Randomized Trial of Intravenous Lidocaine Versus Hydromorphone for Acute Abdominal Pain in the Emergency Department

Elliott Chinn, Benjamin W. Friedman, Farnia Naeem, Eddie Irizarry, Freda Afrifa, Eleftheria Zias, Michael P. Jones, Scott B. Pearlman, Andrew Chertoff, Andrew Wollowitz, E. John Gallagher

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Study objective: We compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous lidocaine with that of hydromorphone for the treatment of acute abdominal pain in the emergency department (ED). Methods: This was a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial conducted in 2 EDs in the Bronx, NY. Adults weighing 60 to 120 kg were randomized to receive 120 mg of intravenous lidocaine or 1 mg of intravenous hydromorphone. Thirty minutes after administration of the first dose of the study drug, participants were asked whether they needed a second dose of the investigational medication to which they were randomized. Patients were also stratified according to clinical suspicion of nephrolithiasis. The primary outcome was improvement in pain scores of 0 to 10 between baseline and 90 minutes. An important secondary outcome was need for “off-protocol” parenteral analgesics, including opioids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Results: We enrolled 154 patients, of whom 77 received lidocaine and 77 received hydromorphone. By 90 minutes, patients randomized to lidocaine improved by a mean of 3.8 points on the 0-to-10 scale, whereas those randomized to hydromorphone improved by a mean of 5.0 points (mean difference 1.2; 95% confidence interval 0.3 to 2.2). Need for off-protocol “rescue” analgesics occurred for 39 of 77 lidocaine patients (51%) and 20 of 77 hydromorphone patients (26%) (difference 25%; 95% confidence interval 10% to 40%). Adverse events were comparable between groups. Among the subset of 22 patients with nephrolithiasis, lidocaine patients reported a mean improvement of 3.4 points on the pain scale, whereas hydromorphone patients reported a mean improvement of 6.4 points (mean difference 3.0; 95% confidence interval 0.5 to 5.5). Conclusion: Intravenous hydromorphone was superior to intravenous lidocaine both for general abdominal pain and a subset of patients with nephrolithiasis. A majority of patients randomly allocated to lidocaine required additional analgesics.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalAnnals of Emergency Medicine
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Hydromorphone
Acute Pain
Lidocaine
Abdominal Pain
Hospital Emergency Service
Nephrolithiasis
Confidence Intervals
Analgesics
Pain
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Opioid Analgesics
Anti-Inflammatory Agents

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine

Cite this

Randomized Trial of Intravenous Lidocaine Versus Hydromorphone for Acute Abdominal Pain in the Emergency Department. / Chinn, Elliott; Friedman, Benjamin W.; Naeem, Farnia; Irizarry, Eddie; Afrifa, Freda; Zias, Eleftheria; Jones, Michael P.; Pearlman, Scott B.; Chertoff, Andrew; Wollowitz, Andrew; Gallagher, E. John.

In: Annals of Emergency Medicine, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{6fd79c763da846f7841510eae6fcc823,
title = "Randomized Trial of Intravenous Lidocaine Versus Hydromorphone for Acute Abdominal Pain in the Emergency Department",
abstract = "Study objective: We compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous lidocaine with that of hydromorphone for the treatment of acute abdominal pain in the emergency department (ED). Methods: This was a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial conducted in 2 EDs in the Bronx, NY. Adults weighing 60 to 120 kg were randomized to receive 120 mg of intravenous lidocaine or 1 mg of intravenous hydromorphone. Thirty minutes after administration of the first dose of the study drug, participants were asked whether they needed a second dose of the investigational medication to which they were randomized. Patients were also stratified according to clinical suspicion of nephrolithiasis. The primary outcome was improvement in pain scores of 0 to 10 between baseline and 90 minutes. An important secondary outcome was need for “off-protocol” parenteral analgesics, including opioids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Results: We enrolled 154 patients, of whom 77 received lidocaine and 77 received hydromorphone. By 90 minutes, patients randomized to lidocaine improved by a mean of 3.8 points on the 0-to-10 scale, whereas those randomized to hydromorphone improved by a mean of 5.0 points (mean difference 1.2; 95{\%} confidence interval 0.3 to 2.2). Need for off-protocol “rescue” analgesics occurred for 39 of 77 lidocaine patients (51{\%}) and 20 of 77 hydromorphone patients (26{\%}) (difference 25{\%}; 95{\%} confidence interval 10{\%} to 40{\%}). Adverse events were comparable between groups. Among the subset of 22 patients with nephrolithiasis, lidocaine patients reported a mean improvement of 3.4 points on the pain scale, whereas hydromorphone patients reported a mean improvement of 6.4 points (mean difference 3.0; 95{\%} confidence interval 0.5 to 5.5). Conclusion: Intravenous hydromorphone was superior to intravenous lidocaine both for general abdominal pain and a subset of patients with nephrolithiasis. A majority of patients randomly allocated to lidocaine required additional analgesics.",
author = "Elliott Chinn and Friedman, {Benjamin W.} and Farnia Naeem and Eddie Irizarry and Freda Afrifa and Eleftheria Zias and Jones, {Michael P.} and Pearlman, {Scott B.} and Andrew Chertoff and Andrew Wollowitz and Gallagher, {E. John}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.annemergmed.2019.01.021",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Annals of Emergency Medicine",
issn = "0196-0644",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Randomized Trial of Intravenous Lidocaine Versus Hydromorphone for Acute Abdominal Pain in the Emergency Department

AU - Chinn, Elliott

AU - Friedman, Benjamin W.

