小儿急症中鼻内芬太尼的有效性和安全性:系统回顾与元分析》。

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Pediatric emergency care Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-04-11 DOI:10.1097/PEC.0000000000003187
Mohammed Alsabri, Abdelrahman H Hafez, Emad Singer, Mahmoud M Elhady, Muhammad Waqar, Paviter Gill
{"title":"小儿急症中鼻内芬太尼的有效性和安全性:系统回顾与元分析》。","authors":"Mohammed Alsabri, Abdelrahman H Hafez, Emad Singer, Mahmoud M Elhady, Muhammad Waqar, Paviter Gill","doi":"10.1097/PEC.0000000000003187","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Intranasal fentanyl (INF) has gained popularity in pediatric emergency departments (EDs) as an effective alternative to intravenous morphine for treating acute moderate to severe pain. Intranasal fentanyl eliminates the need for invasive access, making it advantageous for patients with minor injuries. Our study aims to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the available evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of INF administration in pediatric emergency wards, particularly compared with other treatment options described in the literature.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A thorough search strategy identified randomized controlled trials assessing INF in the pediatric emergency ward. Eligible studies were independently screened, and relevant data were extracted. The analysis used pooled risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous ones. Randomized controlled trials' quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool 2.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In our study, 8 randomized controlled trials involving 806 patients, INF demonstrated superior effectiveness in reducing pain compared with other comparators at the 15- to 20-minute mark (SMD, -0.23; 95% confidence interval, -0.37 to -0.08; P = 0.002). However, no significant differences were found at the 30- and 60-minute time points (SMDs, -0.16; 95% CI, -0.50, 0.19; P = 0.37; and -0.16; 95% CI, -0.50 to 0.19; P = 0.78) except when excluding one study to resolve heterogeneity at the 30-minute mark (RR, -0.02; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.20; P = 0.87). Intranasal fentanyl also exhibited a better adverse outcome profile, with a lower risk of total adverse events and nausea/vomiting (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.48-0.91; P = 0.01; and RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.30-0.63; P > 0.001) compared with other analgesics. However, no significant differences were observed for dizziness and hallucination (RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.30-0.63; P = 0.68; and RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.30-0.63; P = 0.35).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study assessed the effectiveness of INF compared with other analgesics in pain reduction. Intranasal fentanyl demonstrated superior pain reduction at the 15- to 20-minute point but showed no significant differences at 30 and 60 minutes. Intranasal fentanyl also had a more favorable adverse event profile, with a lower risk of nausea and vomiting than other analgesics. However, no significant differences were observed in dizziness and hallucination between the groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":19996,"journal":{"name":"Pediatric emergency care","volume":" ","pages":"748-752"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy and Safety of Intranasal Fentanyl in Pediatric Emergencies: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Mohammed Alsabri, Abdelrahman H Hafez, Emad Singer, Mahmoud M Elhady, Muhammad Waqar, Paviter Gill\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/PEC.0000000000003187\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Intranasal fentanyl (INF) has gained popularity in pediatric emergency departments (EDs) as an effective alternative to intravenous morphine for treating acute moderate to severe pain. Intranasal fentanyl eliminates the need for invasive access, making it advantageous for patients with minor injuries. Our study aims to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the available evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of INF administration in pediatric emergency wards, particularly compared with other treatment options described in the literature.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A thorough search strategy identified randomized controlled trials assessing INF in the pediatric emergency ward. Eligible studies were independently screened, and relevant data were extracted. The analysis used pooled risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous ones. Randomized controlled trials' quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool 2.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In our study, 8 randomized controlled trials involving 806 patients, INF demonstrated superior effectiveness in reducing pain compared with other comparators at the 15- to 20-minute mark (SMD, -0.23; 95% confidence interval, -0.37 to -0.08; P = 0.002). However, no significant differences were found at the 30- and 60-minute time points (SMDs, -0.16; 95% CI, -0.50, 0.19; P = 0.37; and -0.16; 95% CI, -0.50 to 0.19; P = 0.78) except when excluding one study to resolve heterogeneity at the 30-minute mark (RR, -0.02; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.20; P = 0.87). Intranasal fentanyl also exhibited a better adverse outcome profile, with a lower risk of total adverse events and nausea/vomiting (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.48-0.91; P = 0.01; and RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.30-0.63; P > 0.001) compared with other analgesics. However, no significant differences were observed for dizziness and hallucination (RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.30-0.63; P = 0.68; and RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.30-0.63; P = 0.35).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study assessed the effectiveness of INF compared with other analgesics in pain reduction. Intranasal fentanyl demonstrated superior pain reduction at the 15- to 20-minute point but showed no significant differences at 30 and 60 minutes. Intranasal fentanyl also had a more favorable adverse event profile, with a lower risk of nausea and vomiting than other analgesics. However, no significant differences were observed in dizziness and hallucination between the groups.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19996,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pediatric emergency care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"748-752\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pediatric emergency care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/PEC.0000000000003187\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/4/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pediatric emergency care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PEC.0000000000003187","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:作为静脉注射吗啡治疗急性中度至重度疼痛的有效替代药物,鼻内注射芬太尼(INF)在儿科急诊室(ED)越来越受欢迎。鼻内芬太尼无需侵入性接触,因此对轻伤患者很有优势。我们的研究旨在全面评估有关在儿科急诊病房使用 INF 的有效性和安全性的现有证据,尤其是与文献中描述的其他治疗方案进行比较的证据:方法:通过全面的搜索策略确定了评估儿科急诊室 INF 的随机对照试验。对符合条件的研究进行了独立筛选,并提取了相关数据。对二分法结果采用集合风险比(RR)进行分析,对连续法结果采用标准化平均差(SMD)进行分析。随机对照试验的质量采用 Cochrane 偏倚风险评估工具 2 进行评估:在我们的研究中,8 项随机对照试验共涉及 806 名患者,INF 在 15 至 20 分钟的疼痛缓解效果优于其他对比试验(SMD,-0.23;95% 置信区间,-0.37 至 -0.08;P = 0.002)。然而,在30分钟和60分钟时间点没有发现明显差异(SMD,-0.16;95% CI,-0.50,0.19;P = 0.37;和-0.16;95% CI,-0.50至0.19;P = 0.78),除非在30分钟时间点排除一项研究以解决异质性问题(RR,-0.02;95% CI,-0.24至0.20;P = 0.87)。与其他镇痛药相比,鼻内芬太尼的不良反应情况也较好,总不良反应和恶心/呕吐的风险较低(RR,0.66;95% CI,0.48-0.91;P = 0.01;RR,0.43;95% CI,0.30-0.63;P > 0.001)。然而,在头晕和幻觉方面未观察到明显差异(RR,0.43;95% CI,0.30-0.63;P = 0.68;RR,0.43;95% CI,0.30-0.63;P = 0.35):我们的研究评估了 INF 与其他镇痛药相比在减轻疼痛方面的有效性。我们的研究评估了 INF 与其他镇痛药相比在减轻疼痛方面的效果。鼻内注射芬太尼在 15 至 20 分钟时的镇痛效果较好,但在 30 和 60 分钟时没有明显差异。鼻内注射芬太尼的不良反应情况也更为有利,恶心和呕吐的风险低于其他镇痛药。不过,在头晕和幻觉方面,两组之间没有观察到明显差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Efficacy and Safety of Intranasal Fentanyl in Pediatric Emergencies: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Background: Intranasal fentanyl (INF) has gained popularity in pediatric emergency departments (EDs) as an effective alternative to intravenous morphine for treating acute moderate to severe pain. Intranasal fentanyl eliminates the need for invasive access, making it advantageous for patients with minor injuries. Our study aims to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the available evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of INF administration in pediatric emergency wards, particularly compared with other treatment options described in the literature.

