Kendrick W D, Woods A M, Daly M Y, Birch R F, DiFazio C
Department of Anesthesiology, University of Virginia Health Sciences Center, Charlottesville, VA 22908, USA.
Anesth Analg. 1996 Mar;82(3):641-7. doi: 10.1097/00000539-199603000-00037.
This randomized, double-blind study compared the efficacy of two mu-receptor antagonists, naloxone and nalbuphine, in the prophylactic management of pruritus in postcesarean section patients receiving epidural morphine. Dosages of study drugs were individualized by the use of a patient self-administration (PSA) device. All 51 patients were healthy women who received a uniform epidural anesthetic and epidural morphine (5 mg). Coded solutions were infused for 24 h, with 5-min PSA lockout times: Group A (n = 17), nalbuphine 2.5 mg/h, PSA nalbuphine 1 mg; Group B (n = 16), naloxone 50 micrograms/hr, PSA saline; Group C (n = 18), naloxone 50 micrograms/h, PSA naloxone 40 micrograms. Patients were assessed for pruritus and pain every 8 h for 24 h. Both naloxone and nalbuphine provided good relief for pruritus; median pain and pruritus scores were in the none-to-mild range (0-3) for all groups at all assessment intervals. The pruritus scores of the PSA saline group were higher during the 16- to 24-h period (P < 0.05) than the scores of either group receiving A-receptor antagonist by PSA. There was evidence of shortening of the duration of analgesia in patients receiving naloxone who required treatment for pruritus after 16 h. Patients who self-administered large doses of nalbuphine over the first 8 h also reported pain scores consistent with reversal of analgesia. The potency ratio for naloxone:nalbuphine for antagonism of the pruritic effects of epidural morphine was approximately 40:1. Intervention to treat either unrelieved pruritus or pain, respectively, was necessary in the following numbers of patients: Group A, 0/1; Group B, 1/1; Group C, 2/2. Prophylactic infusions offer the potential for labor cost savings by minimizing the need for episodic therapeutic interventions to treat pruritus.
这项随机双盲研究比较了两种μ受体拮抗剂纳洛酮和纳布啡在预防剖宫产术后接受硬膜外吗啡镇痛患者瘙痒方面的疗效。研究药物剂量通过患者自控给药(PSA)装置进行个体化调整。所有51例患者均为健康女性,接受统一的硬膜外麻醉和硬膜外吗啡(5毫克)。编码溶液输注24小时,PSA锁定时间为5分钟:A组(n = 17),纳布啡2.5毫克/小时,PSA纳布啡1毫克;B组(n = 16),纳洛酮50微克/小时,PSA生理盐水;C组(n = 18),纳洛酮50微克/小时,PSA纳洛酮40微克。患者在24小时内每8小时接受一次瘙痒和疼痛评估。纳洛酮和纳布啡对瘙痒均有良好的缓解作用;在所有评估时间段,所有组的中位疼痛和瘙痒评分均在无至轻度范围(0 - 3)。PSA生理盐水组在16至24小时期间的瘙痒评分高于通过PSA接受μ受体拮抗剂治疗的任何一组(P < 0.05)。有证据表明,在16小时后因瘙痒需要治疗的接受纳洛酮的患者中,镇痛持续时间缩短。在最初8小时内自行大量使用纳布啡的患者也报告了与镇痛作用逆转一致的疼痛评分。纳洛酮与纳布啡拮抗硬膜外吗啡瘙痒作用的效价比约为40:1。以下数量的患者分别需要进行干预以治疗未缓解的瘙痒或疼痛:A组,0/1;B组,1/1;C组,2/2。预防性输注通过最大限度减少治疗瘙痒的间歇性治疗干预需求,有可能节省人工成本。