Ketorolac vs Meperidine for the Management of Pain in the Emergency Department

Objective: To compare the pain relief, sedation, and common side effect profiles of ketorolac tromethamine and meperidine for the management of acute pain in the emergency department (ED).
Methods: A prospective, double-blind, randomized clinical trial was conducted over a 12-month period using consecutive adult patients presenting to a university teaching hospital ED (annual census: 32,000), who required IM analgesia for acute pain. Adult patients with acute pain of various etiologies were randomly assigned to receive a single fixed IM dose of ketorolac (60 mg) or meperidine (100 mg).
Results: Ninety-three patients were enrolled in the study; 46 were randomized to meperidine and 47 to ketorolac. Using a visual analog scale, there was no difference in pain relief between the ketorolac and meperidine groups even after adjusting for baseline pain level. Ketorolac caused significantly (p < 0.005) less sedation than did meperidine at one hour. Rescue analgesia was required for seven of the 46 (15.2%) patients receiving meperidine and five of the 47 (10.6%) patients receiving ketorolac (p = NS). Seventeen of 45 (38%) patients receiving meperidine experienced side effects compared with eight of the 47 (17%) patients receiving ketorolac (p = 0.0452).
Conclusions: When used to treat patients who had acute pain states, 60 mg of IM ketorolac produced analgesia similar to that produced by 100 mg of IM meperidine; however, the ketorolac produced fewer subjective side effects and less sedation than did the meperidine.     

Comparing two doses of intramuscular ketorolac for treatment of acute musculoskeletal pain in a military emergency department

Study objectiveThe goal of the study was to assess a low-dose versus a high-dose of intramuscular (IM) ketorolac for non-inferiority in adults with acute MSK pain in an emergency department (ED).MethodsThis was a single-blinded, randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial of adults presenting to an ED with a chief complaint of acute MSK pain. Patients were randomized to either a 15 mg or a 60 mg IM ketorolac dose. The primary outcome was the mean difference of change in pain from baseline to 60-min between the two groups as reported on a 100-mm (mm) visual analog scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes included the mean difference of change in VAS scores at 30-min and the incidence of reported adverse effects associated with the administration of ketorolac.ResultsOne hundred ten patients were randomized with 55 in each group. The mean difference in pain between groups at 60-min (0.2 mm [95% CI -8.5–8.7]; p = .98) and 30 min (−1.7 mm [95% CI -8.5–5.1; p = .63) was less than the predetermined non-inferiority margin of 13 mm. There were no major adverse effects reported. Minor adverse effects were more frequent in the 60 mg group (n = 9; 16.4% vs. n = 1; 1.8%; p = .016) with burning at the injection site being the most commonly reported.ConclusionsA 15 mg dose of IM ketorolac was found to be non-inferior to a 60 mg dose for acute MSK pain in adults presenting to the ED. Discontinuing the practice of ordering 60 mg doses of IM ketorolac in place of a lower dose for acute MSK pain should be considered.     

A Double-blind Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluating the Analgesic Efficacy of Ketorolac versus Butorphanol for Patients with Suspected Biliary Colic in the Emergency Department

Objectives: Patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with suspected biliary colic often require intravenous (IV) analgesia. The choice of IV analgesia typically includes opioids and ketorolac. Although ultrasound (US) is the initial diagnostic study in these patients, nondiagnostic scans and a high clinical suspicion may require the patient to undergo hepatobiliary scintigraphy (HIDA). Opioids such as morphine interfere with the HIDA scan and thus may limit its value as an analgesic in the ED for these patients. Analgesics that do not interfere with HIDA scanning include ketorolac and butorphanol, an opioid agonist–antagonist. This study evaluates the efficacy of IV ketorolac compared to butorphanol for the treatment of biliary colic pain in the ED. Methods: Between June 2005 and February 2007, a convenience sample of patients presenting to the ED with abdominal pain suspected to be biliary colic were randomized to receive either 30 mg of IV ketorolac or 1 mg of IV butorphanol. Pain level was assessed using a 1 to 10 “faces” visual analog pain scale initially, as well as 15 and 30 minutes after medication infusion. Side effect profiles and the need for rescue analgesia were also assessed. Patients and clinicians were blinded to the study drug given. Results: Forty‐six patients were enrolled in the study. Both groups had similar demographics and baseline pain scores. The mean (±standard deviation [SD]) pain score in the butorphanol group decreased from 7.1 (±1.7) to 2.1 (±2.2) after 30 minutes. The mean (±SD) pain score in the ketorolac group decreased from 7.4 (±2.0) to 3.1 (±3.3) after 30 minutes. Both groups had similar needs for rescue analgesia. Side effects included dizziness and sedation with butorphanol and nausea with ketorolac. Conclusions: Although limited by small sample size and convenience sample, this study demonstrates that both ketorolac and butorphanol provide pain relief in biliary colic. Both agents should be considered reasonable options in the ED treatment of biliary colic, especially in patients that may undergo HIDA.     

