The Ambulance Research Institute (PMM, PMS, GS, JCB), Ambulance Service of NSW, Rozelle, New South Wales, Australia.
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2010 Oct-Dec;14(4):439-47. doi: 10.3109/10903127.2010.497896.
To compare the effectiveness of intravenous (IV) morphine, intranasal (IN) fentanyl, and inhaled methoxyflurane when administered by paramedics to patients with moderate to severe pain.
We conducted a retrospective comparative study of adult patients with moderate to severe pain treated by paramedics from the Ambulance Service of New South Wales who received IV morphine, IN fentanyl, or inhaled methoxyflurane either alone or in combination between January 1, 2004, and November 30, 2006. We used multivariate logistic regression to analyze data extracted from a clinical database containing routinely entered information from patient health care records. The primary outcome measure was effective analgesia, defined as a reduction in pain severity of > or = 30% of initial pain score using an 11-point verbal numeric rating scale (VNRS-11).
The study population comprised 52,046 patients aged between 16 and 100 years with VNRS-11 scores of > or = 5. All analgesic agents were effective in the majority of patients (81.8%, 80.0%, and 59.1% for morphine, fentanyl, and methoxyflurane, respectively). There was very strong evidence that methoxyflurane was inferior to both morphine and fentanyl (p < 0.0001). There was strong evidence that morphine was more effective than fentanyl (p = 0.002). There was no evidence that combination analgesia was better than either fentanyl or morphine alone.
Inhaled methoxyflurane, IN fentanyl, and IV morphine are all effective analgesic agents in the out-of-hospital setting. Morphine and fentanyl are significantly more effective analgesic agents than methoxyflurane. Morphine appears to be more effective than IN fentanyl; however, the benefit of IV morphine may be offset to some degree by the ability to administer IN fentanyl without the need for IV access.
比较在急救人员对中重度疼痛患者使用静脉注射吗啡、鼻内芬太尼和吸入甲氧氟烷的效果。
我们对 2004 年 1 月 1 日至 2006 年 11 月 30 日期间,新南威尔士州救护服务中心的急救人员对中重度疼痛患者使用静脉注射吗啡、鼻内芬太尼或吸入甲氧氟烷单独或联合治疗的成年患者进行了回顾性比较研究。我们使用多变量逻辑回归分析了从临床数据库中提取的数据,该数据库包含从患者医疗记录中常规输入的信息。主要结局指标是有效镇痛,定义为使用 11 点数字评分量表(VNRS-11)疼痛评分降低>或=初始疼痛评分的 30%。
研究人群包括 52046 名年龄在 16 至 100 岁之间、VNRS-11 评分>或=5 的患者。所有镇痛剂在大多数患者中均有效(吗啡、芬太尼和甲氧氟烷的有效率分别为 81.8%、80.0%和 59.1%)。甲氧氟烷明显劣于吗啡和芬太尼(p<0.0001),有很强的证据支持。吗啡明显优于芬太尼(p=0.002),但没有证据表明联合镇痛比芬太尼或吗啡单独使用更好。
在院外环境中,吸入性甲氧氟烷、鼻内芬太尼和静脉注射吗啡均为有效的镇痛剂。吗啡和芬太尼是明显比甲氧氟烷更有效的镇痛剂。吗啡似乎比芬太尼更有效;然而,静脉注射芬太尼无需静脉通路的能力在某种程度上可能抵消了静脉注射吗啡的益处。