The goal of our study was to determine if an intranasal (IN) dose of sufentanil delivered in the ED triage zone would improve the management of severely painful patients. We performed a randomized, double blind and placebo-controlled trial on adult patients suffering from an acute severe pain (≥ 6/10) consecutive to an isolated limb injury. We compared 2 analgesic strategies: the usual pain treatment with IV-only multimodal analgesics (IVMA) including IV opioids if needed (control group) and another strategy (active group) based on a single dose of IN sufentanil (0.4 μg/kg) given at triage and followed by IV multimodal analgesia. Our primary outcome was the proportion of patients reaching pain-relief (≤ 3/10) 30 min after IN injection at triage. Secondary outcomes were rates of adverse events, frequency of clinical interventions required by these events, and satisfaction of patients. A total of 144 adult participants completed the study, 72 in each group. Compared with usual IV-only pain management, the analgesic strategy initiated in triage zone with a dose of IN sufentanil increased the proportion of patients reaching pain relief in 30 min: 72.2% versus 51.4%, in our trial (p = 0.01 and number needed to treat of 5). There was no serious adverse event (AE) in both groups. Patients who received IN sufentanil experienced more frequently minor opiate side effects. Proportion of respiratory AEs was higher in the active group (12.5% of bradypnea < 10 cycles per minute versus 1.4%) but these events were of mild severity, as only 2 participants (one in each group) received temporary low dose oxygen therapy, and none required naloxone. Lengths of stay in the ED were similar in both groups, as well as satisfaction of patients (above 9/10) and pain scores at discharge (< 2/10). We found that a single dose of IN sufentanil delivered in the ED triage zone significantly increases the proportion of severely painful patients reaching painrelief in 30 min, compared to usual analgesia with IV-only multimodal analgesia.
Intranasal Sufentanil Non-invasive Acute severe pain Emergency department Triage nurse Limb injury Pain relief delay Time to analgesia
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Fondation APICIL, French foundation dedicated to pain, financially supported the trial. Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice financially supported the trial. This work was supported in 2013 by a grant from the Délégation à la Recherche Clinique et à l’Innovation of University Hospital of Nice.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Statement of human and animal rights
This study has been ethically approved by the Comité de Protection des Personnes Sud Mediterranée V (CHU de NICE - Hôpital de CIMIEZ. Bâtiment Grand Hôtel - 5ème étage. 4 avenue Reine Victoria. CS 91179. 06003 NICE CEDEX 1, France).
Todd KH, Ducharme J, Choiniere M et al (2007) Pain in the emergency department: results of the pain and emergency medicine initiative (PEMI) Multicenter Study. J Pain 8(6):460–466CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Pines JM, Hollander JE (2008) Emergency department crowding is associated with poor care for patients with severe pain. Ann Emerg Med 51(1):1–5CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Patrick PA, Rosenthal BM, Iezzi CA, Brand DA (2015) Timely pain management in the emergency department. J Emerg Med 48(3):267–273CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Holdgate A, Cao A, Lo KM (2010) The implementation of intranasal fentanyl for children in a mixed adult and pediatric emergency department reduces time to analgesic administration. Acad Emerg Med 17(2):214–217CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Borland M, Jacobs I, King B, O’Brien D (2007) A randomized controlled trial comparing intranasal fentanyl to intravenous morphine for managing acute pain in children in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 49(3):335–340CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Schoolman-Anderson K, Lane RD, Schunk JE, Mecham N, Thomas R, Adelgais K (2018) Pediatric emergency department triage-based pain guideline utilizing intranasal fentanyl: effect of implementation. Am J Emerg Med 36(9):1603–1607CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Steenblik J, Goodman M, Davis V et al (2012) Intranasal sufentanil for the treatment of acute pain in a winter resort clinic. Am J Emerg Med 30(9):1817–1821CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Stephen R, Lingenfelter E, Broadwater-Hollifield C, Madsen T (2012) Intranasal sufentanil provides adequate analgesia for emergency department patients with extremity injuries. J Opioid Manag 8(4):237–241CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Mathieu N, Cnudde N, Engelman E, Barvais L (2006) Intranasal sufentanil is effective for postoperative analgesia in adults. Can J Anaesth 53(1):60–66CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Vivien B, Adnet F, Bounes V et al (2011) Recommandations formalisées d’experts 2010: sédation et analgésie en structure d’urgence (réactualisation de la conférence d’experts de la SFAR de 1999). Ann Fr Med d’Urgence 1(1):57–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsay MAE, Savege TM, Simpson BRJ, Goodwin R (1974) Controlled sedation with alphaxalone-alphadolone. Br Med J 2(5920):656–659CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Lvovschi V, Aubrun F, Bonnet P et al (2008) Intravenous morphine titration to treat severe pain in the ED. Am J Emerg Med 26(6):676–682CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Price DD, Finniss DG, Benedetti F (2008) A comprehensive review of the placebo effect: recent advances and current thought. Annu Rev Psychol 59(1):565–590CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Benedetti F (2008) Mechanisms of placebo and placebo-related effects across diseases and treatments. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 48(1):33–60CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Welch SJ (2010) Twenty years of patient satisfaction research applied to the emergency department: a qualitative review. Am J Med Qual 25(1):64–72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar