Ambulance Research Institute, Ambulance Service of New South Wales, Rozelle, New South Wales, Australia.
Emerg Med Australas. 2011 Aug;23(4):452-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-6723.2011.01433.x. Epub 2011 Jun 12.
The objective of the present study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, comparing metoclopramide with placebo, for preventing vomiting in patients who have received i.v. morphine for acute pain in the emergency setting, and to determine the level of evidence supporting the use of prophylactic metoclopramide in this population. Comprehensive systematic electronic searches were conducted of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials addressing the clinical question. Reference lists of identified articles were hand-searched. Methodologically appropriate clinical trials identified in the search process were included in a meta-analysis to provide a pooled estimate of effect. Three randomized controlled trials fulfilled the search criteria. All three studies were included in the final meta-analysis that demonstrated an overall result of no difference between metoclopramide and placebo for the primary outcome of vomiting (odds ratios 0.72; 95% confidence intervals 0.11-4.58). There was little evidence that routine prophylactic administration of metoclopramide following the administration of i.v. morphine for acute pain management in the emergency setting is clinically beneficial. Routine metoclopramide administration might expose patients to a risk of harm which is not justifiable given a lack of evidence of benefit.
本研究旨在对静脉注射吗啡治疗急诊急性疼痛患者中,使用甲氧氯普胺与安慰剂预防呕吐的随机对照试验进行系统评价和荟萃分析,并确定支持在该人群中预防性使用甲氧氯普胺的证据水平。通过综合电子检索 MEDLINE、EMBASE 和 Cochrane 图书馆,以解决临床问题。还对确定的文章的参考文献进行了手工检索。在搜索过程中确定的方法适当的临床试验被纳入荟萃分析,以提供效应的汇总估计值。有 3 项随机对照试验符合搜索标准。所有 3 项研究都纳入了最终的荟萃分析,该分析表明,甲氧氯普胺与安慰剂在呕吐的主要结局方面没有差异(比值比 0.72;95%置信区间 0.11-4.58)。几乎没有证据表明,在急诊中静脉注射吗啡管理急性疼痛后常规预防性给予甲氧氯普胺在临床上是有益的。鉴于缺乏益处的证据,常规给予甲氧氯普胺可能会使患者面临危害的风险,这是不合理的。