scholarly journals Comparing the efficacy of intravenous ketorolac versus intravenous ibuprofen in relieving renal colic pain; a randomized clinical trial

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 122-125
Author(s):  
Seyed Hossein Shaker ◽  
Seyed Ahmad Borghei
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Renal Colic ◽  
Epigastric Pain ◽  
Renal Stones ◽  
Pain Severity ◽  
Gastrointestinal Complications ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Intravenous Ibuprofen ◽  
Intravenous Ketorolac

Introduction: Various therapies have been used to relieve or improve the urinary colic pain, but many of these treatments have been limited due to side effects associated with the drugs. In this regard, opioid drugs and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have a higher priority than other treatments. Objectives: The aim of the present study was to compare the level of pain relief from renal stones after the administration of two types of NSAIDs, including intravenous ibuprofen versus intravenous ketorolac. Patients and Methods: In this clinical trial (identifier: IRCT20180108038276N1), 70 patients with renal colic pain were randomly treated with intravenous ketorolac (30 mg, n = 35) or with intravenous ibuprofen (800 mg, n = 35). The patient’s pain severity was assessed by the visual analogue scaling (VAS) method before and 20 and also 60 minutes after interventions. Results: Although pain severity considerably reduced within 60 minutes of prescribing ibuprofen and ketorolac, the trend of the change in pin score was not different between the two groups (P = 0.734). We found no significant difference in appearance of some side effects including nausea and vomiting, requiring use of ondansetron, need to prescribe additional analgesics. However epigastric pain and need to administrating H2 blockers were not revealed in the group receiving ketorolac, but these complications were found in 25.7% of the patients received ibuprofen indicating a significant difference (P = 0.002). Conclusion: A single dose administration of both intravenous ketorolac and ibuprofen is associated with significant improvement in renal colic pain within one hour after administration. However, due to the lower incidence of gastrointestinal complications in the administration of ketorolac compared to ibuprofen, the use of ketorolac in treatment and relief of renal colic pains is preferable.

scholarly journals Comparison of Intravenous Ibuprofen with Intravenous Ketorolac in Renal Colic Pain Management; A Clinical Trial

2019 ◽  
Vol In Press (In Press) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Mehdi Forouzanfar ◽  
Khaghan Mohammadi ◽  
Behrouz Hashemi ◽  
Saeed Safari
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Renal Colic ◽  
Intravenous Ibuprofen ◽  
Intravenous Ketorolac

scholarly journals Comparing the efficacy and side-effects of PDLASTA® (Pegfilgrastim) with PDGRASTIM® (Filgrastim) in breast cancer patients: a non-inferiority randomized clinical trial

BMC Cancer ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Safa Najafi ◽  
Maryam Ansari ◽  
Vahid Kaveh ◽  
Shahpar Haghighat
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Single Dose ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Injection Site Reaction ◽  
Study Groups ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and side effects of a single dose (Pegfilgrastim or PDL) or repeated six daily injections (Filgrastim or PDG) during chemotherapy courses in breast cancer patients in a non-inferiority clinical trial. Methods In this randomized clinical trial, 80 patients were recruited and allocated randomly to two equal arms. In one group, a single subcutaneous dose of PDL was injected the day after receiving the chemotherapy regimen in each cycle. The second arm received a subcutaneous injection of PDG for six consecutive days in each cycle of treatment. The side effects of GCF treatment and its effect on blood parameters were compared in each cycle and during eight cycles of chemotherapy. Results Hematologic parameters showed no significant differences in any of the treatment courses between the two study groups. The comparison of WBC (p = 0.527), Hgb (p = 0.075), Platelet (p = 0.819), Neutrophil (p = 0.575), Lymphocyte (p = 705) and ANC (p = 0.675) changes during the eight courses of treatment also revealed no statistically significant difference between the two study groups. Side effects including headache, injection site reaction and muscle pain had a lower frequency in patients receiving PDL drugs. Conclusion It seems that PDL is non-inferior in efficacy and also less toxic than PDG. Since PDL can be administered in a single dose and is also less costly, it can be regarded as a cost-effective drug for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia. Trial registration IRCT20190504043465N1, May 2019.

scholarly journals Does atorvastatin have augmentative effects with sodium valproate in prevention of migraine with aura attacks? A triple-blind controlled clinical trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Reza Ganji ◽  
Nastaran Majdinasab ◽  
Saeed Hesam ◽  
Nazanin Rostami ◽  
Mehdi Sayyah ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Sodium Valproate ◽  
Migraine With Aura ◽  
Vitamin D3 ◽  
Vascular Function ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Pain Severity ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Prophylactic Regimen

