Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA · 2005
A double-blind, randomized trial of intravenous versus intramuscular antivenom for red-back spider envenoming.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Ellis Rodney M, Sprivulis Peter C, Jelinek George A, Banham Neil D G, Wood Simon V, Wilkes Garry J, Siegmund Andrew, Roberts Brigit L
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of intravenous versus intramuscular antivenom (AV) in the treatment of Red-back spider (RBS) envenoming.
METHODS: Randomized, double-dummy, double-blind, multicentre trial of patients with red-back spider envenoming requiring AV treatment recruited from five hospital EDs in Western Australia.
RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were recruited; two were excluded; 33 were available for initial analysis, but two who were unblinded after one ampoule of trial AV and given i.v. AV had limited data; 31 remained in the study and had more complete data. After AV, pain scores for both i.m. and i.v. groups improved rapidly. At 24 h, the i.v. group was better with a 55% absolute difference (76% vs. 21%; 95% CI 25-85% difference) in the proportion pain-free. There were no safety issues.
CONCLUSIONS: Red-back spider antivenom was initially effective by both i.m. and i.v. routes. The study generates the hypothesis that at 24 h, significantly more patients are pain-free with i.v. administration. Definitive recommendations on the optimal route of administration of RBS AV await the results of further studies.
METHODS: Randomized, double-dummy, double-blind, multicentre trial of patients with red-back spider envenoming requiring AV treatment recruited from five hospital EDs in Western Australia.
RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were recruited; two were excluded; 33 were available for initial analysis, but two who were unblinded after one ampoule of trial AV and given i.v. AV had limited data; 31 remained in the study and had more complete data. After AV, pain scores for both i.m. and i.v. groups improved rapidly. At 24 h, the i.v. group was better with a 55% absolute difference (76% vs. 21%; 95% CI 25-85% difference) in the proportion pain-free. There were no safety issues.
CONCLUSIONS: Red-back spider antivenom was initially effective by both i.m. and i.v. routes. The study generates the hypothesis that at 24 h, significantly more patients are pain-free with i.v. administration. Definitive recommendations on the optimal route of administration of RBS AV await the results of further studies.