Intravenous Ketorolac vs Intravenous Prochlorperazine for the Treatment of Migraine Headaches

Abstract. Objective : To compare IV ketorolac with IV prochlorperazine as the initial treatment of migraine headaches in the ED. Methods : A prospective, double-blind comparison study was performed, using a convenience sample of 64 patients suffering from migraine headaches presenting to the ED at a tertiary care university teaching hospital. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 10 mg of prochlorperazine IV or 30 mg of ketorolac IV. Patients scored the severity of their headaches using a 10-cm visual analog pain scale. An initial mark was made on the scale at the time of entry into the study and later another mark was made on a new unmarked pain scale 1 hour after medication administration. Changes in pain scores within each treatment group and between groups were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Results : Prior to treatment, the patients assigned to receive prochlorperazine had a median score of 9.2 cm (mean ± SD pain score of 8.3 cm ±2.1 cm), while the patients receiving ketorolac had a median score of 9.0 (mean pain score of 8.4 cm ± 1.7 cm). There was no significant difference between the pain scores of the participants in the 2 groups prior to treatment (p = 0.80). One hour after medication administration, the patients in the prochlorperazine group had a median score of 0.5 cm (mean 2.1 ± 3.2 cm), while those patients receiving ketorolac had a median pain score of 3.9 (mean 4.0 ± 3.3 cm). The decrease in pain score was significant for both groups of patients (p = 0.0001). The change in pain score for the patients in the prochlorperazine group (median 7.1) was significantly greater than the change in pain score for the patients in the ketorolac group (median 4.0; p = 0.04). Conclusion : Although both drugs were associated with a significant reduction in pain scores, benefit over a placebo agent was not tested. Furthermore, the patients who received prochlorperazine IV for migraine headaches had a statistically significant greater decrease in their pain scores than did those receiving ketorolac IV.     

Patients'' Perceptions of Route of Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drug Administration and Its Effect on Analgesia

OBJECTIVE: There is a commonly held belief among health care providers that patients respond better to parenteral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) than to oral forms by virtue of the patients' belief that getting an injection means they are receiving "stronger" medicine. To the authors' knowledge, this effect has never been adequately documented in the literature. The objective of this study was to compare the effects of a placebo analgesic injection vs placebo oral analgesia on patients with acute musculoskeletal pain. METHODS: A convenience sample of emergency department (ED) patients with acute musculoskeletal pain secondary to trauma were enrolled. Patients received 225 mL of orange-flavored drink containing 800 mg of ibuprofen. Patients then received either a physiologically inactive starch tablet resembling ibuprofen 800 mg in taste and appearance or a physiologically inactive saline intramuscular (IM) injection resembling ketorolac 60 mg. Both patients and research nurses were blinded to the addition of ibuprofen to the drink and the inactive nature of subsequent medication. Pain was evaluated at time 0 and at 30, 60, 90, and 120 minutes on a 10-mm visual analog scale (VAS). RESULTS: Sixty-four patients completed the study protocol. The VAS scores between groups did not differ significantly at baseline or at each subsequent interval (p = 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: These results contradict the belief that parenteral medications confer a selective placebo effect stemming from patients' beliefs regarding route of administration and efficacy. Therefore, the routine use of IM administration of NSAIDs for suspected enhanced analgesia appears unwarranted.     