Abstract Background Migraine is a painful and disabling nervous disorder which negatively affects the quality of life. Migraineurs may suffer from a generalized vasomotor dysfunction. Statins improve vasomotor and vascular function, with their pleiotropic effects. We aimed to assess efficacy and safety of adding Atorvastatin to prophylactic regimen in better control of migraine with aura. Methods This triple-blind controlled clinical trial was on 68 patients with migraine with aura. An interval of at least 1 month was given to evaluate vitamin D3 level and eligibility. In patients with vitamin D3 deficiency, the correction with vitamin D supplementation was provided. The patients were randomly assigned to receive atorvastatin 20 mg plus sodium valproate 500 mg or placebo plus sodium valproate 500 mg once a day for 2 months. The patients were evaluated based for the number of attacks and pain severity based on Visual Analogue Scale. Results There was a significant (p = 0.0001) improvement in severity of pain and number of migraine attacks by adding Atorvastin to the prophylactic regimen of patients with migraine with aura. After controlling for variable parameters, the differences between two arms of the study was yet statistically significant (p = 0.0001). A significant number of participants in intervention group were satisfied by their treatment (p = 0.001) with no remarkable side effects (P = 0.315). Conclusions Adding atorvastatin to migraine with aura preventive regimen may help reduce the number of acute attacks and pain severity without causing considerable side effects and led to a better patient satisfaction. Trial registration IRCT20180106038242N1. Registered: 7 February 2018.

Complications and surgical results of stone-directed antegrade pyelography compared to the retrograde pyelographic access method in percutaneous nephrolithotomy using ‘bull’s eye’ technique: A randomized clinical trial

2021 ◽  
pp. 205141582199372
Author(s):  
Dariush Irani ◽  
Abdolreza Haghpanah ◽  
Mohammad Mehdi Hosseini ◽  
Leila Malekmakan ◽  
Mohammad Ali Ashraf ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy ◽  
Renal Stones ◽  
Surgical Results ◽  
Retrograde Pyelography ◽  
Antegrade Approach ◽  
Antegrade Pyelography ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Bull's Eye

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the differences in outcomes and complications in stone-directed antegrade pyelography using the ‘bull’s eye’ technique in patients with renal stones versus the conventional method of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). Although conventional PCNL access using retrograde pyelography is useful, it is time-consuming and may cause postoperative discomfort. Herein, we report our experience in the application of this new technique. Methods: Between January 2017 and June 2018, 100 patients participated in this randomized clinical trial. Stone-directed antegrade pyelography using the ‘bull’s eye’ technique under fluoroscopic guidance was used for percutaneous access in the intervention group. The second group, consisting of those who had undergone conventional PCNL using retrograde pyelography and ‘bull’s eye’ technique in the same period, were considered as the controls. Pre- and postoperative laboratory examinations, surgical results and complications were recorded and compared between the two groups. Results: A single calyceal puncture in partial staghorn and staghorn stone patients was sufficient in 72.2% of the antegrade group and in 78.9% of the retrograde group ( p=0.69). The double-puncture technique was necessary for 71.9% of renal pelvis stones in the antegrade group and for 9.4% in the retrograde group ( p<0.001). The antegrade approach reduced the mean operative time and analgesic requirement significantly ( p<0.001). No statistically significant difference, however, was found between the two groups regarding stone migration to the ureter, radiation time and postoperative complications. Conclusions: The stone-directed antegrade approach using the ‘bull’s eye’ technique is a safe and accurate method in PCNL access in patients with radiopaque and semi-opaque renal stones.

scholarly journals Intravenous paracetamol versus ketorolac for pain attenuation in patients with renal colic; a randomized, single blind and controlled clinical trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. e10-e10
Author(s):  
Arash Ardestani Zadeh ◽  
Davood Arab ◽  
Mohammadreza Moonesan ◽  
Majid Mirmohammadkhani ◽  
Pouya Morid
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Renal Colic ◽  
Vital Signs ◽  
Analgesic Efficacy ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Intravenous Paracetamol ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Single Blind

Introduction: Pain control is an essential care for patients with renal colic in emergency wards. Objectives: This study aimed to compare the analgesic efficacy of intravenous (IV) paracetamol (PC) versus ketorolac (KET) for patients with renal colic. Patients and Methods: In a randomized controlled clinical trial, 110 patients with renal colic referred to the emergency department of Kosar hospital, Semnan between October 2015 and June 2016 were selected. Eighty-eight patients were divided into two groups (44 patients in each group) of PC (1 g/IV) and KET (30 mg/IV). One patient in each group was excluded during the study. Vital signs and pain severity (measured by visual analogue scale [VAS]) of all patients were recorded at admission time 0, 20, 40 and 60 minutes after treatment. Then, the results were compared in two groups. Results: The results showed that at the time of 0, 20, 40 and 60 minutes after the administration of the PC and KET drugs, no significant difference was seen in severity of pain based on VAS score between the two groups (P<0.05). Moreover, there were no significant differences in the vital signs of two groups (P<0.05). No adverse effects were reported in each group. Conclusion: In conclusion, the use of IV-PC and KET in patients with renal colic had similar pain relieving effects without any adverse effects.