Methods: A thorough search strategy identified randomized controlled trials assessing INF in the pediatric emergency ward. Eligible studies were independently screened, and relevant data were extracted. The analysis used pooled risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the standardized mean difference (SMD) for continuous ones. Randomized controlled trials' quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool 2.

Results: In our study, 8 randomized controlled trials involving 806 patients, INF demonstrated superior effectiveness in reducing pain compared with other comparators at the 15- to 20-minute mark (SMD, -0.23; 95% confidence interval, -0.37 to -0.08; P = 0.002). However, no significant differences were found at the 30- and 60-minute time points (SMDs, -0.16; 95% CI, -0.50, 0.19; P = 0.37; and -0.16; 95% CI, -0.50 to 0.19; P = 0.78) except when excluding one study to resolve heterogeneity at the 30-minute mark (RR, -0.02; 95% CI, -0.24 to 0.20; P = 0.87). Intranasal fentanyl also exhibited a better adverse outcome profile, with a lower risk of total adverse events and nausea/vomiting (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.48-0.91; P = 0.01; and RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.30-0.63; P > 0.001) compared with other analgesics. However, no significant differences were observed for dizziness and hallucination (RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.30-0.63; P = 0.68; and RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.30-0.63; P = 0.35).

Conclusions: Our study assessed the effectiveness of INF compared with other analgesics in pain reduction. Intranasal fentanyl demonstrated superior pain reduction at the 15- to 20-minute point but showed no significant differences at 30 and 60 minutes. Intranasal fentanyl also had a more favorable adverse event profile, with a lower risk of nausea and vomiting than other analgesics. However, no significant differences were observed in dizziness and hallucination between the groups.

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
Pediatric emergency care
Pediatric emergency care 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
14.30%
发文量
577
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Pediatric Emergency Care®, features clinically relevant original articles with an EM perspective on the care of acutely ill or injured children and adolescents. The journal is aimed at both the pediatrician who wants to know more about treating and being compensated for minor emergency cases and the emergency physicians who must treat children or adolescents in more than one case in there.
期刊最新文献
Streamlining Telecommunications Center and Interfacility Patient Throughput to a Pediatric Emergency Department by Utilizing an Electronic Handoff: A Quality Improvement Initiative. Point-of-Care Ultrasound Evaluation of Pediatric Osteomyelitis in the Emergency Department: A Case Series. Sometimes, One Pill Really Can Kill. Video Versus Nonvideo in a Rabbit Training Model for Establishing an Emergency Front of Neck Airway in Children: A Prospective Trial. The Impact of Legalizing Recreational Cannabis on the Children of a Neighboring State.
×
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