The efficacy of sublingual hyoscyamine sulfate and intravenous ketorolac tromethamine in the relief of ureteral colic

A prospective, randomized, open-label, single-dose study was conducted in an emergency department (ED) of a tertiary care teaching hospital to evaluate the efficacy of hyoscyamine sulfate as compared to ketorolac tromethamine for the reduction of pain from ureteral colic in the ED. Patients were included if they were at least 18 years of age and presented to the ED with an initial history and physical examination consistent with ureteral colic. Ureteral calculi were confirmed by ultrasound or intravenous urogram. Consecutive patients were randomized to either a single sublingual dose of 0.125 mg of hyoscyamine sulfate or a single intravenous dose of 30 mg of ketorolac tromethamine given over 1 minute. After 30 minutes, if analgesia was inadequate, patients were given rescue medication. Baseline pain scores were obtained using a horizontal, 100-mm visual analog scale. Additional pain scores were obtained at 10-minute intervals for 30 minutes. Upon completion of the study, both patients and physicians completed a global assessment score questionnaire. Fifty-four evaluable patients were randomized. Demographics and baseline pain scores were similar for each group. Decreasing trends in pain over time were observed for both treatment groups, with significantly greater pain reduction observed with ketorolac tromethamine as compared to hyoscyamine sulfate. Global evaluations of pain relief revealed better results in the ketorolac tromethamine group than in the hyoscyamine sulfate group, although this result was not statistically significant.     

Ibuprofen Provides Analgesia Equivalent to Acetaminophen–Codeine in the Treatment of Acute Pain in Children with Extremity Injuries: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Objectives: This study compared the analgesic effectiveness of acetaminophen–codeine with that of ibuprofen for children with acute traumatic extremity pain, with the hypothesis that the two medications would demonstrate equivalent reduction in pain scores in an emergency department (ED) setting. Methods: This was a randomized, double-blinded equivalence trial. Pediatric ED patients 5 to 17 years of age with acute traumatic extremity pain received acetaminophen–codeine (1 mg/kg as codeine, maximum 60 mg) or ibuprofen (10 mg/kg, maximum 400 mg). The patients provided Color Analog Scale (CAS) pain scores at baseline and at 20, 40, and 60 minutes after medication administration. The primary outcome measured was the difference in changes in pain score at 40 minutes, compared to a previously described minimal clinically significant change in pain score of 2 cm. The difference was defined as (change in ibuprofen CAS score from baseline) – (change in acetaminophen–codeine CAS score from baseline); negative values thus favor the ibuprofen group. Additional outcomes included need for rescue medication and adverse effects. Results: The 32 acetaminophen–codeine and the 34 ibuprofen recipients in our convenience sample had indistinguishable pain scores at baseline. The intergroup differences in pain score change at 20 minutes (−0.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] = −1.5 to 0.3), 40 minutes (−0.4, 95% CI = −1.4 to 0.6), and 60 minutes (0.2, 95% CI = −0.8 to 1.2) were all less than 2 cm. Adverse effects were minimal: vomiting (one patient after acetaminophen–codeine), nausea (one patient after ibuprofen), and pruritus (one after acetaminophen–codeine). The three patients in each group who received rescue medications all had radiographically demonstrated fractures or dislocations. Conclusions: This study found similar performance of acetaminophen–codeine and ibuprofen in analgesic effectiveness among ED patients aged 5–17 years with acute traumatic extremity pain. Both drugs provided measurable analgesia. Patients tolerated them well, with few treatment failures and minimal adverse effects.     

Ketorolac versus meperidine: ED treatment of severe musculoskeletal low back pain

The study objective was to assess the efficacy and patient acceptance of ketorolac as an alternative to meperidine for the treatment of severe musculoskeletal low back pain (LBP). A double blinded prospective trial in a convenience sample of patients >18 years of age presenting to an urban university hospital emergency department (ED) was conducted over a 19-month period. Patients were included if the pain was musculoskeletal in origin and was severe enough to warrant parenteral analgesics. Patients were randomized to receive 1 mg/kg meperidine intramuscularly (IM) or 60 mg ketorolac IM. Pain intensity was measured preadministration and at 60 minutes via a 100 mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Outcomes measured at 60 minutes were pain intensity decrease (PID), patient satisfaction, rescue analgesia requirement, sedation level, and adverse effects. Clinically significant pain reduction was defined as a PID of at least 13 mm or a reduction in pain of least 30%. One hundred fifty-five patients were enrolled (meperidine = 75, ketorolac = 80) and 153 patients completed the study. At 60 minutes the mean PID was 7 mm less in the ketorolac group (95% confidence interval [CI] - 15 mm to 2.6 mm). Pain reduction of at least 30% occurred in 63% of the ketorolac group versus 67% of the meperidine group (95% CI, odds ratio [OR] .43 to 1.61). Rescue analgesia was required in 35% of the ketorolac group versus 37% of the meperidine group (95% CI, OR .47 to 1.74). Patient satisfaction was less in the ketorolac group (ketorolac 68% satisfied versus meperidine 74% satisfied) however this was not significant (95% CI, OR .66 to 2.72). Sedation level and adverse effects were significantly greater in the meperidine group. Ketorolac shows comparable single dose analgesic efficacy to a single moderate dose of meperidine with less sedation and adverse effects in an ED population with severe musculoskeletal LBP. The trend for greater pain reduction and patient satisfaction with meperidine needs further investigation.     

