A new method for rate of analgesic onset: two doses of intravenous morphine compared with placebo

An Evaluation of the Effect of Morphine on Abdominal Pain and PeritonealIrritation Signs in Patients with Acute Surgical Abdomen

INTRODUCTION

Acute surgical abdomen is one of the most common emergency surgical causes all over the world and also one of the most important abdominal pain causes which is sometimes intolerable for the patients referring to the emergency departments. Diagnosis and planning for operation in these cases is based on time-demanding serial examinations and results of paraclinical data. In this waiting period, patients have to tolerate pain.Therefore, we aimed to study the hypothesis that relieving pain has no influence on valuable findings in physical examination.

METHODS

This double blind randomized clinical trial was carried out on 120 patients above 12 years old referred to an emergency department of a referral hospital with acute abdomen. Patients were divided into two groups of receiving intravenous placebo and Morphine randomly. Pain score, change in tenderness as well as change in rebound tenderness before and after receiving morphine or placebo were measured based on Numeric Pain Assessment Scale.

RESULTS

Statistically significant difference was observed between both groups regarding the mean pain score. Prevalence of tenderness and rebound tenderness after medication administration revealed a significant difference between two groups. Furthermore, pain and tenderness showed a significant decrease in patients receiving morphine also a significant difference occurred in rebound tenderness between two groups.

CONCLUSION

Despite the fact that opioid analgesics decrease pain in patients with acute surgical abdomen, they do not tend to eliminate required diagnostic data being obtained from physical examination like tenderness and rebound tenderness. Surprisingly, all the acute abdomen cases had rebound tenderness after morphine administration. Therefore, this research advises a cautious usage of morphine in patients with acute abdomen.

Intravenous Opioids for Severe Acute Pain in the Emergency Department

Objective:

To review clinical trials of intravenous opioids for severe acute pain in the emergency department (ED) and to provide an approach for optimization of therapy.

Data Sources:

Articles were identified through a search of Ovid/MEDLINE (1948-August 2010), PubMed (1950-August 2010), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1991-August 2010), and Google Scholar (1900-August 2010). The search terms used were pain, opioid, and emergency department.

Study Selection and Data Extraction:

The search was limited by age group to adults and by publication type to comparative studies. Studies comparing routes of administration other than intravenous or using non-opioid comparators were not included. Bibliographies of all retrieved articles were reviewed to obtain additional articles. The focus of the search was to identify original research that compared intravenous opioids used for treatment of severe acute pain for adults in the ED.

Data Synthesis:

At equipotent doses, randomized controlled trials have not shown clinically significant differences in analgesic response or adverse effects between opioids studied. Single opioid doses less than 0.1 mg/kg of intravenous morphine, 0.015 mg/kg of intravenous hydromorphone, or 1 μg/kg of intravenous fentanyl are likely to be inadequate for severe, acute pain and the need for additional doses should be anticipated. In none of the randomized controlled trials did patients develop respiratory depression requiring the use of naloxone. Future trials could investigate the safety and efficacy of higher doses of opioids. Implementation of nurse-initiated and patient-driven pain management protocols for opioids in the ED has shown improvements in timely provision of appropriate analgesics and has resulted in better pain reduction.

Conclusions:

Currently, intravenous administration of opioids for severe acute pain in the ED appears to be inadequate. Opioid doses in the ED should be high enough to provide adequate analgesia without additional risk to the patient. EDs could implement institution-specific protocols to standardize the management of pain.

The relationship between chest tube size and clinical outcome in pleural infection

BACKGROUND

The optimal choice of chest tube size for the treatment of pleural infection is unknown, with only small cohort studies reported describing the efficacy and adverse events of different tube sizes.

