Intranasal sufentanil for the treatment of acute pain in a winter resort clinic
Department of Surgery, Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UtahThe American journal of emergency medicine (Impact Factor: 1.27). 05/2012; 30(9). DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2012.02.019
INTRODUCTION: Painful extremity injuries are common patient complaints in resort clinics, urgent care clinics, and emergency departments. We hypothesized that intranasal (IN) sufentanil could provide rapid, noninvasive, effective pain relief to patients presenting with acute extremity injuries. METHODS: This was an unblinded, nonrandomized, observational study that enrolled a convenience sample of patients presenting to a university-affiliated ski clinic with acute moderate to severe pain associated with a traumatic injury between the months of January and March 2011. Patients were excluded if they reported an allergy to sufentanil or had hypoxia, significant head injury, or hypotension. Nurses administered IN sufentanil using an IN atomizer device. The nurse recorded patient-reported pain scores (0-10 scale) on arrival and at 10, 20, and 30 minutes after administration of sufentanil. RESULTS: During the study period, 40 patients were enrolled; 75% were men. The average age was 32 years (range, 16-60 years). The average dose of sufentanil was 37.7 μg. Five patients (12.5%) were given additional IN analgesia. Average pain on arrival was 9 (on a 10-point scale), and the mean reduction in pain scores was 4.7 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.67-5.57) at 10 minutes, 5.79 (95% CI, 4.81-6.77) at 20 minutes, and 5.74 (95% CI, 4.72-6.76) at 30 minutes. CONCLUSION: In this limited observational trial, IN sufentanil provided rapid, safe, and noninvasive pain relief to patients presenting with acute traumatic extremity injuries. Given the ease of administration, this may serve as a viable option for use in other settings, such as urgent care clinics and emergency departments.
- Douleurs Evaluation - Diagnostic - Traitement 04/2013; 14(2):104–105. DOI:10.1016/j.douler.2013.02.002
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The management of procedural pain in children ranges from physical restraint to pharmacological interventions. Pediatric formulations that permit accurate dosing, are accepted by children and a have a rapid onset of analgesia are lacking. To investigate a pediatric formulation of intranasal sufentanil 0.5 mcg·kg(-1) and ketamine 0.5 mg·kg(-1) for procedural pain and to characterize the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile. Fifty children (≥10 kg) scheduled for a painful procedure were included in this prospective nonrandomized open-label clinical trial. Thirteen of these children had central venous access for drug assay sampling; enabling a compartmental PK analysis using nonlinear mixed-effects models. Pain intensity before and during the procedure was measured using age-appropriate pain scales. Heart rate, oxygen saturation and sedation were recorded. Children had a mean age of 8.8 (sd 4.9) years and weight 35.2 (sd 20.1) kg. Sufentanil/ketamine nasal spray was effective (procedural pain intensity scores ≤5 (0-10)) in 78% of the painful procedures. The spray was well accepted by 94% of the children. Oxygen saturation and heart rate remained stable, and sedation was minimal. The bioavailability of sufentanil and ketamine was 24.6% and 35.8%, respectively. Maximum plasma concentration (Cmax ) of sufentanil was 0.042 mg·l(-1) (coefficient of variation (CV) 12.9%) at 13.8 min (CV 12.4%) (Tmax ). Cmax for ketamine was 0.102 mg·l(-1) (CV 10.8%), and Tmax was 8.5 min (CV 17.3%). Sufentanil/ketamine nasal spray provided rapid onset of analgesia for a variety of painful procedures with few adverse effects and has promising features for use in pediatric procedural pain management.Pediatric Anesthesia 10/2013; 24(2). DOI:10.1111/pan.12268 · 1.85 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The Wilderness Medical Society convened an expert panel to develop evidence-based guidelines for the management of pain in austere environments. Recommendations are graded based on the quality of supporting evidence as defined by criteria put forth by the American College of Chest Physicians.Wilderness and Environmental Medicine 01/2014; 25(4). DOI:10.1016/j.wem.2013.10.001 · 1.20 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.