4.3 Article

THE THINK (TREATMENT OF HEADACHE WITH INTRANASAL KETAMINE) TRIAL: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL COMPARING INTRANASAL KETAMINE WITH INTRAVENOUS METOCLOPRAMIDE

期刊

JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 56, 期 3, 页码 248-+

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2018.12.007

关键词

headache; ketamine; intranasal; emergency department; migraine; primary headache disorder; diphenhydramine; metoclopramide

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Headache is a common chief complaint in the emergency department (ED) setting. Objectives: To compare analgesia with metoclopramide and diphenhydramine vs. intranasal ketamine among ED patients with primary headache. Methods: We enrolled a convenience sample of adults with a primary headache in a randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled trial. We randomized patients to either a control arm (intravenous metoclopramide and diphenhydramine) or intranasal ketamine. The primary outcome was change in pain 0-100 mm visual analog scale (VAS) score measured at study start and 30 min post completion of initial medication administration. Secondary outcomes included side effects, hospital admission, and return to care within 48-72 h. Results: All 53 enrolled subjects completed the study, 26 of whom were allocated to the control arm and 27 to intranasal ketamine. The mean change in pain VAS score at 30 min post intervention was 22.2mmin the control arm vs. 29.0 in the intranasal ketamine arm (effect size difference 6.8 mm, 95% confidence interval -5.8-19.4). The incidence of reported side effects was 65.4% in the control arm vs. 66.7% in the ketamine arm. Three patients (11.5%) allocated to the control arm required admission for headache pain control vs. 1 patient (3.7%) in the intranasal ketamine arm. Three (11.5%) additional patients in the control arm returned to the ED within 48-72 h for headache pain vs. none in the ketamine arm. Conclusions: In this small randomized study, intranasal ketamine was not superior to standard therapy among ED patients with primary headache syndromes. Published by Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据