American Journal of Emergency Medicine
Volume 25, Issue 8 , Pages 911-917, October 2007

A randomized controlled trial of intranasal fentanyl vs intravenous morphine for analgesia in the prehospital setting

  • Claire Rickard, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Research Centre for Practice Innovation, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland 4111, Australia
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +61 7 3735 5406, fax: +61 7 3735 7984.
  • ,
  • Peter O'Meara, PhD

      Affiliations

    • School of Public Health, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, NSW 2795, Australia
  • ,
  • Matthew McGrail, GDip(IT)

      Affiliations

    • School of Rural Health, Monash University, Victoria 3800, Australia
  • ,
  • David Garner, MICA

      Affiliations

    • Clinical and Education Services, Rural Ambulance Victoria, Ballarat, Victoria 3354, Australia
  • ,
  • Alan McLean, BHlthSc

      Affiliations

    • Clinical and Operational Services, South Australia Ambulance Service, Eastwood, South Australia 5063, Australia
  • ,
  • Peter Le Lievre, BBus

      Affiliations

    • Department of Health and Aging, Workforce Regulation Section, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory 2600, Australia

Received 20 December 2006; received in revised form 10 February 2007; accepted 11 February 2007.

Abstract 

Study Objective

The objective of the study was to compare intranasal fentanyl (INF) with intravenous morphine (IVM) for prehospital analgesia.

Methods

This was a randomized, controlled, open-label trial. Consecutive adult patients (n = 258) requiring analgesia (Verbal Rating Score [VRS] >2/10 noncardiac or >5/10 cardiac) were recruited. Patients received INF 180 μg ± 2 doses of 60 μg at ≥5-minute intervals or IVM 2.5 to 5 mg ± 2 doses of 2.5 to 5 mg at ≥5-minute intervals. The end point was the difference in baseline/destination VRS.

Results

Groups were equivalent (P = not significant) for baseline VRS [mean (SD): INF 8.3 (1.7), IVM 8.1 (1.6)] and minutes to destination [mean (SD): INF 27.2 (15.5), IVM 30.6 (19.1)]. Patients had a mean (95% confidence interval) VRS reduction as follows: INF 4.22 (3.74-4.71), IVM 3.57 (3.10-4.03); P = .08. Higher baseline VRS (P < .001), no methoxyflurane use (P < .01), and back pain (P = .02) predicted VRS reduction. Safety and acceptability were comparable.

Conclusions

There was no significant difference in the effectiveness of INF and IVM for prehospital analgesia.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0735-6757(07)00100-3

doi:10.1016/j.ajem.2007.02.027

American Journal of Emergency Medicine
Volume 25, Issue 8 , Pages 911-917, October 2007