A prospective double-blind study of nasal sumatriptan versus IV ketorolac in migraine

We conducted a study to compare the efficacy in migraine headache of nasal sumatriptan and intravenous ketorolac. The study was a prospective, double-blind study done with a convenience sample of 29 patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute migraine. Patients received either 20 mg of nasal sumatriptan or 30 mg of intravenous ketorolac. Patients scored the severity of their headache on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) of pain prior to medication, and again 1 hour after medication. Differences between initial and 1-hour scores were analyzed. Before treatment, no difference existed between the groups in the intensity of headache. One hour after medication, the sumatriptan group had a decrease in pain score of 22.937 mm and the ketorolac group a decrease of 71.462 mm on the VAS. The decrease in pain score with ketorolac was significantly greater than that with sumatriptan (P < 0.001). The study therefore showed that both sumatriptan and ketorolac effectively reduced the pain associated with acute migraine headache, but that intravenous ketorolac produced a greater reduction in pain than did nasal sumatriptan.     

A double-blind, randomized comparison of intramuscularly and intravenously administered parecoxib sodium versus ketorolac and placebo in a post-oral surgery pain model

BACKGROUND: Parecoxib sodium is an injectable cyclooxygenase-2-specific inhibitor developed for the treatment of acute pain. The analgesic efficacy of IV and IM parecoxib has been demonstrated in previous pilot studies using the post-oral surgery pain model. OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to characterize the analgesic efficacy of parecoxib in healthy adults after oral surgery while comparing the efficacy and tolerability of the IV and IM routes of administration. METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, placebo- and active-controlled, single-dose, single-center trial. Patients experiencing moderate to severe post-operative pain after the extraction of > or =2 impacted third molars were randomized to receive parecoxib sodium 20 mg IM, 20 mg IV, 40 mg IM, or 40 mg IV; ketorolac tromethamine 60 mg IM; or placebo. Patients assessed pain intensity and pain relief (PR) at baseline and at designated intervals for 24 hours after administration of study medication or until rescue medication was taken. Analgesic efficacy was assessed in terms of time-specific pain intensity difference (PID) and PR, time to onset of analgesia, and time to use of rescue medication. RESULTS: Three hundred four patients were randomized to treatment. Parecoxib sodium 20 and 40 mg IM or IV and ketorolac 60 mg IM were significantly superior to placebo in PID, PR, time to onset of analgesia, and time to use of rescue medication (P < or = 0.05). Equal IV and IM doses of parecoxib were comparable on these measures; however, time to use of rescue medication was longer with IM compared with IV administration. Both doses of parecoxib were comparable to ketorolac 60 mg IM in time to onset of analgesia, but parecoxib 40 mg had a significantly longer duration of action (P < or = 0.05). The few statistically significant differences in PID and PR between parecoxib 40 mg and ketorolac favored ketorolac versus parecoxib 40 mg IV at earlier time points and parecoxib 40 mg IM versus ketorolac at later time points (P < or = 0.05). All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Parecoxib IV and IM provided effective analgesia. The 40-mg dose was comparable to ketorolac 60 mg on most measures of analgesia but had a longer duration of action.     