scholarly journals Intravenous Paracetamol vs Intranasal Desmopressin for Renal Colic in the Emergency Department: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Pain Medicine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (12) ◽  
pp. 3437-3442
Author(s):  
Hamed Basir Ghafouri ◽  
Niloofar Abazarian ◽  
Mohammadreza Yasinzadeh ◽  
Ehsan Modirian
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Pain Score ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Renal Colic ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Pain Scores ◽  
Intravenous Paracetamol ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Intranasal Desmopressin

Abstract Objective To evaluate the analgesic efficacy of intranasal desmopressin alone vs intravenous paracetamol in patients referred to the emergency department with renal colic. Design Randomized clinical trial. Setting This study was conducted in the emergency unit of a university hospital. Subjects Patients referred to the emergency room with renal colic. Primary Outcome Effect of intranasal desmopressin in pain relief in comparison with intravenous paracetamol. Methods In this trial, 240 patients diagnosed with renal colic were randomly divided into two groups to compare the analgesic effect of intravenous paracetamol (15 mg/kg) and intranasal desmopressin spray (40 μg). Pain scores were measured by a numeric rating scale at baseline and after 15, 30, and 60 minutes. Adverse effects and need for rescue analgesic (0.05 mg/kg max 3 mg morphine sulphate) were also recorded at the end of the study. Results Three hundred patients were eligible for the study; however, 240 were included in the final analysis. The patients in the two groups were similar in their baseline characteristics and baseline pain scores. The mean pain score after 15 minutes was more reduced and was clinically significant (&gt;3) in the desmopressin group (P &lt; 0.0001). There was no significant difference between mean pain scores in the two groups after 30 minutes (P = 0.350) or 60 minutes (P = 0.269), but the efficacy of the two drugs was significant in terms of pain reduction (&gt;6). Conclusions Our study showed that intranasal desmopressin is as effective as intravenous paracetamol for renal colic pain management; however, significant clinical reduction in pain score occurred faster with intranasal desmopressin.

scholarly journals Electrical interferential current stimulation versus electrical acupuncture in management of hemiplegic shoulder pain and disability following ischemic stroke-a randomized clinical trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fariba Eslamian ◽  
Mehdi Farhoudi ◽  
Fatemeh Jahanjoo ◽  
Elyar Sadeghi-Hokmabadi ◽  
Parvin Darabi
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Shoulder Pain ◽  
Pain Severity ◽  
Shoulder Range Of Motion ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Electrical Acupuncture ◽  
Interferential Current

Abstract Background Hemiplegic Shoulder Pain (HSP) is among common complications occurring after stroke leading to disability. This study was conducted to compare the effects of electrical Interferential Current stimulation (IFC) and Electrical Acupuncture (EAC) on pain intensity, range of motion, and functional ability in patients with HSP and also comparing the two modalities regarding improvement of above indices. Methods In this randomized clinical trial, 46 patients with HSP caused by ischemic stroke were recruited and assigned into 2 groups. Conventional exercise trainings were applied for both groups. Group A received additional IFC with medium frequency of 4000 HZ, and Group B received additional EAC two times a week for a total of 10 sessions. Pain severity, daily function, and shoulder Range of Motion (ROM) were evaluated using Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), and goniometry, respectively before and 5 weeks after the treatment. Results Both groups showed relative improvement in pain severity, SPADI score, and its subscales, and also active and passive shoulder ROM after the treatment. However, IFC group compared to EAC group had higher mean changes of active ROM in abduction (28.00 ± 3.81 vs. 12.25 ± 2.39) and functional subscale of SPADI (11.45 ± 1.88 vs. 5.80 ± 1.66) after the treatment. On the contrary, EAC group showed higher percentage of VAS changes (46.14 ± 6.88 vs. 34.28 ± 5.52), indicating better pain improvement compared to IFC group. Other parameters did not show significant difference between two groups. Conclusion Both IFC and EAC caused short term improvement in functional state, increased motion, and decreased pain in patients with HSP. Although pain control was more evident in acupuncture group, IFC resulted in better effects on function and active ROM of abduction, and seems to have higher efficacy. Trial registration This clinical trial was registered in the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials at 2016-07-16 with a registry number of IRCT201602153217N10.

scholarly journals Effect of Halita mouthwash on oral halitosis treatment: A randomized triple-blind clinical trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-35
Author(s):  
Zahra Jamali ◽  
Mahdieh Alipour ◽  
Syamand Ebrahimi ◽  
Marzie Aghazadeh
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Statistical Analysis ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Oral Cavity ◽  
Oral Malodor ◽  
Group I ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The World ◽  
Chi Squared ◽  
Organoleptic Score

