Intravenous versus oral paracetamol for acute pain in adults in the emergency department setting: a prospective, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised controlled trial

Evaluation of use and identification of predictive factors for nonuse of peripheral venous catheters in the emergency department

The placement of peripheral venous catheters (PVC) is a frequent procedure in the emergency department (ED), which exposes patients to complications (hematoma, fluid leakage, phlebitis, edema, infection), increases hemolysis of blood samples, is time-consuming and costly. The main aim of this study is to analyze the rate of PVC nonuse in the ED and to identify predictive factors of their nonuse. This prospective single-center observational study was conducted in the ED of the Saint-Antoine Hospital in Paris, France between February and March 2022. Adult patients receiving a PVC were included. In addition to demographic and medical data, the reason for PVC prescription and the prescribing physician's expectation of PVC use were collected. A total of 304 patients were included, with a median age of 61.5 years (IQR: 43-79 years), of whom 152 (50%) were men. PVC were primarily prescribed for intravenous medication administration. Seventy-two (23.7%) PVC were not used. In multivariable analysis, the predictive factors of nonuse were the prescribing physician's expectation of nonuse [OR 6.35, CI 95% (2.64-15.29), for "no" and "not sure" vs. "yes" responses] and the reason for prescribing "just in case" [OR 3.54, CI 95% (1.37-9.17)]. PVC were not used in 23.7% of cases. Predictors of nonuse were the prescribing physician's expectation of nonuse and the reason for prescribing "just in case". A PVC should probably not be prescribed if the prescribing physician thinks it will not be used or prescribes it "just in case".

Evaluation of an Intravenous Acetaminophen Protocol in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

Acute pain is a leading reason for Emergency Department (ED) evaluation, accounting for nearly half of all ED visits. Therefore, providing effective non-opioid analgesics in the ED is critical. Oral acetaminophen (APAP) is commonly administered in the ED but is limited to patients tolerating oral intake. Intravenous (IV) APAP provides significant pain reduction parenterally. The purpose of this quality assessment project was to evaluate the frequency of opioid use in patients receiving IV APAP, the safety of IV APAP, and compliance with an ED IV APAP protocol.

METHODS

This study included all patients who received IV APAP in the ED of a tertiary care, level I trauma center, during a three-month period. The protocol required ED patients to be NPO (nil per os), 18 years or older, and administered with a single 1000 mg dose. The adverse reactions within 24 hours post-IV APAP, ED length of stay (LOS), and opioid administration within four hours post-IV APAP were assessed.

RESULTS

Ninety-four patients received IV APAP. All patients received a 1000 mg dose. One patient received more than one dose, but this patient had a 22-hour ED LOS. Two patients received oral medications within one hour of IV APAP (one received an antacid, and the other received carbamazepine and lamotrigine). An opioid was administered to 22 of the 94 (23.4%) patients during the four-hour protocol period. There were no reports of adverse reactions.

CONCLUSIONS

The results show excellent compliance with the protocol. IV APAP was safe and well-tolerated. Notably, most patients did not receive an opioid within four hours of IV APAP. IV APAP can be safely and effectively utilized as an analgesic and lessen ED opioid use.

Unlocking the Optimal Analgesic Potential: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Comparing Intravenous, Oral, and Rectal Paracetamol in Equivalent Doses

Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is an extensively used analgesic for acute and chronic pain management. Currently, paracetamol is manufactured for oral, rectal, and intravenous (IV) use. Research has shown varied results on the analgesic properties of IV paracetamol compared to oral and rectal paracetamol; however, research on the same doses of paracetamol is limited. Therefore, this review was constructed to explore the analgesic properties of IV paracetamol compared with oral and rectal paracetamol administered in equivalent doses. A broad and thorough literature search was performed on five electronic databases, including PubMed, ScienceDirect, Medline, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Statistical analysis of all outcomes in our review was then performed using the Review Manager software. Outcomes were categorized as primary (pain relief and time to request rescue analgesia) and secondary (adverse events after analgesia). An extensive quality appraisal was also done using the Review Manager software's Cochrane risk of bias tool. The literature survey yielded 2,945 articles, of which 12 were used for review and analysis. The pooled analysis for patients undergoing surgical procedures showed that IV paracetamol had statistically similar postoperative pain scores at two (mean difference (MD) = -0.14; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.58-0.29; p = 0.51), 24 (MD = 0.09; 95% CI = -0.02-0.21; p = 0.12), and 48 (MD = 0.04; 95% CI = -0.08-0.16; p = 0.52) hours as oral paracetamol. Similarly, the data on time to rescue analgesia showed no considerable difference between the IV and oral paracetamol groups (MD = -1.58; 95% CI = -5.51-2.35; p = 0.43). On the other hand, the pooled analysis for patients presenting non-surgical acute pain showed no significant difference in the mean pain scores between patients treated with IV and oral paracetamol (MD = -0.35; 95% CI = -2.19-1.48; p = 0.71). Furthermore, a subgroup analysis of analgesia-related adverse events showed that the incidences of vomiting/nausea and pruritus did not differ between patients receiving IV and oral paracetamol (odds ratio (OR) = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.45-1.11; p = 0.13 and OR = 0.48; 95% CI = 0.18-1.29; p = 0.05, respectively). A review of information from two trials comparing equal doses of IV and rectal paracetamol suggested that the postoperative pain scores were statistically similar between the groups. IV paracetamol is not superior to oral or rectal paracetamol administered in equal doses. Therefore, we cannot recommend or refute IV paracetamol as the first-line analgesia for acute and postoperative pain.

