Bowman Amelia, Domke Craig, Morton Sarah
Oxford University, Oxford, UK.
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2024;28(6):787-802. doi: 10.1080/10903127.2024.2357598. Epub 2024 Jun 12.
Intranasal (IN) medications offer a safe non-invasive way to rapidly deliver drugs in situations where intravenous (IV) access and intramuscular (IM) administration is challenging or not feasible. In the prehospital setting, this can be an essential alternative in time critical situations including trauma management, seizures, and agitated patients. However, there is a paucity of evidence summarizing its efficacy in this environment. This systematic review aims to assess the current evidence supporting the use of IN medicine (midazolam, ketamine, fentanyl, morphine, glucagon, and naloxone) in the prehospital setting alone.
A systematic literature search (PROSPERO CRD42023440713) of PubMed, Web of Science, OVID Medline, "Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials," Cochrane reviews and Embase was performed from inception to June 2023 to identify studies where IN medications were administered to patients in the prehospital setting. All randomized controlled trials, observational cohort studies, case series, and case reports were included. Papers not written in English, review articles, abstracts, and non-published data (including letters to the editor) were excluded. The methodological quality of the included studies was interpreted using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and rated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. No funding was received.
From 4818 studies, 39 were included (seven for midazolam, five for ketamine, twelve for fentanyl, one for diamorphine, two for glucagon, and twelve for naloxone). A total of 24,097 patients were treated with IN medications across all the studies. There were five moderate quality, four low quality, and thirty very low quality studies. The potential efficacy of IN fentanyl and ketamine was demonstrated consistently throughout the studies with less clear evidence for midazolam, morphine, glucagon, and naloxone. This review was severely limited by the study quality, with most studies demonstrating "high concerns" for bias.
Prehospital IN medication administration has wide-ranging potential, particularly for administering analgesia. There are likely to be certain populations, for example, pediatrics, that will benefit the most, although conclusions are limited by the quality of evidence currently available. We encourage additional research in this area, particularly with robust prospective double-blind RCTs.
在静脉通路建立和肌肉注射存在挑战或不可行的情况下,鼻内(IN)给药提供了一种安全、无创的快速给药方式。在院前环境中,这在包括创伤管理、癫痫发作和躁动患者等时间紧迫的情况下可能是一种重要的替代方法。然而,缺乏总结其在这种环境下疗效的证据。本系统评价旨在评估目前支持仅在院前环境中使用IN药物(咪达唑仑、氯胺酮、芬太尼、吗啡、胰高血糖素和纳洛酮)的证据。
对PubMed、科学网、OVID Medline、“Cochrane对照试验中心注册库”、Cochrane综述和Embase进行系统文献检索(PROSPERO CRD42023440713),检索时间从数据库建立至2023年6月,以识别在院前环境中对患者使用IN药物的研究。纳入所有随机对照试验、观察性队列研究、病例系列和病例报告。排除非英文撰写的论文、综述文章、摘要和未发表的数据(包括给编辑的信)。使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具解释纳入研究的方法学质量,并采用推荐分级评估、制定和评价(GRADE)方法进行评级。未接受任何资助。
从4818项研究中,纳入了39项(咪达唑仑7项、氯胺酮5项、芬太尼12项、二醋吗啡1项、胰高血糖素2项、纳洛酮12项)。所有研究中共有24097例患者接受了IN药物治疗。有5项中等质量研究、4项低质量研究和30项极低质量研究。在各项研究中,IN芬太尼和氯胺酮的潜在疗效得到了一致证明,而咪达唑仑、吗啡、胰高血糖素和纳洛酮的证据则不太明确。本综述受到研究质量的严重限制,大多数研究显示存在“高度偏倚担忧”。
院前IN给药具有广泛的潜力,尤其是在镇痛给药方面。可能有某些人群,例如儿科患者,将从中受益最大,尽管结论受到现有证据质量的限制。我们鼓励在这一领域进行更多研究,特别是开展强有力的前瞻性双盲随机对照试验。