Nalbuphine versus propofol for treatment of intrathecal morphine-induced pruritus after cesarean delivery.

In this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study, we compared the efficacy of nalbuphine and propofol for treating intrathecal morphine-induced pruritus after cesarean delivery. One-hundred-eighty-one parturients who developed moderate to severe pruritus after the administration of intrathecal morphine were randomly allocated into two groups. One group received 3 mg IV nalbuphine (n = 91), and the other received 20 mg IV propofol (n = 90). The improvement of pruritus and other adverse effects was determined at 10 min after study drug administration. The treatment success rate was higher in the Nalbuphine group than in the Propofol group (83% vs 61%; P < 0.001). Among the successfully treated patients, recurrence rates of moderate to severe pruritus within 4 h were not significantly different (nalbuphine 9% versus propofol 7%; P = 0.76). Other side effects, such as decreased analgesia, increased nausea, vomiting, increased sedation, pain on injection, and dizziness, were not significantly different between groups. Sedation and pain on injection, which were the two most common side effects, were minor and clinically inconsequential. Implications: Nalbuphine was superior to propofol for the treatment of intrathecal morphine-induced pruritus after cesarean delivery.     

Efficacy of intrathecal morphine with epidural ropivacaine infusion for postcesarean analgesia

Study ObjectiveTo evaluate the analgesia following cesarean delivery and the frequency of side effects of intrathecal morphine when combined with a continuous epidural infusion.DesignRandomized, double-blinded study.SettingUniversity hospital.Patients76 ASA physical status I and II term parturients undergoing cesarean delivery with combined spinal-epidural anesthesia.InterventionsPatients were randomized to one of three groups to receive 0, 50, or 100 μg (Group 0, Group 50, and Group 100, respectively) intrathecal morphine in addition to 8 mg of hyperbaric bupivacaine. Each patient received a continuous epidural infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine at the rate of 6 mL/hr.Measurements24-hour visual analog pain scores (VAPS), number of patients who requested rescue analgesics, frequency of requests for rescue analgesics per patient, and time interval before the first request for rescue analgesics were recorded. Frequency of pruritus and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) were also recorded.Main ResultsGroup 50 and Group 100 patients exhibited lower VAPS and longer time intervals before the first request for rescue analgesics, and they requested rescue analgesics less frequently than Group 0 patients. The frequency of pruritus was significantly higher in Group 100 than Group 0. The groups did not differ with regard to PONV.Conclusions50 μg and 100 μg of intrathecal morphine improve analgesia when combined with a continuous epidural infusion of 0.2% ropivacaine (6 mL/hr) after cesarean delivery. 50 μg of intrathecal morphine is associated with a low frequency of side effects such as pruritus and PONV.     

Ondansetron for treatment of intrathecal morphine-induced pruritus after cesarean delivery

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Pruritus induced by intrathecal morphine is a concern in many obstetric patients after cesarean delivery and may detract from the benefit of postoperative pain relief. This study was performed to investigate the efficacy of ondansetron (5-HT3 receptor antagonist) in treatment of pruritus following intrathecal morphine. METHODS: Eighty parturients developing moderate to severe pruritus following intrathecal morphine were randomly allocated into 2 groups. One group received 4 mg ondansetron while the other group received placebo (normal saline). The improvement of pruritus and other adverse effects such as pain scores, nausea, vomiting, sedation, hallucination, and respiratory depression were determined at 30 minutes after study drugs' administration. RESULTS: The treatment success rate was higher in the ondansetron group than in the placebo group (80% v 36%, P < .001). Among the successfully treated patients, the recurrence rates of moderate to severe pruritus within 4 hours after administration of ondansetron and placebo were 12% and 70%, respectively (P < .001). The number of patients with decreased nausea and vomiting score was also higher in the ondansetron group (11 v 1, P < .006). CONCLUSION: Ondansetron treats intrathecal morphine-induced pruritus after cesarean delivery, particularly in patients suffering from both nausea/vomiting and pruritus.     

