Clinical Research

Propofol vs. Chlorpromazine for Acute Migraine Treatment: Insights from a Prospective Randomized Trial

Volume: 3 Number: 3 December 28, 2024
TR EN

Propofol vs. Chlorpromazine for Acute Migraine Treatment: Insights from a Prospective Randomized Trial

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of propofol and chlorpromazine in managing acute migraine attacks and to contribute to optimizing the treatment of patients with migraine in the ED. Methods: This prospective, randomized observational study included 180 migraine patients aged 18–65 presenting to the ED. Patients were randomized into two groups: one received propofol (10 mg every 10 minutes, up to 50 mg), and the other received chlorpromazine (12.5 mg every 20 minutes, up to 37.5 mg). Pain was monitored every 10 minutes using a visual analog scale (VAS). Results: At admission, the mean VAS score was 8.24 ± 1.72 in the propofol group and 8.83 ± 1.43 in the chlorpromazine group. In the propofol group, the VAS score decreased by 5.19 ± 2.79, 2.66 ± 2.91, and 1.25 ± 2.14 units at the 10th, 20th, and 30th minutes, respectively. In the chlorpromazine group, the VAS score decreased by 4.82 ± 2.99, 2.50 ± 2.93, and 1.03 ± 2.20 units at the 10th, 20th, and 30th minutes, respectively. By the 60th minute, the total VAS reduction was 25.00 ± 12.25 in the propofol group and 23.10 ± 11.40 in the chlorpromazine group. Although pain reduction initially occurred more rapidly in the chlorpromazine group, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups at the 60-minute mark. Conclusion: Propofol was as effective as chlorpromazine for treating migraines in the ED, with a comparable onset of action and a better side-effect profile.

Keywords

References

  1. Carlsson AM. Assessment of chronic pain. I. Aspects of the reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale. Pain.1983;16(1):87-101. doi:10.1016/0304-3959(83)90088-X.
  2. GBD 2015 DALYs and HALE Collaborators. Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 315 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE), 1990-2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015 [published correction appears in Lancet. 2017;389(10064):e1]. Lancet. 2016;388(10053):1603-1658. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31460-X.
  3. Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Celentano DD, Reed ML. Prevalence of migraine headache in the United States: relation to age, income, race, and other sociodemographic factors. JAMA. 1992;267(1):64-69.
  4. Baykan B. Başağrıları. In: Nöroloji. 2nd ed. İstanbul: Nobel Tıp Kitabevi; 2011:373-393.
  5. Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society (IHS). The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition. Cephalalgia. 2018;38(1):1-211. doi:10.1177/0333102417738202.
  6. Boran HE, Bolay H. Migren patofizyolojisi. Nöro Psikiyatri Arşivi. 2013;50(1):1-7. doi:10.4274/npa.y7251.
  7. Penfield W. Dural headache and innervation of the dura mater. Arch Neurol Psychiatry. 1940;44(1):43. doi:10.1001/archneurpsyc.1940.02280070051003.
  8. Ray BS, Wolff HG. Experimental studies on headache: pain-sensitive structures of the head and their significance in headache. Arch Surg. 1940;41(4):813-856.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Clinical Sciences (Other)

Journal Section

Clinical Research

Publication Date

December 28, 2024

Submission Date

November 15, 2024

Acceptance Date

December 18, 2024

Published in Issue

Year 2024 Volume: 3 Number: 3

AMA
1.Sağlam S, Güneysel Ö. Propofol vs. Chlorpromazine for Acute Migraine Treatment: Insights from a Prospective Randomized Trial. Atatürk Univ Fac Med J Surg Med Sci. 2024;3(3):56-64. doi:10.61745/jsmsau.1584825

Content of this journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License

30040