METHODS

A total of 405 patients with pleural infection were prospectively enrolled into a multicenter study investigating the utility of fibrinolytic therapy. The combined frequency of death and surgery, and secondary outcomes (hospital stay, change in chest radiograph, and lung function at 3 months) were compared in patients receiving chest tubes of differing size (chi(2), t test, and logistic regression analyses as appropriate). Pain was studied in detail in 128 patients.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the frequency with which patients either died or required thoracic surgery in patients receiving chest tubes of varying sizes ( < 10F, number dying or needing surgery 21/58 [36%]; size 10-14F, 75/208 [36%]; size 15-20F, 28/70 [40%]; size > 20F, 30/69 [44%]; chi(2)trend, 1 degrees of freedom [df] = 1.21, P = .27), nor any difference in any secondary outcome. Pain scores were substantially higher in patients receiving (mainly blunt dissection inserted) larger tubes ( < 10F, median pain score 6 [range 4-7]; 10-14F, 5 [4-6]; 15-20F, 6 [5-7]; > 20F, 6 [6-8]; chi(2), 3 df = 10.80, P = .013, Kruskal-Wallis; chi(2)trend, 1 df = 6.3, P = .014).

CONCLUSIONS

Smaller, guide-wire-inserted chest tubes cause substantially less pain than blunt-dissection-inserted larger tubes, without any impairment in clinical outcome in the treatment of pleural infection. These results suggest that smaller size tubes may be the initial treatment of choice for pleural infection, and randomized studies are now required.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

MIST1 trial ISRCTN number: 39138989.

The association between negative affect and opioid analgesia in patients with discogenic low back pain

Comprised mainly of depression, anxiety, and high neuroticism, psychopathology diminishes the effectiveness of many chronic pain treatments. But, it is not known if it is associated with diminished opioid analgesia in patients with chronic, noncancer pain. We tested the hypothesis that psychopathology diminishes opioid analgesia in patients with discogenic low back pain in 60 patients not on opioids in a double blind, placebo controlled, random crossover designed trial. Patients were stratified into three groups of psychological symptom severity (LOW, MOD, and HIGH), based on composite scores on depression, anxiety for pain, and neuroticism scales. Subjects were given intravenous morphine (4-6mg dosed by ideal body weight) and placebo in random order on separate visits, and completed serial pain ratings over three hours at each session. With 20 subjects per group, there were nonsignificant differences between groups in the distribution of age, gender, baseline pain (avg. 6.1/10), radicular pain, and morphine dose (5.0mg). For morphine analgesia, using a total pain relief calculation (TOTPAR), the LOW group had 65.1% TOTPAR vs. 41.0% in the HIGH group, P=.026. For placebo analgesia the LOW group had 7.7% TOTPAR vs. 23.5% in the HIGH group, P=.03. A morphine minus placebo analgesia calculation revealed 59.2% TOTPAR in the LOW group vs. 21.7% in the HIGH group, P=.0001. High levels of psychopathology are associated with diminished opioid analgesia in patients with discogenic low back pain. These results have implications for the prescription of oral opioids to patients with chronic low back pain and psychopathology.

A randomized, double-blind study comparing morphine with fentanyl in prehospital analgesia

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare, by a randomized double-blind method, morphine (M) and fentanyl (F) in a prehospital setting.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with severe, acute pain defined as a visual analog scale score (VASS) of 60/100 or higher were included. The M group received an initial intravenous M injection of 0.1 mg/kg then of 3 mg every 5 minutes. The F group received an initial intravenous F injection of 1 microg/kg then of 30 microg every 5 minutes. The goal of analgesia was a VASS of 30/100 or lower. The end point was the VASS measured 30 minutes after initial administration (VAS [T30]).

RESULTS

There were 26 patients included in the M group and 28 in the F group. Initial VASS(T0) and VASS(T30), mean (95% CI), were 83 (78-88) and 40 (28-52) in the M group and 77 (72-82) and 35 (27-43) in the F group (P=NS). Sixty-two percent of patients in the M group described analgesia as excellent or good vs 76% of those in the F group who did (P=NS). There were no differences in the incidence of side effects in the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that M and F were comparable in treating severe, acute pain in a prehospital setting during the first 30 minutes in spontaneous breathing patients.

Does morphine change the physical examination in patients with acute appendicitis?

