We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Randomized Trial of Intranasal Fentanyl Versus Intravenous Morphine for Abscess Incision and Drainage.
Pediatric Emergency Care 2018 September
OBJECTIVES: Abscess incision and drainage (I&D) are painful and distressing procedures in children. Intranasal (IN) fentanyl is an effective analgesic for reducing symptomatic pain associated with fractures and burns but has not been studied for reducing procedural pain during abscess I&D. Our objective was to compare the analgesic efficacy of IN fentanyl with intravenous (IV) morphine for abscess I&D in children.
METHODS: We performed a randomized noninferiority trial in children aged 4 to 18 years undergoing abscess I&D in a pediatric emergency department. Patients received IN fentanyl (2 μg/kg; maximum, 100 μg) or IV morphine (0.1 mg/kg; maximum, 8 mg). The primary outcome, determined independently by blinded assessors, was the Observational Scale of Behavioral Distress-Revised (OSBD-R). The prestated margin of noninferiority (Δ) was 1.80. Secondary outcomes included self-reported pain, treatment failure, and patient and parental satisfaction.
RESULTS: We enrolled 20 children (median age, 15.4 years), 10 in each group. The difference between total OSBD-R scores was -13.45 (95% confidence interval, -24.24 to -2.67), favoring IN fentanyl.There was less self-reported pain in patients who received IN fentanyl immediately after the procedure. Four patients (40%) receiving IV morphine had treatment failures and required moderate sedation or had the procedure terminated. More patients who received IN fentanyl were satisfied with the analgesic administered compared with those who received IV morphine.
CONCLUSIONS: In a small sample of children aged 4 to 18 years undergoing abscess I&D, IN fentanyl was noninferior, and potentially superior, to IV morphine for reducing procedural pain and distress.
METHODS: We performed a randomized noninferiority trial in children aged 4 to 18 years undergoing abscess I&D in a pediatric emergency department. Patients received IN fentanyl (2 μg/kg; maximum, 100 μg) or IV morphine (0.1 mg/kg; maximum, 8 mg). The primary outcome, determined independently by blinded assessors, was the Observational Scale of Behavioral Distress-Revised (OSBD-R). The prestated margin of noninferiority (Δ) was 1.80. Secondary outcomes included self-reported pain, treatment failure, and patient and parental satisfaction.
RESULTS: We enrolled 20 children (median age, 15.4 years), 10 in each group. The difference between total OSBD-R scores was -13.45 (95% confidence interval, -24.24 to -2.67), favoring IN fentanyl.There was less self-reported pain in patients who received IN fentanyl immediately after the procedure. Four patients (40%) receiving IV morphine had treatment failures and required moderate sedation or had the procedure terminated. More patients who received IN fentanyl were satisfied with the analgesic administered compared with those who received IV morphine.
CONCLUSIONS: In a small sample of children aged 4 to 18 years undergoing abscess I&D, IN fentanyl was noninferior, and potentially superior, to IV morphine for reducing procedural pain and distress.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app