Comparison of alfentanil and morphine in the prehospital treatment of patients with acute ischaemic-type chest pain

Alfentanil for Pain Relief in a Swedish Emergency Medical Service - An Eleven-Year Follow-up on Safety and Effect

OBJECTIVES

Pain is a common symptom in prehospital emergency care and pain treatment in this context can be challenging. While previous research has assessed the use of morphine and other synthetic opioids for pain management in this setting, the evaluation of alfentanil is limited. The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and effect of intravenous alfentanil when administered by ambulance nurses in prehospital emergency care.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study consecutively included patients suffering from pain, treated with alfentanil in a Swedish EMS service from September 2011 to 31 September 2022. Data regarding occurrence of adverse events (AE), serious adverse events (SAE) - were used for safety evaluation and pain scores with a visual analogue scale (VAS) before and after treatment were used for evaluation of pain treatment. These data were extracted from the electronic patients' medical records database for analysis. Univariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify significant predictors of AE following injection of alfentanil by nurses in prehospital emergency care.

RESULTS

During the evaluation period 17,796 patients received pain relief with alfentanil. Adverse events affected 2.5% of the patients, while serious adverse events were identified in 25 cases (0.01%). Out of the 5970 patients with a complete VAS score for pain, the median VAS score was 8 (IQR 3) before treatment and 4 (IQR 3) after treatment. The mean reduction in pain measured by VAS was -4.1 ± 2.6 from the time before, to the evaluation after alfentanil administration. The administration frequency increased during the first year up to a steady level during the later part of the evaluation period.

CONCLUSIONS

This study proposes that alfentanil represents a safe and efficacious alternative for addressing urgent pain relief within the prehospital emergency context. Alfentanil demonstrates efficacy in alleviating pain across various conditions, with a relatively low risk of adverse events or serious adverse events when administered cautiously.

Advanced Life Support for out-of-hospital Chest Pain: The Opals Study

Context: As many as 14% of patients transported by ambulance with chest pain die prior to hospital discharge. To date, no high-quality controlled trials have revealed that prehospital advanced life support interventions affect survival for these patients.Objective: The Ontario Prehospital Advanced Life Support (OPALS) Study assessed the effect of adding an advance life support service to an existing basic life support emergency medical service program, on the rate of mortality and morbidity for patients with out-of-hospital chest pain.Design: Controlled clinical trial comparing survival for 9 months before and 9 after instituting an advanced life support program.Setting: Thirteen urban and suburban Ontario communities (populations ranging from 30,000 to 750,000; total, 2.5 million).Patients: All adult patients with a primary complaint of chest pain and transported by paramedics to the emergency department.Intervention: Paramedics were trained in standard advanced life support, which includes endotracheal intubation, intravenous furosemide and morphine, oral ASA, and sublingual NTG. Emergency medical services within each community had to meet predefined criteria in order to qualify for the advanced life support phase.Main Outcome Measure: Survival to hospital discharge.Results: Overall, 12,168 patients were enrolled in either the basic life support phase (N = 5,788) or the advanced life support phase (N = 6,380). The rate of mortality significantly decreased from 4.3% in the basic life support phase to 3.2% in the advanced life support phase (absolute change 1.1, 95% CI 0.4-1.8, P = 0.0013). We also demonstrated a decrease in mortality for the subgroup of patients with a discharge diagnosis of myocardial infarction (13.1 percent vs 8.2 percent, P = 0.002).Conclusions: The addition of a prehospital advanced life support program to an existing basic life support emergency medical service was associated with a significant decrease in the mortality rate among patients complaining of chest pain. Future research should clarify the most effective interventions and target specific populations.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00212953.

Opioids for Treatment of Pre-hospital Acute Pain: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Acute pain is a frequent symptom among patients in the pre-hospital setting, and opioids are the most widely used class of drugs for the relief of pain in these patients. However, the evidence base for opioid use in this setting appears to be weak. The aim of this systematic review was to explore the efficacy and safety of opioid analgesics in the pre-hospital setting and to assess potential alternative therapies.

