Prophylactic Intravenous Ondansetron and Dolasetron in Intrathecal Morphine-Induced Pruritus: A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Study

Department of Surgery II, Democritus University of Thrace, Komotina, East Macedonia and Thrace, Greece
Anesthesia & Analgesia (Impact Factor: 3.47). 11/2005; 101(5):1516-20. DOI: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000181338.35454.6A
Source: PubMed


Pruritus is the most common side effect of intrathecal morphine for postoperative pain relief. Activation of central 5-hydroxytryptamine subtype 3 (5-HT3) receptors is one of its possible mechanisms. The role of 5-HT3 antagonists in the prevention of pruritus has not been clearly established. In a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, we evaluated the efficacy of prophylactic administration of ondansetron and dolasetron for the prevention of intrathecal morphine-induced pruritus. The patients were randomized into 3 groups to receive either 4 mg ondansetron IV (group O, n = 35), 12.5 mg dolasetron IV (group D, n = 35) or 5 mL placebo (group P, n = 35) 30 min before administration of spinal anesthesia with 10 to 17.5 mg of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine and 0.25 mg of morphine for urologic, orthopedic, or vascular surgery. Patients were evaluated for incidence and severity of pruritus at arrival to the postanesthesia care unit and at 2, 4, 8, and 24 h postoperatively. The incidence and severity of pruritus was significantly less frequent in the ondansetron and dolasetron groups compared with placebo (34%, 20%, and 66% respectively, P < 0.01). Patients who received 5-HT3 antagonist reported significantly less total severity of pruritus compared with placebo during the first 8 h and the severe pruritus was observed only in patients within P group (P group: 4 of 35; 11%, O or D group: 0 of 35; 0%, P < 0.05). We conclude that the prophylactic use of ondansetron and dolasetron helps to reduce the incidence and severity of intrathecal morphine-induced pruritus.

Download full-text


Available from: George Vretzakis
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Neuraxial drug administration describes techniques that deliver drugs in close proximity to the spinal cord, i.e. intrathecally into the CSF or epidurally into the fatty tissues surrounding the dura, by injection or infusion. This approach was initially developed in the form of spinal anaesthesia over 100 years ago. Since then, neuraxial drug administration has evolved and now includes a wide range of techniques to administer a large number of different drugs to provide anaesthesia, but also analgesia and treatment of spasticity in a variety of acute and chronic settings. This review concentrates on the pharmacological agents used and the clinical basis behind currently utilised approaches to neuraxial drug administration. With regard to local anaesthetics, the main focus is on the development of the enantiomer-specific compounds ropivacaine and levobupivacaine, which provide similar efficacy to bupivacaine with a reduced risk of severe cardiotoxicity. Opioids are the other group of drugs widely used neuraxially, in particular to provide analgesia alone or more commonly in combination with other agents. The physicochemical properties of the various opioids explain the main differences in efficacy and safety between these drugs when used intrathecally, of which morphine, fentanyl and sufentanil are most commonly used. Another group of drugs including clonidine, dexmedetomidine and epinephrine (adrenaline) provide neuraxial analgesia via alpha-adrenergic receptors and are used mainly as adjuvants to local anaesthetics and opioids. Furthermore, intrathecal baclofen is in routine clinical use to treat spasticity in a number of neurological conditions. Beside these established approaches, a wide range of other drugs have been assessed for neuraxial administration to provide analgesia; however, most are in various early stages of investigation and are not used routinely. These drugs include neostigmine, ketamine, midazolam and adenosine, and the conotoxin ziconotide. The latter is possibly the most unusual compound here; it has recently gained registration for intrathecal use in specific chronic pain conditions.
    No preview · Article · Feb 2006 · CNS Drugs
  • Source

    Preview · Article · Oct 2006 · BJA British Journal of Anaesthesia
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This investigation evaluated the efficacy of nalbuphine in treating postoperative opioid-induced pruritus (Pr) in pediatric patients. After Ethics Board approval, the dual site, tertiary care teaching centre study recruited 212 subjects, age > or = seven years, who received opioid analgesia postoperatively. A modified, self-report colour analogue scale (CAS) scored pruritus intensity (PrI). Subjects who reported PrI score > or = 5/10 were randomized to treatment with nalbuphine 50 microg x kg(-1) iv (max 5 mg) or saline placebo. A pruritus intensity difference (PrID) > or = 50% was considered a positive outcome. Of 260 subjects approached, 212 consented and 184 received opioids. Median age was 13 yr (range 7-19) and median weight was 51 kg (range 19.6-134.8 kg). Pruritus intensity > or = 5/10 occurred in 37 (20.1%) subjects. Intravenous morphine [patient-controlled analgesia (PCA)/continuous infusion] was associated with Pr in 68% of subjects over a wide dose range (9.4-63.2 Pruritus occurred in 36% of patients in the PCA group compared to continuous opioid infusion (27%) and epidural administration (27%). Pruritus intensity difference > or = 50% was achieved in 55.6% of nalbuphine and 57.9% of saline-treated subjects. This preliminary report suggests that nalbuphine 50 microg x kg(-1) iv is not effective in treating postoperative opioid-induced pruritus in pediatric patients. The modified CAS score and PrID warrant further investigation.
    Full-text · Article · Nov 2006 · Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia
Show more