Background. Halitosis (oral malodor) is a common problem all over the world and its prevalence has been estimated at 23‒ 50%. Halitosis originates from oral cavity in 85% of patients. This clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of the Halita mouthwash in oral halitosis treatment. Methods. Fifty subjects with an organoleptic score of >2 at baseline participated in this triple-blinded clinical trial. Subjects were divided into 2 groups. Group I subjects (N=25) were instructed to rinse with 0.2% chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthwash twice a day for 1 week. Group II subjects (N=25) used Halita mouthwash with the same instruction. Halitosis was evaluated at baseline and one week after using the mouthwashes by organoleptic method. Data were analyzed with chi-squared and Mann-Whitney U tests (P<0.05). Results. In the Halita group subjects exhibited 2.04±0.65 reduction in OLS. OLS reduction in the chlorhexidine group was 1.95±0.74. Statistical analysis showed no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion. Based on the results, Halita mouthwash has the same effect on oral halitosis as routine 0.2% CHX mouthwash. Halita mouthwash has fewer side effects because of lower concentration of chlorhexidine. Therefore 0.2% CHX mouthwash could be replaced by Halita mouthwash for the treatment of halitosis.

scholarly journals Comparison the Efficacy of Intranasal Ketamine Versus Intravenous Ketorolac on Acute Non-Traumatic Headaches: A Randomized Double-Blind Clinical Trial

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Houman Rafiee Sarvari ◽  
Hamidreza Baigrezaii ◽  
Mohammad Nazarianpirdosti ◽  
Amirhossein Meysami ◽  
Roya Safari-Faramani
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Analgesic Effects ◽  
Headache Severity ◽  
Selective Approach ◽  
Double Blind Clinical Trial ◽  
Group B ◽  
Short Time ◽  
Intravenous Ketorolac

Abstract Introduction: Non - traumatic headaches are one of the most common causes of referral to hospital emergency. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of intranasal ketamine and intravenous ketorolac on acute non-traumatic headaches.Methods: This randomized and double-blind clinical trial in 2019 years. 140 people were randomly divided into intranasal ketamine (A) and intravenous ketorolac (B). Group (A) received ketamine intranasal (0.75 mg/kg, max 75mg), and group B received intravenous ketorolac (30 mg). Headache severity was measured on arrival, 30, 60, and 120 minutes after intervention with Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). The side effects were recorded an hour after the intervention.Result: The mean difference of pain intensity 30, 60, and 120 minutes after the intervention between the two groups were statistically significant (p<0.001). In the first 30 minutes, significant changes were observed in the VAS levels of the two groups. These changes were more and significant in the intranasal ketamine group (p <0.001). Side effects such as fatigue, dizziness, public discomfort, nausea, increased heart rate, and hypertension were significantly higher in the ketamine group (p <0.05).Conclusion: Intranasal ketamine and intravenous ketorolac both effectively reduced headaches. However, more analgesic effects of intranasal ketamine in a short time can be considered as a selective approach to reducing headaches.

scholarly journals Comparison the Efficacy of Intranasal Ketamine Versus Intravenous Ketorolac on Acute Non-traumatic Headaches: A Randomized Double-Blind Clinical Trial

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Houman Rafiee Sarvari ◽  
Hamidreza Baigrezaii ◽  
Mohammad Nazarianpirdosti ◽  
Amirhossein Meysami ◽  
Roya Safari-Faramani
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Analgesic Effects ◽  
Headache Severity ◽  
Selective Approach ◽  
Double Blind Clinical Trial ◽  
Group B ◽  
Short Time ◽  
Intravenous Ketorolac

Abstract Introduction: Non - traumatic headaches are one of the most common causes of referral to hospital emergency. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of intranasal ketamine and intravenous ketorolac on acute non-traumatic headaches.Methods: This randomized and double-blind clinical trial in 2019 years. 140 people were randomly divided into intranasal ketamine (A) and intravenous ketorolac (B). Group (A) received ketamine intranasal (0.75 mg/kg, max 75mg), and group B received intravenous ketorolac (30 mg). Headache severity was measured on arrival, 30, 60, and 120 minutes after intervention with Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). The side effects were recorded an hour after the intervention.Result: The mean difference of pain intensity 30, 60, and 120 minutes after the intervention between the two groups were statistically significant (p<0.001). In the first 30 minutes, significant changes were observed in the VAS levels of the two groups. These changes were more and significant in the intranasal ketamine group (p <0.001). Side effects such as fatigue, dizziness, public discomfort, nausea, increased heart rate, and hypertension were significantly higher in the ketamine group (p <0.05).Conclusion: Intranasal ketamine and intravenous ketorolac both effectively reduced headaches. However, more analgesic effects of intranasal ketamine in a short time can be considered as a selective approach to reducing headaches.Trial registration: IRCT20180108038276N3, Registered 29 September 2019.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document