Cargando…
Comparison of intrathecal morphine with continuous patient-controlled epidural anesthesia versus intrathecal morphine alone for post-cesarean section analgesia: a randomized controlled trial
BACKGROUND: Several neuraxial techniques have demonstrated effective post-cesarean section analgesia. According to previous reports, it is likely that patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) without opioids is inferior to intrathecal morphine (IM) alone for post-cesarean section analgesia. Howe...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7268233/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32493372 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-020-01050-6 |
_version_ | 1783541571641147392 |
---|---|
author | Sato, Izumi Iwasaki, Hajime Luthe, Sarah Kyuragi Iida, Takafumi Kanda, Hirotsugu |
author_facet | Sato, Izumi Iwasaki, Hajime Luthe, Sarah Kyuragi Iida, Takafumi Kanda, Hirotsugu |
author_sort | Sato, Izumi |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Several neuraxial techniques have demonstrated effective post-cesarean section analgesia. According to previous reports, it is likely that patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) without opioids is inferior to intrathecal morphine (IM) alone for post-cesarean section analgesia. However, little is known whether adding PCEA to IM is effective or not. The aim of this study was to compare post-cesarean section analgesia between IM with PCEA and IM alone. METHODS: Fifty patients undergoing elective cesarean section were enrolled in this prospective randomized study. Patients were randomized to one of two groups: IM group and IM + PCEA group. All patients received spinal anesthesia with 12 mg of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine, 10 μg of fentanyl, and 150 μg of morphine. Patients in IM + PCEA group received epidural catheterization through Th11–12 or Th12-L1 before spinal anesthesia and PCEA (basal 0.167% levobupivacaine infusion rate of 6 mL/h, bolus dose of 3 mL in lockout interval of 30 min) was commenced at the end of surgery. A numerical rating scale (NRS) at rest and on movement at 4,8,12,24,48 h after the intrathecal administration of morphine were recorded. In addition, we recorded the incidence of delayed ambulation and the number of patients who requested rescue analgesics. We examined NRS using Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test following repeated measures analysis of variance; p < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients in each group were finally analyzed. Mean NRS at rest was significantly higher in IM group than in IM + PCEA group at 4 (2.7 vs 0.6), 8 (2.2 vs 0.6), and 12 h (2.5 vs 0.7), and NRS during mobilization was significantly higher in IM group than in IM + PCEA group at 4 (4.9 vs 1.5), 8 (4.8 vs 1.9), 12 (4.9 vs 2), and 24 h (5.7 vs 3.5). The number of patients who required rescue analgesics during the first 24 h was significantly higher in IM group compared to IM + PCEA group. No significant difference was observed between the groups in incidence of delayed ambulation. CONCLUSIONS: The combined use of PCEA with IM provided better post-cesarean section analgesia compared to IM alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN-CTR (Registration No. UMIN000032475). Registered 6 May 2018 – Retrospectively registered. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7268233 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-72682332020-06-07 Comparison of intrathecal morphine with continuous patient-controlled epidural anesthesia versus intrathecal morphine alone for post-cesarean section analgesia: a randomized controlled trial Sato, Izumi Iwasaki, Hajime Luthe, Sarah Kyuragi Iida, Takafumi Kanda, Hirotsugu BMC Anesthesiol Research Article BACKGROUND: Several neuraxial techniques have demonstrated effective post-cesarean section analgesia. According to previous reports, it is likely that patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) without opioids is inferior to intrathecal morphine (IM) alone for post-cesarean section analgesia. However, little is known whether adding PCEA to IM is effective or not. The aim of this study was to compare post-cesarean section analgesia between IM with PCEA and IM alone. METHODS: Fifty patients undergoing elective cesarean section were enrolled in this prospective randomized study. Patients were randomized to one of two groups: IM group and IM + PCEA group. All patients received spinal anesthesia with 12 mg of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine, 