Efficacy of an intravenous bolus of morphine 2.5 versus morphine 7.5 mg for procedural pain relief in postoperative cardiothoracic patients in the intensive care unit: a randomised double-blind controlled trial

被引:13
|
作者
Ahlers, S. J. G. M. [1 ]
van Gulik, L. [2 ]
van Dongen, E. P. A. [2 ]
Bruins, P. [2 ]
van de Garde, E. M. W. [1 ]
van Boven, W. J.
Tibboel, D.
Knibbe, C. A. J. [1 ]
机构
[1] St Antonius Hosp, Dept Clin Pharm, NL-3435 CM Nieuwegein, Netherlands
[2] St Antonius Hosp, Dept Anaesthesiol Intens Care & Pain Management, NL-3435 CM Nieuwegein, Netherlands
关键词
pain scores; Numeric Pain Scale; morphine; ICU; critically ill patients; pain at rest; procedural pain; CRITICALLY-ILL PATIENTS; CARDIAC-SURGERY; ANALGESIA; SEDATION; SCALE; MANAGEMENT; AGITATION; DELIRIUM; QUALITY;
D O I
10.1177/0310057X1204000306
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
As pain in the intensive care unit (ICU) is still common despite important progress in pain management, we studied the efficacy of an intravenous bolus of morphine 2.5 vs 7.5 mg for procedural pain relief in patients after cardiothoracic surgery in the ICU. In a prospective double-blind randomised study, 117 ICU patients after cardiothoracic surgery were included. All patients were treated according a pain titration protocol for pain at rest, consisting of continuous morphine infusions and paracetamol, applied during the entire ICU stay. On the first postoperative day, patients were randomised to intravenous morphine 2.5 (n=59) or 7.5 mg (n=58) 30 minutes before a painful intervention (turning of patient and/or chest drain removal). Pain scores using the numeric rating scale (Numeric Rating Scale, range 0 to 10) were rated at rest (baseline) and around the painful procedure. At rest (baseline), overall incidence of unacceptable pain (Numeric Rating Scale >= 4) was low (Numeric Rating Scale >4; 14 vs 17%, P=0.81) for patients allocated to morphine 2.5 and 7.5 mg respectively. For procedure-related pain, there was no difference in incidence of unacceptable pain (28 vs 22%, P=0.53) mean pain scores (2.6 [95% confidence interval 2.0 to 3.2] vs 2.7 [95% confidence interval 2.0 to 3.4]) between patients receiving morphine 2.5 and 7.5 mg respectively. In intensive care patients after cardiothoracic surgery with low pain levels for pain at rest, there was no difference in efficacy between intravenous morphine 2.5 mg or morphine 7.5 mg for pain relief during a painful intervention.
引用
收藏
页码:417 / 426
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Comparing Intradermal Sterile Water with Intravenous Morphine in Reducing Pain in Patients with Renal Colic: A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial
    Mozafari, Javad
    Verki, Mohammadreza Maleki
    Tirandaz, Fatemeh
    Mahjouri, Reza
    REVIEWS ON RECENT CLINICAL TRIALS, 2020, 15 (01) : 76 - 82
  • [22] Oral oxycodone plus intravenous acetaminophen versus intravenous morphine sulfate in acute bone fracture pain control: a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial
    Zare M.A.
    Ghalyaie A.H.
    Fathi M.
    Farsi D.
    Abbasi S.
    Hafezimoghadam P.
    European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, 2014, 24 (7) : 1305 - 1309
  • [23] Is pre-emptive administration of ketamine a significant adjunction to intravenous morphine analgesia for controlling postoperative pain? A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial
    Fiorelli, Alfonso
    Mazzella, Antonio
    Passavanti, Beatrice
    Sansone, Pasquale
    Chiodini, Paolo
    Iannotti, Mario
    Aurilio, Caterina
    Santini, Mario
    Pace, Maria Caterina
    INTERACTIVE CARDIOVASCULAR AND THORACIC SURGERY, 2015, 21 (03) : 284 - 290
  • [24] Morphine responsiveness, efficacy and tolerability in patients with chronic non-tumor associated pain - results of a double-blind placebo-controlled trial (MONTAS)
    Maier, C
    Hildebrandt, J
    Klinger, R
    Henrich-Eberl, C
    Lindena, G
    PAIN, 2002, 97 (03) : 223 - 233
  • [25] Efficacy and safety of linagliptin 2.5 mg twice daily versus 5 mg once daily in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled on metformin: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
    Ross, Stuart A.
    Rafeiro, Elizabeth
    Meinicke, Thomas
    Toorawa, Robert
    Weber-Born, Sonja
    Woerle, Hans-Juergen
    CURRENT MEDICAL RESEARCH AND OPINION, 2012, 28 (09) : 1465 - 1474
  • [26] Efficacy of Oral Dextrose versus Acetaminophen versus Placebo on Pain Relief during Retinopathy of Prematurity Eye Examinations: A Randomized, Double-Blind Controlled Clinical Trial
    Madvar, Hamed Riyahi
    Shadravan, Mahla
    Mousavi, Hamid
    Nejad, Amir Khosrou Ghasemi
    Shamsi, Anis
    Iyer, Siva S. R.
    Roohipourmoallai, Ramak
    JOURNAL OF CURRENT OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2023, 35 (03): : 276 - 280
  • [27] Effect on Pain Relief and Inflammatory Response Following Addition of Tenoxicam to Intravenous Patient-Controlled Morphine Analgesia: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Controlled Study in Patients Undergoing Spine Fusion Surgery
    Chang, Wen-Kuei
    Wu, Hsin-Lun
    Yang, Chang-Sue
    Chang, Kuang-Yi
    Liu, Chien-Lin
    Chan, Kwok-Hon
    Sung, Chun-Sung
    PAIN MEDICINE, 2013, 14 (05) : 736 - 748
  • [28] A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study of IV morphine-6-glucuronide for postoperative pain relief after knee replacement surgery
    Romberg, Raymonda
    van Dorp, Eveline
    Hollander, Justus
    Kruit, Michel
    Binning, Alexander
    Smith, Terry
    Dahan, Albert
    CLINICAL JOURNAL OF PAIN, 2007, 23 (03) : 197 - 203
  • [29] Preoperative Anxiolytic Effect of Melatonin and Clonidine on Postoperative Pain and Morphine Consumption in Patients Undergoing Abdominal Hysterectomy: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study
    Caumo, Wolnei
    Levandovski, Rosa
    Hidalgo, Maria Paz L.
    JOURNAL OF PAIN, 2009, 10 (01) : 100 - 108
  • [30] Bolus administration of intravenous lidocaine reduces pain after an elective caesarean section: Findings from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
    Baradari, Afshin Gholipour
    Firouzian, Abolfazl
    Kiabi, Farshad Hasanzadeh
    Zeydi, Amir Emami
    Khademloo, Mohammad
    Nazari, Zeinab
    Sanagou, Masoumeh
    Ghobadi, Maedeh
    Fooladi, Ensieh
    JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2017, 37 (05) : 566 - 570