Imamoglu Melih, Aygun Ali, Bekar Omer, Erdem Erkan, Cicek Mustafa, Tatli Ozgur, Karaca Yunus, Sahin Aynur, Turkmen Suha, Turedi Suleyman
Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Trabzon, Turkey.
Karadeniz Technical University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Emergency Medicine, Trabzon, Turkey.
Am J Emerg Med. 2017 May;35(5):757-763. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2017.01.026. Epub 2017 Jan 15.
To assess the effectiveness of nebulized fentanyl used for analgesia in renal colic.
MATERIALS/METHODS: This research was planned as a randomized, blinded study in which prospectively collected data were analyzed retrospectively to compare nebulized and intravenous (iv) fentanyl therapies. Patients with renal colic with 'moderate' or worse pain on a four-point verbal pain score (VPS) or with pain of 20mm or above on a 100-mm visual analogue score (VAS) at time of presentation were randomized into iv fentanyl (n=62) or nebulized fentanyl (n=53) study groups. Decreases in VAS and VPS scores at 15 and 30min compared to baseline, rescue analgesia requirements and side-effects between the groups were compared.
Both iv fentanyl and nebulized fentanyl provided effective analgesia in renal colic patients at the end of 30min. However, iv fentanyl provided more rapid and more effective analgesia than nebulized fentanyl. Patients receiving iv fentanyl had lower rescue analgesia requirements than those receiving nebulized fentanyl (37.1% vs 54.7%), although the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.058). In addition, side-effects were more common in the iv fentanyl group compared to the nebulized fentanyl group (22.1% vs 9.4%), although the difference was also not significant (p=0.058).
Nebulized fentanyl provides effective analgesia in patients with renal colic. However, iv fentanyl exhibits more rapid and more powerful analgesic effects than nebulized fentanyl. Nonetheless, due to its ease of use and few potential risks and side-effects the nebulized form can be used as an alternative in renal colic.
评估雾化芬太尼用于肾绞痛镇痛的有效性。
材料/方法:本研究设计为一项随机、双盲研究,对前瞻性收集的数据进行回顾性分析,以比较雾化芬太尼和静脉注射(iv)芬太尼疗法。就诊时四点语言疼痛评分(VPS)为“中度”或更严重疼痛,或100毫米视觉模拟评分(VAS)为20毫米或以上的肾绞痛患者被随机分为静脉注射芬太尼组(n = 62)或雾化芬太尼组(n = 53)。比较两组在15分钟和30分钟时与基线相比VAS和VPS评分的降低情况、补救镇痛需求及副作用。
静脉注射芬太尼和雾化芬太尼在30分钟末均为肾绞痛患者提供了有效的镇痛效果。然而,静脉注射芬太尼比雾化芬太尼提供了更快、更有效的镇痛效果。接受静脉注射芬太尼的患者比接受雾化芬太尼的患者有更低的补救镇痛需求(37.1%对54.7%),尽管差异无统计学意义(p = 0.058)。此外,与雾化芬太尼组相比,静脉注射芬太尼组的副作用更常见(22.1%对9.4%),尽管差异也不显著(p = 0.058)。
雾化芬太尼可为肾绞痛患者提供有效的镇痛效果。然而,静脉注射芬太尼比雾化芬太尼表现出更快、更强的镇痛作用。尽管如此,由于其使用方便且潜在风险和副作用较少,雾化形式可作为肾绞痛的一种替代方法。