A Comparison of Efficacy of Intravenous Esomeprazole and Ranitidine Treatment of Dyspeptic Pain

• this is the placebo randomized double blinded clinical trial to compare the efficacy of these three drugs in this clinical setting.
• A randomized clinical trial was conducted in the ED of Pamukkale University Medical Faculty Hospital
• Study personnel (emergency physicians and nurses) were trained before the study.
• When intravenous drugs (esomeprazol, ranitidine or plasebo) was being recommended, an eligibility checklist was completed by the attending physician.
• If there were no exclusion criteria, written informed consent was obtained and baseline information, including initial dispeptic pain severity ratings with VAS were recorded.
• The need for identification and enrollment of participants by staff with conflicting work pressures resulted in recruitment of a convenience sample of patients.
• All patients eligible for the study were randomized to one of three groups:
• First Group: 40 mg Esomeprozol with 5 cc syringe in 150 ml normal saline given as a slow intravenous infusion over 15 minutes and p.o. 10ml Hidrotalcid
• Second Group: 50mg Ranitidin with 5 cc syringe in 150 ml normal saline given as a slow intravenous infusion over 15 minutes and p.o. 10ml Hidrotalcid
• Third Group: 150 ml only normal saline given as a slow intravenous infusion over 15 minutes and p.o. 10ml Hidrotalcid
• Drug packs prepared in 5 ml syringes were numbered by an independent nurse, who not involved in the study.
• Drug packs were prepared according to the computer-generated random number sequence to assign treatment allocations
• The allocation list was kept by the emergency nurse. Patients received the esomeprazol, the ranitidin or the placebo medication schemes according to their random allocations.
• After enrollment and recording of baseline information, the next numbered study drug pack was obtained, and administered as a infusion over 15 minutes.
• Randomization was achieved by using computer software to generate random numbers. During the intervention, participants were monitored by an oxygen saturation (SpO2) monitor, an automatic sphygmomanometer (blood pressure), and a rhythm monitor (heart rate and rhythms)
• One researcher blinded to patient allocation observed the whole procedure and recorded the dyspeptic pain scores.
• Patients in both groups received three types of medication in a similar manner (for example, 150 ml normal saline given as a slow intravenous infusion over 15 minutes), thus ensuring double blinding.
• Dyspeptic pain scores were recorded at 0, 15, 30, 45 and 60 min on a VAS of 1 to 10
• Rescue medication [hidrotalcid 10ml (Talcid, Bayer, Istanbul, Turkey)] was given intravenously to patients if dyspeptic pain VAS scores ≥ 5 in thirty minutes after study drug administration.
• All other medications required during the study also were recorded.
• During the study, pulse rate, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, respiration rate and oxygen saturation (SpO2) were recorded at baseline (0 min), 15, 30, and 60 min.

Inclusion criteria

• patients were eligible for inclusion if they were aged 18 years or older, 60 years or older,
• had dyspspsia [VAS (visual analog scale) score >5] during their ED episode of care for which the attending physician recommended medication.

Exclusion criteria

• pretreatment 100-mm linear visual analog scale (VAS) pain score less than 50 mm;
• known cases of malignancy or terminal illness;
• known cases of major medical problems (eg, any evidence of active structural or functional abnormality of the hearts, chronic renal failure)
• allergy or previous adverse reaction to study drugs studied
• received agents to inhibit the secretion of acid (PPIs or histamine-2 receptor antagonists), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs,
• who consumed alcohol within 4 hours before the ED visit
• diarrhea more than 2 times within the past 24 hours;
• being suspected to have other ED diagnoses (eg, gut obstruction, biliary colic, pancreatitis, hepatitis, or localized hepatobiliary infections);
• being pregnant or breast-feeding; and
• inability to comprehend the VAS evaluation.
• and patients who refused to participate study.