Paracetamol for multimodal analgesia

Pain and related disability remain a major social and therapeutic problem. Comorbidities and therapies increase drug interactions and side effects making pain management more compounded especially in the elderly who are the fastest-growing pain population. Multimodal analgesia consists of using two or more drugs and/or techniques that target different sites of pain, increasing the level of analgesia and decreasing adverse events from treatment. Paracetamol enhances multimodal analgesia in experimental and clinical pain states. Strong preclinical evidence supports that paracetamol has additive and synergistic interactions with anti-inflammatory, opioid and anti-neuropathic drugs in rodent models of nociceptive and neuropathic pain. Clinical studies in young and adult elderly patients confirm the utility of paracetamol in multimodal, non-opioid or opioid-sparing, therapies for the treatment of acute and chronic pain.

Paracetamol: A Review of Guideline Recommendations

Musculoskeletal pain conditions are age-related, leading contributors to chronic pain and pain-related disability, which are expected to rise with the rapid global population aging. Current medical treatments provide only partial relief. Furthermore, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and opioids are effective in young and otherwise healthy individuals but are often contraindicated in elderly and frail patients. As a result of its favorable safety and tolerability record, paracetamol has long been the most common drug for treating pain. Strikingly, recent reports questioned its therapeutic value and safety. This review aims to present guideline recommendations. Paracetamol has been assessed in different conditions and demonstrated therapeutic efficacy on both acute and chronic pain. It is active as a single agent and is additive or synergistic with NSAIDs and opioids, improving their efficacy and safety. However, a lack of significant efficacy and hepatic toxicity have also been reported. Fast dissolving formulations of paracetamol provide superior and more extended pain relief that is similar to intravenous paracetamol. A dose reduction is recommended in patients with liver disease or malnourished. Genotyping may improve efficacy and safety. Within the current trend toward the minimization of opioid analgesia, it is consistently included in multimodal, non-opioid, or opioid-sparing therapies. Paracetamol is being recommended by guidelines as a first or second-line drug for acute pain and chronic pain, especially for patients with limited therapeutic options and for the elderly.

Patient-Reported outcomes of pain care research in the adult emergency department: A scoping review

Despite more than 30 years of research, pain in the emergency department (ED) setting is frequently undertreated. EDs prioritise process measures that often have tenuous links to patient-reported outcomes. However, process measures, such as time to the administration of first analgesic medication, are neither direct objective measures of analgesia nor appropriate surrogate markers of pain relief. Since pain is a subjective symptom that lacks an objective measure, pain research in any clinical environment, including EDs, should rely upon patient-reported outcomes. This scoping review examined patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of pain care in the adult emergency department at the micro, meso and macro-level over the last ten years. We reviewed pain care research conducted on adults in EDs over the last ten years and identified 57 articles using 14 patient-reported outcomes of pain care falling into five broad areas, most without validation or adaption to the ED setting. Despite efforts made to incorporate PROs and PROMs into acute pain care research in the ED over the last ten years, there is still no gold-standard PROM in widespread use. We recommend the adaptation of existing tools with rigorous validation in ED populations.

Drug-related problems among older patients: Analysis of 8 years of pharmacist's interventions

OBJECTIVES

To analyse the most frequent DRP over time and pharmacists' interventions made among older patients aged over 75 years old. DRP between older patients and younger patients aged 18 to 74 years and between older patients treated in geriatric wards or not were also compared.

METHODS

A cross-sectional observational study conducted on DRP detected by pharmacists at the university hospital centre of Lyon and prospectively recorded in the Act-IP© database from January 2008 to December 2015.