Evaluation of Ketorolac in Children with Forearm Fractures

Objectives : To evaluate ketorolac for pain relief and an opioid-sparing effect in children with forearm fractures necessitating reduction.
Methods : A prospective, randomized, double-blind study was conducted at an urban children's hospital ED. A convenience sample of children aged 3–18 years with isolated forearm fractures was studied. None received prior pain medication. A 10-point visual analog scale (VAS) was used to assess pain at the time of study entry and prior to sedation/analgesia. The Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario's Pain Score (CHEOPS), a 13-point behavioral score, was used to assess pain during sedation. Patients received either IV ketorolac (K), 1 mg/kg, or saline (S) after entry into the study. After a minimum of 20 minutes, pain was reassessed and supplemental analgesia/sedation administered. A standard dose of midazolam, 0.1 mg/kg to a maximum of 6 mg, was given to all patients, and fentanyl was titrated at 1-μg/kg increments based on patient need. Once the patient was comfortable, reduction was performed and a reduction CHEOPS score assigned.
Results : For the 34 study children (17 K, 17 S), there was no difference in sex or mean age between the groups. Mean total doses of fentanyl were 2.26 μg/kg in the K group and 2.85 μg/kg in the S group (p = 0.07). The median changes in VAS score before and after receiving the study drug were —1.13 K and -0.18 S (p = 0.06). The median CHEOPS score was 10 for both groups. Seven of the 17 patients in the S group required the maximum fentanyl dose (4 μg/kg), compared with 2 of 17 in the K group (p = 0.06).
Conclusions : Although ketorolac seems to add to patient comfort in children with forearm fractures, it does not have a significant opioid-sparing effect. Ketorolac showed a trend toward pain relief, but statistical significance was not reached.     

Effect of administration of ketorolac and local anaesthetic infiltration for pain relief after laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy

The efficacy of local anaesthetic infiltration and/or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for post-operative analgesia following laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) was investigated in 83 patients, randomized into four groups in this double-blind, placebo-controlled study: group BK, local infiltration with bupivacaine and pre-incisional intramuscular (IM) ketorolac; group NN, saline local infiltration IM; group BN, local infiltration with bupivacaine and saline IM; group NK, local infiltration with saline and ketorolac IM. Post-operative pain scores were assessed at 1 h, 3 h, 6 h, 12 h and 24 h using a visual analogue scale (VAS). The major pain site, first analgesic request time and incidence of analgesic requests were also recorded. At 1 h, 3 h and 6 h after surgery, group BK patients had significantly lower VAS pain scores than group NN patients. The first analgesic request time was significantly longer in group BK than in groups NN, BN and NK. Pre-incisional treatment with ketorolac IM and local infiltration with bupivacaine reduced post-operative pain after LAVH.     

Efficacy of an Ibuprofen/Codeine Combination for Pain Management in Children Presenting to the Emergency Department with a Limb Injury: A Pilot Study

Background

Fractures and severe sprains generate moderate to severe pain (>3/10). Despite this fact, pain management in children presenting to the Emergency Department (ED) with a musculoskeletal trauma is still suboptimal. Few studies have focused on the efficacy of a combination of an opioid with an anti-inflammatory drug to relieve this type of pain.

Study Objective

To compare the efficacy of a combination of codeine with ibuprofen to ibuprofen alone on the intensity of pain experienced by children presenting to the ED with a musculoskeletal trauma to a limb.

Methods

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial included patients aged 6 to 18 years. After triage, subjects were randomized to either ibuprofen (10 mg/kg, max 600 mg) and codeine (1 mg/kg, max 60 mg) orally, or ibuprofen (10 mg/kg, max 600 mg) and a placebo orally. Pain was assessed with the visual analog scale (0 to 10) at triage, and at 60, 90, and 120 min after medication administration. Differences on mean pain scores were compared between groups over time.

Results

We recruited 81 patients, 40 in the experimental group and 41 in the control group. No significant differences were observed in mean pain scores between groups at any time point. Mean pain scores were moderate at 90 min in both experimental and control groups (4.0 ± 2.4 vs. 4.1 ± 2.0, respectively). Side effects were minimal.

Conclusion

The addition of codeine to ibuprofen did not significantly improve pain management in children with musculoskeletal trauma to a limb. Pain control provided by the medications remained suboptimal for most patients.     

