Intranasal sufentanil compared with a classic protocol for acute pain management in an emergency department: A prospective sequential study

Abstract

Introduction

Pain is a frequent complaint in the emergency department and should be measured and treated according to the existing protocols. The intranasal route offers several advantages over the oral or intravenous routes. The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intranasal sufentanil as the primary opioid for acute pain in the emergency department.

Materials and methods

This was a prospective open-label sequential study in patients who presented to the emergency department with severe non-visceral pain. The control group was treated according to the current standard of care including oral or intravenous opioids whereas the intervention group was treated according to a modified protocol, including intranasal sufentanil as the only opioid. Pain intensity was measured at different time points. The occurrence of side effects, the placement of intravenous lines and the need for additional analgesia were also recorded.

Results

Pain intensity in the two groups was not comparable at baseline (8.5; IQR 8–10 in the intervention group vs 7.9; IQR 7–9.4 in the control group; p = .026). However, the median reduction of the pain score was significantly larger in the intervention group compared to the control group after 15 minutes (2.5; IQR 1.2 – 4 vs 1.6; IQR 1–2.4; p = .005) and after 30 min (4; IQR 3–5.7 vs 3.1; IQR 2–4.4; p = .02). No significant difference in pain scores between the two groups was observed after 60 min from baseline.

Conclusions

Patients receiving intranasal sufentanil for severe pain achieved better pain relief at 15 min and 30 min compared to those receiving standard care. Vertigo, nausea, vomiting and diaphoresis were side effects more frequently observed in the sufentanil group. No differences in pain relief were observed after 30 and 60 min from baseline.