The efficacy of nasal administration of esketamine in patients having moderate-to-severe pain after preoperative CT-guided needle localization: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
Jiangning Xu, Jin Jian, Yunyun Zhang, Jingxiang Wu, Yuwei Qiu
Frontiers in Medicine 2024 DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1344160 (opens in new tab)
Study at a glance
AI-extracted from the abstract| Characteristics | Randomized controlled trial Placebo-controlled Double-blind Peer reviewed |
|---|---|
| Sample size | 90 |
| Population | Patients with acute pain after preoperative CT-guided needle localization |
| Intervention | Esketamine |
| Dose | 0.3 mg/kg or 0.5 mg/kg |
| Topics | Esketamine |
| Keywords | Analgesia Localization Pulmonary nodules Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery Pain management Minimally invasive surgery Anesthesiology Pulmonary procedures Nasal drug delivery |
| Citations | 1 |
| Key findings | Intranasal esketamine at 0.3 mg/kg or 0.5 mg/kg provided satisfactory pain relief in over half of patients, significantly more than saline, with less need for rescue medication and no increase in adverse events. |
Abstract
Whether nasal administration of esketamine can provide effective analgesia is unclear in patients with acute pain after preoperative CT-guided needle localization. In this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, patients were assigned to receive either nasal administration of esketamine (0.3 mg/kg or 0.5 mg/kg) or saline (identical in appearance to esketamine) when they had visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores >3/10 during deep breathing after preoperative CT-guided needle localization. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients with satisfactory pain relief, which was defined as VAS pain scores ≤3/10 measured 15 min after intranasal of esketamine or saline. Secondary outcomes included VAS measured following esketamine or saline, the incidence and cumulative dose of rescue hydromorphone use, and related adverse events. A total of 90 patients were included in the final analysis. Following intranasal treatment, the percentage of patients with satisfactory pain relief was 16.7% (5/30) in the saline group, 56.7% (17/30) in the 0.3 mg/kg esketamine group, and 53.3% (16/30) in the 0.5 mg/kg esketamine group (p = 0.002). The median VAS during deep breathing was less after the intranasal administration of esketamine {median (IQR), 3 (3, 5) in 0.3 mg/kg or 0.5 mg/kg esketamine compared to the saline group [5 (4, 6)], p = 0.009}. The incidence of rescue hydromorphone use was detected less in the esketamine group compared to the saline group (43.3% in the 0.3 mg/kg esketamine group, 36.7% in the 0.5 mg/kg esketamine group, and 73.3% in the saline group, p = 0.010). The adverse events were similar among the three groups (p > 0.05). Intranasal administration of esketamine is easier and more effective in alleviating acute pain in patients after preoperative CT-guided needle localization without significant adverse effects.
Comparable studies
Other randomized controlled trials on esketamine, most cited first.
Citations in the library
Cites 7
- Efficacy and Safety of Flexibly Dosed Esketamine Nasal Spray Combined With a Newly Initiated Oral Antidepressant in Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Randomized Double-Blind Active-Controlled Study American Journal of Psychiatry May 21, 2019
- Efficacy of Esketamine Nasal Spray Plus Oral Antidepressant Treatment for Relapse Prevention in Patients With Treatment-Resistant Depression JAMA Psychiatry June 5, 2019
- Efficacy and Safety of Intranasal Esketamine Adjunctive to Oral Antidepressant Therapy in Treatment-Resistant Depression JAMA Psychiatry December 27, 2017
- Esketamine Nasal Spray Plus Oral Antidepressant in Patients With Treatment-Resistant Depression The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry April 20, 2020
- Benefit–Risk Assessment of Esketamine Nasal Spray vs. Placebo in Treatment‐Resistant Depression Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics August 29, 2020
and 2 more in the library