Paracetamol versus ibuprofen: A randomized controlled trial of outpatient analgesia efficacy for paediatric acute limb fractures

Paediatric limb fracture is a common injury that presents frequently to the ED. The primary objective of the present study was to determine whether ibuprofen provides better analgesia than paracetamol for paediatric patients discharged with acute limb fractures. A prospective, randomized controlled study was conducted in a children's ED. Children aged 5–14 years with an acute limb fracture were randomized to be prescribed paracetamol 15 mg/kg/dose every 4 h or ibuprofen 10 mg/kg/dose every 8 h. Objective (child‐reported) pain scores using the ‘Faces’ pain scale were measured over a 48 h period. Child‐reported pain did not differ significantly between the paracetamol and ibuprofen groups (mean pain score paracetamol 2.8 [95% CI 2.4–3.4]vs 2.7 [95% CI 2.1–3.3], P= 0.73). Parent‐reported sleep quality did not differ between the two groups (P= 0.78). Child‐reported pain score decreased over the 48 h of measurement (P < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in side‐effects detected between the two groups. The present study shows that in the outpatient paediatric population, ibuprofen does not provide better analgesia than paracetamol. Pain from an acute fracture can be managed by regular simple oral analgesia and immobilization.     

Comparison of intravenous lidocaine/ketorolac combination to either analgesic alone for suspected renal colic pain in the ED

Study objectiveTo compare analgesic efficacy and safety of intravenous lidocaine and ketorolac combination to each analgesic alone for ED patients with suspected renal colic.MethodsWe conducted a randomized, double-blind trial comparing analgesic efficacy of a combination of intravenous lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg) and ketorolac (30 mg), to ketorolac (30 mg), and to lidocaine (1.5 mg/kg) in patients aged 18–64 presenting to the ED with suspected renal colic. Primary outcome included difference in pain scores between the groups at 30 min. Secondary outcomes included a comparative reduction in pain scores in each group from baseline to 30 and 60 min as well as rates of adverse events and need for rescue analgesia at 30 and 60 min.ResultsWe enrolled 150 subjects (50 per group). The difference in mean pain scores at 30 min between Lidocaine and Lidocaine/Ketorolac groups was −2.89 (95% CI: −4.39 to −1.39); between Ketorolac and Lidocaine/Ketorolac group was −0.92 (95% CI: −2.44 to 0.61); and between Ketorolac and Lidocaine was −1.98 (95% CI: −3.69 to −0.27). A comparative percentage of subjects in each group required rescue analgesia at 30 and 60 min. No clinically concerning changes in vital signs were observed. No serious adverse events occurred in either group. Commonly reported adverse effects were dizziness, nausea, and headache.ConclusionThe administration of intravenous lidocaine/ketorolac combination to ED patients with suspected renal colic results in better analgesia in comparison to lidocaine alone but provides no analgesic advantages over ketorolac alone.Clinicaltrials.gov Registration: NCT02902770.     

Ketorolac TVomethamine Use in a University-based Emergency Department

Objective: To assess the use of parenteral ketorolac tromethamine (KT) in the emergency department (ED).
Methods: During a six-month period, KT was administered in an uncontrolled, nonblinded fashion to a series of ED patients experiencing acute pain. The patients rated pain on a previously validated visual analog pain scale before receiving KT. They repeated this procedure one hour after KT administration, prior to additional analgesia, or preceding release, whichever came first. Analgesic response was assessed by comparing pretreatment and posttreatment pain scores for the entire study population by the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Possible effects of specific variables (patient age, gender, race, indication for KT, route, dose, previous use of NSAIDs, and concurrent administration of muscle relax-ants) were assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis test.
Results: Of the 445 patients enrolled, 375 (84%) reported pain relief with KT, only seven (2%) worsened, and the remainder (14%) reported no change. Overall pain reduction was 37.6 ± 27.2 (SD) mm (100-mm scale) for the entire study population. The pain scores obtained after KT administration were significantly lower than those obtained prior to KT administration (p < 0.001). The only variable that significantly influenced pain score reduction was indication for KT (p = 0.0001). Nephro-lithiasis and toothache patients had the largest mean reductions in pain. No significant side effect was reported.
Conclusion: Parenteral KT is a useful and safe analgesic for ED patients. The agent generally provides analgesia and is particularly promising for patients with nephrolithiasis or toothache.     

