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, E.
AU - Afrifa, F.
AU - Zias, Eleftheria
AU - Jones, Michael P.
AU - Pearlman, S.
AU - Chertoff, Andrew
AU - Wollowitz, Andrew
AU - Gallagher, E. John
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding and support: By Annals policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article as per ICMJE conflict of interest guidelines (see www.icmje.org). The authors have stated that no such relationships exist. This publication was supported in part by the Harold and Muriel Block Institute for Clinical and Translational Research at Einstein and Montefiore grant support (UL1TR001073).
Funding Information:
Funding and support: By Annals policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article as per ICMJE conflict of interest guidelines (see www.icmje.org). The authors have stated that no such relationships exist. This publication was supported in part by the Harold and Muriel Block Institute for Clinical and Translational Research at Einstein and Montefiore grant support (UL1TR001073). Funding and support: By Annals policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article as per ICMJE conflict of interest guidelines (seewww.icmje.org). The authors have stated that no such relationships exist. This publication was supported in part by the Harold and Muriel Block Institute for Clinical and Translational Research at Einstein and Montefiore grant support ( UL1TR001073).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 American College of Emergency Physicians
PY - 2019/8
Y1 - 2019/8
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
VL - 74
SP - 233
EP - 240
JO - Annals of Emergency Medicine
JF - Annals of Emergency Medicine
SN - 0196-0644
IS - 2
ER -