Hydromorphone Hydrochloride Use During Various Interventional Radiology Procedures-Pain Control and Adverse Events: A Case Series Audit Analysis.

INTRODUCTION

This project studied pain control and the development of adverse events before, during, and after the administration of hydromorphone hydrochloride for various interventional radiology (IR) procedures.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 100 patients (men = 58; women = 42) sedated with peri-procedural intravenous (IV) hydromorphone in association with various IR procedures. We stratified the procedures as follows: abscess drainages (M = 8; F = 8), arteriograms (M = 1; F = 0), biliary interventions (M = 3; F = 2), bone biopsies (M = 2; F = 2), non-bone biopsies (M = 26; F = 19), non-tunneled venous catheters (M = 1; F = 1), tunneled venous catheters (M = 7; F = 5), embolization (M = 4; F = 0), IVC filter placement (M = 1; F = 1), nephrostomy tube placement (M = 1; F = 4), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy tube placements (M = 4; F = 0). We recorded the pre-, intra-, and post-procedure pain scores [numeric rating scale (NRS) with 0 = no pain to 10 = most pain] for each of the stratifications. We also recorded the total dose of hydromorphone and midazolam hydrochloride received by each gender, as well as whether any men or women received either naloxone hydrochloride or any antiemetic. Lastly, the investigators recorded the development of hypotension following hydromorphone administration and/or hypoxia as well as the need for opioid-induced intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The investigators used unpaired, two-tailed t tests, and either Yates-corrected Chi-squares or two-tailed Fisher's exact tests for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. The difference was statistically significant if p < 0.05.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference between men and women for either mean age (M = 50 years; F = 53.4 years) or mean pre-procedural pain scores (M = 1.31; F = 0.55). There was no statistically significant difference in numbers of men or women for each procedure stratification. The highest mean pre-procedure pain score was in men undergoing percutaneous nephrostomy tube placement (mean 5, SD 0). The highest mean intra-procedure pain score was in men undergoing abscess drainages (mean 2, SD 2.3). The highest mean post-procedure pain score was in men undergoing abscess drainages (mean 1.5, SD 3.5). The only mean scores that were significantly different between men and women were in pre- (M = 2.5; F = 0.6; p = 0.006) and intra-procedural (M = 2; F = 0.5; p = 0.0001) pain scores for abscess drainages. There was no statistically significant difference in the dose of either hydromorphone (M = 1.3; F = 1.3) or midazolam (M = 1.3; F = 1.3) administered. There was no statistically significant difference in opioid-induced nausea (M = 1; F = 3). One female experienced hypotension and one male experienced hypoxia within 6 h of hydromorphone administration. There were neither opioid-related ICU admissions nor naloxone administrations.

CONCLUSIONS

This preliminary study indicates that IV hydromorphone ± midazolam may be a safe and effective analgesic and sedative combination for adult patients undergoing IR procedures.