METHODS

The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Scopus, and Epistemonikos databases were searched for studies investigating adult patients with acute pain prior to their arrival at hospital. Outcomes on efficacy and safety were assessed. Risk of bias for each included study was assessed according to the Cochrane approach, and confidence in the evidence was assessed using the GRADE method.

RESULTS

A total of 3453 papers were screened, of which the full text of 125 was assessed. Twelve studies were ultimately included in this systematic review. Meta-analysis was not undertaken due to substantial clinical heterogeneity among the included studies. Several studies had high risk of bias resulting in low or very low quality of evidence for most of the outcomes. No pre-hospital studies compared opioids with placebo, and no studies assessed the risk of opioid administration for subgroups of frail patients. The competency level of the attending healthcare provider did not seem to affect the efficacy or safety of opioids in two observational studies of very low quality. Intranasal opioids had a similar effect and safety profile as intravenous opioids. Moderate quality evidence supported a similar efficacy and safety of synthetic opioid compared to morphine.

CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence for pre-hospital opioid administration to relieve acute pain is scarce and the overall quality of evidence is low. Intravenous administration of synthetic, fast-acting opioids may be as effective and safe as intravenous administration of morphine. More controlled studies are needed on alternative routes for opioid administration and pre-hospital pain management for potentially more frail patient subgroups.

Analgesia in acute ischemic chest pain

Analgesics, particularly opioids, have been routinely used in the emergency treatment of ischemic chest pain for a long time. In the past two decades; however, several studies have raised the possibility of the harmful effects of opioid administration. In 2014, the American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) changed the guidelines regarding the use of opioids from class IC to class IIb for non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome. And in 2015, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines incidentally noted the side effects of opioids. In ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, both ESC and AHA/ACCF still recommend the use of opioids. Given the need for adequate pain relief in ischemic chest pain in the emergency setting, it is necessary to understand the adverse effects of analgesia, while still providing sufficiently potent options for analgesia. The primary purpose of this review is to quantify the effects of analgesics commonly used in the prehospital and emergency department in patients with ischemic chest pain.

Prehospital intravenous fentanyl administered by ambulance personnel: a cluster-randomised comparison of two treatment protocols

Background

Prehospital acute pain is a frequent symptom that is often inadequately managed. The concerns of opioid induced side effects are well-founded. To ensure patient safety, ambulance personnel are therefore provided with treatment protocols with dosing restrictions, however, with the concomitant risk of insufficient pain treatment of the patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of a liberal intravenous fentanyl treatment protocol on efficacy and safety measures.

Methods

A two-armed, cluster-randomised trial was conducted in the Central Denmark Region over a 1-year period. Ambulance stations (stratified according to size) were randomised to follow either a liberal treatment protocol (3 μg/kg) or a standard treatment protocol (2 μg/kg). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with sufficient pan relief (numeric rating scale (NRS, 0–10) < 3) at hospital arrival. Secondary outcomes included abnormal vital parameters as proxy measures of safety. A multi-level mixed effect logistic regression model was applied.

Results

In total, 5278 patients were included. Ambulance personnel following the liberal protocol administered higher doses of fentanyl [117.7 μg (95% CI 116.7–118.6)] than ambulance personnel following the standard protocol [111.5 μg (95% CI 110.7–112.4), P = 0.0001]. The number of patient with sufficient pain relief at hospital arrival was higher in the liberal treatment group than the standard treatment group [44.0% (95% CI 41.8–46.1) vs. 37.4% (95% CI 35.2–39.6), adjusted odds ratio 1.47 (95% CI 1.17–1.84)]. The relative decrease in NRS scores during transport was less evident [adjusted odds ratio 1.18 (95% CI 0.95–1.48)]. The occurrences of abnormal vital parameters were similar in both groups.