RESULTS

A total of 56,223 DRP were investigated - 19,056 in older patients and 37,167 in younger patients. A supratherapeutic dosage was mainly reported (22.4% in older patients vs. 19.0% in younger patient) and pharmacists made interventions mostly to adjust dosage (27.3% vs. 24.2%). Physicians' acceptance was significantly lower in older patients (57.1% vs. 64.3%). DRP associated to a drug included a supratherapeutic use of acetaminophen (5.2% vs. 3.8%) and hypnotics (4.0% vs. 1.4%), medication in cardiology used without indication (1.4% vs. 0.2%) and underuse of vitamin D (1.2% vs. 0.1%). Supratherapeutic dosages were more significantly detected with a lower overall physicians' acceptance in older patients treated in general wards.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the specificity of DRP among older patients and encourages health care professionals to remain especially alert regarding older patients treated in general wards. These findings can contribute to define or adjust training needs and quality indicators to improve the daily practices of health care professionals.

Pain management in the surgical ICU patient

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Acute pain management in the surgical ICU is imperative. Effective acute pain management hastens a patient's return to normal function and avoid the negative sequelae of untreated acute pain. Traditionally, opioids have been the mainstay of acute pain management strategies in the surgical ICU, but alternative medications and management strategies are increasingly being utilized.

RECENT FINDINGS

Extrapolating from lessons learned from enhanced recovery after surgery protocols, surgical intensivists are increasingly utilizing multimodal pain regimens (MMPRs) in critically ill surgical patients recovering from major surgical procedures and injuries. MMPRs incorporate both oral medications from several drug classes and regional blocks when feasible. In addition, although MMPRs may include opioids as needed, they are able to achieve effective pain control while minimizing opioid exposure.

SUMMARY

Even after major elective surgery or significant injury, opioid-minimizing MMPRs can effectively treat acute pain.

Can Acetaminophen Pretreatment Decrease the Pain Associated With Closed Nasal Bone Reduction? A Triple-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

Nasal bone fracture is a common maxillofacial injury, which is usually managed under local anesthesia because it is fast and effective but painful. We designed this study to see if pre-emptive analgesia with acetaminophen can reduce the pain associated with nasal bone reduction under local anesthesia.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a triple-blind, randomized clinical trial. Our sample was patients with nose fracture (eligible for closed reduction) who presented to our nasal fracture clinic and they were divided into 2 arms. Medication was randomly delivered via packages, and the surgeon, patients, and data analyzer were all blind to the intervention. Demographic data along with the visual analog scale pain scores (1 to 10 score from least to most severe pain) during local anesthesia, during reduction, and 24 hours after reduction were recorded, then analyzed using χ², nonparametric Mann-Whitney test, and correlation analysis.

RESULTS

One hundred participants were divided into 2 arms (placebo or acetaminophen 500-mg tablet 45 minutes before reduction). The patients were mostly men (74%), and the most common mechanism was involvement in a fight (30%). Pain scores, as well as surgeon satisfaction analysis, returned no statistical difference between the 2 groups. Correlation analysis was performed, and the only factor for pain severity during reduction was the number of tries needed.

CONCLUSIONS

Acetaminophen pretreatment did not add analgesia any more than that of placebo. Its use before reduction of nasal bone fracture is not justified.

Approaching acute pain in emergency settings; European Society for Emergency Medicine (EUSEM) guidelines-part 2: management and recommendations

BACKGROUND

In Europe, healthcare systems and education, as well as the clinical care and health outcomes of patients, varies across countries. Likewise, the management of acute events for patients also differs, dependent on the emergency care setting, e.g. pre-hospital or emergency department. There are various barriers to adequate pain management and factors common to both settings including lack of knowledge and training, reluctance to give opioids, and concerns about drug-seeking behaviour or abuse. There is no single current standard of care for the treatment of pain in an emergency, with management based on severity of pain, injury and local protocols. Changing practices, attitudes and behaviour can be difficult, and improvements and interventions should be developed with barriers to pain management and the needs of the individual emergency setting in mind.

METHODS

With these principles at the forefront, The European Society for Emergency Medicine (EUSEM) launched a programme-the European Pain Initiative (EPI)-with the aim of providing information, advice, and guidance on acute pain management in emergency settings.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

This article provides treatment recommendations from recently developed guidelines, based on a review of the literature, current practice across Europe and the clinical expertise of the EPI advisors. The recommendations have been developed, evaluated, and refined for both adults and children (aged ≥ 1 year, ≤ 15 years), with the assumption of timely pain assessment and reassessment and the possibility to implement analgesia. To provide flexibility for use across Europe, options are provided for selection of appropriate pharmacological treatment.

Intravenous versus oral paracetamol in a UK ambulance service: a case control study

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of intravenous versus oral paracetamol (acetaminophen) in the management of acute pain in the out-of-hospital setting.

