Richman Peter B, Allegra John, Eskin Barnet, Doran James, Reischel Ulrich, Kaiafas Costas, Nashed Ashraf H
Department of Emergency Medicine, Morristown Memorial Hospital, Morristown, NJ, USA.
Am J Emerg Med. 2002 Jan;20(1):39-42. doi: 10.1053/ajem.2002.30007.
In a recent case series, we reported that intramuscular droperidol appeared to be an effective therapy for the treatment of acute migraine headache. The objective of the study was to further assess the efficacy of intramuscular droperidol for the treatment of acute migraine headache. The study design was a randomized, clinical trial set in a community-based ED. The population was a convenience sample of ED patients who met International Headache Society acute migraine criteria. Exclusions included pregnancy, use of narcotic or phenothiazine medications within 24 hours. For the protocol, patients were randomized to 1 of 2 treatment groups. Patients and physicians were blinded as to the treatment provided. Patients recorded their initial pain on a 100mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Patients were randomized to receive either 2.5 mg droperidol intramuscularly; the other group received 1.5 mg/kg meperidine intramuscularly. After 30 minutes patients recorded their pain on the VAS and recorded their preference for the medication on a Likert Scale. Physicians recorded the incidence of any side effects and the need for rescue medication. Statistical analysis consisted of categorical variables that were analyzed by chi-square, continuous interval data by t-tests and ordinal data by Mann-Whitney U test. The primary outcome parameters were mean VAS score change and the percentage of patients who wanted to go home without rescue medication. The study had an 80% power to detect a 26 mm difference in the mean change in VAS between groups. Of the 29 patients who were enrolled, 15 received droperidol. Both groups were similar with respect to age (30.7 +/- 8.9 years droperdol v 32.7 +/- 9.9 years meperidine; P =.59), female sex (73% v 71%; P =.91), mean headache duration (24.7 +/- 28.3 v 18.3 +/- 25.8 hours; P =.55). The droperidol group had a higher mean initial VAS score (88 v 76 mm; P =.03). The 2 groups were similar with regard to outcome, including: mean change in VAS score (47 v 37 mm; P =.33), average Likert score (1.1 v 1.9; P =.85), and the percentage of patients who did not want rescue medication (67% v 57%; P =.61). The incidence of sedation was 6.7 v 14.3%. Akathisia occurred in 13.3% of pts who received droperidol. We found that intramuscular droperidol was similar in efficacy to meperidine with a low incidence of side effects.
在最近的一组病例报告中,我们报道肌内注射氟哌利多似乎是治疗急性偏头痛的一种有效疗法。本研究的目的是进一步评估肌内注射氟哌利多治疗急性偏头痛的疗效。研究设计为一项在社区急诊科开展的随机临床试验。研究对象是符合国际头痛协会急性偏头痛标准的急诊科患者的便利样本。排除标准包括妊娠、在24小时内使用过麻醉药或吩噻嗪类药物。按照研究方案,患者被随机分为2个治疗组中的1组。患者和医生对所接受的治疗均不知情。患者在100mm视觉模拟量表(VAS)上记录其初始疼痛程度。患者被随机分配接受以下治疗之一:肌内注射2.5mg氟哌利多;另一组接受肌内注射1.5mg/kg哌替啶。30分钟后,患者在VAS上记录其疼痛程度,并在李克特量表上记录其对药物的偏好。医生记录任何副作用的发生率以及使用急救药物的必要性。统计分析包括用卡方检验分析分类变量,用t检验分析连续区间数据,用曼-惠特尼U检验分析有序数据。主要结局参数为VAS评分的平均变化以及不想使用急救药物即可回家的患者百分比。该研究有80%的把握度检测出两组之间VAS平均变化有26mm的差异。在纳入的29例患者中,15例接受了氟哌利多治疗。两组在年龄方面相似(氟哌利多组为30.7±8.9岁,哌替啶组为32.7±9.9岁;P = 0.59),女性比例相似(73%对71%;P = 0.91),平均头痛持续时间相似(24.7±28.3小时对18.3±25.8小时;P = 0.55)。氟哌利多组的初始VAS平均评分较高(88mm对76mm;P = 0.03)。两组在结局方面相似,包括:VAS评分的平均变化(47mm对37mm;P = 0.33)、平均李克特评分(1.1对1.9;P = 0.85)以及不想使用急救药物的患者百分比(67%对57%;P = 0.61)。镇静的发生率分别为6.7%和14.3%。接受氟哌利多治疗的患者中13.3%出现静坐不能。我们发现肌内注射氟哌利多的疗效与哌替啶相似,且副作用发生率较低。