Conclusions

Liberalising an intravenous fentanyl treatment protocol applied by ambulance personnel slightly increased the number of patients with sufficient pain relief at hospital arrival without compromising patient safety. Future efforts of training ambulance personnel are needed to further improve protocol adherence and quality of treatment.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02914678). Date of registration: 26th September, 2016.

Predicting morphine related side effects in the ED: An international cohort study

STUDY OBJECTIVES

Morphine is the reference treatment for severe acute pain in an emergency department. The purpose of this study was to describe and analyse opioid-related ADRs (adverse drug reactions) in a large cohort of emergency department patients, and to identify predictive factors for those ADRs.

METHODS

In this prospective, observational, pharmaco-epidemiological international cohort study, all patients aged 18years or older who were treated with morphine were enrolled. The study was done in 23 emergency departments in the US and France. Baseline numerical rating scale score and initial and total doses of morphine titration were recorded. Logistic regression analysis was used to study the effects of demographic, clinical and medical history covariates on the occurrence of opioid-induced ADRs within 6h after treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 1128 patients were included over 10months. Median baseline initial pain scores were 8/10 (7-10) versus 3/10 (1-4) after morphine administration. Median titration duration was 10min (IQR, 1-30). The occurrence of opioid-induced ADRs was 25% and 2% were serious. Patients experienced mainly nausea and drowsiness. Medical history of travel sickness (odds ratio [OR], 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-2.86) and history of nausea or vomiting post morphine (OR, 3.86; 95% CI, 2.29-6.51) were independent predictors of morphine related ADRs.

CONCLUSION

Serious morphine related ADRs are rare and unpredictable. Prophylactic antiemetic therapy could be proposed to patients with history of travel sickness and history of nausea or vomiting in a postoperative setting or after morphine administration.

Comparison of Fentanyl and Morphine in the Prehospital Treatment of Ischemic Type Chest Pain

In the treatment of acute coronary syndromes, reduction of sympathetic stress and catecholamine release is an important therapeutic goal. One method used to achieve this goal is pain reduction through the systemic administration of analgesia. Historically, morphine has been the analgesic of choice in ischemic cardiac pain. This randomized double-blind controlled trial seeks to prove the utility of fentanyl as an alternate first-line analgesic for ischemic-type chest pain in the prehospital setting. Successive patients who were treated for suspected ischemic chest pain in the emergency medical services system were considered eligible. Once chest pain was confirmed, patients received oxygen, aspirin, and nitroglycerin therapy. If the ischemic-type chest pain continued the patient was randomized in a double-blinded fashion to treatment with either morphine or fentanyl. Pain scale scores, necessity for additional dosing, and rate of adverse events between the groups were assessed every 5 minutes and were compared using t-testing, Fisher's Exact test, or Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) where appropriate. The primary outcome of the study was incidence of hypotension and the secondary outcome was pain reduction as measured by the visual analog score and numeric rating score. A total of 207 patients were randomized with 187 patients included in the final analysis. Of the 187 patients, 99 were in the morphine group and 88 in the fentanyl group. No statistically significant difference between the two groups with respect to hypotension was found (morphine 5.1% vs. fentanyl 0%, p = 0.06). Baseline characteristics, necessity for additional dosing, and other adverse events between the two groups were not statistically different. There were no significant differences between the changes in visual analog scores and numeric rating scale scores for pain between the two groups (p = 0.16 and p = 0.15, respectively). This study supports that fentanyl and morphine are comparable in providing analgesia for ischemic-type chest pain. Fentanyl appears to be a safe and effective alternative to morphine for the management of chest pain in the prehospital setting.

