Comparaison prospective et randomisée de la morphine nébulisée versus la péridurale thoracique dans la prise en charge de la douleur des traumatisés thoraciques

Predictive factors of nebulized morphine failure in North-African patients with chest trauma: a prospective pilot study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the predictive factors of nebulized morphine (MOR) failure in patients with chest trauma.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This was an interventional clinical study. Patients admitted with isolated chest trauma with a pain visual analog score > 4 were included. Each patient received 10 mg nebulized MOR. If pain was still > 4 after 10 minutes of nebulization, the latter was repeated every 10 minutes until pain was relieved (i.e. ≤ 4). If pain was > 4 at 30 minutes, nebulized MOR was considered a failure. Patients were divided into two groups: MOR (+) and MOR (-) (good response to and nebulized MOR failure, respectively).

RESULTS

Seventy-five patients were included. Analysis of the risk factors revealed that road traffic accidents (relative risk (RR): 0.117 [0.031-0.443]; p=0.002), number of fractured ribs > 4 (RR: 0.317 [0.092-0.543]; p=0.006), bilateral injury (RR: 0.114 [0.037-0.349]; p<0.001), flail chest (RR: 0.120 [0.037-0.386]; p<0.001), hemothorax (RR: 0.203 [0.062-0.660]; p=0.008), pulmonary contusion (RR: 0.202 [0.069-0.589]; p=0.003), and pain at admission > 7 (RR: 0.363 [0.147-0.579]; p=0.004) were predictors of nebulized MOR failure.

CONCLUSION

Our results can help optimize the analgesic management of chest trauma patients by identifying the most eligible patients to benefit from nebulized MOR.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

: www.clinicaltrials.gov identifier is NCT03580187.

Inhaled opioids for cancer pain relief: A narrative review

Despite the many new possibilities, cancer pain treatment is not always effective and often poses a challenge for practitioners. At the end-of-life care, both oral and subcutaneous drug delivery very often are not attainable. The increasing number of patients in terminal stage of chronic diseases forced us to look for the alternative ways of administration of pain treatment. In this context, the potentially rapid onset of action and ease of use make aerosolized drug delivery an attractive option in palliative care settings. The objective of this review was to identify literature on pain relief with inhaled opioids. The evidence suggests that nebulized opioids might be effective in the treatment of pain in various aetiologies; however, randomized controlled studies on nebulization therapy for cancer pain are lacking.

Nebulized versus intravenous morphine titration for the initial treatment of severe acute pain in the emergency department: study protocol for a multicenter, prospective randomized and controlled trial, CLIN-AEROMORPH

BACKGROUND

Intravenous morphine titration (IVMT) is the French gold standard for opioid treatment in the emergency department (ED). Nebulized morphine titration (NMT) may represent an alternative without venous access, but it has not been adequately studied in adults. We test the hypothesis that NMT is at least as effective as IVMT to initially manage severe acute pain in the ED.

METHODS/DESIGN

We designed a multicenter (10 French EDs), single-blind, randomized and controlled trial. Adults between 18 and 75 years with visual analog scale (VAS) ≥ 70/100 or numeric rating scale (NRS) ≥ 7/10 will be enrolled. We will randomize 850 patients into two groups to compare two routes of MT as long as VAS >  30 or NRS >  3. In group A (425), patients will receive an initial NMT for 5-25 min associated with titration of an intravenously (IV) administered placebo of physiologic serum (PS). In group B (425), patients will receive IVMT plus nebulized PS placebo. NMT is defined as a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 3 5-min nebulized boluses of 10 mg or 15 mg (weight ≥ 60 kg), at 10-min fixed intervals. IVMT is defined as a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 6 boluses of 2 mg or 3 mg (weight ≥ 60 kg), at 5-min fixed intervals. Nebulized placebo titration will be performed every 10 min. IV titration of PS will be performed every 5 min. In both groups, after 25 min, if VAS > 30/100 or NRS > 3/10, routine IVMT will be continued until pain relief. Pain severity, vital signs, bronchospasm, and Ramsay score will be recorded every 5 min. The primary outcome is the rate of relief obtained 1 h from the start of drug administration. Complete pain relief in both groups will be compared with a non-inferiority design. Secondary outcomes are pain relief at 30 min (the end of NMT) and at 2 h and median pain relief. We will compare final doses, and study the feasibility and tolerance of NMT (protocol deviations, respiratory or hemodynamic depression, sedation, and minor vegetative side effects). Co-analgesia will be recorded. Discharge criteria from the ED and hospital are defined.