Ibuprofen vs acetaminophen vs their combination in the relief of musculoskeletal pain in the ED: a randomized,controlled trial

Non-opioid analgesics are often administered to emergency department (ED) patients with musculoskeletal pain but if inadequate, opioids are given with associated potential adverse events. We tested the hypothesis that the reduction in pain scores with the combination of ibuprofen and acetaminophen would be at least 15 mm greater than with either of the agents alone. We conducted a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial of adult ED patients with acute musculoskeletal pain. Patients were randomized to oral ibuprofen 800 mg, acetaminophen 1 g, or their combination. Pain scores across the groups were compared with repeated measures analysis of variance at 20, 40, and 60 minutes. A sample of 30 patients in each group had 80% power to detect a 15 mm difference in pain scores across the groups (α = .05). Thirty patients were randomized to each study group. Mean (SD) age was 36 (15), 54% were male, 73% were white, and 13% were Hispanic. Groups were well balanced in baseline characteristics including initial pain scores (59, 61, and 62 for ibuprofen, acetaminophen, and their combination). Pain decreased over the one hour study period for all groups (P < .001) with mean (SD) scores about 20 mm lower on the Visual Analogue Scale than the mean initial score. However, there was no significant difference among treatments (P = .59). The need for rescue analgesics was similar across groups. We conclude that the combination of ibuprofen and acetaminophen did not reduce pain scores or the need for rescue analgesics compared with either agent alone in ED patients with pain secondary to acute musculoskeletal injuries.     

Comparison of Oral Ibuprofen and Acetaminophen with Either Analgesic Alone for Pediatric Emergency Department Patients with Acute Pain

BackgroundIbuprofen (Motrin; Johnson & Johnson) and acetaminophen (APAP, paracetamol) are the most commonly used analgesics in the pediatric emergency department (ED) for managing a variety of acute traumatic and nontraumatic painful conditions. The multimodal pain management of using a combination of ibuprofen plus acetaminophen has the potential to result in greater analgesia.ObjectiveWe compared the analgesic efficacy of a combination of oral ibuprofen plus acetaminophen with either analgesic alone for pediatric ED patients with acute pain.MethodsWe performed a randomized, double-blind superiority trial assessing and comparing the analgesic efficacy of a combination of oral ibuprofen (10 mg/kg dose) plus acetaminophen (15 mg/kg per dose) to either analgesic alone for the treatment of acute traumatic and nontraumatic pain in the pediatric ED. Primary outcomes included a difference in pain scores among the three groups at 60 min.ResultsWe enrolled 90 patients (30 per group). The difference in mean pain scores at 60 min between acetaminophen and combination groups was 0.30 (95% confidence interval [CI] −0.84 to 1.83); between ibuprofen and combination groups was −0.33 (95% CI −1.47 to 0.80); and between acetaminophen and ibuprofen groups was 0.63 (95% CI −0.54 to 1.81). Reductions in pain scores from baseline to 60 min were similar for all patients in each of the three groups. No adverse events occurred in any group.ConclusionsWe found similar analgesic efficacy of oral ibuprofen and acetaminophen in comparison with each analgesic alone for short-term treatment of acute pain in the pediatric ED, but the trial was underpowered to demonstrate the analgesic superiority of the combination of oral ibuprofen plus acetaminophen in comparison with each analgesic alone.     

A prospective study comparing i.m. ketorolac with i.m. meperidine in the treatment of acute biliary colic

Ketorolac is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication that is used widely for pain management. Its effects are mediated through the inhibition of prostaglandins, which makes it uniquely different from opioids in relieving pain. We conducted a randomized, prospective, double blind study of patients presenting to our Emergency Department (ED) with a diagnosis of acute biliary colic. Study patients were randomized into one of two treatment groups, meperidine 1.5 mg/kg with a maximum dose of 100 mg or ketorolac 60 mg given intramuscularly (i.m.). The patients rated their pain before and 30 min after medication on a scale of 1 to 10 using a Visual Analog Pain Scale. Overall pain relief was compared between the two groups using a two-sample t test. Thirty patients were enrolled in the study, 16 in the ketorolac group and 14 in the meperidine group. Patients ranged in age from 18 to 71 years and 6 (20%) were male. The average pain score at time 0 was 7.6 for the ketorolac group and 7.3 for the meperidine group. Pain relief at time 30 min was 3.8 in the ketorolac group and 3.9 in the meperidine group, which was not statistically different. The mean global pain score and need for an emergency cholecystectomy were similar in the two groups. Rescue medication for additional analgesia at 30 min was needed in 4 patients in the meperidine group and in 2 patients in the ketorolac group (28.6% versus 12.5%, respectively; NS). In this study of patients with acute biliary colic there was no significant difference in the pain relief achieved by using either ketorolac or meperidine.