Non-pulmonary complications of intrathecal morphine administration: a systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression

IF 9.1 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
{"title":"Non-pulmonary complications of intrathecal morphine administration: a systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.bja.2024.05.045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Intrathecal morphine provides effective analgesia for a range of operations. However, widespread implementation into clinical practice is hampered by concerns for potential side-effects. We undertook a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression with the primary objective of determining whether a threshold dose for non-pulmonary complications could be defined and whether an association could be established between dose and complication rates when intrathecal morphine is administered for perioperative or obstetric analgesia.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We systematically searched the literature for randomised controlled trials comparing intrathecal morphine <em>vs</em> control in patients undergoing any type of surgery under general or spinal anaesthesia, or women in labour. Primary outcomes were rates of postoperative nausea and vomiting, pruritus, and urinary retention within the first 24 postoperative hours, analysed according to doses (1–100 μg; 101–200 μg; 201–500 μg; &gt;500 μg), type of surgery, and anaesthetic strategy. Trials were excluded if doses were not specified.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Our analysis included 168 trials with 9917 patients. The rates of postoperative nausea and vomiting, pruritus, and urinary retention were significantly increased in the intrathecal morphine group, with an odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of 1.52 (1.29–1.79), <em>P</em>&lt;0.0001; 6.11 (5.25–7.10), <em>P</em>&lt;0.0001; and 1.73 (1.17–2.56), <em>P</em>=0.005, respectively. Meta-regression could not establish an association between dose and rates of non-pulmonary complications. There was no subgroup difference according to surgery for any outcome. The quality of evidence was low (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation [GRADE] system).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Intrathecal morphine significantly increased postoperative nausea and vomiting, pruritus, and urinary retention after surgery or labour in a dose-independent manner.</p></div><div><h3>Systematic review protocol</h3><p>PROSPERO (CRD42023387838).</p></div>","PeriodicalId":9250,"journal":{"name":"British journal of anaesthesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007091224004161/pdfft?md5=38430ed0ca7856bf6e564ea266bc0249&pid=1-s2.0-S0007091224004161-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007091224004161","RegionNum":1,"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

Intrathecal morphine provides effective analgesia for a range of operations. However, widespread implementation into clinical practice is hampered by concerns for potential side-effects. We undertook a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression with the primary objective of determining whether a threshold dose for non-pulmonary complications could be defined and whether an association could be established between dose and complication rates when intrathecal morphine is administered for perioperative or obstetric analgesia.

Methods

We systematically searched the literature for randomised controlled trials comparing intrathecal morphine vs control in patients undergoing any type of surgery under general or spinal anaesthesia, or women in labour. Primary outcomes were rates of postoperative nausea and vomiting, pruritus, and urinary retention within the first 24 postoperative hours, analysed according to doses (1–100 μg; 101–200 μg; 201–500 μg; >500 μg), type of surgery, and anaesthetic strategy. Trials were excluded if doses were not specified.

Results

Our analysis included 168 trials with 9917 patients. The rates of postoperative nausea and vomiting, pruritus, and urinary retention were significantly increased in the intrathecal morphine group, with an odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of 1.52 (1.29–1.79), P<0.0001; 6.11 (5.25–7.10), P<0.0001; and 1.73 (1.17–2.56), P=0.005, respectively. Meta-regression could not establish an association between dose and rates of non-pulmonary complications. There was no subgroup difference according to surgery for any outcome. The quality of evidence was low (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation [GRADE] system).

Conclusions

Intrathecal morphine significantly increased postoperative nausea and vomiting, pruritus, and urinary retention after surgery or labour in a dose-independent manner.

Systematic review protocol

PROSPERO (CRD42023387838).

鞘内注射吗啡的非肺部并发症:系统回顾和荟萃回归分析。
背景:鞘内吗啡可为一系列手术提供有效镇痛。然而,在临床实践中的广泛应用却受到潜在副作用的影响。我们进行了一项系统性回顾、荟萃分析和荟萃回归,主要目的是确定是否可以定义非肺部并发症的阈值剂量,以及在围术期或产科镇痛中使用鞘内吗啡时,是否可以确定剂量与并发症发生率之间的关系:我们系统地检索了相关文献,比较了在全身麻醉或脊髓麻醉下接受任何类型手术的患者或产妇鞘内吗啡与对照组吗啡的随机对照试验。主要结果是术后恶心呕吐、瘙痒和术后24小时内尿潴留的发生率,根据剂量(1-100微克;101-200微克;201-500微克;>500微克)、手术类型和麻醉策略进行分析。如果未说明剂量,则排除试验:我们的分析包括168项试验,共9917名患者。鞘内吗啡组术后恶心呕吐、瘙痒和尿潴留的发生率显著增加,其几率比(95% 置信区间)为 1.52(1.29-1.79),PC 结论:鞘内吗啡组术后恶心呕吐、瘙痒和尿潴留的发生率显著增加,其几率比(95% 置信区间)为 1.52(1.29-1.79):鞘内吗啡会明显增加术后恶心呕吐、瘙痒和尿潴留,且与剂量无关:prospero(CRD42023387838)。
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
CiteScore
13.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
488
审稿时长
27 days
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) is a prestigious publication that covers a wide range of topics in anaesthesia, critical care medicine, pain medicine, and perioperative medicine. It aims to disseminate high-impact original research, spanning fundamental, translational, and clinical sciences, as well as clinical practice, technology, education, and training. Additionally, the journal features review articles, notable case reports, correspondence, and special articles that appeal to a broader audience. The BJA is proudly associated with The Royal College of Anaesthetists, The College of Anaesthesiologists of Ireland, and The Hong Kong College of Anaesthesiologists. This partnership provides members of these esteemed institutions with access to not only the BJA but also its sister publication, BJA Education. It is essential to note that both journals maintain their editorial independence. Overall, the BJA offers a diverse and comprehensive platform for anaesthetists, critical care physicians, pain specialists, and perioperative medicine practitioners to contribute and stay updated with the latest advancements in their respective fields.
×
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