Low-dose ketamine vs morphine for acute pain in the ED: A randomized controlled trial

109Citations
Citations of this article
202Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the maximum change in numeric rating scale (NRS) pain scores, in patients receiving low-dose ketamine (LDK) or morphine (MOR) for acute pain in the emergency department. Methods: We performed an institutional review board-approved, randomized, prospective, double-blinded trial at a tertiary, level 1 trauma center. A convenience sample of patients aged 18 to 59 years with acute abdominal, flank, low back, or extremity pain were enrolled. Subjects were consented and randomized to intravenous LDK (0.3 mg/kg) or intravenous MOR (0.1 mg/kg). Our primary outcome was the maximum change in NRS scores. A sample size of 20 subjects per group was calculated based on an 80% power to detect a 2-point change in NRS scores between treatment groupswith estimated SDs of 2 and an α of .05, using a repeated-measures linearmodel. Results: Forty-five subjects were enrolled (MOR 21, LDK 24). Demographic variables and baseline NRS scores (7.1 vs 7.1) were similar. Ketamine was not superior to MOR in the maximum change of NRS pain scores, MOR=5 (confidence interval, 6.6-3.5) and LDK=4.9 (confidence interval, 5.8-4). The time to achievemaximum reduction in NRS pain scores was at 5 minutes for LDK and 100 minutes for MOR. Vital signs, adverse events, provider, and nurse satisfaction scores were similar between groups. Conclusion: Low-dose ketamine did not produce a greater reduction in NRS pain scores compared with MOR for acute pain in the emergency department. However, LDK induced a significant analgesic effect within 5 minutes and provided a moderate reduction in pain for 2 hours.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Miller, J. P., Schauer, S. G., Ganem, V. J., & Bebarta, V. S. (2015). Low-dose ketamine vs morphine for acute pain in the ED: A randomized controlled trial. In American Journal of Emergency Medicine (Vol. 33, pp. 402–408). W.B. Saunders. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2014.12.058

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free