ABSTRACT
Introduction A migraine treatment protocol implemented in the emergency department of an urban hospital allowed us to evaluate the effectiveness of propofol compared to metoclopramide as well as the safety of the protocol.
Methods We reviewed the health records of all patients aged 16 years and older treated with propofol for migraine between May 2014 and August 2017 at a teaching hospital in Québec City (CHUL). The care protocol consisted of administering propofol (20 mg) every 5–10 minutes as needed (up to 6 doses), monitoring vital signs before and after each dose and continuous cardiac monitoring. The primary outcome measure was the mean reduction of pain following first-line therapy (propofol or metoclopramide). The secondary outcome measures were 1) adjusted relative risks of requiring rescue medication after first-line therapy; 2) incidence of the following side effects of propofol received as first or second-line therapy: low arterial pressure (< 90 systolic or < 65 mean), desaturation, excessive sedation, arrhythmia. The cohorts were paired for gender, age, triage priority, and month/year of ED visit.
Results Files of 34 patients given propofol and 58 given metoclopramide as first-line treatment were analyzed. Five metoclopramide-treated patients received propofol as rescue medication. Among propofol-treated patients, 29.4% experienced pain relief compared to 66% in the metoclopramide group (p < 0.001). Rescue medication was more frequent in first-line propofol patients (82.4% versus 37.9%, p < 0.001). In this group, four participants (10.3%) received intravenous fluid bolus for mean blood pressure below 60, but no persistent desaturation, bradycardia, excessive sedation, or arrhythmia was recorded.
Conclusion Though less effective than metoclopramide, propofol at low doses may be an alternative to treat migraine in the ED. Monitoring of vital signs (especially blood pressure) would be prudent but continuous nursing is likely unnecessary.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Funding for this study was received from the Fonds collectif de soutien aux activités académiques (FCSAA) and from the Fonds de recherche et enseignement (FRE) of the Département de médecine de famille et de médecine d urgence of Université Laval.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The ethics committee of the CHU de Québec-Université Laval gave approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
