Trial reportEuropean heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care2023
LidocAine Versus Opioids In MyocarDial infarction: the AVOID-2 randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in European heart journal. Acute cardiovascular care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Optimizing antithrombotic therapy in patients with coexisting cardiovascular and gastrointestinal disease.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2024Review
- Analgesic drug use in patients with STEMI: Current perspectives and challenges.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
15 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
aimsOpioid analgesia has been shown to interfere with the bioavailability of oral P2Y12 inhibitors prompting the search for safe and effective non-opioid analgesics to treat ischaemic chest pain. METHODS AND
resultsThe lidocAine Versus Opioids In MyocarDial infarction trial was a prospective, Phase II, prehospital, open-label, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial enrolling patients with suspected STEACS with moderate to severe pain [numerical rating scale (NRS) at least 5/10]. Intravenous lidocaine (maximum dose 300 mg) or intravenous fentanyl (up to 50 µg every 5 min) were administered as prehospital analgesia. The co-primary end points were prehospital pain reduction and adverse events requiring intervention. Secondary end points included peak cardiac troponin I, cardiac MRI (cMRI) assessed myocardial infarct size and clinical outcomes to 30 days. A total of 308 patients were enrolled. The median reduction in pain score (NRS) was 4 vs. 3 in the fentanyl and lidocaine arms, respectively, for the primary efficacy end point [estimated median difference -1 (95% confidence interval -1.58, -0.42, P = 0.5 for non-inferiority, P = 0.001 for inferiority of lidocaine)]. Adverse events requiring intervention occurred in 49% vs. 36% of the fentanyl and lidocaine arms which met non-inferiority and superiority favouring lidocaine (P = 0.016 for superiority). No significant differences in myocardial infarct size and clinical outcomes at 30 days were seen.
conclusionIV Lidocaine did not meet the criteria for non-inferiority with lower prehospital pain reduction than fentanyl but was safe and better tolerated as analgesia in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Future trials testing non-opioid analgesics in STEMI and whether opioid avoidance improves clinical outcomes are needed.
trial registrationCTRN12619001521112p.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.