Effectiveness and Safety of Hydromorphone Compared to Morphine for Postoperative Analgesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IF 2.6 2区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY Pain physician Pub Date : 2024-11-01
Yihang Li, Xinying Yue, Shuang Liang, Fei Ren, Qulian Guo, Wangyuan Zou
{"title":"Effectiveness and Safety of Hydromorphone Compared to Morphine for Postoperative Analgesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Yihang Li, Xinying Yue, Shuang Liang, Fei Ren, Qulian Guo, Wangyuan Zou","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Because of its side effects, a morphine replacement has been searched for in the field of postoperative analgesia. Hydromorphone is a derivative of morphine with no active metabolites.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We conducted a meta-analysis of hydromorphone and morphine to compare their clinical effects in postoperative analgesia.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Systematic review and meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The methodological quality of the studies included in this meta-analysis was assessed according to the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria were used to evaluate the quality of evidence and recommendation grade for inclusion of randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was postoperative pain score. Secondary outcomes were severe sedation, nausea, vomiting, and pruritus. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre for The Cochrane Collaboration).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight randomized controlled trials comprising 833 patients were found. There was no significant difference in pain scores between the hydromorphone and morphine groups at any measured postoperative time point: 8 hours (mean difference [MD] = -0.42; 95%CI, -2.08 to 1.24; P = 0.62); 12 hours (MD = -0.19; 95%CI, -0.62 to 0.24; P = 0.39); 24 hours (MD = -0.22; 95%CI, -0.54 to 0.09; P = 0.17); 36 hours (MD = 0.01; 95%CI, -0.67 to 0.69; P = 0.98) and 48 hours (MD = -0.14; 95%CI, -1.25 to 0.96; P = 0.80). There was no significant difference in the incidence of nausea and vomiting at 24 hours postoperative. The incidence of pruritus at 24 hours postoperative was lower in the hydromorphone group (relative risk = 0.24; 95%CI, 0.09 to 0.66; P = 0.005).</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>The perioperative multimodal analgesia measures were varying in the included studies, such as different medication doses. The sample size was small for some outcomes and high heterogeneity was observed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There was no significant statistical difference in postoperative analgesic effect between hydromorphone and morphine, as well as side effects, including severe sedation, nausea, and vomiting at 24 hours postoperative. However, the incidence of pruritus was lower in the hydromorphone group at 24 hours postoperative.</p>","PeriodicalId":19841,"journal":{"name":"Pain physician","volume":"27 8","pages":"469-478"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain physician","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Because of its side effects, a morphine replacement has been searched for in the field of postoperative analgesia. Hydromorphone is a derivative of morphine with no active metabolites.

Objectives: We conducted a meta-analysis of hydromorphone and morphine to compare their clinical effects in postoperative analgesia.

Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods: The methodological quality of the studies included in this meta-analysis was assessed according to the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria were used to evaluate the quality of evidence and recommendation grade for inclusion of randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was postoperative pain score. Secondary outcomes were severe sedation, nausea, vomiting, and pruritus. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre for The Cochrane Collaboration).

Results: Eight randomized controlled trials comprising 833 patients were found. There was no significant difference in pain scores between the hydromorphone and morphine groups at any measured postoperative time point: 8 hours (mean difference [MD] = -0.42; 95%CI, -2.08 to 1.24; P = 0.62); 12 hours (MD = -0.19; 95%CI, -0.62 to 0.24; P = 0.39); 24 hours (MD = -0.22; 95%CI, -0.54 to 0.09; P = 0.17); 36 hours (MD = 0.01; 95%CI, -0.67 to 0.69; P = 0.98) and 48 hours (MD = -0.14; 95%CI, -1.25 to 0.96; P = 0.80). There was no significant difference in the incidence of nausea and vomiting at 24 hours postoperative. The incidence of pruritus at 24 hours postoperative was lower in the hydromorphone group (relative risk = 0.24; 95%CI, 0.09 to 0.66; P = 0.005).

Limitations: The perioperative multimodal analgesia measures were varying in the included studies, such as different medication doses. The sample size was small for some outcomes and high heterogeneity was observed.

Conclusions: There was no significant statistical difference in postoperative analgesic effect between hydromorphone and morphine, as well as side effects, including severe sedation, nausea, and vomiting at 24 hours postoperative. However, the incidence of pruritus was lower in the hydromorphone group at 24 hours postoperative.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
与吗啡相比,氢吗啡酮用于术后镇痛的有效性和安全性:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:由于吗啡的副作用,在术后镇痛领域一直在寻找吗啡的替代品。氢吗啡酮是吗啡的衍生物,没有活性代谢物。目的:我们对氢吗啡酮和吗啡进行meta分析,比较它们在术后镇痛中的临床效果。研究设计:系统评价和荟萃分析。方法:根据Cochrane风险偏倚工具对纳入本荟萃分析的研究的方法学质量进行评估。推荐分级评估、发展和评价(GRADE)标准用于评价纳入随机对照试验的证据质量和推荐等级。主要观察指标为术后疼痛评分。次要结局是严重镇静、恶心、呕吐和瘙痒。meta分析使用RevMan 5.4 (Nordic Cochrane Centre for The Cochrane Collaboration)进行。结果:共纳入8项随机对照试验833例患者。在术后8小时的任何测量时间点,氢吗啡酮组和吗啡组的疼痛评分均无显著差异(平均差异[MD] = -0.42;95%CI, -2.08 ~ 1.24;P = 0.62);12小时(MD = -0.19;95%CI, -0.62 ~ 0.24;P = 0.39);24小时(MD = -0.22;95%CI, -0.54 ~ 0.09;P = 0.17);36 h (MD = 0.01);95%CI, -0.67 ~ 0.69;P = 0.98)和48小时(MD = -0.14;95%CI, -1.25 ~ 0.96;P = 0.80)。两组术后24小时恶心呕吐发生率无显著差异。氢吗啡酮组术后24小时瘙痒发生率较低(相对危险度= 0.24;95%CI, 0.09 ~ 0.66;P = 0.005)。局限性:纳入研究的围手术期多模式镇痛措施不同,如不同的用药剂量。一些结果的样本量很小,并且观察到高度异质性。结论:氢吗啡酮与吗啡的术后镇痛效果及术后24小时严重镇静、恶心、呕吐等不良反应均无统计学差异。然而,在术后24小时,氢吗啡酮组瘙痒的发生率较低。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Pain physician
Pain physician CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
21.60%
发文量
234
期刊介绍: Pain Physician Journal is the official publication of the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP). The open access journal is published 6 times a year. Pain Physician Journal is a peer-reviewed, multi-disciplinary, open access journal written by and directed to an audience of interventional pain physicians, clinicians and basic scientists with an interest in interventional pain management and pain medicine. Pain Physician Journal presents the latest studies, research, and information vital to those in the emerging specialty of interventional pain management – and critical to the people they serve.
期刊最新文献
2024 Indices. A 24% Decline in the Utilization of Epidural Procedure Visits for Chronic Spinal Pain Management in the Medicare Population from 2019 to 2022: Updated Analysis of the Effect of Multiple Factors. Association Between Chronotype and Chronic Neuropathic Pain Sensitivity: A Pilot Prospective, Observational, Single-Center, Cross-Sectional Study. Clinical Response to Joint Infiltration With Bone Marrow Aspirate in Hip Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Single-arm Meta-analysis. Comparative Study Between the Analgesic Effect of Prednisolone and Pregabalin in Managing Post Dural Puncture Headache After Lower Limb Surgeries.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1