Management of Pain in the Emergency Department

Since pain is a primary impetus for patient presentation to the Emergency Department (ED), its treatment should be a priority for acute care providers. Historically, the ED has been marked by shortcomings in both the evaluation and amelioration of pain. Over the past decade, improvements in the science of pain assessment and management have combined to facilitate care improvements in the ED. The purpose of this review is to address selected topics within the realm of ED pain management. Commencing with general principles and definitions, the review continues with an assessment of areas of controversy and advancing knowledge in acute pain care. Some barriers to optimal pain care are discussed, and potential mechanisms to overcome these barriers are offered. While the review is not intended as a resource for specific pain conditions or drug information, selected agents and approaches are mentioned with respect to evolving evidence and areas for future research.

Cardiac arrest: a public health perspective

This article reviews out-of-hospital cardiac arrest from a public health perspective. Case definitions are discussed. Incidence, outcome, and fixed and modifiable risk factors for cardiac arrest are described. There is a large variation in survival between communities that is not explained by patient or community factors. Study of variation in outcome in other related conditions suggest that this is due to differences in organizational culture rather than processes of care. A public health approach to improving outcomes is recommended that includes ongoing monitoring and improvement of processes and outcome of care.

Parenteral opioids in emergency medicine - A systematic review of efficacy and safety

Introduction and aim Pain is a frequent symptom in emergency patients and opioids are commonly used to treat it at emergency departments and at pre-hospital settings. The aim of this systematic review is to examine the efficacy and safety of parenteral opioids used for acute pain in emergency medicine. Method Qualitative review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on parenteral opioids for acute pain in adult emergency patients. Main outcome measures were: type and dose of the opioid, analgesic efficacy as compared to either placebo or another opioid and adverse effects. Results Twenty double-blind RCTs with results on 2322 patients were included. Seven studies were placebo controlled. Majority of studies were performed in the emergency department. Only five studies were in prehospital setting. Prehospital studies Four studies were on mainly trauma-related pain, one ischemic chest pain. One study compared two different doses of morphine in mainly trauma pain showing faster analgesia with the larger dose but no difference at 30 min postdrug. Three other studies on the same pain model showed equal analgesic effects with morphine and other opioids. Alfentanil was more effective than morphine in ischemic chest pain. Emergency department studies Pain models used were acute abdominal pain seven, renal colic four, mixed (mainly abdominal pain) three and trauma pain one study. Five studies compared morphine to placebo in acute abdominal pain and in all studies morphine was more effective than placebo. In four out of five studies on acute abdominal pain morphine did not change diagnostic accuracy, clinical or radiological findings. Most commonly used morphine dose in the emergency department was 0.1 mg/kg (five studies). Other opioids showed analgesic effect comparable to morphine. Adverse effects Recording and reporting of adverse effects was very variable. Vital signs were recorded in 15 of the 20 studies (including all prehospital studies). Incidence of adverse effects in the opioid groups was 5-38% of the patients in the prehospital setting and 4-46% of the patients in the emergency department. Nausea or vomiting was reported in 11-25% of the patients given opioids. Study drug was discontinued because of adverse effects five patients (one placebo, two sufentanil, two morphine). Eight studies commented on administration of naloxone for reversal of opioid effects. One patient out of 1266 was given naloxone for drowsiness. Ventilatory depression defined by variable criteria occurred in occurred in 7 out of 756 emergency department patients. Conclusion Evidence for selection of optimal opioid and dose is scarce. Opioids, especially morphine, are effective in relieving acute pain also in emergency medicine patients. Studies so far are small and reporting of adverse effects is very variable. Therefore the safety of different opioids and doses remains to be studied. Also the optimal titration regimens need to be evaluated in future studies. The prevention and treatment of opioid-induced nausea and vomiting is an important clinical consideration that requires further clinical and scientific attention in this patient group.

Exploratory cross-sectional study of factors associated with pre-hospital management of pain

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Improving pain management is important in pre-hospital settings. We aimed to investigate how pain was managed in pre-hospital suspected acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or fracture and how this could be improved.

METHOD

We conducted a cross-sectional study in Lincolnshire using recorded suspected AMI and fracture between April 2005 and March 2006. Outcomes included pain assessment, improvement in pain scores and administration of Entonox, opiates or GTN (in AMI).