10 μg of fentanyl, and 150 μg of morphine. Patients in IM + PCEA group received epidural catheterization through Th11–12 or Th12-L1 before spinal anesthesia and PCEA (basal 0.167% levobupivacaine infusion rate of 6 mL/h, bolus dose of 3 mL in lockout interval of 30 min) was commenced at the end of surgery. A numerical rating scale (NRS) at rest and on movement at 4,8,12,24,48 h after the intrathecal administration of morphine were recorded. In addition, we recorded the incidence of delayed ambulation and the number of patients who requested rescue analgesics. We examined NRS using Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test following repeated measures analysis of variance; p < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients in each group were finally analyzed. Mean NRS at rest was significantly higher in IM group than in IM + PCEA group at 4 (2.7 vs 0.6), 8 (2.2 vs 0.6), and 12 h (2.5 vs 0.7), and NRS during mobilization was significantly higher in IM group than in IM + PCEA group at 4 (4.9 vs 1.5), 8 (4.8 vs 1.9), 12 (4.9 vs 2), and 24 h (5.7 vs 3.5). The number of patients who required rescue analgesics during the first 24 h was significantly higher in IM group compared to IM + PCEA group. No significant difference was observed between the groups in incidence of delayed ambulation. CONCLUSIONS: The combined use of PCEA with IM provided better post-cesarean section analgesia compared to IM alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN-CTR (Registration No. UMIN000032475). Registered 6 May 2018 – Retrospectively registered. BioMed Central 2020-06-03 /pmc/articles/PMC7268233/ /pubmed/32493372 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-020-01050-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Sato, Izumi Iwasaki, Hajime Luthe, Sarah Kyuragi Iida, Takafumi Kanda, Hirotsugu Comparison of intrathecal morphine with continuous patient-controlled epidural anesthesia versus intrathecal morphine alone for post-cesarean section analgesia: a randomized controlled trial |
title | Comparison of intrathecal morphine with continuous patient-controlled epidural anesthesia versus intrathecal morphine alone for post-cesarean section analgesia: a randomized controlled trial |
title_full | Comparison of intrathecal morphine with continuous patient-controlled epidural anesthesia versus intrathecal morphine alone for post-cesarean section analgesia: a randomized controlled trial |
title_fullStr | Comparison of intrathecal morphine with continuous patient-controlled epidural anesthesia versus intrathecal morphine alone for post-cesarean section analgesia: a randomized controlled trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of intrathecal morphine with continuous patient-controlled epidural anesthesia versus intrathecal morphine alone for post-cesarean section analgesia: a randomized controlled trial |
title_short | Comparison of intrathecal morphine with continuous patient-controlled epidural anesthesia versus intrathecal morphine alone for post-cesarean section analgesia: a randomized controlled trial |
title_sort | comparison of intrathecal morphine with continuous patient-controlled epidural anesthesia versus intrathecal morphine alone for post-cesarean section analgesia: a randomized controlled trial |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7268233/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32493372 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-020-01050-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT satoizumi comparisonofintrathecalmorphinewithcontinuouspatientcontrolledepiduralanesthesiaversusintrathecalmorphinealoneforpostcesareansectionanalgesiaarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT iwasakihajime comparisonofintrathecalmorphinewithcontinuouspatientcontrolledepiduralanesthesiaversusintrathecalmorphinealoneforpostcesareansectionanalgesiaarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT luthesarahkyuragi comparisonofintrathecalmorphinewithcontinuouspatientcontrolledepiduralanesthesiaversusintrathecalmorphinealoneforpostcesareansectionanalgesiaarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT iidatakafumi comparisonofintrathecalmorphinewithcontinuouspatientcontrolledepiduralanesthesiaversusintrathecalmorphinealoneforpostcesareansectionanalgesiaarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT kandahirotsugu comparisonofintrathecalmorphinewithcontinuouspatientcontrolledepiduralanesthesiaversusintrathecalmorphinealoneforpostcesareansectionanalgesiaarandomizedcontrolledtrial |