硫酸镁与利多卡因作为急诊科肾绞痛的辅助治疗:随机双盲对照试验》。

IF 5 1区 医学 Q1 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Annals of emergency medicine Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-19 DOI:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2024.06.015
Marwa Toumia, Sarra Sassi, Randa Dhaoui, Cyrine Kouraichi, Khaoula Bel Haj Ali, Adel Sekma, Asma Zorgati, Rahma Jaballah, Hajer Yaakoubi, Rym Youssef, Kaouthar Beltaief, Zied Mezgar, Mariem Khrouf, Amira Sghaier, Nahla Jerbi, Imen Zemni, Wahid Bouida, Mohamed Habib Grissa, Hamdi Boubaker, Riadh Boukef, Mohamed Amine Msolli, Semir Nouira
{"title":"硫酸镁与利多卡因作为急诊科肾绞痛的辅助治疗:随机双盲对照试验》。","authors":"Marwa Toumia, Sarra Sassi, Randa Dhaoui, Cyrine Kouraichi, Khaoula Bel Haj Ali, Adel Sekma, Asma Zorgati, Rahma Jaballah, Hajer Yaakoubi, Rym Youssef, Kaouthar Beltaief, Zied Mezgar, Mariem Khrouf, Amira Sghaier, Nahla Jerbi, Imen Zemni, Wahid Bouida, Mohamed Habib Grissa, Hamdi Boubaker, Riadh Boukef, Mohamed Amine Msolli, Semir Nouira","doi":"10.1016/j.annemergmed.2024.06.015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Study objective: </strong>We wished to determine whether the addition of magnesium sulfate (MgSO<sub>4</sub>) or lidocaine to diclofenac could improve the analgesic efficacy in emergency department (ED) patients with acute renal colic.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial of patients aged 18 to 65 years with suspected acute renal colic, we randomized them to receive 75 mg intramuscular (IM) diclofenac and then intravenous (IV) MgSO<sub>4,</sub> lidocaine, or saline solution control. Subjects reported their pain using a numerical rating scale (NRS) before drug administration and then 5, 10, 20, 30, 60, and 90 minutes afterwards. Our primary outcome was the proportion of participants achieving at least a 50% reduction in the NRS score 30 minutes after drug administration.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We enrolled 280 patients in each group. A 50% or greater reduction in the NRS score at 30 minutes occurred in 227 (81.7%) patients in the MgSO<sub>4</sub> group, 204 (72.9%) in the lidocaine group, and 201 (71.8%) in the control group, with significant differences between MgSO<sub>4</sub> and lidocaine (8.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.89 to 15.7], P=.013) and between MgSO<sub>4</sub> and control (9.9%, 95% CI [2.95 to 16.84], P=.004). Despite this, differences between all groups at every time point were below the accepted 1.3 threshold for clinical importance. There were no observed differences between groups in the frequency of rescue analgesics and return visits to the ED for renal colic. There were more adverse events, although minor, in the MgSO<sub>4</sub> group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Adding intravenous MgSO<sub>4</sub>, but not lidocaine, to IM diclofenac offered superior pain relief but at levels below accepted thresholds for clinical importance.</p>","PeriodicalId":8236,"journal":{"name":"Annals of emergency medicine","volume":" ","pages":"670-677"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Magnesium Sulfate Versus Lidocaine as an Adjunct for Renal Colic in the Emergency Department: A Randomized, Double-Blind Controlled Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Marwa Toumia, Sarra Sassi, Randa Dhaoui, Cyrine Kouraichi, Khaoula Bel Haj Ali, Adel Sekma, Asma Zorgati, Rahma Jaballah, Hajer Yaakoubi, Rym Youssef, Kaouthar Beltaief, Zied Mezgar, Mariem Khrouf, Amira Sghaier, Nahla Jerbi, Imen Zemni, Wahid Bouida, Mohamed Habib Grissa, Hamdi Boubaker, Riadh Boukef, Mohamed Amine Msolli, Semir Nouira\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.annemergmed.2024.06.015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Study objective: </strong>We wished to determine whether the addition of magnesium sulfate (MgSO<sub>4</sub>) or lidocaine to diclofenac could improve the analgesic efficacy in emergency department (ED) patients with acute renal colic.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial of patients aged 18 to 65 years with suspected acute renal colic, we randomized them to receive 75 mg intramuscular (IM) diclofenac and then intravenous (IV) MgSO<sub>4,</sub> lidocaine, or saline solution control. Subjects reported their pain using a numerical rating scale (NRS) before drug administration and then 5, 10, 20, 30, 60, and 90 minutes afterwards. Our primary outcome was the proportion of participants achieving at least a 50% reduction in the NRS score 30 minutes after drug administration.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We enrolled 280 patients in each group. A 50% or greater reduction in the NRS score at 30 minutes occurred in 227 (81.7%) patients in the MgSO<sub>4</sub> group, 204 (72.9%) in the lidocaine group, and 201 (71.8%) in the control group, with significant differences between MgSO<sub>4</sub> and lidocaine (8.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.89 to 15.7], P=.013) and between MgSO<sub>4</sub> and control (9.9%, 95% CI [2.95 to 16.84], P=.004). Despite this, differences between all groups at every time point were below the accepted 1.3 threshold for clinical importance. There were no observed differences between groups in the frequency of rescue analgesics and return visits to the ED for renal colic. There were more adverse events, although minor, in the MgSO<sub>4</sub> group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Adding intravenous MgSO<sub>4</sub>, but not lidocaine, to IM diclofenac offered superior pain relief but at levels below accepted thresholds for clinical importance.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8236,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of emergency medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"670-677\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of emergency medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2024.06.015\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/19 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of emergency medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2024.06.015","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的我们希望确定在双氯芬酸中添加硫酸镁(MgSO4)或利多卡因是否能提高急诊科(ED)急性肾绞痛患者的镇痛效果:在这项前瞻性、双盲、随机对照试验中,我们对年龄在18至65岁之间的疑似急性肾绞痛患者进行了随机分组,让他们先接受75毫克的肌肉注射(IM)双氯芬酸,然后静脉注射(IV)硫酸镁、利多卡因或生理盐水。受试者在用药前及用药后 5、10、20、30、60 和 90 分钟内使用数字评分量表 (NRS) 报告疼痛情况。我们的主要研究结果是用药 30 分钟后 NRS 评分至少降低 50%的受试者比例:结果:我们每组招募了 280 名患者。30分钟后NRS评分下降50%或以上的患者中,MgSO4组有227人(81.7%),利多卡因组有204人(72.9%),对照组有201人(71.8%),MgSO4和利多卡因之间有显著差异(8.8%,95%置信区间[CI][1.89至15.7],P=.013),MgSO4和对照组之间也有显著差异(9.9%,95%置信区间[CI][2.95至16.84],P=.004)。尽管如此,各组之间在每个时间点的差异都低于公认的 1.3 临床重要性阈值。在使用镇痛药和因肾绞痛再次就诊急诊室的频率方面,没有观察到组间差异。硫酸镁组发生的不良事件较多,但程度较轻:结论:在静脉注射双氯芬酸的基础上静脉注射硫酸镁(而非利多卡因)能更好地缓解疼痛,但缓解程度低于公认的临床重要性阈值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Magnesium Sulfate Versus Lidocaine as an Adjunct for Renal Colic in the Emergency Department: A Randomized, Double-Blind Controlled Trial.

