JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS
AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
A&A International Anesthesia Research Society
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Anesth Analg 2009; 109:1972-1980
© 2009 International Anesthesia Research Society
doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181be3f86
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Simmonds, M. K.
Right arrow Articles by Jamieson-Lega, K. I.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Simmonds, M. K.
Right arrow Articles by Jamieson-Lega, K. I.
Related Collections
Right arrow Pain Medicine
Right arrow Clinical Pharmacology
Right arrow Pain
Right arrow Pharmacology


ANALGESIA

The Effect of Single-Dose Propofol Injection on Pain and Quality of Life in Chronic Daily Headache: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial

Mark K. Simmonds, MB ChB*, Saifudin Rashiq, BM BS*, Igor A. Sobolev, MD*, Bruce D. Dick, PhD*, Daniel P. Gray, MD*, Bradley J. Stewart, MD*{dagger}, and Kathryn I. Jamieson-Lega, BSc*

From the *Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Alberta; and {dagger}600 Hys Centre, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Address correspondence to Mark K. Simmonds, MB, ChB, Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, 8-120 Clinical Sciences Building, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2G3. Address e-mail to mark.simmonds{at}ualberta.ca.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: On the basis of a small number of case studies, IV propofol has been advocated for the treatment of chronic daily headache (CDH). There has been no randomized controlled trial of this therapy. Our objective in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was to determine whether a single IV dose of propofol 2.4 mg/kg results in clinically significant reduction in disability or pain in CDH for the next 30 days.

METHODS: Eligible adults with CDH received either active treatment with IV propofol infusion (n = 20) or active placebo of IV midazolam (n = 20). The main outcome measures were (a) Headache Disability Inventory (HDI) at 30 days posttreatment, (b) Headache Index, a summary measure of headache intensity over the 30-day period, and (c) analgesic consumption measured as the Medication Quantification Scale version III.

RESULTS: Propofol reduced the HDI by 9.47 points (sd 14.1) at 30 days after injection (P = 0.009), but this is a smaller reduction in headache-related disability than that which the developers of the HDI regard as clinically significant. There was no statistically significant change in HDI for the control group. There were no significant within- or between-group reductions in mean pain intensity as measured by the Headache Index or medication use as measured by the Medication Quantification Scale version III in either group.

CONCLUSIONS: A single IV infusion of propofol 2.4 mg/kg produces a statistically significant, but not clinically meaningful, reduction in disability from CDH 30 days after infusion and does not reduce pain intensity or analgesic use. This study does not support this regimen of IV propofol for clinical management of CDH.







Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2009 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999 HighWire Press
Copyright © 2009 by the International Anesthesia Research Society.