DISCUSSION

This trial is the first multicenter randomized and controlled NMT protocol for severe pain in the ED using the titration concept. We propose an original approach of combined titration with an endpoint at 1 h and a non-inferiority design.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03257319 . Registered on 22 August 2017.

Epidural analgesia in patients with traumatic rib fractures: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Traumatic rib fractures are a common condition associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Observational studies have suggested improved outcome in patients receiving continuous epidural analgesia (CEA). The aim of the present systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was to assess the benefit and harm of CEA compared with other analgesic interventions in patients with traumatic rib fractures.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA). Eligible trials were RCTs comparing CEA with other analgesic interventions in patients with traumatic rib fractures. Cumulative relative risks (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated, and risk of systematic and random errors was assessed. The predefined primary outcome measures were mortality, pneumonia and duration of mechanical ventilation.

RESULTS

A total of six trials (n = 223) were included; all were judged as having a high risk of bias. In the conventional meta-analyses, there was no statistically significant difference in mortality (RR 2.18, 95% CI 0.21-22.42; P = 0.51; I(2)  = 0%), duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -7.53, 95% CI -16.32 to 1.26; P = 0.09; I(2)  = 91%) or pneumonia (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.19-1.25; P = 0.13; I(2)  = 0%) between CEA and other analgesic interventions. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses, including TSA confirmed the results.

CONCLUSION

The quality and quantity of evidence for the use of CEA in patients with traumatic rib fractures is low, and there is no firm evidence for benefit or harm of CEA compared with other analgesic interventions. Well-powered RCTs with low risk of bias reporting clinically relevant patient-centred outcome measures are needed.

Efficacy and safety of nebulized morphine given at 2 different doses compared to IV titrated morphine in trauma pain

BACKGROUND

Our aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous (IV) titrated morphine with nebulized morphine given at 2 different doses in severe traumatic pain.

METHODS

In a prospective, randomized, controlled double-blind study, we included 300 patients with severe traumatic pain. They were assigned to 3 groups: Neb10 group received 1 nebulization of 10-mg morphine; Neb20 group received 1 nebulization of 20-mg morphine, repeated every 10 minutes with a maximum of 3 nebulizations; and the IV morphine group received 2-mg IV morphine repeated every 5 minutes until pain relief. Visual analog scale was monitored at baseline, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 60 minutes after the start of drug administration. Treatment success was defined by the percentage of patients in whom visual analog scale decreased greater than or equal to 50% of its baseline value. When this end point was not reached, rescue morphine was administered. Pain resolution time was defined by the elapsed time between the start of the protocol and the reach of treatment success criteria.

RESULTS

Success rate was significantly better at 97% (95% confidence interval [CI], 93-100) for Neb20 group compared to Neb10 group (81% [95% CI, 73-89]) and IV morphine group (79% [95% CI, 67-84]). The lowest resolution time was observed in Neb20 group (20 minutes [95% CI, 18-21]). Side effects were minor and significantly lower in both nebulization groups compared to IV morphine group.

CONCLUSIONS

Nebulized morphine using boluses of 10 mg has similar efficacy and better safety than IV titrated morphine in patients with severe posttraumatic pain. Increasing nebulized boluses to 20 mg increases the effectiveness without increasing side effects.

Alternative routes to oral opioid administration in palliative care: a review and clinical summary

OBJECTIVE

A major goal of palliative care is to provide comfort, and pain is one of the most common causes of treatable suffering in patients with advanced disease. Opioids are indispensable for pain management in palliative care and can usually be provided by the oral route, which is safe, effective, and of lowest cost in most cases. As patients near the end of life, however, the need for alternate routes of medication increases with up to 70% of patients requiring a nonoral route for opioid administration. In order to optimize patient care, it is imperative that clinicians understand existing available options of opioid administration and their respective advantages and disadvantages.

METHODS

We performed a literature review to describe the most commonly used and available routes that can substitute for oral opioid therapy and to provide a summary of factors affecting choice of opioid for use in palliative care in terms of benefits, indications, cautions, and general considerations.

RESULTS

Clinical circumstances will largely dictate appropriateness of the route selected. When the oral route is unavailable, subcutaneous, intravenous, and enteral routes are preferred in the palliative care population. The evidence supporting sublingual, buccal, rectal, and transdermal gel routes is mixed.

CONCLUSIONS

This review is not designed to be a critical appraisal of the quality of current evidence; rather, it is a summation of that evidence and of current clinical practices regarding alternate routes of opioid administration. In doing so, the overarching goal of this review is to support more informed clinical decision making.