A randomized controlled trial of intranasal fentanyl vs intravenous morphine for analgesia in the prehospital setting
| File | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 46829_1.pdf | 102Kb | Adobe PDF | View |
| Title | A randomized controlled trial of intranasal fentanyl vs intravenous morphine for analgesia in the prehospital setting |
|---|---|
| Author | Rickard, Claire; O'Meara, Peter; McGrail, Matthew; Garner, David; McLean, Alan; Lievre, Peter Le |
| Journal Name | American Journal of Emergency Medicine |
| Year Published | 2007 |
| Place of publication | United States |
| Publisher | Elsevier |
| Abstract | Study Objective The objective of the study was to compare intranasal fentanyl (INF) with intravenous morphine (IVM) for prehospital analgesia. Methods This was a randomized, controlled, open-label trial. Consecutive adult patients (n = 258) requiring analgesia (Verbal Rating Score [VRS] >2/10 noncardiac or >5/10 cardiac) were recruited. Patients received INF 180 μg ± 2 doses of 60 μg at ≥5-minute intervals or IVM 2.5 to 5 mg ± 2 doses of 2.5 to 5 mg at ≥5-minute intervals. The end point was the difference in baseline/destination VRS. Results Groups were equivalent (P = not significant) for baseline VRS [mean (SD): INF 8.3 (1.7), IVM 8.1 (1.6)] and minutes to destination [mean (SD): INF 27.2 (15.5), IVM 30.6 (19.1)]. Patients had a mean (95% confidence interval) VRS reduction as follows: INF 4.22 (3.74-4.71), IVM 3.57 (3.10-4.03); P = .08. Higher baseline VRS (P < .001), no methoxyflurane use (P < .01), and back pain (P = .02) predicted VRS reduction. Safety and acceptability were comparable. Conclusions There was no significant difference in the effectiveness of INF and IVM for prehospital analgesia. |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Published | Yes |
| Publisher URI | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07356757 |
| Alternative URI | http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2007.02.027 |
| Copyright Statement | Copyright 2007 Elsevier. This is the author-manuscript version of this paper. Reproduced in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. Please refer to the journal's website for access to the definitive, published version. |
| Volume | 25 |
| Issue Number | 8 |
| Page from | 911 |
| Page to | 917 |
| ISSN | 0735-6757 |
| Date Accessioned | 2007-09-14 |
| Date Available | 2008-05-16T03:44:46Z |
| Language | en_AU |
| Research Centre | Griffith Health Institute; Centre for Health Practice Innovation |
| Faculty | Griffith Health Faculty |
| Subject | Anaesthesiology; Clinical Nursing: Secondary (Acute Care); Clinical Sciences; Medical and Health Sciences |
| URI | http://hdl.handle.net/10072/18847 |
| Publication Type | Journal Articles (Refereed Article) |
| Publication Type Code | c1 |
Please use this identifier to cite this record: http://hdl.handle.net/10072/18847
Griffith University copyright notice
Copyright in individual works within the repository belongs to their authors or publishers. You may make a print or digital copy of a work for your personal non-commercial use. All other rights are reserved, except for fair dealings or other user rights granted by the copyright laws of your country.
Back to top