Intravenous pantoprazole versus famotidine for epigastric pain in the emergency department: A triple-blind randomized clinical trial

Abstract

Objective: To compare the therapeutic efficacy of intravenous pantoprazole and famotidine for the treatment of epigastric pain in patients presenting to the emergency department. Methods: In this triple-blind randomized clinical trial, eligible patients presenting with epigastric pain were randomly assigned to receive intravenous pantoprazole or famotidine. Block randomization was used, and patients, treating physicians, and outcome assessors were blinded to treatment allocation. Pain intensity was assessed at baseline and at 30 and 60 minutes after drug administration. Results: Eighty patients were enrolled, with a mean age of 36.6 years (SD, 15.0), and 42.5% were male. Mean pain scores decreased significantly over time in both treatment groups. In the pantoprazole group, pain scores declined from 8.02±1.28 at baseline to 4.75±1.31 at 30 minutes and 1.62±1.29 at 60 minutes, whereas in the famotidine group scores decreased from 8.12±1.48 to 5.37±1.23 and 2.35±1.54, respectively. There was no significant difference in baseline pain scores between groups (P=.92). Pantoprazole resulted in greater pain reduction compared with famotidine at both 30 minutes (P=.04) and 60 minutes (P=.05). Conclusions: Both medications were effective in relieving epigastric pain; however, pantoprazole provided greater and more sustained pain reduction, supporting its preferential use in emergency settings.

Keywords

Pantoprazole / Famotidine / Epigastric pain / Dyspepsia / Emergency department

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Ethical statement

The research protocol was reviewed and approved by the Research Council of the Faculty of Medicine and subsequently received ethical clearance from the Ethics Committee of Zahedan University of Medical Sciences (Approval Code: IR.ZAUMS.REC.1401.360). The study was conducted in full compliance with institutional ethical standards under the supervision of Zahedan University of Medical Sciences.

Data availability statement

The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Funding

This study received no extramural funding.

Authors’ contributions

AB developed the study concept, conducted the literature review, and acquired the data. AB and MK designed the study protocol and performed data analysis. SY contributed to patient recruitment and sample collection. All authors contributed to defining intellectual content, conducting the study, and preparing, editing, and reviewing the manuscript.

Publisher’s note

The Publisher of the Journal remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

[1] Stanghellini V, Chan FK, Hasler WL, Malagelada JR, Suzuki H, Tack J, et al. Gastroduodenal disorders. Gastroenterology 2016; 150(6): 1380-1392.

[2] Walker MM, Potter MD, Talley NJ. Tangible pathologies in functional dyspepsia. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2019; 40—41: 101650.

[3] Howell JM, Eddy OL, Lukens TW, Thiessen ME, Weingart SD, Decker WW, et al. Clinical policy: Critical issues in the evaluation and management of emergency department patients with suspected appendicitis. Ann Emerg Med 2010; 55(1): 71-116.

[4] Graham DY. Helicobacter pylori update: gastric cancer, reliable therapy, and possible benefits. Gastroenterology 2015; 148(4): 719-731.

[5] Tytgat GN. Shortcomings of the first—generation proton pump inhibitors. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2001; 13(Suppl 1): 29-33.

[6] Ahmadi A, Hosseinzadeh H, Rahimi R, Shams—Ardekani MR, Sadeghnia HR, Ghahremani MH, et al. Hepatoprotective, antinociceptive and antioxidant activities of cimetidine, ranitidine and famotidine as histamine H2 receptor antagonists. Fundam Clin Pharmacol 2011; 25(1): 72-79.

[7] Hosseinzadeh H, Ahmadi A, Shariati A, Sahebkar A, Rahimi R, Shams—Ardekani MR, et al. Comparison of oral pantoprazole and famotidine on gastric volume and pH in elective surgeries. Shiraz E Med J 2011; 12: 57-65.

[8] Maasoumi G, Farahbakhsh F. Comparing the effects of pantoprazole and ranitidine in the prevention of postoperative gastrointestinal complications in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery. J Cardiothorac Med 2016; 4(3): 270-276.

[9] Senay E, Yilmaz A, Akoglu H, Celik E, Kavakli HS, Yilmaz S, et al. Comparison of intravenous pantoprazole and ranitidine in patients with dyspepsia presenting to the emergency department: A randomized, double—blind, controlled trial. World J Emerg Med 2016; 7(1): 30-34.