4.4 Article

Effectiveness of intravenous Dexamethasone versus Propofol for pain relief in the migraine headache: A prospective double blind randomized clinical trial

期刊

BMC NEUROLOGY
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2377-12-114

关键词

Migraine headache; Propofol; Dexamethasone; Visual Analogue Scale; Emergency Medicine Department

资金

  1. Tabriz University of Medical Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: There are many drugs recommended for pain relief in patients with migraine headache. Methods: In a prospective double blind randomized clinical trial, 90 patients (age >= 18) presenting to Emergency medicine Department with Migraine headache were enrolled in two equal groups. We used intravenous propofol (10 mg every 5-10 minutes to a maximum of 80 mg, slowly) and intravenous dexamethasone (0.15 mg/kg to a maximum of 16 mg, slowly), in group I and II, respectively. Pain explained by patients, based on VAS (Visual Analogue Scale) was recorded at the time of entrance to ED, and after injection. Data were analyzed by paired samples t test, using SPSS 16. P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Results: The mean of reported pain (VAS) was 8 +/- 1.52 in propofol group and 8.11 +/- 1.31 in dexamethasone group at presenting time (P > 0.05). The VAS in propofol group was obviously decreased to 3.08 +/- 1.7, 1.87 +/- 1.28 and 1.44 +/- 1.63 after 10, 20 and 30 minutes of drug injection, respectively. The VAS in dexamethasone group was 5.13 +/- 1.47, 3.73 +/- 1.81 and 3.06 +/- 2 after 10, 20 and 30 minutes of drug injection, respectively. The mean of reported VAS in propofol group was less than dexamethasone group at the above mentioned times (P < 0.05). The reduction of headache in propofol group, also, was very faster than dexamethasone group (P < 0.05). There were no adverse side effects due to administration of both drugs. Conclusions: Intravenous propofol is an efficacious and safe treatment for patients presenting with Migraine headache to the emergency department.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据