Impact of Neuraxial Preservative-Free Morphine in Vaginal Delivery on Opiate Consumption and Recovery: A Randomized Control Trial.

IF 4.6 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Daniel Katz, Benjamin Hyers, Saher Siddiqui, Yuxia Ouyang, Joshua Hamburger, Nakiyah Knibbs, Yaakov Beilin
{"title":"Impact of Neuraxial Preservative-Free Morphine in Vaginal Delivery on Opiate Consumption and Recovery: A Randomized Control Trial.","authors":"Daniel Katz, Benjamin Hyers, Saher Siddiqui, Yuxia Ouyang, Joshua Hamburger, Nakiyah Knibbs, Yaakov Beilin","doi":"10.1213/ANE.0000000000006987","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Neuraxial opioids are commonly used after cesarean delivery (CD). However, they are not commonly used after vaginal delivery (VD) though some studies have suggested they may be beneficial from a pain perspective. However, they did not evaluate other potential benefits including patient satisfaction, impact on postpartum depression and breastfeeding (BF) success, or side effects such as pruritus.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Parturients who delivered vaginally with epidural analgesia were randomized to receive either 2 mg of preservative-free morphine (4 mL) or saline (4 mL) via the epidural catheter within 1 hour of VD. Routine analgesics were unchanged and included q 6-hour dosing of acetaminophen 975 mg orally and ketorolac 30 mg intravenous (IV). Hydromorphone 2 mg or oxycodone 10 mg were offered for breakthrough pain. Our primary outcome was opiate consumption in the first 24 hours after drug administration. Secondary outcomes included pain scores at 24 hours and 1 week postpartum as well as opiate consumption up to 1 week postpartum. Additional end points such as obstetric quality of recovery score (OBS-QOR10) breast feeding success, and an Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Score (EPDS) were also obtained.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data were analyzed for 157 parturients, 80 in the morphine group and 77 in the saline group. No difference was observed in the EDPS score predelivery or intention to BF. We found a statistically significant difference in the use of opioids in the first 24 hours, 3.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9%-11.3%) vs 14.3% (7.7%-24.5%) in the morphine and saline groups, respectively; and in total opioid dose, median (interquartile range, IQR [range]) of morphine milligram equivalent vs 0 (0-0 [0-47.5]) vs 0 (0-0 [0-72]), P = .023, in the morphine and saline groups, respectively. Verbal pain scores (0-10) at 24 hours were lower in the morphine group (median (IQR [range): 2.0 (1-4 [0-10]) vs 3.0 (1.5-5.0 [0-10]), P = .043. There was a greater incidence of pruritus in the morphine group versus saline group, 37.5% (95% CI, 27.1%-49.1%) vs 18.2% (95% CI, 10.6%-29.0%), P = .008. We did not find any differences in the OBS-QOR10, BF success, or EPDS at 6 weeks PP ( P < .05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A single epidural dose of 2 mg preservative-free morphine after VD was effective at decreasing pain and opioid use at 24 hours after VD but came at the cost of increased pruritus. We did not detect any differences in BF, recovery scores, or PPD. Future studies should focus on elucidating the role of neuraxial preservative-free morphine after VD.</p>","PeriodicalId":7784,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesia and analgesia","volume":" ","pages":"1063-1070"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesia and analgesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000006987","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Neuraxial opioids are commonly used after cesarean delivery (CD). However, they are not commonly used after vaginal delivery (VD) though some studies have suggested they may be beneficial from a pain perspective. However, they did not evaluate other potential benefits including patient satisfaction, impact on postpartum depression and breastfeeding (BF) success, or side effects such as pruritus.

Methods: Parturients who delivered vaginally with epidural analgesia were randomized to receive either 2 mg of preservative-free morphine (4 mL) or saline (4 mL) via the epidural catheter within 1 hour of VD. Routine analgesics were unchanged and included q 6-hour dosing of acetaminophen 975 mg orally and ketorolac 30 mg intravenous (IV). Hydromorphone 2 mg or oxycodone 10 mg were offered for breakthrough pain. Our primary outcome was opiate consumption in the first 24 hours after drug administration. Secondary outcomes included pain scores at 24 hours and 1 week postpartum as well as opiate consumption up to 1 week postpartum. Additional end points such as obstetric quality of recovery score (OBS-QOR10) breast feeding success, and an Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Score (EPDS) were also obtained.