RESULTS

We accessed 3654 patients with suspected AMI or fracture. Pain was assessed in over three quarters of patients but analgesics administered in under two-fifths. Assessment was more likely in patients with suspected AMI (OR 2.05, 95% CI [1.70, 2.47]), and who were alert (OR 3.55, 95% CI [2.32, 5.43]). Entonox was less likely to be administered for suspected AMI (OR 0.11, 95% CI [0.087, 0.15]) or by paramedic crews (OR 0.56, 95% CI [0.45, 0.68]) but more likely to be given when pain had been assessed (OR 3.54, 95% CI [2.77, 4.52]). Opiates were more likely to be prescribed for suspected AMI (OR 1.30, 95% CI [1.07, 1.57]), in alert patients (OR 1.35, 95% CI [0.71, 2.56]) assessed for pain (OR 2.20, 95% CI [1.73, 2.80]) by paramedic crews.

CONCLUSIONS

This exploratory study showed shortfalls in assessment and treatment of pain, but also demonstrated that assessment of pain was associated with more effective treatment. Further research is needed to understand barriers to pre-hospital pain management and investigate mechanisms to overcome these.

Is pre-hospital treatment of chest pain optimal in acute coronary syndrome? The relief of both pain and anxiety is needed

BACKGROUND

Many patients who suffer from acute chest pain are transported by ambulance. It is not known how often treatment prior to hospital admission is optimal and how optimal pain-relieving treatment is defined. It is often difficult to delineate pain from anxiety.

AIM

To describe various aspects of chest pain in the pre-hospital setting with the emphasis on a) treatment and b) presumed acute coronary syndrome.

METHODS

In the literature search, we used PubMed and the appropriate key words. We included randomised clinical trials and observational studies.

RESULTS

Four types of drug appear to be preferred: 1) narcotic analgesics, 2) nitrates, 3) beta-blockers and 4) benzodiazepines. Among narcotic analgesics, morphine has been associated with the relief of pain at the expense of side-effects. Alfentanil was reported to produce more rapid pain relief. Nitrates have been associated with the relief of pain with few side-effects. Beta-blockers have been reported to increase the relief of pain when added to morphine. The combination of beta-blockers and morphine has been reported to be as effective as beta-blockers alone in pain relief, but this combination therapy was associated with more side-effects. Experience from anxiety-relieving drugs such as benzodiazepines is limited. It is not known how these 4 drugs should be combined. The results indicate that various pain-relieving treatments might modify the disease.

CONCLUSION

Our knowledge of the optimal treatment of chest pain and associated anxiety in the pre-hospital setting is insufficient. Recommendations from existing guidelines are limited. Large randomised clinical trials are warranted.

Aspects on the intensity and the relief of pain in the prehospital phase of acute coronary syndrome: experiences from a randomized clinical trial

The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the pain relief and tolerability of two pain-relieving strategies in the prehospital phase of presumed acute coronary syndrome (ACS), and the secondary aim was to assess the relationship between the intensity and relief of pain and heart rate, blood pressure, and ST deviation. Patients with chest pain judged as caused by ACS were randomized (open) to either metoprolol 5 mg intravenously (i.v.) three times at 2-min intervals (n = 84; metoprolol group) or morphine 5 mg i.v. followed by metoprolol 5 mg three times i.v (n = 80; morphine group). Pain was assessed on a 10-grade scale before randomization and 10, 20, and 30 min thereafter. The mean pain score decreased from 6.5 at randomization to 2.8 30 min later, with no significant difference between groups. The percentages with complete pain relief (pain score < or = 1) after 10, 20, and 30 min were 11, 16, and 21%, respectively, with no difference between groups. Hypotension was less frequent in the metoprolol group compared with the morphine group (0 vs. 6.3%; P=0.03), as was nausea/vomiting (7.2 vs. 24.0%; P=0.004). At randomization intensity of pain was associated with degree of ST elevation (P=0.009). The degree of pain relief over 30 min was associated with decrease in heart rate (P=0.03) and decrease in ST elevation (P=0.01).In conclusion, in the prehospital phase of presumed ACS, neither a pain-relieving strategy including an anti-ischemic agent alone nor an analgesic plus anti-ischemic strategy in combination resulted in complete pain relief. Fewer side effects were found with the former strategy. Other pain-relieving strategies need to be evaluated.