Study objective: We wished to determine whether the addition of magnesium sulfate (MgSO4) or lidocaine to diclofenac could improve the analgesic efficacy in emergency department (ED) patients with acute renal colic.

Methods: In this prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial of patients aged 18 to 65 years with suspected acute renal colic, we randomized them to receive 75 mg intramuscular (IM) diclofenac and then intravenous (IV) MgSO4, lidocaine, or saline solution control. Subjects reported their pain using a numerical rating scale (NRS) before drug administration and then 5, 10, 20, 30, 60, and 90 minutes afterwards. Our primary outcome was the proportion of participants achieving at least a 50% reduction in the NRS score 30 minutes after drug administration.

Results: We enrolled 280 patients in each group. A 50% or greater reduction in the NRS score at 30 minutes occurred in 227 (81.7%) patients in the MgSO4 group, 204 (72.9%) in the lidocaine group, and 201 (71.8%) in the control group, with significant differences between MgSO4 and lidocaine (8.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.89 to 15.7], P=.013) and between MgSO4 and control (9.9%, 95% CI [2.95 to 16.84], P=.004). Despite this, differences between all groups at every time point were below the accepted 1.3 threshold for clinical importance. There were no observed differences between groups in the frequency of rescue analgesics and return visits to the ED for renal colic. There were more adverse events, although minor, in the MgSO4 group.

Conclusion: Adding intravenous MgSO4, but not lidocaine, to IM diclofenac offered superior pain relief but at levels below accepted thresholds for clinical importance.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of emergency medicine
Annals of emergency medicine 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
4.80%
发文量
819
审稿时长
20 days
期刊介绍: Annals of Emergency Medicine, the official journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians, is an international, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to improving the quality of care by publishing the highest quality science for emergency medicine and related medical specialties. Annals publishes original research, clinical reports, opinion, and educational information related to the practice, teaching, and research of emergency medicine. In addition to general emergency medicine topics, Annals regularly publishes articles on out-of-hospital emergency medical services, pediatric emergency medicine, injury and disease prevention, health policy and ethics, disaster management, toxicology, and related topics.
×
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