A randomized, double-blinded comparison of intrathecal morphine, sufentanil and their combination versus IV morphine patient-controlled analgesia for postthoracotomy pain

We compared the analgesic effect of lumbar intrathecal (IT) 0.5 mg morphine (Group M, n = 10), 50 microg sufentanil (Group S, n = 10), and their combination (Group S-M, n = 10) given before general anesthesia and patient-controlled analgesia with IV morphine (Group C, n = 19) in a randomized, double-blinded study performed in patients undergoing thoracotomy. Pain visual analog scale (VAS) and morphine consumption were assessed for 24 h. In Group S-M the number of patients initially titrated with IV morphine was less than in group C (30 vs 84%, P < 0.05). Morphine requirement was higher in Group C (71 +/- 30 mg) than in Groups S (46 +/- 34 mg, P < 0.05), M (38 +/- 31 mg, P < 0.05) and S-M (23 +/- 16 mg, P < 0.01). VAS scores were significantly decreased during the first 0-11 postoperative h at rest and during the first 0-8 postoperative h on coughing in Groups M and S-M rather than in Group C. The incidence of side effects was infrequent except for urinary retention. Preoperative IT morphine or combined sufentanil and morphine could be given as a booster to achieve rapidly effective analgesia in the immediate postoperative period. Implications: As compared with IV patient-controlled analgesia, intrathecal morphine or combined sufentanil and morphine provided superior postoperative pain relief both at rest (11 h) and on coughing (8 h) than did IV patient-controlled analgesia morphine alone. IV morphine requirement was decreased during the first postoperative day after posterolateral thoracotomy.     

Prophylactic intravenous ondansetron reduces the incidence of intrathecal morphine-induced pruritus in patients undergoing cesarean delivery

Pruritus is a common side effect of intrathecal morphine injection for postoperative pain control. Its incidence is especially high in patients undergoing cesarean delivery. We investigated the effectiveness of ondansetron in preventing intrathecal morphine-induced pruritus in such patients. We included 60 consecutive nonbreastfeeding women who were scheduled for elective cesarean delivery. After the administration of spinal anesthesia with bupivacaine and intrathecal morphine 0.15 mg injection, the patients were randomly divided into three groups. Group 1 received placebo (normal saline) IV injection, Group 2 diphenhydramine 30 mg IV injection, and Group 3 ondansetron 0.1 mg/kg IV injection. The incidence of pruritus was significantly lower in the ondansetron group (25%) when compared with that in the placebo group (85%) and in the diphenhydramine group (80%) (both P < 0.05). The postoperative pain score and time to flatus passage were not significantly different among the three groups. There were no headache or extrapyramidal signs associated with ondansetron use. In conclusion, ondansetron prophylaxis significantly reduced the incidence of intrathecal morphine-induced pruritus in patients undergoing cesarean delivery. IMPLICATIONS: Ondansetron prophylaxis significantly decreases the incidence of pruritus, a common side effect of intrathecal morphine used to treat postcesarean delivery pain.     

Intrathecal morphine in anesthesia for cesarean delivery: dose-response relationship for combinations of low-dose intrathecal morphine and spinal bupivacaine

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the quality of analgesia and the severity of side effects of intrathecal morphine administered for a dose range of 0.0 to 0.4 mg for postcesarean analgesia with low-dose bupivacaine. DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized study. SETTING: University hospital. PATIENTS: 100 ASA physical status I and II term parturients undergoing cesarean delivery with spinal anesthesia in the operating room. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to one of 5 groups to receive 0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, or 0.4 mg intrathecal morphine in addition to low-dose (7.5 mg) heavy bupivacaine. Each patient received intravenous (IV) patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with morphine after the operation. MEASUREMENTS: 24-hour IV PCA morphine use and visual analog scores for pain were recorded. The severity score (4-point scale) of nausea, vomiting, and pruritus were assessed intraoperatively and at 4-hour intervals during the first 24 hours postoperatively. MAIN RESULTS: PCA morphine use was higher in the control group (0.0 mg) than in groups receiving 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, or 0.4 mg intrathecal morphine. There was no difference in IV PCA morphine use between the 0.1 and 0.4-mg groups, despite a 4-fold increase in intrathecal morphine dose. There was no difference between groups in nausea and vomiting, but pruritus increased in direct proportion to the dose of intrathecal morphine (linear regression, P = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The dose of 0.1 mg intrathecal morphine produces analgesia comparable with doses as high as 0.4 mg, with significantly less pruritus when combined with low-dose bupivacaine.     