Sufentanil is not superior to morphine for the treatment of acute traumatic pain in an emergency setting: a randomized, double-blind, out-of-hospital trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We determine the best intravenous opioid titration protocol by comparing morphine and sufentanil for adult patients with severe traumatic acute pain in an out-of-hospital setting, with a physician providing care.

METHODS

In this double-blind randomized clinical trial, patients were eligible for inclusion if aged 18 years or older, with acute severe pain (defined as a numeric rating scale score ≥ 6/10) caused by trauma. They were assigned to receive either intravenous 0.15 μg/kg sufentanil, followed by 0.075 μg/kg every 3 minutes or intravenous 0.15 mg/kg morphine and then 0.075 mg/kg. The primary endpoint of the study was pain relief at 15 minutes, defined as a numeric rating scale less than or equal to 3 of 10. Secondary endpoints were time to analgesia, adverse events, and duration of analgesia during the first 6 hours.

RESULTS

A total of 108 patients were included, 54 in each group. At 15 minutes, 74% of the patients in the sufentanil group had a numeric rating scale score of 3 or lower versus 70% of those in the morphine group (Δ4%; 95% confidence interval -13% to 21%). At 9 minutes, 65% of the patients in the sufentanil group experienced pain relief versus 46% of those in the morphine group (Δ18%; 95% confidence interval 0.1% to 35%). The duration of analgesia was in favor of the morphine group. Nineteen percent of patients experienced an adverse event in both groups, all mild to moderate.

CONCLUSION

Intravenous morphine titration using a loading dose of morphine followed by strictly administered lower doses at regular intervals remains the criterion standard. Moreover, this study supports the idea that the doses studied should be considered for routine administration in severe pain protocols.

Effectiveness and safety of fentanyl compared with morphine for out-of-hospital analgesia

BACKGROUND

Fentanyl has several potential advantages for out-of-hospital analgesia, including rapid onset, short duration, and less histamine release. Objective. To compare the effectiveness and safety of fentanyl with that of morphine.

METHODS

This was a retrospective before-and-after study of a protocol change from morphine to fentanyl in an advanced life support emergency medical services system in January 2007. Charts from nine months prior to the change and for nine months afterward were abstracted by two reviewers using a standardized instrument. The first three months after the change were excluded. Effectiveness was measured by change in pain scores on a 0-10 scale. A priori-defined adverse events included out-of-hospital events: respiratory rate <12 breaths/min, pulse oximetry <92%, systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg, any fall in Glasgow Coma Scale score, nausea or vomiting, intubation, and use of antiemetic agents or naloxone. Emergency department charts were reviewed for initial pain scores and the same adverse events during the first two hours. Events clearly not attributable to the opioid were discounted. The changes in pain scores were also compared adjusting for confounders by multivariable linear regression.

RESULTS

Three hundred fifty-five patients aged 13 to 99 years received morphine during the nine months before the protocol change and 363 received fentanyl following the washout period. Initial pain scores for morphine (8.1) and fentanyl (8.3) were comparable (95% confidence interval [CI] for difference -1.1 to 0.3). Fentanyl patients received a higher equivalent dose of opioid (7.7 mg morphine equivalents for morphine, 9.2 mg for fentanyl, CI for the difference 0.9 to 2.3). The mean decreases in pain score were similar between the drugs (2.9 for morphine, 3.1 for fentanyl, CI for the difference -0.3 to 0.7). With regard to adverse events, 9.9% of the morphine patients and 6.6% of the fentanyl patients experienced an adverse event in the field (CI for the difference -0.8 to 7.3%). The most common event was nausea, with a rate of 7.0% for morphine vs. 3.8% for fentanyl (CI for the difference -0.1% to 6.5%).

