Can immediate opioid requirements in the post-anaesthesia care unit be used to determine analgesic requirements on the ward?

23Citations
Citations of this article
11Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the efficacy of two dosage regimens of (im) morphine calculated from an initial (iv) titrated dose in the early postoperative period. Seventy ASA I-III patients who underwent general anaesthesia (GA) (n = 58), regional anaesthesia (RA) (n = 10) or GA + RA (n = 2) for orthopaedic (n = 54), urological (n = 11) or abdominal surgery (n = 5) received iv titrated morphine in the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU). Titration consisted of 3 mg morphine iv every ten minutes until patients had a visual analogue pain scale (VAS) <3, without marked sedation. Seventeen patients did not complain at all or had good analgesia with an initial iv dose ≤6 mg of morphine followed by paracetamol only. Patients who needed more than 6 mg iv morphine were randomly assigned to a "high-dose" or a "low-dose" group and received a systematic im morphine regimen calculated from the initial titrated dose. Pain was assessed by VAS before each im injection and the next morning. One patient had respiratory depression and one marked sedation in the PACU. These patients were excluded from the rest of the study. Only 16 patients had a VAS >3 at least once during the study period and only three needed rescue analgesia which was available on request. We conclude that a systematic im morphine regimen adapted from an initial iv titration in the PACU provides efficacious and relatively inexpensive postoperative analgesia, applicable to a great majority of patients. © 1995 Canadian Anesthesiologists.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Butscher, K., Mazoit, J. X., & Samii, K. (1995). Can immediate opioid requirements in the post-anaesthesia care unit be used to determine analgesic requirements on the ward? Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia, 42(6), 461–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03011681

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free