Nebulized ketamine for acute pain management in the Emergency Department: A systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Murat Cetin MD , Caitlin S. Brown PharmD , Fernanda Bellolio MD, MSc , Jefferson Drapkin MPH , Robert Glatter MD , Sergey Motov MD , Lucas Oliveira J. e Silva MD, PhD
{"title":"Nebulized ketamine for acute pain management in the Emergency Department: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Murat Cetin MD ,&nbsp;Caitlin S. Brown PharmD ,&nbsp;Fernanda Bellolio MD, MSc ,&nbsp;Jefferson Drapkin MPH ,&nbsp;Robert Glatter MD ,&nbsp;Sergey Motov MD ,&nbsp;Lucas Oliveira J. e Silva MD, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.ajem.2025.04.051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>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.</div><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Nebulized ketamine had equivalent efficacy to active controls in 8 RCT's. Four RCTs (<em>n</em> = 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.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Administration of ketamine via nebulization for patients with acute painful conditions provided equivalent analgesia with similar safety profile when compared to active controls.</div><div><span><span>Clinicaltrials.gov</span><svg><path></path></svg></span> Registration: N/A.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":55536,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":"94 ","pages":"Pages 110-118"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735675725002918","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

Administration of ketamine via nebulization for patients with acute painful conditions provided equivalent analgesia with similar safety profile when compared to active controls.
Clinicaltrials.gov Registration: N/A.
雾化氯胺酮治疗急诊科急性疼痛:系统回顾和荟萃分析
以亚游离剂量给予氯胺酮在急诊科(ED)和院前环境中有效地管理各种疼痛状况。氯胺酮给药的吸入途径在过去5年中获得了牵引力。方法对雾化氯胺酮的镇痛效果和不良反应发生率进行系统评价和meta分析。我们检索了Ovid CENTRAL、EMBASE和MEDLINE数据库,检索了从开始到2025年1月的随机对照试验(rct)和观察性研究,评估了疼痛减轻、抢救性镇痛和不良反应的发生率。我们使用Cochrane协作工具和修改后的纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表来评估偏倚风险,并使用GRADE方法(分级推荐评估、发展和评价)来评估证据的置信度。采用随机效应的95%置信区间(CI)的平均差异进行meta分析。结果13项研究符合纳入标准。在8项随机对照试验中,雾化氯胺酮的疗效与主动对照相当。4项随机对照试验(n = 601)显示,雾化氯胺酮和静脉注射吗啡在30分钟疼痛减轻方面无差异,平均差异(MD)为0.28 (CI -0.18 ~ 0.73),且挽救性镇痛率相似(16.9% vs. 17.4%)。11项研究报告没有严重事件,非严重不良事件无差异(39.1%氯胺酮和37.8%对照组)。对结果的信心水平被认为非常低。结论氯胺酮雾化治疗急性疼痛患者的镇痛效果与主动对照组相当,且安全性相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
5.60%
发文量
730
审稿时长
42 days
期刊介绍: A distinctive blend of practicality and scholarliness makes the American Journal of Emergency Medicine a key source for information on emergency medical care. Covering all activities concerned with emergency medicine, it is the journal to turn to for information to help increase the ability to understand, recognize and treat emergency conditions. Issues contain clinical articles, case reports, review articles, editorials, international notes, book reviews and more.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信