AU - Naeem, Farnia

AU - Irizarry, Eddie

AU - Afrifa, Freda

AU - Zias, Eleftheria

AU - Jones, Michael P.

AU - Pearlman, Scott B.

AU - Chertoff, Andrew

AU - Wollowitz, Andrew

AU - Gallagher, E. John

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Study objective: We compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous lidocaine with that of hydromorphone for the treatment of acute abdominal pain in the emergency department (ED). Methods: This was a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial conducted in 2 EDs in the Bronx, NY. Adults weighing 60 to 120 kg were randomized to receive 120 mg of intravenous lidocaine or 1 mg of intravenous hydromorphone. Thirty minutes after administration of the first dose of the study drug, participants were asked whether they needed a second dose of the investigational medication to which they were randomized. Patients were also stratified according to clinical suspicion of nephrolithiasis. The primary outcome was improvement in pain scores of 0 to 10 between baseline and 90 minutes. An important secondary outcome was need for “off-protocol” parenteral analgesics, including opioids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Results: We enrolled 154 patients, of whom 77 received lidocaine and 77 received hydromorphone. By 90 minutes, patients randomized to lidocaine improved by a mean of 3.8 points on the 0-to-10 scale, whereas those randomized to hydromorphone improved by a mean of 5.0 points (mean difference 1.2; 95% confidence interval 0.3 to 2.2). Need for off-protocol “rescue” analgesics occurred for 39 of 77 lidocaine patients (51%) and 20 of 77 hydromorphone patients (26%) (difference 25%; 95% confidence interval 10% to 40%). Adverse events were comparable between groups. Among the subset of 22 patients with nephrolithiasis, lidocaine patients reported a mean improvement of 3.4 points on the pain scale, whereas hydromorphone patients reported a mean improvement of 6.4 points (mean difference 3.0; 95% confidence interval 0.5 to 5.5). Conclusion: Intravenous hydromorphone was superior to intravenous lidocaine both for general abdominal pain and a subset of patients with nephrolithiasis. A majority of patients randomly allocated to lidocaine required additional analgesics.

AB - Study objective: We compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous lidocaine with that of hydromorphone for the treatment of acute abdominal pain in the emergency department (ED). Methods: This was a randomized, double-blind, clinical trial conducted in 2 EDs in the Bronx, NY. Adults weighing 60 to 120 kg were randomized to receive 120 mg of intravenous lidocaine or 1 mg of intravenous hydromorphone. Thirty minutes after administration of the first dose of the study drug, participants were asked whether they needed a second dose of the investigational medication to which they were randomized. Patients were also stratified according to clinical suspicion of nephrolithiasis. The primary outcome was improvement in pain scores of 0 to 10 between baseline and 90 minutes. An important secondary outcome was need for “off-protocol” parenteral analgesics, including opioids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Results: We enrolled 154 patients, of whom 77 received lidocaine and 77 received hydromorphone. By 90 minutes, patients randomized to lidocaine improved by a mean of 3.8 points on the 0-to-10 scale, whereas those randomized to hydromorphone improved by a mean of 5.0 points (mean difference 1.2; 95% confidence interval 0.3 to 2.2). Need for off-protocol “rescue” analgesics occurred for 39 of 77 lidocaine patients (51%) and 20 of 77 hydromorphone patients (26%) (difference 25%; 95% confidence interval 10% to 40%). Adverse events were comparable between groups. Among the subset of 22 patients with nephrolithiasis, lidocaine patients reported a mean improvement of 3.4 points on the pain scale, whereas hydromorphone patients reported a mean improvement of 6.4 points (mean difference 3.0; 95% confidence interval 0.5 to 5.5). Conclusion: Intravenous hydromorphone was superior to intravenous lidocaine both for general abdominal pain and a subset of patients with nephrolithiasis. A majority of patients randomly allocated to lidocaine required additional analgesics.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85061924367&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85061924367&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2019.01.021

DO - 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2019.01.021

M3 - Article

C2 - 30819520

AN - SCOPUS:85061924367

JO - Annals of Emergency Medicine

JF - Annals of Emergency Medicine

SN - 0196-0644

ER -