Morphine and its metabolites after patient-controlled analgesia: Considerations for respiratory depression

Department of Anesthesia, Stanford University, H3580, 300 Pasteur Dr, Stanford, CA 94305-5640, USA.
Journal of clinical anesthesia (Impact Factor: 1.19). 03/2011; 23(2):102-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2010.08.002
Source: PubMed


To assess concentrations of morphine and its metabolites after patient-controlled analgesia (PCA).
Pilot pharmacokinetic study of morphine and pharmacokinetic simulation.
Post-anesthesia care room and ward of an academic teaching hospital.
10 ASA physical status I, II, and III postoperative surgical patients.
Patients received morphine via PCA by routine hospital protocols.
The population mean plasma and effect-site concentrations of morphine, morphine-6-glucuronide (M6G), and morphine-3-glucuronide (M3G) was simulated in 4 patient group scenarios: morphine PCA used alone, morphine PCA used with continuous background morphine infusion of 0.5 mg/hr, morphine PCA used with continuous background morphine infusion of 1.0 mg/hr, and morphine PCA used with continuous background morphine infusion of 2.0 mg/hr.
The 4 groups exhibited simulated peak morphine, M6G, and M3G effect-site concentrations at 8 to 24 hours post-infusion. The highest peak morphine, M6G, and M3G effect-site concentrations decreased in the following order by group: 2.0 mg/hr morphine infusion + PCA group, 1.0 mg/hr morphine infusion + PCA group, and 0.5. mg/hr morphine infusion + PCA group.
Patients receiving morphine PCA should be monitored closely from 8 to 24 hours postoperatively. Morphine PCA given with background infusion rates up to 1.0 mg/hr does not offer distinct pharmacokinetic advantages over morphine PCA alone. Morphine PCA with background infusion rate of 2.0 mg/hr is associated with the greatest risk of respiratory depression.

Download full-text


Available from: David R Drover, Feb 11, 2015
  • Source
    • "Most of the previous studies that assessed the safety and efficacy of postoperative IV-PCA with background infusion were conducted in morphine-based regimens.13,14,15, 16 Morphine has been the most widely used opioid in IV-PCA for a long time, and several studies showed evidence of safe and effective background infusion rates of morphine.9,10,17,18 On the other hand, little is known about appropriate background infusion rates of fentanyl when used in postoperative IV-PCA. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This analysis was done to investigate the optimal regimen for fentanyl-based intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) by finding a safe and effective background infusion rate and assessing the effect of adding adjuvant drugs to the PCA regimen. Background infusion rate of fentanyl, type of adjuvant analgesic and/or antiemetic that was added to the IV-PCA, and patients that required rescue analgesics and/or antiemetics were retrospectively reviewed in 1827 patients who underwent laparoscopic abdominal surgery at a single tertiary hospital. Upon multivariate analysis, lower background infusion rates, younger age, and IV-PCA without adjuvant analgesics were identified as independent risk factors of rescue analgesic administration. Higher background infusion rates, female gender, and IV-PCA without additional 5HT₃ receptor blockers were identified as risk factors of rescue antiemetics administration. A background infusion rate of 0.38 μg/kg/hr [area under the curve (AUC) 0.638] or lower required rescue analgesics in general, whereas, addition of adjuvant analgesics decreased the rate to 0.37 μg/kg/hr (AUC 0.712) or lower. A background infusion rate of 0.36 μg/kg/hr (AUC 0.638) or higher was found to require rescue antiemetics in general, whereas, mixing antiemetics with IV-PCA increased the rate to 0.37 μg/kg/hr (AUC 0.651) or higher. Background infusion rates of fentanyl between 0.12 and 0.67 μg/kg/hr may safely be used without any serious side effects for IV-PCA. In order to approach the most reasonable background infusion rate for effective analgesia without increasing postoperative nausea and vomiting, adding an adjuvant analgesic and an antiemetic should always be considered.
    Yonsei medical journal 05/2014; 55(3):800-6. DOI:10.3349/ymj.2014.55.3.800 · 1.29 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Decreased analgesia observed following enteral absorption is due to first-pass metabolism that is absent following parenteral delivery. Hepatic metabolism results in morphine-3-glucuronide and morphine-6-glucuronide, and these metabolites are renally excreted.49 Analgesia is a consequence of μ opioid receptor agonism centrally and peripherally.48,50 "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Treating chronic pain in the context of opioid misuse can be very challenging. This paper explores the epidemiology and potential treatments for chronic pain and opioid misuse and identifies educational and regulation changes that may reduce diversion of opioid analgesics. We cover the epidemiology of chronic pain and aberrant opioid behaviors, psychosocial influences on pain, pharmacological treatments, psychological treatments, and social treatments, as well as educational and regulatory efforts being made to reduce the diversion of prescription opioids. There are a number of ongoing challenges in treating chronic pain and opioid misuse, and more research is needed to provide strong, integrated, and empirically validated treatments to reduce opioid misuse in the context of chronic pain.
    08/2011; 2:145-162. DOI:10.2147/SAR.S12944
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: As the complexity of analgesic therapies increases, priorities of care must be established to balance aggressive pain management with measures to prevent or minimize adverse events and to ensure high quality and safe care. Opioid analgesia remains the primary pharmacologic intervention for managing pain in hospitalized patients. Unintended advancing sedation and respiratory depression are two of the most serious opioid-related adverse events. Multiple factors, including opioid dosage, route of administration, duration of therapy, patient-specific factors, and desired goals of therapy, can influence the occurrence of these adverse events. Furthermore, there is an urgent need to educate all members of the health care team about the dangers and potential attributes of administration of sedating medications concomitant with opioid analgesia and the importance of initiating rational multimodal analgesic plans to help avoid adverse events. Nurses play an important role in: 1) identifying patients at risk for unintended advancing sedation and respiratory depression from opioid therapy; 2) implementing plans of care to assess and monitor patients; and 3) intervening to prevent the worsening of adverse events. Despite the frequency of opioid-induced sedation, there are no universally accepted guidelines to direct effective and safe assessment and monitoring practices for patients receiving opioid analgesia. Moreover, there is a paucity of information and no consensus about the benefits of technology-supported monitoring, such as pulse oximetry (measuring oxygen saturation) and capnography (measuring end-tidal carbon dioxide), in hospitalized patients receiving opioids for pain therapy. To date, there have not been any randomized clinical trials to establish the value of technologic monitoring in preventing adverse respiratory events. Additionally, the use of technology-supported monitoring is costly, with far-reaching implications for hospital and nursing practices. As a result, there are considerable variations in screening for risk and monitoring practices. All of these factors prompted the American Society for Pain Management Nursing to approve the formation of an expert consensus panel to examine the scientific basis and state of practice for assessment and monitoring practices for adult hospitalized patients receiving opioid analgesics for pain control and to propose recommendations for patient care, education, and systems-level changes that promote quality care and patient safety.
    Pain management nursing: official journal of the American Society of Pain Management Nurses 09/2011; 12(3):118-145.e10. DOI:10.1016/j.pmn.2011.06.008 · 1.53 Impact Factor
Show more