Cetin Murat, Brown Caitlin S, Bellolio Fernanda, Drapkin Jefferson, Glatter Robert, Motov Sergey, E Silva Lucas Oliveira J
Department of Emergency Medicine, Dr.Behcet Uz Child Disease and Pediatric Surgery Training and Research Hospital, Izmir, Turkey.
Department of Pharmacy, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Am J Emerg Med. 2025 Aug;94:110-118. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2025.04.051. Epub 2025 Apr 22.
Ketamine administered in sub-dissociative doses has been effective in managing a variety of painful conditions in the emergency department (ED) and pre-hospital settings. The inhalation route of ketamine administration has gained traction over the past 5 years.
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the analgesic efficacy and incidence of adverse effects of nebulized ketamine. We searched Ovid CENTRAL, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies from inception to January 2025, assessing pain reduction, rescue analgesia, and occurrences of adverse effects. We used the Cochrane Collaboration tool and a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to evaluate the risk of bias and the GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) to evaluate the confidence in the evidence. Mean differences with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) using random effects were used for the meta-analyses.
Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Nebulized ketamine had equivalent efficacy to active controls in 8 RCT's. Four RCTs (n = 601) demonstrated no difference in pain reduction between nebulized ketamine and IV morphine with mean difference (MD) 0.28 (CI -0.18 to 0.73) at 30 min, and similar rates of rescue analgesia (16.9 % vs. 17.4 %). Eleven studies reported absence of serious events and no difference in non-serious adverse events (39.1 % ketamine and 37.8 % controls). The level of confidence for the outcomes was deemed to be very low.
Administration of ketamine via nebulization for patients with acute painful conditions provided equivalent analgesia with similar safety profile when compared to active controls.
gov Registration: N/A.
亚麻醉剂量的氯胺酮在急诊科(ED)和院前环境中治疗各种疼痛性疾病方面已显示出疗效。在过去5年中,氯胺酮吸入给药途径越来越受到关注。
我们进行了一项系统评价和荟萃分析,以评估雾化氯胺酮的镇痛效果和不良反应发生率。我们检索了Ovid CENTRAL、EMBASE和MEDLINE数据库,以查找从数据库建立至2025年1月的随机对照试验(RCT)和观察性研究,评估疼痛减轻、补救性镇痛和不良反应的发生情况。我们使用Cochrane协作工具和改良的纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表来评估偏倚风险,并使用GRADE方法(推荐分级评估、制定和评价)来评估证据的可信度。荟萃分析采用随机效应模型计算95%置信区间(CI)的平均差异。
13项研究符合纳入标准。在8项RCT中,雾化氯胺酮与活性对照具有等效疗效。4项RCT(n = 601)显示,雾化氯胺酮和静脉注射吗啡在疼痛减轻方面无差异,30分钟时平均差异(MD)为0.28(CI -0.18至0.73),补救性镇痛率相似(16.9%对17.4%)。11项研究报告未发生严重事件,非严重不良事件无差异(氯胺酮组为39.1%,对照组为37.8%)。结果的置信水平被认为非常低。
与活性对照相比,雾化氯胺酮用于急性疼痛患者的镇痛效果相当,安全性相似。
gov注册号:无。