Results: Data were analyzed for 157 parturients, 80 in the morphine group and 77 in the saline group. No difference was observed in the EDPS score predelivery or intention to BF. We found a statistically significant difference in the use of opioids in the first 24 hours, 3.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9%-11.3%) vs 14.3% (7.7%-24.5%) in the morphine and saline groups, respectively; and in total opioid dose, median (interquartile range, IQR [range]) of morphine milligram equivalent vs 0 (0-0 [0-47.5]) vs 0 (0-0 [0-72]), P = .023, in the morphine and saline groups, respectively. Verbal pain scores (0-10) at 24 hours were lower in the morphine group (median (IQR [range): 2.0 (1-4 [0-10]) vs 3.0 (1.5-5.0 [0-10]), P = .043. There was a greater incidence of pruritus in the morphine group versus saline group, 37.5% (95% CI, 27.1%-49.1%) vs 18.2% (95% CI, 10.6%-29.0%), P = .008. We did not find any differences in the OBS-QOR10, BF success, or EPDS at 6 weeks PP ( P < .05).

Conclusions: A single epidural dose of 2 mg preservative-free morphine after VD was effective at decreasing pain and opioid use at 24 hours after VD but came at the cost of increased pruritus. We did not detect any differences in BF, recovery scores, or PPD. Future studies should focus on elucidating the role of neuraxial preservative-free morphine after VD.

经阴道分娩的无防腐剂吗啡对阿片类药物消耗和恢复的影响:随机对照试验。
背景:神经阿片类药物通常在剖宫产(CD)后使用。然而,阴道分娩(VD)后并不常用阿片类药物,尽管一些研究表明阿片类药物可能对疼痛有益。然而,这些研究并未评估其他潜在的益处,包括患者满意度、对产后抑郁和母乳喂养(BF)成功率的影响,以及瘙痒等副作用:方法:经阴道分娩并使用硬膜外镇痛的产妇被随机分配到在VD 1小时内通过硬膜外导管接受2毫克不含防腐剂的吗啡(4毫升)或生理盐水(4毫升)。常规镇痛药不变,包括每 6 小时口服对乙酰氨基酚 975 毫克和静脉注射酮咯酸 30 毫克。突破性疼痛时可服用氢吗啡酮 2 毫克或羟考酮 10 毫克。我们的主要结果是用药后 24 小时内的阿片类药物消耗量。次要结果包括 24 小时和产后 1 周内的疼痛评分以及产后 1 周内的阿片类药物消耗量。此外,还获得了产科恢复质量评分(OBS-QOR10)、母乳喂养成功率和爱丁堡产后抑郁评分(EPDS)等其他终点:分析了 157 名产妇的数据,其中吗啡组 80 人,生理盐水组 77 人。分娩前的 EDPS 评分和分娩意愿均无差异。我们发现在头 24 小时内使用阿片类药物的差异有统计学意义,吗啡组为 3.8%(95% 置信区间 [CI],0.9%-11.3%),生理盐水组为 14.3%(7.7%-24.5%)。吗啡组和生理盐水组的阿片类药物总剂量、吗啡毫克当量中位数(四分位数间距,IQR [范围])vs 0 (0-0 [0-47.5]) vs 0 (0-0 [0-72]),P = .023。吗啡组在 24 小时内的口头疼痛评分(0-10 分)较低(中位数(IQR [范围]:2.0(1-4 [0-10]) vs 3.0(1.5-5.0 [0-10]),P = .043。吗啡组与生理盐水组相比,瘙痒发生率更高,分别为 37.5%(95% CI,27.1%-49.1%) vs 18.2%(95% CI,10.6%-29.0%),P = .008。我们在6周PP的OBS-QOR10、BF成功率或EPDS方面未发现任何差异(P < .05):VD后单次硬膜外注射2毫克不含防腐剂的吗啡可有效减少VD后24小时的疼痛和阿片类药物的使用,但代价是瘙痒加剧。我们没有发现 BF、恢复评分或 PPD 有任何差异。未来的研究应侧重于阐明神经阻滞术后不含防腐剂吗啡的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Anesthesia and analgesia
Anesthesia and analgesia 医学-麻醉学
CiteScore
9.90
自引率
7.00%
发文量
817
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Anesthesia & Analgesia exists for the benefit of patients under the care of health care professionals engaged in the disciplines broadly related to anesthesiology, perioperative medicine, critical care medicine, and pain medicine. The Journal furthers the care of these patients by reporting the fundamental advances in the science of these clinical disciplines and by documenting the clinical, laboratory, and administrative advances that guide therapy. Anesthesia & Analgesia seeks a balance between definitive clinical and management investigations and outstanding basic scientific reports. The Journal welcomes original manuscripts containing rigorous design and analysis, even if unusual in their approach.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信