首页> 外文期刊>British Medical Journal >Rapid tranquillisation for agitated patients in emergency psychiatric rooms: a randomised trial of midazolam versus haloperidol plus promethazine
【24h】

Rapid tranquillisation for agitated patients in emergency psychiatric rooms: a randomised trial of midazolam versus haloperidol plus promethazine

机译:急诊精神病房中躁动患者的快速镇静:咪达唑仑与氟哌啶醇加异丙嗪的随机试验

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Objective To compare two widely used drug treatments for people with aggression or agitation due to mental illness. Design Pragmatic, randomised clinical trial. Setting Three psychiatric emergency rooms in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Subjects 301 aggressive or agitated people. Interventions Open treatment with intramuscular midazolam or intramuscular haloperidol plus promethazine. Main outcome measures Patients tranquil or sedated at 20 minutes. Secondary outcomes: patients tranquil or asleep by 40, 60, and 120 minutes; restrained or given extra drugs within 2 hours; severe adverse events; another episode of agitation or aggression; needing extra visits from doctor during first 24 hours; overall antipsychotic load in first 24 hours; and not discharged by two weeks. Results 151 patients were randomised to midazolam, and 150 to haloperidol-promethazine mix. Follow up for the primary outcome was available for 298 (99%); 134/151 (89%) of patients given midazolam were tranquil or asleep after 20 minutes compared with 101/150 (67%) of those given haloperidol plus promethazine (relative risk 1.32 (95% confidence interval 1.16 to 1.49)). By 40 minutes, midazolam still had a statistically and clinically significant 13% relative advantage (1.13 (1.01 to 1.26)). After 1 hour, about 90% of both groups were tranquil or asleep. One important adverse event occurred in each group: a patient given midazolam had transient respiratory depression, and one given haloperidol-promethazine had a grande mal seizure. Conclusions Both treatments were effective. Midazolam was more rapidly sedating than haloperidol-promethazine, reducing the time people are exposed to aggression. Adverse effects and resources to deal with them should be considered in the choice of the treatment.
机译:目的比较两种广泛使用的针对精神疾病引起的攻击或躁动的药物治疗方法。设计实用,随机的临床试验。在巴西里约热内卢设置三个精神病急诊室。受试者301有进取心或躁动的人。干预肌注咪达唑仑或肌注氟哌啶醇加异丙嗪的开放治疗。主要结果指标患者在20分钟时保持镇静或镇静。次要结果:患者在40、60和120分钟后安静或入睡;在2小时内克制或加药;严重不良事件;躁动或攻击的另一发作;在最初的24小时内需要医生的额外看诊;前24小时的总体抗精神病药物负荷;并且两周之内没有出院。结果151例患者随机分为咪达唑仑和150例氟哌啶醇-异丙嗪混合。有298例(99%)随访主要结果。接受咪达唑仑治疗的患者20分钟后有134/151(89%)处于安静或睡眠状态,而接受氟哌啶醇加异丙嗪的患者为10​​1/150(67%)(相对危险度1.32(95%置信区间1.16至1.49))。到40分钟时,咪达唑仑在统计学和临床​​上仍具有13%的相对优势(1.13(1.01至1.26))。 1小时后,两组中大约90%的人安静或睡着了。每组均发生一个重要的不良事件:给予咪达唑仑的患者出现短暂的呼吸抑制,而给予氟哌啶醇-异丙嗪的患者发作严重。结论两种治疗方法均有效。咪达唑仑比氟哌啶醇-异丙嗪镇静的速度更快,从而减少了人们遭受侵略的时间。在选择治疗方法时,应考虑不良反应和应对资源。

著录项

  • 来源
    《British Medical Journal》 |2003年第7417期|p.708-711|共4页
  • 作者

    G Huf;

  • 作者单位

    Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Nucleo de Estudos de Saude Coletiva, Av.;

  • 收录信息 美国《科学引文索引》(SCI);美国《化学文摘》(CA);
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 医药、卫生;
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-18 00:12:25

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号