Effectiveness of Lidocaine Infusion Versus Valproate Infusion for Pediatric Status Migrainosus.

Q1 Nursing Hospital pediatrics Pub Date : 2024-07-01 DOI:10.1542/hpeds.2023-007593
Marco Antonio Ayulo, Sharaya Jenkins, Thanh Le, Sandeep Tripathi
{"title":"Effectiveness of Lidocaine Infusion Versus Valproate Infusion for Pediatric Status Migrainosus.","authors":"Marco Antonio Ayulo, Sharaya Jenkins, Thanh Le, Sandeep Tripathi","doi":"10.1542/hpeds.2023-007593","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the efficacy (as measured by time to resolution of pain) and safety of valproate infusion and lidocaine infusion in the treatment of pediatric status migrainosus.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study from March 2014 to June 2021 evaluating children and adolescents who received a lidocaine or sodium valproate infusion for the treatment of status migrainosus. During the study period, lidocaine infusion was exclusively used before March 2016, whereas sodium valproate infusion was exclusively used afterward.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 31 patients received lidocaine and 63 received sodium valproate infusion. Patients in the lidocaine group achieved significantly faster control of pain with median hours to pain free of 11.7 (interquartile range, 3.8-32.3) hours compared with 43.4 (interquartile range 13.8-68.7) hours in the valproate group (P = .002). At discharge, 21 of 31 (67.7%) of patients receiving lidocaine were pain-free compared with 26 of 59 (44.1%) of patients receiving valproate (P = .03). There were significantly more infusion interruptions of valproate compared with lidocaine for various patient-related factors (16/63, 25.4% vs 1/31, 3.2%; P = .009). More adverse effects were observed with valproate (42/63, 67%) compared with lidocaine (1/31, 3.2%; P < .001). The significant difference in hours to pain control persisted after adjustment for sex, race, age, BMI, presence of comorbidities, and pain score at admission. All patients in both groups completed the infusions and were discharged from the hospital.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Intravenous lidocaine infusion is associated with superior pain control and a better safety profile compared with intravenous sodium valproate infusion in status migrainosus.</p>","PeriodicalId":38180,"journal":{"name":"Hospital pediatrics","volume":" ","pages":"541-547"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hospital pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1542/hpeds.2023-007593","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare the efficacy (as measured by time to resolution of pain) and safety of valproate infusion and lidocaine infusion in the treatment of pediatric status migrainosus.

Methods: We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study from March 2014 to June 2021 evaluating children and adolescents who received a lidocaine or sodium valproate infusion for the treatment of status migrainosus. During the study period, lidocaine infusion was exclusively used before March 2016, whereas sodium valproate infusion was exclusively used afterward.

Results: A total of 31 patients received lidocaine and 63 received sodium valproate infusion. Patients in the lidocaine group achieved significantly faster control of pain with median hours to pain free of 11.7 (interquartile range, 3.8-32.3) hours compared with 43.4 (interquartile range 13.8-68.7) hours in the valproate group (P = .002). At discharge, 21 of 31 (67.7%) of patients receiving lidocaine were pain-free compared with 26 of 59 (44.1%) of patients receiving valproate (P = .03). There were significantly more infusion interruptions of valproate compared with lidocaine for various patient-related factors (16/63, 25.4% vs 1/31, 3.2%; P = .009). More adverse effects were observed with valproate (42/63, 67%) compared with lidocaine (1/31, 3.2%; P < .001). The significant difference in hours to pain control persisted after adjustment for sex, race, age, BMI, presence of comorbidities, and pain score at admission. All patients in both groups completed the infusions and were discharged from the hospital.

Conclusions: Intravenous lidocaine infusion is associated with superior pain control and a better safety profile compared with intravenous sodium valproate infusion in status migrainosus.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利多卡因输注与丙戊酸钠输注治疗小儿状态性偏头痛的效果。
目的比较丙戊酸钠输注和利多卡因输注治疗小儿状态性偏头痛的疗效(以疼痛缓解时间来衡量)和安全性:我们在2014年3月至2021年6月期间开展了一项单中心回顾性队列研究,对接受利多卡因或丙戊酸钠输注治疗状态性偏头痛的儿童和青少年进行了评估。研究期间,利多卡因输注仅用于2016年3月之前,而丙戊酸钠输注仅用于2016年3月之后:共有31名患者接受了利多卡因输注,63名患者接受了丙戊酸钠输注。利多卡因组患者的疼痛控制明显更快,无痛时间中位数为11.7小时(四分位间范围为3.8-32.3),而丙戊酸钠组为43.4小时(四分位间范围为13.8-68.7)(P = .002)。出院时,接受利多卡因治疗的 31 位患者中有 21 位(67.7%)无痛,而接受丙戊酸钠治疗的 59 位患者中有 26 位(44.1%)无痛(P = .03)。与利多卡因相比,丙戊酸钠患者因各种患者相关因素而中断输液的次数明显更多(16/63,25.4% vs 1/31,3.2%;P = .009)。丙戊酸钠的不良反应(42/63,67%)多于利多卡因(1/31,3.2%;P < .001)。在对性别、种族、年龄、体重指数、是否存在合并症以及入院时的疼痛评分进行调整后,疼痛控制小时数的显著差异依然存在。两组患者均完成输液并出院:结论:与静脉注射丙戊酸钠相比,静脉注射利多卡因能更好地控制偏头痛,安全性也更高。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Hospital pediatrics
Hospital pediatrics Nursing-Pediatrics
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
204
期刊最新文献
Testing and Treatment Thresholds for Pediatric Pneumonia in the Emergency Department. It's More Complicated Than Interpreter Use: Improving Care for Non-English-Speaking Families. Factors Associated With Nirsevimab Uptake in Healthy Newborns. Nirsevimab Administration During the Birth Hospitalization. Extravasation Identification and Management in Neonates and Pediatrics: A Cross Sectional Survey.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1