Comparison of 0.25 mg and 0.1 mg intrathecal morphine for analgesia after Cesarean section

PURPOSE: To test the hypothesis that 0.1 mg intrathecal morphine plus NSAIDs provides satisfactory analgesia post-Cesarean section with fewer side effects than 0.25 mg intrathecal morphine. METHODS: Sixty women, scheduled for elective Cesarean section under spinal anesthesia, were randomized to receive either 0.1 mg or 0.25 mg intrathecal morphine combined with hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.75% and 20 microg fentanyl. All patients received a 100 mg indomethacin suppository at the end of surgery and 500 mg naproxen p.o. b.i.d. was started the evening of surgery and continued until discharge. A blinded researcher recorded the pain, pruritus, and nausea scores, the time to first request for additional analgesics, a visual analogue scale (VAS) satisfaction score, and the use of additional opioids, antipruritics, and/or antiemetics. RESULTS: Of the 60 patients enrolled, two were not included in the data analysis because of protocol violations leaving 30 patients in the 0.1 mg group and 28 in the 0.25 mg group. There were no differences in the VAS pain scores or the number of women requesting an opioid other than codeine between the two groups. The VAS pruritus scores in the 0.1 mg group were lower throughout the 24 hr (P < 0.001). Fewer women in the 0.1 mg group (4/30 vs 12/28) requested nalbuphine to treat itching (P = 0.018). Nausea scores were lower in the 0.1 mg group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The use of 0.1 mg intrathecal morphine plus NSAIDs provides analgesia of similar quality to 0.25 mg but with fewer undesirable side effects following Cesarean section.     

Minidose lidocaine-fentanyl spinal anesthesia in ambulatory surgery: prophylactic nalbuphine versus nalbuphine plus droperidol

Minidose lidocaine-fentanyl spinal anesthesia (SAB(MLF)) is a safe, effective, and efficient anesthetic for ambulatory surgery. Unfortunately, it has a frequent incidence of pruritus and a substantial incidence of nausea and vomiting. Nalbuphine is effective in treating or preventing pruritus after intrathecal or epidural morphine but may or may not have a beneficial effect on nausea and vomiting. Droperidol has demonstrated antiemetic efficacy with neuraxial opiates. In this study, we examined the prophylactic use of nalbuphine alone compared with nalbuphine with droperidol after SAB(MLF). One-hundred-twenty-four patients having outpatient knee arthroscopy under SAB(MLF) with 20 mg of lidocaine 0.5% and 20 micro g of fentanyl were randomized to receive IV at the end of surgery either 4 mg of nalbuphine (Group N) or droperidol 0.625 mg plus nalbuphine 4 mg (Group ND). The incidences of early (before discharge) and late onset nausea were, respectively, 18% versus 5% and 32% versus 13%. The postoperative incidences of pruritus were 61% versus 40%, whereas 19% of patients in Group N compared with 2% of patients in Group ND requested treatment for this. Group ND had lower pain scores and had a longer delay until first use of analgesic. There were no differences in average times to discharge. The only side effect of the medications was an increased drowsiness in Group ND. In conclusion, as prophylactic medication for use in conjunction with SAB(MLF), the addition of droperidol 0.625 mg to nalbuphine 4 mg was superior to nalbuphine alone. The combination provided for reduced postoperative nausea, pruritus, and pain-benefits that persisted after discharge home. The combination also avoided isolated cases of extreme delay in discharge. IMPLICATIONS: Droperidol in combination with nalbuphine enhances analgesia and is more effective than nalbuphine alone in preventing pruritus, nausea, and vomiting after minidose lidocaine-fentanyl spinal anesthesia.     

Prophylactic oral naltrexone with intrathecal morphine for cesarean section: effects on adverse reactions and analgesia

The influence of two different doses of oral naltrexone on the adverse effects and the analgesia associated with intrathecal morphine was compared in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Thirty-five patients undergoing cesarean section were provided postoperative analgesia by 0.25 mg intrathecal morphine. Sixty minutes later they were given 6 mg naltrexone, 3 mg naltrexone, or placebo as an oral solution. Pain relief was assessed by the Visual Analog Scale. Requirements for additional analgesics and side effects were recorded. Duration of analgesia was shorter in the 3- and 6-mg naltrexone groups than in the placebo group, 10.0 +/- 2.6, 12.4 +/- 2.6, and 19.2 +/- 4.5 h (mean +/- SEM), respectively, but values did not reach statistical significance. The incidence of pruritus and vomiting was significantly less in the 6-mg naltrexone group than in the other two groups (P less than 0.05). Somnolence was significantly less in the 3- and 6-mg naltrexone groups than in the placebo group (P less than 0.05). Naltrexone (6 mg) is an effective oral prophylactic against the pruritus and vomiting associated with intrathecal morphine for analgesia after cesarean section, but it is associated with shorter duration of analgesia.     

