2004, to January 4, 2005. The main outcome measures were analgesia administration and time to analgesic treatment. Standard comparative statistics were used.

RESULTS

Of the 981 patients enrolled (mean age +/- standard deviation [SD] 41 +/- 17 years; 65% female), 62% received any analgesic treatment. Men and women had similar mean pain scores, but women were less likely to receive any analgesia (60% vs. 67%, difference 7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.1% to 13.6%) and less likely to receive opiates (45% vs. 56%, difference 11%, 95% CI = 4.1% to 17.1%). These differences persisted when gender-specific diagnoses were excluded (47% vs. 56%, difference 9%, 95% CI = 2.5% to 16.2%). After controlling for age, race, triage class, and pain score, women were still 13% to 25% less likely than men to receive opioid analgesia. There was no gender difference in the receipt of nonopioid analgesia. Women waited longer to receive their analgesia (median time 65 minutes vs. 49 minutes, difference 16 minutes, 95% CI = 3.5 to 33 minutes).

CONCLUSIONS

Gender bias is a possible explanation for oligoanalgesia in women who present to the ED with acute abdominal pain. Standardized protocols for analgesic administration may ameliorate this discrepancy.

Endogenous opiates and behavior: 2006

This paper is the 29th consecutive installment of the annual review of research concerning the endogenous opioid system, now spanning 30 years of research. It summarizes papers published during 2006 that studied the behavioral effects of molecular, pharmacological and genetic manipulation of opioid peptides, opioid receptors, opioid agonists and opioid antagonists. The particular topics that continue to be covered include the molecular-biochemical effects and neurochemical localization studies of endogenous opioids and their receptors related to behavior (Section 2), and the roles of these opioid peptides and receptors in pain and analgesia (Section 3); stress and social status (Section 4); tolerance and dependence (Section 5); learning and memory (Section 6); eating and drinking (Section 7); alcohol and drugs of abuse (Section 8); sexual activity and hormones, pregnancy, development and endocrinology (Section 9); mental illness and mood (Section 10); seizures and neurological disorders (Section 11); electrical-related activity and neurophysiology (Section 12); general activity and locomotion (Section 13); gastrointestinal, renal and hepatic functions (Section 14); cardiovascular responses (Section 15); respiration and thermoregulation (Section 16); and immunological responses (Section 17).

Analgesia in patients with acute abdominal pain

BACKGROUND

For decades, analgesia for patients with acute abdominal pain was withheld until a definitive diagnosis was established for fear of masking the symptoms, changing physical findings or ultimately delaying diagnosis and treatment of a surgical condition. This non-evidence-based approach has been challenged by recent studies demonstrating that the use of analgesia in the initial evaluation of patients with acute abdominal pain leads to significant pain reduction without affecting diagnostic accuracy. However, early administration of analgesia to such patients can greatly reduce their pain and does not interfere with a diagnosis, which may even be facilitated due to the severity of physical symptoms being reduced.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if the currently available evidence supports the use of opioid analgesia in patient management with acute abdominal pain; and to assess changes in a patient comfort while awaiting definitive diagnosis and final treatment decisions.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Trials were identified by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, issue 4, 2006), MEDLINE (1966 to 2006) and EMBASE (1980 to 2006). Randomized controlled trial filter for MEDLINE and EMBASE search. Trials will also be identified by "related articles". The searches were not limited by language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that include adult patients with acute abdominal pain, without gender restriction, comparing any opioid analgesia regime to no analgesia administered prior to any intervention regardless of outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors looked independently at the titles and abstracts of reports. Potentially relevant studies selected by at least one reviewer were retrieved in full text versions for potential inclusion. Allocation concealment was important to avoid bias and was graded using the Cochrane approach. The data from studies included was reviewed qualitatively and quantitatively using the Cochrane Collaborations methodology and statistical software RevMan Analysis 1.0.5. In the case of homogeneity or non- worrying heterogeneity, a random effects model was used. Sensitivity analysis was performed based on quality assessment.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Improvement with use of opioid analgesia was verified in variables patient comfort, reduction of pain, changes in physical examination.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review provide some evidence to support the notion that the use of opioid analgesics in patients with acute abdominal pain is helpful in terms of patient comfort and does not retard decisions to treat.

Abdominal Pain

Evaluation of the elderly patient with acute abdominal pain is sometimes difficult. Various factors can obscure the presentation, delaying or preventing the correct diagnosis and leading to adverse patient outcomes. Clinicians must consider multiple diagnoses, especially those life-threatening conditions that require timely intervention to limit morbidity and mortality. This article reviews abdominal pain in the elderly, discusses the clinical approach, and highlights key diagnostic considerations.