• Claire Rickard, Peter O'Meara, Matthew McGrail, David Garner, Alan McLean, and Peter Le Lievre.
• Research Centre for Practice Innovation, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland 4111, Australia. rickard_claire@yahoo.com.au
• Am J Emerg Med. 2007 Oct 1;25(8):911-7.

Study ObjectiveThe objective of the study was to compare intranasal fentanyl (INF) with intravenous morphine (IVM) for prehospital analgesia.MethodsThis was a randomized, controlled, open-label trial. Consecutive adult patients (n = 258) requiring analgesia (Verbal Rating Score [VRS] >2/10 noncardiac or >5/10 cardiac) were recruited. Patients received INF 180 mug +/- 2 doses of 60 mug at > or =5-minute intervals or IVM 2.5 to 5 mg +/- 2 doses of 2.5 to 5 mg at > or =5-minute intervals. The end point was the difference in baseline/destination VRS.ResultsGroups were equivalent (P = not significant) for baseline VRS [mean (SD): INF 8.3 (1.7), IVM 8.1 (1.6)] and minutes to destination [mean (SD): INF 27.2 (15.5), IVM 30.6 (19.1)]. Patients had a mean (95% confidence interval) VRS reduction as follows: INF 4.22 (3.74-4.71), IVM 3.57 (3.10-4.03); P = .08. Higher baseline VRS (P < .001), no methoxyflurane use (P < .01), and back pain (P = .02) predicted VRS reduction. Safety and acceptability were comparable.ConclusionsThere was no significant difference in the effectiveness of INF and IVM for prehospital analgesia.

27 keywords...

hide…