Annals of emergency medicine · 2023
Atomized Intranasal Ketorolac Versus Intravenous Ketorolac for the Treatment of Severe Renal Colic in the Emergency Department: A Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial.
Рандомизированное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Al-Khalasi Usama Said Shannan, Al-Sarrai Al-Alalawi Awatif Khamis Said, Al-Jufaili Mahmood, Al-Reesi Abdullah, Al-Zakwani Ibrahim, Al-Asmi Muzna Said Rashid, Al-Riyami Fatma Bader, Vishwakarma Ramesh
Аннотация
STUDY OBJECTIVE: Atomized intranasal (IN) drug administration offers an alternative to the intravenous (IV) route. We aimed to evaluate the analgesic efficacy of IN versus IV ketorolac in emergency department patients with acute renal colic.
METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized controlled trial on adult patients (aged 18 to 64 years) with severe renal colic and numerical rating scale pain ratings ≥7.0. They were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive single doses of either IN or IV ketorolac. Our main outcomes were differences in numerical rating scale reduction at 30 and 60 minutes. A 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for each mean difference, with a minimum clinically important difference set at 1.3 points. Secondary outcomes included treatment response, adverse events, rescue medications, and emergency department revisits. We analyzed using intention-to-treat.
RESULTS: A total of 86 and 85 patients with similar baseline characteristics were allocated to the IV and IN groups, respectively. Mean numerical rating scale scores were 8.52 and 8.65 at baseline, 3.85 and 4.67 at 30 minutes, and 2.80 and 3.04 at 90 minutes, respectively. The mean numerical rating scale reduction differences between the IV and IN groups were 0.69 (95% CI -0.08 to 1.48) at 30 minutes and 0.10 (95% CI -0.85 to 1.04) at 60 minutes. There were no differences in secondary outcomes.
CONCLUSION: Neither IN or IV ketorolac was superior to the other for the treatment of acute renal colic, and both provided clinically meaningful reductions in pain scores at 30 to 60 minutes.
METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized controlled trial on adult patients (aged 18 to 64 years) with severe renal colic and numerical rating scale pain ratings ≥7.0. They were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive single doses of either IN or IV ketorolac. Our main outcomes were differences in numerical rating scale reduction at 30 and 60 minutes. A 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for each mean difference, with a minimum clinically important difference set at 1.3 points. Secondary outcomes included treatment response, adverse events, rescue medications, and emergency department revisits. We analyzed using intention-to-treat.
RESULTS: A total of 86 and 85 patients with similar baseline characteristics were allocated to the IV and IN groups, respectively. Mean numerical rating scale scores were 8.52 and 8.65 at baseline, 3.85 and 4.67 at 30 minutes, and 2.80 and 3.04 at 90 minutes, respectively. The mean numerical rating scale reduction differences between the IV and IN groups were 0.69 (95% CI -0.08 to 1.48) at 30 minutes and 0.10 (95% CI -0.85 to 1.04) at 60 minutes. There were no differences in secondary outcomes.
CONCLUSION: Neither IN or IV ketorolac was superior to the other for the treatment of acute renal colic, and both provided clinically meaningful reductions in pain scores at 30 to 60 minutes.