Comparing the Efficacy of Metoclopramide and Chlorpromazine with Meperidine in Treatment of Headache after Ocular Surgery

Document Type : Original Article (s)

Authors

1 Professor, Anesthesiology and Critical Care Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

2 Student of Medicine, School of Medicine AND Students Research Committee, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of intravenous chlorperomazine and metoclopramide with meperidine in treatment of headache after ocular surgery.Methods: A randomized double-blind clinical-trial was undertaken at Feiz hospital affiliated to Isfahan University of Medical Sciences (Iran) with 102 patients with severe headache after ocular surgery. Patients were divided randomly in 3 groups (34 patients in each group); first group received 0.1 mg/kg/dose intravenous metoclopramide repeated after 30 minutes as needed; second group received 0.35 mg/kg/dose meperidine repeated after 30 minutes as needed; and third group received 0.1 mg/kg/dose intravenous chlorperomazine repeated after 30 minutes as needed. Adequate pain relief was measure for each patient by Faces Pain Rating Scale (FPRS) every 15 minutes from up to 45 minute.Findings: The average pain relief over 45 minutes for metoclopramide was 4.71 vs. 5.82 for meperidineand and 3.94 for chlorperomazine (P < 0.001 for three comparisons). There were no severe or significant side effects with any of studied drugs.Conclusion: Both, Intravenous metoclopramide and chlorpromazine, are more effective than meperidine for the treatment of the severe headaches after ocular surgery. Comparing the effectiveness of these 3 agents appears to favor chlorpromazine in measures of headache relief and incidence of headache rebound.

Keywords


  1. MacCumber MW, Jaffe GJ, McCuen BW. Treatment of migraine headache after ocular surgery with intravenous metoclopramide hydrochloride. Am J Ophthalmol 1996; 121(1): 96-7.
  2. Kojic Z, Stojanovic D. Pathophysiology of migraine--from molecular to personalized medicine. Med Pregl 2013; 66(1-2): 53-7.
  3. Cortelli P, Montagna P. Migraine as a visceral pain. Neurol Sci 2009; 30(Suppl 1): S19-S22.
  4. Cortelli P, Pierangeli G, Montagna P. Is migraine a disease? Neurol Sci 2010; 31(Suppl 1): S29-S31.
  5. Goadsby PJ. Pathophysiology of migraine. Neurol Clin 2009; 27(2): 335-60.
  6. Purdy RA. Migraine is curable! Neurol Sci 2010; 31(Suppl 1): S141-S143.
  7. Valade D. Chronic migraine. Rev Neurol (Paris) 2013; 169(5): 419-26.
  8. Radat F. Stress and migraine. Rev Neurol (Paris) 2013; 169(5): 406-12. [In French].
  9. Todd KH. Migraines in the emergency department: which therapy Is best?. Medscape Emergency Medicine [cited 2009 Mar 12]; Available from: URL: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/589074.
  10. Friedman BW, Esses D, Solorzano C, Dua N, Greenwald P, Radulescu R, et al. A randomized controlled trial of prochlorperazine versus metoclopramide for treatment of acute migraine. Ann Emerg Med 2008; 52(4): 399-406.
  11. Salazar G, Fragoso M, Vergez L, Sergio P, Cuello D. Metoclopramide as an analgesic in severe migraine attacks: an open, single-blind, parallel control study. Recent Pat CNS Drug Discov 2011; 6(2): 141-5.
  12. Kelley NE, Tepper DE. Rescue therapy for acute migraine, part 2: neuroleptics, antihistamines, and others. Headache 2012; 52(2): 292-306.
  13. Wong DL, Hockenberry-Eaten M, Wilon D, Winkelstein ML, Schwartz P. Wongs essential of Pediatric nursing. 6th ed. Philadelphia, PA: St. Louis; 2001. p. 1301.
  14. Friedman BW, Mulvey L, Esses D, Solorzano C, Paternoster J, Lipton RB, et al. Metoclopramide for acute migraine: a dose-finding randomized clinical trial. Ann Emerg Med 2011; 57(5): 475-82.
  15. Kelley NE, Tepper DE. Rescue therapy for acute migraine, part 3: opioids, NSAIDs, steroids, and post-discharge medications. Headache 2012; 52(3): 467-82.
  16. Cameron JD, Lane PL, Speechley M. Intravenous chlorpromazine vs intravenous metoclopramide in acute migraine headache. Acad Emerg Med 1995; 2(7): 597-602.