4.5 Article

Prochlorperazine in children with migraine: a look at its effectiveness and rate of akathisia

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 30, 期 3, 页码 456-463

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2010.12.020

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of prochlorperazine and the rate of akathisia in children with severe migraine. Methods: The study is a prospective cohort of a convenient sample of patients younger than 18 years old diagnosed with migraine and treated with intravenous prochlorperazine in adjunction with diphenhydramine in the emergency department. The evaluation of pain and akathisia was performed before the treatment and was repeated 60 minutes later and before discharge. A telephone follow-up was completed to assess relapse in pain and presence of akathisia. The effectiveness of prochlorperazine was determined using different outcomes: 50% reduction of pain, pain-free patients, treatment failure, and relapse of pain. Results: Of the 79 patients included in the study for 25 months, 64 (81%) either met the International Headache Society criteria or had a diagnosis of migraine confirmed by a neurologist at follow-up. Among these patients, 47 (100%) of 47 had a 50% reduction of pain, and 24 (50%) of 48 were pain free at discharge. Only 14 (22%) of 64 patients had a treatment failure. However, 43 (68%) of 63 patients had a relapse of their headache within the first week after discharge. Overall, among the 79 patients, 4 (5%) had a definitive diagnosis of akathisia, but 27 (34%) other patients presented symptoms suggesting a possible diagnosis of akathisia. Conclusion: Prochlorperazine seems very effective to decrease pain on a short-term basis in children. However, more than two thirds of the patients, overall, had a relapse of their migraine at home in the first week. Despite the use of diphenhydramine, akathisia remains a concern. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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