Richlin D M, Reuben S S
Department of Anesthesiology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY 10029.
J Clin Anesth. 1991 Mar-Apr;3(2):112-6. doi: 10.1016/0952-8180(91)90007-a.
To describe a technique for the use of methadone during and following lower abdominal surgery that integrates its pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties with the objective of postoperative analgesia; to compare methadone with morphine for postoperative pain control.
Randomized prospective clinical trial. Patients were not told which agent they received (single-blind).
Department of anesthesia and gynecology surgical service at a university medical center.
Forty women undergoing abdominal hysterectomy (n = 39) or myomectomy (n = 1).
Patients received either methadone (Group 1) or morphine (Group 2) 20 mg intravenously (IV) following induction of anesthesia, additional IV opioid in the recovery room, and subsequent opioid as needed (PRN) intramuscularly (IM) on the postsurgical wards.
Pain was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS). Respiratory rate, sedation, and hemodynamics were assessed frequently (at least every 4 hours). Patients were studied for 72 hours following recovery room discharge. Patients required less methadone than morphine in the recovery room (2.0 +/- 2.9 mg vs 4.4 +/- 2.9 mg). Patients requested less methadone than morphine for pain relief on the wards (4.5 +/- 4.2 mg vs 42.3 +/- 14.3 mg). Patients in the methadone group reported lower pain intensity by VAS (1.9 +/- 0.3 vs 3.4 +/- 0.6). These differences are statistically significant (p less than 0.01).
Sustained analgesia with methadone is predicted by its pharmacokinetics. Patients who received 22 +/- 2.9 mg of IV methadone (combined intraoperative and recovery room doses) reported less pain and required minimal additional analgesic over the next 72 hours than did patients who received morphine. This is consistent with sustained therapeutic plasma levels due to methadone's long plasma half-life (54 +/- 20 hours). Use of methadone in this manner is an effective therapy for postoperative pain control and is not associated with toxicity or notable side effects.
描述一种在下腹部手术期间及术后使用美沙酮的技术,该技术将美沙酮的药代动力学和药效学特性与术后镇痛目标相结合;比较美沙酮与吗啡用于术后疼痛控制的效果。
随机前瞻性临床试验。患者未被告知所接受的药物(单盲)。
一所大学医学中心的麻醉科和妇科手术科室。
40名接受腹部子宫切除术(n = 39)或子宫肌瘤切除术(n = 1)的女性。
麻醉诱导后,患者静脉注射20毫克美沙酮(第1组)或吗啡(第2组),在恢复室给予额外的静脉阿片类药物,并在术后病房根据需要肌内注射后续阿片类药物(按需)。
使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)评估疼痛。频繁评估呼吸频率、镇静程度和血流动力学(至少每4小时一次)。患者在恢复室出院后接受72小时的研究。恢复室中患者所需的美沙酮比吗啡少(2.0±2.9毫克对4.4±2.9毫克)。病房中患者因疼痛缓解所需的美沙酮比吗啡少(4.5±4.2毫克对42.3±14.3毫克)。美沙酮组患者通过VAS报告的疼痛强度较低(1.9±0.3对3.4±0.6)。这些差异具有统计学意义(p小于0.01)。
美沙酮的药代动力学可预测其持续镇痛效果。接受22±2.9毫克静脉美沙酮(术中及恢复室联合剂量)的患者比接受吗啡的患者报告的疼痛更少,且在接下来的72小时内所需的额外镇痛药物最少。这与美沙酮较长的血浆半衰期(54±20小时)导致的持续治疗血浆水平一致。以这种方式使用美沙酮是一种有效的术后疼痛控制疗法,且与毒性或明显副作用无关。