Comparison of granisetron and metoclopramide in the treatment of pain and emesis in migraine patients: A randomized controlled trial study.

OBJECTIVES: One of the irritating features of migraine is emesis that can compromise taking oral medications. We designed this study to compare the effectiveness of granisetron and metoclopramide in reducing pain and treating emesis in migraine patients. METHODS: We included a total of 148 patients with migraine headache presenting to two referral hospitals in a prospective, double-blinded randomized controlled trial. We compared the effect of granisetron (2 mg intravenous) with metoclopramide (10 mg intravenous). Pain intensity and emesis episodes were recorded before drug administration, one, two and four 4 h after drug administration. RESULTS: Of the 148 patients, 47 were male and 101 were female. 75 patients received granisetron and 73 metoclopramide. Mean pain intensity before the administration of the medications was 7.67 ± 1.30 in granisetron group and 7.68 ± 1.13 in metoclopramide group with an insignificant difference. Mean pain intensity at one, two, and 4 h after drug administration was 3.20 ± 1.37, 2.39 ± 1.28, and 1.31 ± 0.52 in granisetron group and 5.04 ± 1.77, 4.1 ± 1.8, and 1.56 ± 0.68 in metoclopramide group (P = 0.03). Mean emesis episodes before drug administration were 1.85 ± 0.81 and 1.80 ± 0.77 in granisetron and metoclopramide groups, respectively. These episodes were 1.33 ± 0.66, 0.25 ± 0.49, and 0.04 ± 0.19 in granisetron group and 1.38 ± 0.73, 0.21 ± 0.47, and 0.41 ± 0.19 in metoclopramide group at one, two, and 4 h after the drug administration (P = 0.7). CONCLUSION: To came in conclusion, compared to metoclopramide, granisetron is a better choice in acute migraine ATTACK because it decreases the patients' pain as well as their emesis.

Clinical findings provide criteria to evaluate priorities of ophthalmologic intervention in conscious multiple trauma patients.

INTRODUCTION: Multiple trauma patients frequently suffer eye injuries, especially those patients with head traumas. We evaluated the accuracy of physical findings to determine the priorities of emergency ophthalmologic intervention in these patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study included all multiple trauma patients with ophthalmic trauma who had a GCS of 15 when they arrived at the emergency department during the period of March, 2008-March, 2009. First, we evaluated the patients according to the criteria of the study. Then, an ophthalmologist evaluated them. RESULT: From March 2008-March 2009, 306 multiple trauma patients with ocular trauma came to our ED. The sensitivity and accuracy of emergency physicians in diagnosing the priority of ophthalmologic treatment were comparable to an ophthalmologist (measure of agreement in kappa=0.967). DISCUSSION: The ability of an emergency physician or general surgeon to determine the actual need of early ophthalmologist intervention can improve decision making and saving both time and money. Our study suggests that it is possible to determine according to clinical findings the need of the patient to have ophthalmologic intervention without referring the patient to ophthalmologist examination. CONCLUSION: Defining specific criteria of ophthalmologic examinations can clarify the necessity of emergency ophthalmologic examination and intervention.