Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35033003›Full record

Observational studyBMC emergency medicine2022

Usability and effectiveness of inhaled methoxyflurane for prehospital analgesia - a prospective, observational study.

Helmut Trimmel, Alexander Egger, Reinhard Doppler, Mathias Pimiskern, Wolfgang G Voelckel

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC emergency medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06899724 (A Randomized Multicentre Placebo Controlled Non-inferiority Study of Intravenous Sedation Versus Methoxyflurane During Hysteroscopy.), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
8.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT06899724 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

A Randomized Multicentre Placebo Controlled Non-inferiority Study of Intravenous Sedation Versus Methoxyflurane During Hysteroscopy.

TypeinterventionalSponsorDr. John A. Thiel Medical Professional CorporationRan2025 to 2026Enrolled54ConditionsAnalgesiaArmsAnesthetics, Inhalation, Intravenous Sedatives with or Without Analgesia
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Review
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Helmut TrimmelDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Emergency and Intensive Care Medicine, General Hospital, Corvinusring 3-5, A-2700, Wiener Neustadt, Austria. helmut.trimmel@wienerneustadt.lknoe.at.ORCID 0000-0002-7327-0699
Alexander EggerChristophorus Air Rescue, OeAMTC, Baumgasse 129, A-1030, Vienna, Austria.
Reinhard DopplerChristophorus Air Rescue, OeAMTC, Baumgasse 129, A-1030, Vienna, Austria.
Mathias PimiskernDepartment of Anaesthesiology, Emergency and Intensive Care Medicine, General Hospital, Corvinusring 3-5, A-2700, Wiener Neustadt, Austria.
Wolfgang G VoelckelChristophorus Air Rescue, OeAMTC, Baumgasse 129, A-1030, Vienna, Austria.
Vienna General Hospital · ATRoth and Rau (Germany) · DESapporo Kosei General Hospital · JPUniversity of Salzburg · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPain relief in the prehospital setting is often insufficient, as the administration of potent intravenous analgesic drugs is mostly reserved to physicians. In Australia, inhaled methoxyflurane has been in routine use by paramedics for decades, but experience in Central European countries is lacking. Thus, we aimed to assess whether user friendliness and effectiveness of inhaled methoxyflurane as sole analgesic match the specific capabilities of local ground and air-based EMS systems in Austria.

methodsObservational study in adult trauma patients (e.g. dislocations, fracture or low back pain following minor trauma) with moderate to severe pain (numeric rating scale [NRS] ≥4). Included patients received a Penthrop® inhaler containing 3 mL of methoxyflurane (maximum use 30 min). When pain relief was considered insufficient (NRS reduction < 3 after 10 min), intravenous analgesics were administered by an emergency physician. The primary endpoint was effectiveness of methoxyflurane as sole analgesic for transport of patients. Secondary endpoints were user friendliness (EMS personell), time to pain relief, vital parameters, side effects, and satisfaction of patients.

resultsMedian numeric pain rating was 8.0 (7.0-8.0) in 109 patients. Sufficient analgesia (reduction of NRS ≥3) was achieved by inhaled methoxyflurane alone in 67 patients (61%). The analgesic effect was progressively better with increasing age. Side effects were frequent (n = 58, 53%) but mild. User satisfaction was scored as very good when pain relief was sufficient, but fair in patients without benefit. Technical problems were observed in 16 cases (14.7%), mainly related to filling of the inhaler. In every fifth use, the fruity smell of methoxyflurane was experienced as unpleasant. No negative effects on vital signs were observed.

conclusionIn prehospital use, inhaled methoxyflurane as sole analgesic is effective for transport of trauma patients (62%) with moderate to severe pain. Older patients benefit especially from inhaled methoxyflurane. Side effects are mild and vital parameters unaffected. Thus, inhaled methoxyflurane could be a valuable device for non-physician EMS personnel rescue services also in the central Europe region.

Indexed as

AnalgesiaAnesthetics, InhalationEmergency Medical ServicesAdultAnalgesicsHumansMethoxyfluranePainPain MeasurementProspective StudiesAnalgesicsAnesthetics, InhalationMethoxyfluraneEmergency medical serviceInhaled analgesiaMethoxyfluraneParamedicsPrehospital pain management

Identifiers

PMID35033003
PMCPMC8760876
OpenAlexW4206161602

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.