METHODS

We extracted ambulance electronic patient care records for all patients who received 1 g intravenous paracetamol throughout January 2019, and case matched these by sex and age with consecutive patients who received 1 g oral paracetamol over the same time period. Eligible for inclusion were all patients aged ≥ 18 who received 1 g paracetamol for acute pain and who were transported to the emergency department (ED). The primary outcome was the mean reduction in pain score using the numeric rating scale (NRS), with a reduction of 2 or more accepted as clinically significant.

RESULTS

80 care records were eligible for analysis; 40 patients received intravenous and 40 patients received oral paracetamol. The mean age of both groups was 54 years (± 3 years) and 67.5% (n = 54) were female. Patients receiving intravenous paracetamol had a clinically significant mean (SD) improved pain score compared to those receiving oral paracetamol, 2.02 (1.64) versus 0.75 (1.76), respectively [p = 0.0013]. 13/40 (32.5%) patients who received intravenous paracetamol saw an improved pain score of ≥ 2 compared to 8/40 (20%) who received oral paracetamol. No patients received additional analgesia or reported any adverse symptoms. Abdominal pain, infection and trauma were the most common causes of pain in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that intravenous paracetamol is more effective than oral paracetamol when managing acute pain in the out-of-hospital setting. Our findings support further investigation of the role of paracetamol in paramedic practice using more robust methods.

Paracetamol versus other analgesia in adult patients with minor musculoskeletal injuries: a systematic review

Objectives

Pain treatment in acute musculoskeletal injuries usually consists of paracetamol, non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or opioids. It would be beneficial to determine whether paracetamol is as effective as other analgesics. The objective of this study was to evaluate available evidence regarding efficacy of paracetamol in these patients.

Methods

Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane and relevant trial registers were searched from inception to 14 February 2018 by two independent reviewers to detect all randomised studies with adult patients with acute minor musculoskeletal injuries treated with paracetamol as compared with other analgesics. There were no language or date restrictions. Two independent reviewers evaluated risk of bias and quality of evidence. Primary outcome was decrease in pain scores during the first 24 hours, and secondary outcomes included pain decrease beyond 24 hours, need for additional analgesia and occurrence of adverse events.

Results

Seven trials were included, evaluating 2100 patients who were treated with paracetamol or NSAIDs or the combination of both as comparisons, of which only four studies addressed the primary outcome. No studies were found comparing paracetamol with opioids. There were no differences in analgesic effectiveness within and beyond 24 hours, nor in need for additional analgesia and occurrence of adverse events. Overall, quality of evidence was low. Because of methodological inconsistencies, a meta-analysis was not possible.

Conclusions

Based on available evidence, paracetamol is as effective as NSAIDs or the combination of both in treating pain in adult patients with minor musculoskeletal injuries in the acute setting. The quality of evidence is low.

Essential pharmacologic options for acute pain management in the emergency setting

Pain is the root cause for the overwhelming majority of emergency department (ED) visits worldwide. However, pain is often undertreated due to inappropriate analgesic dosing and ineffective utilization of available analgesics. It is essential for emergency providers to understand the analgesic armamentarium at their disposal and how it can be used safely and effectively to treat pain of every proportion within the emergency setting. A 'balanced analgesia' regimen may be used to treat pain while reducing the overall pharmacologic side effect profile of the combined analgesics. Channels-Enzymes-Receptors Targeted Analgesia (CERTA) is a multimodal analgesic strategy incorporating balanced analgesia by shifting from a system-based to a mechanistic-based approach to pain management that targets the physiologic pathways involved in pain signaling transmission. Targeting individual pain pathways allows for a variety of reduced-dose pharmacologic options - both opioid and non-opioid - to be used in a stepwise progression of analgesic strength as pain advances up the severity scale. By developing a familiarity with the various analgesic options at their disposal, emergency providers may formulate safe, effective, balanced analgesic combinations unique to each emergency pain presentation.

The Evolving Landscape of Acute Pain Management in the Era of the Opioid Crisis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The purpose of the study is to evaluate and analyze the role of both opioid and non-opioid analgesics in the emergency department (ED).

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies have shown that the implementation of opioid-prescribing policies in the ED has the potential to reduce the opioid addiction burden. Clinical studies point to inconsistencies in providers' approach to pain treatment. In this review, we discuss specific aspects of opioid utilization and explore alternative non-opioid approaches to pain management. Pain is the most common reason patients present to the ED. As such, emergency medicine (EM) providers must be well versed in treating pain. EM providers must be comfortable using a wide variety of analgesic medications. Opioid analgesics, while effective for some indications, are associated with significant adverse effects and abuse potential. EM providers should utilize opioid analgesics in a safe and rational manner in an effort to combat the opioid epidemic and to avoid therapeutic misadventures. EM providers should be aware of all of their therapeutic options, e.g., opioid and non-opioid, in order to provide effective analgesia for their patients, while avoiding adverse effects and minimizing the potential for misuse.