Randomized clinical trial of morphine in acute abdominal pain

Montefiore Medical Center, New York, New York, United States
Annals of emergency medicine (Impact Factor: 4.33). 09/2006; 48(2):150-60, 160.e1-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2005.11.020
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Administration of analgesia to patients with acute abdominal pain is controversial. We test the hypothesis that morphine given to emergency department (ED) patients with acute abdominal pain will reduce discomfort and improve clinically important diagnostic accuracy.
Pain was measured with a standard 0- to 100-mm visual analog scale. ED patients with acute abdominal pain were randomized in a double-blind fashion to 0.1 mg/kg intravenous morphine or placebo. The primary endpoint was the difference between the 2 study arms in clinically important diagnostic accuracy. Clinically important diagnostic accuracy was defined a priori by its complement, clinically important diagnostic error, using 2 independent, blinded investigators to identify any discordance between the provisional and final diagnoses that might adversely affect the patient's health status. The provisional diagnosis was provided by an ED attending physician, who examined the patient only once, 15 minutes after administration of the study agent. The final diagnosis was obtained through follow-up at least 6 weeks after the index ED visit.
We randomized 160 patients, of whom 153 patients were available for analysis, 78 patients in the morphine group and 75 patients in the placebo group. Baseline features were similar in both groups, including initial median visual analog scale scores of 98 mm and 99 mm. The median decrease in visual analog scale score at 15 minutes was 33 mm in the morphine group and 2 mm in the placebo group. There were 11 instances of diagnostic discordance in each group, for a clinically important diagnostic accuracy of 86% (67/78) in the morphine group and 85% (64/75) in the placebo group. The difference in clinically important diagnostic accuracy between the 2 groups was 1% (95% confidence interval [CI] -11% to 12%). Analysis by efficacy and intention to treat yielded similar results. Kappa for interobserver concordance in classification of clinically important diagnostic accuracy was 0.94 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.00). No patients required naloxone.
Although administration of intravenous morphine to adult ED patients with acute abdominal pain could lead to as much as a 12% difference in diagnostic accuracy, equally favoring opioid or placebo, our data are most consistent with the inference that morphine safely provides analgesia without impairing clinically important diagnostic accuracy.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Bauchschmerzen sind ein häufiges Leitsymptom in der Notaufnahme mit einem breiten differenzialdiagnostischen Spektrum. Es gilt, akut lebensbedrohliche Ursachen innerhalb kürzester Zeit zu identifizieren und der entsprechenden medikamentös-konservativen oder interventionellen Therapie zuzuführen. Der vorgestellte diagnostische Algorithmus beginnt bereits bei Erstkontakt in der Notaufnahme mit der Triage. Vor dem Diagnosestandard steht der interdisziplinäre Dialog mit dem daraus resultierenden diagnostischen Auftrag mit vertiefter Anamnese und Untersuchung des Patienten. Der Behandlungsstandard wird durch den jeweiligen Stellenwert der diagnostischen Möglichkeiten bestimmt. Eine weiterführende Bildgebung oder Interventionen können erst nach der fachärztlichen Würdigung der Befunde eingeleitet werden. Trotz differenzierter Diagnostik bleiben etwa 30% der Bauchschmerzen ätiologisch unklar. In diesen Fällen kann eine Verlaufsbeobachtung auf einer der Notaufnahme angegliederten bettenführenden Station sinnvoll sein, um eine sichere Diagnosestellung zu ermöglich, die dann auch eine gezielte Weiterbehandlung ambulant, stationär oder im Operationssaal ermöglicht.
    02/2013; 108(1). DOI:10.1007/s00063-012-0172-4
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The safety of early analgesia in patients suspected to have acute appendicitis (AA) is still controversial. Double blind randomized clinical trials comparing patients receiving or not receiving opiates for early analgesia in suspected AA were selected for meta- analysis according to PRISMA guidelines. Primary outcomes were the number of patients with AA confirmed by histology and the number of patients undergoing surgical intervention. Secondary outcomes were missed diagnoses, false positive AA and complication rate. Effect sizes were calculated using a Mantel-Haenszel fixed effects model. Previously published papers mostly analyzed surrogate end-points such as physician's confidence about the diagnosis or the alteration of clinical signs, subjective parameters dependent on personal perception. Our article focused on clinical outcome and specifically investigated those potentially related to AA instead of unspecified abdominal pain. Opiate administration did not have an impact on the number of histologically proven AA (OR = 1.196 [0.875 - 1.635]; P = 0.261). Differences in appendectomy rates were only slightly above the threshold for statistical significance (OR = 1.350 [0.966 - 1.887]; P = 0.079), suggesting that analgesia might influence the treatment approach. On the other hand missed diagnoses (OR = 0.509 [0.087 - 2.990]; P = 0.455) and false positive AA (OR = 1.071 [0.596 - 1.923]; P = 0.818) ascertained by histologic examination were unaffected, so diagnostic accuracy was retained. Safety was not compromised by opiates, as the difference in complication rates did not reach statistical significance (OR = 0.615 [0.217 - 1.748]; P = 0.372). Early analgesia with opiates in suspected AA might influence the approach to treatment, but does not appear to alter diagnostic accuracy or surgical outcome. To support our findings, further trials on larger sample sizes from different age groups and both genders are needed.
    International Journal of Surgery (London, England) 08/2013; 11(9). DOI:10.1016/j.ijsu.2013.08.005 · 1.65 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Appropriate pain therapy prior to diagnosis in patients with acute abdominal pain remains controversial. Several recent studies have demonstrated that pain therapy does not negatively influence either the diagnosis or subsequent treatment of these patients; however, current practice patterns continue to favour withholding pain medication prior to diagnosis and surgical treatment decision. A systematic review of PubMed, Web-of-Science and The-Cochrane-Library from 1929 to 2011 was carried out using the key words of 'acute', 'abdomen', 'pain', 'emergency' as well as different pain drugs in use, revealed 84 papers. The results of the literature review were incorporated into six sections to describe management of acute abdominal pain: (1) Physiology of Pain; (2) Common Aetiologies of Abdominal Pain; (3) Pre-diagnostic Analgesia; (4) Pain Therapy for Acute Abdominal Pain; (5) Analgesia for Acute Abdominal Pain in Special Patient Populations; and (6) Ethical and Medico-legal Considerations in Current Analgesia Practices. A comprehensive algorithm for analgesia for acute abdominal pain in the general adult population was developed. A review of the literature of common aetiologies and management of acute abdominal pain in the general adult population and special patient populations seen in the emergency room revealed that intravenous administration of paracetamol, dipyrone or piritramide are currently the analgesics of choice in this clinical setting. Combinations of non-opioids and opioids should be administered in patients with moderate, severe or extreme pain, adjusting the treatment on the basis of repeated pain assessment, which improves overall pain management.
    European journal of pain (London, England) 08/2014; 18(7). DOI:10.1002/j.1532-2149.2014.00456.x · 3.22 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Aug 14, 2014