Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 330 Brookline Avenue, Boston, MA 02215, USA.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011 Oct 15;184(8):920-7. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201101-0005OC. Epub 2011 Jul 21.
Opioids are commonly used to relieve dyspnea, but clinical data are mixed and practice varies widely.
Evaluate the effect of morphine on dyspnea and ventilatory drive under well-controlled laboratory conditions.
Six healthy volunteers received morphine (0.07 mg/kg) and placebo intravenously on separate days (randomized, blinded). We measured two responses to a CO(2) stimulus: (1) perceptual response (breathing discomfort; described by subjects as "air hunger") induced by increasing partial pressure of end-tidal carbon dioxide (Pet(CO2)) during restricted ventilation, measured with a visual analog scale (range, "neutral" to "intolerable"); and (2) ventilatory response, measured in separate trials during unrestricted breathing.
We determined the Pet(CO2) that produced a 60% breathing discomfort rating in each subject before morphine (median, 8.5 mm Hg above resting Pet(CO2)). At the same Pet(CO2) after morphine administration, median breathing discomfort was reduced by 65% of its pretreatment value; P < 0.001. Ventilation fell 28% at the same Pet(CO2); P < 0.01. The effect of morphine on breathing discomfort was not significantly correlated with the effect on ventilatory response. Placebo had no effect.
(1) A moderate morphine dose produced substantial relief of laboratory dyspnea, with a smaller reduction of ventilation. (2) In contrast to an earlier laboratory model of breathing effort, this laboratory model of air hunger established a highly significant treatment effect consistent in magnitude with clinical studies of opioids. Laboratory studies require fewer subjects and enable physiological measurements that are difficult to make in a clinical setting. Within-subject comparison of the response to carefully controlled laboratory stimuli can be an efficient means to optimize treatments before clinical trials.
阿片类药物常用于缓解呼吸困难,但临床数据不一,实践差异很大。
在严格控制的实验室条件下,评估吗啡对呼吸困难和通气驱动的影响。
6 名健康志愿者分别在 2 天内接受吗啡(0.07mg/kg)和安慰剂静脉注射(随机、盲法)。我们测量了两种对 CO2 刺激的反应:(1)在限制通气时通过增加呼气末二氧化碳分压(PetCO2)引起的知觉反应(呼吸困难;由受试者描述为“空气饥饿”),用视觉模拟量表(范围从“中性”到“无法忍受”)来衡量;(2)在不受限制的呼吸期间分别测量通气反应。
我们确定了每位受试者在接受吗啡之前产生 60%呼吸困难评分的 PetCO2(中位数为静息 PetCO2 以上 8.5mmHg)。在接受吗啡后,同一 PetCO2 时,呼吸困难的中位数降低了其预处理值的 65%;P<0.001。通气在同一 PetCO2 下下降了 28%;P<0.01。吗啡对呼吸困难的影响与对通气反应的影响无显著相关性。安慰剂无作用。
(1)中等剂量吗啡可显著缓解实验室呼吸困难,同时通气减少较少。(2)与早期的呼吸努力实验室模型不同,这种空气饥饿的实验室模型建立了一个与阿片类药物临床研究相一致的、具有显著治疗效果的模型,其效果与临床研究相当。实验室研究需要较少的受试者,并能进行临床环境中难以进行的生理测量。在临床试验之前,对精心控制的实验室刺激的反应进行个体内比较可能是优化治疗的有效方法。