JABFM
HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Rapid Responses: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mehl-Madrona, L. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mehl-Madrona, L. E.

The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice, Vol 12, Issue 3 188-194, Copyright © 1999 by American Board of Family Practice


ARTICLES

Comparison of ketorolac-chlorpromazine with meperidine-promethazine for treatment of exacerbations of chronic pain

L. E. Mehl-Madrona
Center for Complementary Medicine and Department of Family Practice, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center-Shadyside, PA 15232, USA.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of a combination of intramuscular ketorolac and chlorpromazine for the treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic pain with the more commonly used regimen of intramuscular meperidine and promethazine. METHODS: Use-effective case series were drawn from a real-life, rural emergency department practice, in which 200 consecutive patients coming to a rural emergency department with acute exacerbations of chronic pain syndromes were assigned on an every-other basis in a single-blind fashion to one of the two treatment conditions. Patients were given intramuscular doses of either 60 mg of ketorolac plus 50 mg of chlorpromazine (75 mg of chlorpromazine for patients weighing more than 100 kg), or 50 mg of meperidine plus 25 mg of promethazine (50 mg of promethazine for patients weighing more than 75 kg); patients weighing more than 100 kg were given 1.5 doses. Patients older than 65 years or whose blood pressure at the time of injection was less than 110/70 mmHg were given half-doses. Patients could receive one additional half-dose injection if they had no results within 30 to 60 minutes after the first injection. Patients were assessed on self-report and on a verbal and visual analog scale of pain rating. Temperature, blood pressure, heart rate, and respirations were monitored every 15 minutes. RESULTS: Both regimens performed well, with more than 90 percent of patients reporting good or excellent improvement on acute exacerbations of chronic pain. Ketorolac-chlorpromazine offered significant advantages compared with meperidine-promethazine when patients rated their pain on a visual analog pain scale (P < 0.05) but not on a verbal scale. Adverse reactions were minimal and consisted of more respiratory tract depression with meperidine and more vertigo or dizziness with chlorpromazine. There was no difference in incidence of hypotension between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of ketorolac and chlorpromazine is a safe and efficacious alternative to meperidine plus promethazine for the treatment of exacerbations of chronic pain in the rural emergency department setting.





HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1999 by the American Board of Family Medicine.