The objective of this study was to determine if judicious dosing of morphine sulfate can provide pain relief without changing important physical examination findings in patients with acute appendicitis. We conducted a prospective, randomized, double-blind crossover design. Patients scheduled for appendectomy were randomized to two groups. Group A received 0.075 mg/kg intravenous morphine sulfate and 30 minutes later received placebo. The sequence of medication was reversed in group B. Patients were examined by a surgical resident and an EM attending before and after receiving medication. Six explicit physical examination findings were documented as absent, indeterminate, or present. Physicians were also asked if they felt overall examination findings had changed after medication. Patient's visual analog scale (VAS) was recorded before each medication and at study completion. Thirty-four patients were enrolled and full data were available for 22 patients. Neither morphine nor placebo caused a significant change in individual examination findings. Three patients in both groups were judged to have a change in their examination after medication. The median change in VAS was 20 mm after morphine and 0 mm after placebo (P =.01). In this pilot study, patients with clinical signs of appendicitis were treated with morphine and had significant improvement of their pain without changes in their physical examination.

Intravenous morphine for emergency treatment of cancer pain

Despite the wide use of the World Health Organization (WHO) analgesic ladder for the relief of cancer pain, it is not uncommon to find patients presenting with severe pain to palliative care centres. This is more so in the developing world, where facilities for pain relief are few and the health care system is not well organized. It has been the practice in a pain and palliative care clinic in south India to give repeated boluses of 1.5 mg of morphine intravenously every 10 min to patients presenting with severe pain. An audit of the procedure was undertaken by a retrospective study of 793 case notes. Seventy-nine per cent of patients had total relief of their pain with intravenous morphine. Three per cent of patients experienced side-effects during the procedure. These included nausea and vomiting, itching, giddiness, restlessness, dyspnoea, chest pain, disorientation and a feeling of uneasiness. Thirty-two per cent of patients had drowsiness, which was one of the end-points of the procedure. It is concluded that intravenous morphine in repeated boluses of 1.5 mg every 10 min is a safe and effective method of managing cancer pain emergencies in a clinical setting in a developing country.

Injected morphine in postoperative pain: a quantitative systematic review

This systematic review of single-dose, placebo-controlled, randomized trials assessed pain relief from subcutaneous, intramuscular or intravenous morphine compared with placebo in postoperative pain. Pain relief or pain intensity difference over 4 to 6 hours was extracted and converted into the number of patients with at least 50% pain relief. This was used to calculate the relative benefit and the number-needed-to-treat (NNT) for one patient to achieve at least 50% pain relief. In 15 trials, comparing intramuscular morphine 10 mg (486 patients) with placebo (460 patients) morphine had an NNT of 2.9 (95% confidence interval 2.6-3.6). This meant that one of every three patients with moderate or severe postoperative pain treated with 10 mg intramuscular morphine had at least 50% pain relief, and would not have achieved this had they been given placebo. Minor adverse effects were more common with morphine (34%) than with placebo (23%) (relative risk 1.49 [1.09-2.04]), but drug related study withdrawal was rare (1.2% overall) and no different from placebo.

Analysis of pain management in critically ill patients

We analyzed the adequacy of pain control for 17 trauma patients during the initial part of their stay in the intensive care unit, and assessed reasons for inadequate analgesia, if it occurred. Patients, and physicians, and nurses were interviewed. A verbal pain intensity scale was used to determine whether patients received adequate analgesia. Patients were asked if the pain hindered their activities, and whether they requested pain medication from their caregivers. Caregivers were questioned whether patients received adequate analgesia. Prescribed morphine regimens and the amount of narcotic administered were analyzed. Twenty-seven percent of patients rated pain intensity as moderate and 47% as severe. Ninety-five percent of housestaff and 81% of nurses reported the patients received adequate pain control. Forty-seven percent of the patients who had moderate or severe pain asked their physician for more pain medication, and 65% asked the nurse. Thirteen residents did not order a larger dose of morphine due to concern about respiratory depression or hypotension. Morphine dosages ranged from 1-8 mg intravenously every 1-2 hours as necessary. Nurses administered less than the maximum amount ordered 58% of the time. The mean dosing interval was 2.3 hours. Barriers to adequate pain management were disparity in the perception of pain between patients and caregivers; patients not requesting more analgesia despite despite the presence of moderate to severe pain; and physician and nurse concerns about patients' adverse physiologic response to increased dosages.