Role of Papaverine Hydrochloride Administration in Patients With Intractable Renal Colic: Randomized Prospective Trial

Yencilek, Faruk; Aktaş, Can; Göktaş, Cemal; Yilmaz, Cemil; Yılmaz, Uğur; Sarıca, Kemal

doi:10.1016/j.urology.2008.07.030

Cited by 16 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Snir et al concluded that using papaverine in the treatment of renal colic is as effective as sodium diclofenac in the management of patients with renal colic pain in the short term, and can be effective if there are contraindications for the use of NSAIDs; however, the analgesic effect of diclofenac in controlling pain lasts longer than papaverine (43). Yencilek et al reported that papaverine is more effective in renal colic pain relief in patients with refractory pain than conventional agents (44). …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Therapeutic Approaches for Renal Colic in the Emergency Department: A Review Article

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context:Renal colic is frequently described as the worst pain ever experienced, and management of this intense pain is necessary. The object of our review was to discuss different approaches of pain control for patients with acute renal colic in the emergency department.Evidence Acquisition:Studies that discussed the treatment of renal colic pain were included in this review. We collected articles from reputable internet databases.Results:Our study showed that some new treatment approaches, such as the use of lidocaine or nerve blocks, can be used to control the severe and persistent pain of renal colic.Conclusions:Some new approaches are discussed and their impact on renal colic pain control was compared with traditional therapies. The effectiveness of the new approaches in this review is similar or even better than in traditional treatments.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Therapeutic Approaches for Renal Colic in the Emergency Department: A Review Article

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Papaverine was as effective as IV diclofenac in the initial treatment of renal colic, but required increased use of rescue analgesia (Snir et al, 2008 Level II). However, as a rescue analgesic, papaverine was of similar efficacy to pethidine and superior to hyoscine in patients who failed to respond to initial treatment with a diclofenac-hyoscine combination (Yencilek et al, 2008 Level II).…”

Section: Chaptermentioning

confidence: 98%

Acupuncture for analgesia in the emergency department: a multicentre, randomised, equivalence and non‐inferiority trial

Cohen

Smit

Andrianopoulos³

et al. 2017

Medical Journal of Australia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: This study aimed to assess analgesia provided by acupuncture, alone or in combination with pharmacotherapy, to patients presenting to emergency departments with acute low back pain, migraine or ankle sprain. Design: A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, assessor‐blinded, equivalence and non‐inferiority trial of analgesia, comparing acupuncture alone, acupuncture plus pharmacotherapy, and pharmacotherapy alone for alleviating pain in the emergency department. Setting, participants: Patients presenting to emergency departments in one of four tertiary hospitals in Melbourne with acute low back pain, migraine, or ankle sprain, and with a pain score on a 10‐point verbal numerical rating scale (VNRS) of at least 4. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure was pain at one hour (T1). Clinically relevant pain relief was defined as achieving a VNRS score below 4, and statistically relevant pain relief as a reduction in VNRS score of greater than 2 units. Results: 1964 patients were assessed between January 2010 and December 2011; 528 patients with acute low back pain (270 patients), migraine (92) or ankle sprain (166) were randomised to acupuncture alone (177 patients), acupuncture plus pharmacotherapy (178) or pharmacotherapy alone (173). Equivalence and non‐inferiority of treatment groups was found overall and for the low back pain and ankle sprain groups in both intention‐to‐treat and per protocol (PP) analyses, except in the PP equivalence testing of the ankle sprain group. 15.6% of patients had clinically relevant pain relief and 36.9% had statistically relevant pain relief at T1; there were no between‐group differences. Conclusion: The effectiveness of acupuncture in providing acute analgesia for patients with back pain and ankle sprain was comparable with that of pharmacotherapy. Acupuncture is a safe and acceptable form of analgesia, but none of the examined therapies provided optimal acute analgesia. More effective options are needed. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12609000989246.

show abstract

“…In another study, Yencilek et al . [11] evaluated the therapeutic effect of papaverine hydrochloride in the treatment of patients with conventional treatment. In their study, 561 patients with severe renal colic due to ureteric stone were treated with conventional agents in emergency departments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Treatment of loin pain suspected to be renal colic with papaverine hydrochloride: a prospective double‐blind randomised study

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study Type – Therapy (RCT) Level of Evidence 1b What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? Results of our study showed that intravenous papaverine hydrochloride plus suppository sodium diclofenac were more effective than diclofenac sodium suppository alone in the treatment of acute renal colic. Therefore, intravenous papaverine hydrochloride may be a beneficial supplemental therapy to relieve renal colic pain, particularly in combination with NSAIDs. OBJECTIVE To assess the efficacy of papaverine hydrochloride combined with a diclofenac sodium suppository to relieve renal colic compared with diclofenac suppository monotherapy, as the effect of phosphodiesterase inhibitors on ureteric muscles might reduce the pain of renal colic. PATIENTS AND METHODS A prospective, double‐blind clinical study was performed. In all, 550 patients aged 17–55 years with acute renal colic were randomised to two groups. Patients in one group (group A) received a diclofenac suppository (100 mg) plus saline 0.9% (placebo) and the other group (group B) received a diclofenac suppository (100 mg) plus intravenous (i.v.) papaverine hydrochloride (1.5 mg/kg up to120 mg). Pain intensity was assessed using a visual analogue scale (VAS) at 0, 20 and 40 min after treatment. Further analgesia was provided at the patients' request (25 mg pethidine intramuscularly). RESULTS Baseline characteristics (sex, age, past history of similar pains) were similar in the two groups. There were significant differences in VAS pain scores between 0 and 20 min and 0 and 40 min in both groups (P < 0.001). At the end of study, 71.1% of patients in group A and 90.9% of patients in group B reported pain relief and did not require pethidine, respectively. Significantly more patients in group A required further analgesia. CONCLUSIONS According to our results, i.v. papaverine hydrochloride plus a diclofenac suppository were more effective than the diclofenac suppository alone for treating acute renal colic. Therefore, i.v. papaverine hydrochloride is a beneficial supplemental therapy to relieve renal colic pain, particularly combined with non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs.

show abstract

Role of Papaverine Hydrochloride Administration in Patients With Intractable Renal Colic: Randomized Prospective Trial

Cited by 16 publications

References 20 publications

Therapeutic Approaches for Renal Colic in the Emergency Department: A Review Article

Therapeutic Approaches for Renal Colic in the Emergency Department: A Review Article

Acupuncture for analgesia in the emergency department: a multicentre, randomised, equivalence and non‐inferiority trial

Treatment of loin pain suspected to be renal colic with papaverine hydrochloride: a prospective double‐blind randomised study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About