CONCLUSION

Morphine and fentanyl provide similar degrees of out-of-hospital analgesia, although this was achieved with a higher dose of fentanyl. Both medications had low rates of adverse events, which were easily controlled.

Intranasal alfentanil for severe intractable angina in inoperable coronary artery disease

Chronic refractory angina can lead to multiple acute hospital admissions. This can be due to patient and healthcare professional misconceptions regarding the meaning of the chest pain experienced. Symptom control, psychological support and education form an important part of the management of this condition. We describe a case study where intranasal alfentanil provided rapid relief of symptoms preventing repeated hospital admissions.

Prehospital evaluation and treatment of a presumed acute coronary syndrome: what are the options?

The earlier infarct-limiting therapy is started the better is the outcome among patients suffering from a threatened myocardial infarction. The introduction of a prehospital electrocardiogram has improved triage of patients with acute chest pain. With regard to medication, fibrinolytic agents have the best documentation. Their use when frequently followed by a percutaneous coronary intervention at a later stage may be a good alternative among patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Other treatments of potential value in the prehospital setting are oxygen, narcotic analgesics, nitrates, aspirin, heparin, low molecular weight heparin, glycoprotein IIB, IIIA blockers, clopidogrel and beta-blockers. We need further studies, however, for most of these treatments including cost-benefit analysis, analysis of various logistic aspects and safety in order to confirm their value.

Fentanyl trauma analgesia use in air medical scene transports

This study assessed frequency, safety and efficacy of prehospital fentanyl analgesia during 6 months' adult and pediatric helicopter trauma scene transports (213 doses in 177 patients). We reviewed flight records for pain assessment and analgesia provision, effect, and complications. Analgesia was administered to 46/49 (93.9%) intubated patients. In non-intubated patients, pain assessment was documented in 112 of 128 (87.5%), and analgesia was offered, or there was no pain, in 97/128 (75.8%). Of the 67 non-intubated patients to whom analgesia was administered, post-analgesia pain assessment was documented in 62 (92.5%) and pain improved in 53 (79.1% of 67). Post-analgesia blood pressure dropped below 90 torr in 2/177 cases (1.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.1-4.0%). Post-analgesia S(p)O(2) did not drop below 90% in any patients (95% CI 0-2.3%). In this study, prehospital providers performed well with respect to pain assessment and treatment. Fentanyl was provided frequently, with good effect and minimal cardiorespiratory consequence.

A randomized, double-blind study comparing morphine with fentanyl in prehospital analgesia

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare, by a randomized double-blind method, morphine (M) and fentanyl (F) in a prehospital setting.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with severe, acute pain defined as a visual analog scale score (VASS) of 60/100 or higher were included. The M group received an initial intravenous M injection of 0.1 mg/kg then of 3 mg every 5 minutes. The F group received an initial intravenous F injection of 1 microg/kg then of 30 microg every 5 minutes. The goal of analgesia was a VASS of 30/100 or lower. The end point was the VASS measured 30 minutes after initial administration (VAS [T30]).

RESULTS

There were 26 patients included in the M group and 28 in the F group. Initial VASS(T0) and VASS(T30), mean (95% CI), were 83 (78-88) and 40 (28-52) in the M group and 77 (72-82) and 35 (27-43) in the F group (P=NS). Sixty-two percent of patients in the M group described analgesia as excellent or good vs 76% of those in the F group who did (P=NS). There were no differences in the incidence of side effects in the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that M and F were comparable in treating severe, acute pain in a prehospital setting during the first 30 minutes in spontaneous breathing patients.