Intravenous Haloperidol versus Midazolam in Management of Conversion Disorder; a Randomized Clinical Trial

Mohammadali Jafari, Amir Aliheidari Biuki, M. Hajimaghsoudi, M. Bagherabadi, E. Zarepur
{"title":"Intravenous Haloperidol versus Midazolam in Management of Conversion Disorder; a Randomized Clinical Trial","authors":"Mohammadali Jafari, Amir Aliheidari Biuki, M. Hajimaghsoudi, M. Bagherabadi, E. Zarepur","doi":"10.22037/EMERGENCY.V6I1.20888","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction\nConversion disorder is a condition in which the patient shows psychological stress in physical ways. This study aimed to compare the effects of haloperidol versus midazolam in patients with conversion disorder.\n\n\nMethods\nThis double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted on patients with conversion disorder who had presented to the emergency department, throughout 2015. Patients were randomly divided into two groups and were either treated with 2.5 mg of intravenous (IV) haloperidol or 2.5 mg of IV midazolam. Recovery rate, time to recovery, and side effects of both drugs 1 hour, 24 hours, and 1 week after treatment were compared using SPSS19.\n\n\nResults\n140 patients were divided into two groups of 70. There were no significant differences between the groups regarding the baseline characteristics. 12 (17.1%) patients who were treated with IV haloperidol experienced drug side effects within 1 hour and 12 (17.1%) within 24 hours, while only 3 (4.3%) patients in IV midazolam experienced side-effects within 1 hour after drug administration (p = 0.026). The symptoms of the disease subsided in 45 (success rate: 64.3%) patients in midazolam and in 64 (success rate: 91.5%) participants in haloperidol group (P<0.001). Mean recovery time was 31.24 ± 7.03 minutes in IV midazolam and 30.53 ± 7.11 minutes in IV haloperidol group (p = 0.592). Absolute risk reduction (ARR) of treating patients with haloperidol compared to midazolam is about 27%.\n\n\nConclusion\nThe response of patients to treatment with haloperidol is clearly better than midazolam. Although more transient and minor side-effects were observed in the group treated with haloperidol compared to midazolam group, serious side-effects were rare for both treatments.","PeriodicalId":11681,"journal":{"name":"Emergency","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22037/EMERGENCY.V6I1.20888","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Introduction Conversion disorder is a condition in which the patient shows psychological stress in physical ways. This study aimed to compare the effects of haloperidol versus midazolam in patients with conversion disorder. Methods This double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted on patients with conversion disorder who had presented to the emergency department, throughout 2015. Patients were randomly divided into two groups and were either treated with 2.5 mg of intravenous (IV) haloperidol or 2.5 mg of IV midazolam. Recovery rate, time to recovery, and side effects of both drugs 1 hour, 24 hours, and 1 week after treatment were compared using SPSS19. Results 140 patients were divided into two groups of 70. There were no significant differences between the groups regarding the baseline characteristics. 12 (17.1%) patients who were treated with IV haloperidol experienced drug side effects within 1 hour and 12 (17.1%) within 24 hours, while only 3 (4.3%) patients in IV midazolam experienced side-effects within 1 hour after drug administration (p = 0.026). The symptoms of the disease subsided in 45 (success rate: 64.3%) patients in midazolam and in 64 (success rate: 91.5%) participants in haloperidol group (P<0.001). Mean recovery time was 31.24 ± 7.03 minutes in IV midazolam and 30.53 ± 7.11 minutes in IV haloperidol group (p = 0.592). Absolute risk reduction (ARR) of treating patients with haloperidol compared to midazolam is about 27%. Conclusion The response of patients to treatment with haloperidol is clearly better than midazolam. Although more transient and minor side-effects were observed in the group treated with haloperidol compared to midazolam group, serious side-effects were rare for both treatments.
静脉注射氟哌啶醇与咪达唑仑治疗转化障碍的比较随机临床试验
引言转换障碍是一种患者以身体方式表现出心理压力的疾病。本研究旨在比较氟哌啶醇与咪唑安定对转换障碍患者的疗效。方法本双盲随机临床试验于2015年对急诊科就诊的转换障碍患者进行。患者被随机分为两组,分别接受2.5 mg静脉注射(IV)氟哌啶醇或2.5 mg静脉滴注咪唑安定治疗。使用SPSS19对两种药物治疗后1小时、24小时和1周的恢复率、恢复时间和副作用进行比较。结果140例患者分为两组,每组70例。在基线特征方面,两组之间没有显著差异。静脉注射氟哌啶醇治疗的12例(17.1%)患者在1小时内出现药物副作用,而静脉注射咪达唑仑的患者中只有3例(4.3%)在给药后1小时内出现副作用(p=0.026)。45例(成功率:64.3%)患者和64例(成功度:91.5%)氟哌啶醇组患者的症状消退(p<0.001)。静脉注射咪达唑仑的平均恢复时间为31.24±7.03分钟,静脉注射氟哌啶醇的平均康复时间为30.53±7.11分钟(p=0.592)。与咪达唑仑相比,氟哌啶醇治疗患者的绝对风险降低(ARR)约为27%。尽管与咪达唑仑组相比,氟哌啶醇治疗组观察到更多的短暂和轻微副作用,但两种治疗方法都很少出现严重副作用。
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
Emergency
Emergency EMERGENCY MEDICINE-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: "Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine" is an international, Open Access, peer-reviewed, continuously published journal dedicated to improving the quality of care and increasing the knowledge in the field of emergency medicine by publishing high quality articles concerning emergency medicine and related disciplines. All accepted articles will be published immediately in order to increase its visibility and possibility of citation. The journal publishes articles on critical care, disaster and trauma management, environmental diseases, toxicology, pediatric emergency medicine, emergency medical services, emergency nursing, health policy and ethics, and other related topics. The journal supports the following types of articles: -Original/Research article -Systematic review/Meta-analysis -Brief report -Case-report -Letter to the editor -Photo quiz
×
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