Low dose intrathecal morphine and pain relief following caesarean section

Healthy women who underwent caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia were studied to determine the extent of postoperative analgesia and side-effects produced by low doses of intrathecal morphine. Patients were randomly allocated to receive, in double-blind fashion, 0 mg (group 1: control group), 0.05 mg (group 2), 0.1 mg (group 3), or 0.2 mg (group 4) of morphine, with 10 mg tetracaine in 10% dextrose 2.5 ml. (n = 20 x 4 groups). The effect of intrathecal morphine was examined in terms of the duration until the first supplemental analgesic was needed and the numbers of the doses within the first postoperative 48 h. Pain relief was significantly greater in groups 3 and 4 than in group 1. The incidence of nausea, vomiting and pruritus increased in a dose-dependent manner. No patient developed respiratory depression. Our results suggest that postoperative analgesia lasts more than 24 h with 0.1 mg or 0.2 mg of intrathecal morphine. Since the incidence of side-effects was higher at 0.2 mg, 0.1 mg may be the optimum dose for caesarean section.     

Optimization of the dose of intrathecal morphine in total hip surgery: a dose-finding study

We designed this study to determine the optimal intrathecal dose of morphine in total hip surgery. The optimal intrathecal dose was defined as that providing effective analgesia and minimal side effects 24 h after total hip surgery. Patients (n = 143) scheduled for total hip surgery were randomized to four double-blinded groups with a standardized bupivacaine dose but different doses of intrathecal morphine (Group I = 0.025 mg, Group II = 0.05 mg, Group III = 0.1 mg, and Group IV = 0.2 mg). Pain scores, i.v. morphine intake (patient-controlled analgesia), and morphine-related side effects (respiratory depression, postoperative nausea and vomiting, itching, urinary retention) were recorded for 24 h after surgery. Excellent postoperative pain relief was present in all groups. The highest pain scores were found in Group I. The mean use of systemic morphine administered by patient-controlled analgesia infusion pump was 23.7, 17.8, 10.9, and 9.9 mg in Groups I-IV, respectively (P < 0.01 for Groups III and IV versus Group I). We conclude that 0.1 mg of intrathecal morphine is the optimal dose for pain relief after hip surgery with minimal side effects. Implications: Earlier studies showed excellent postoperative pain relief after intrathecal morphine. However, the severity of side effects resulted in decreased enthusiasm for this anesthesia technique. In the present study, we show that an intrathecal dose of 0.1 mg of morphine can be used safely in total hip surgery with excellent postoperative pain relief.     

Nalbuphine versus ondansetron for prevention of intrathecal morphine-induced pruritus after cesarean delivery

In this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study, we compared the prophylactic efficacy of nalbuphine and ondansetron for the prevention of intrathecal morphine-induced pruritus after cesarean delivery. Two-hundred-forty parturients were randomly allocated into four groups. The N-4 group, O-4 group, O-8 group, and placebo group received IV 4 mg of nalbuphine, 4 mg of ondansetron, 8 mg of ondansetron, and 4 mL of normal saline, respectively, immediately after the baby was delivered. In the postanesthesia care unit, we found that the severity of pruritus score in the four groups was significantly different (P < 0.001). The prophylactic success rate for pruritus of the N-4, O-4, O-8, and placebo groups was 20%, 13%, 12%, and 6%, respectively (P < 0.001). The pruritus score between N-4 and placebo and O-4 and placebo was significantly different (P < 0.001 and P = 0.006, respectively). Treatment for pruritus was requested by patients in 25%, 47%, 51%, and 72% of patients in the N-4, O-4, O-8, and placebo groups, respectively (P < 0.001). There were no differences among groups in nausea/vomiting score, pain score, sedation score, or shivering score at 4, 8, and 24 h after surgery. Nalbuphine and ondansetron are more effective than placebo for the prevention of intrathecal morphine-induced pruritus after cesarean delivery. IMPLICATIONS: Nalbuphine and ondansetron are more effective than placebo for the prevention of intrathecal morphine-induced pruritus after cesarean delivery.     

Onset and offset of intrathecal morphine versus nalbuphine for postoperative pain relief after total hip replacement

BACKGROUND: We designed this study to compare the postoperative analgesic effects of intrathecal morphine and nalbuphine, the endpoints being onset and offset of action. METHODS: Geriatric patients scheduled for elective total hip replacement under continuous spinal anaesthesia were randomized to two double-blinded groups in the recovery room as soon as they experienced a pain score higher than 3 cm on the visual analogue scale (VAS, 0-10 cm). Either 160 microg morphine or 400 microg nalbuphine in 4 ml normal saline were administered intrathecally. Pain scores on VAS, rescue analgesia (diclofenac and morphine, not allowed during the first 60 min), and the adverse effects (respiratory depression, postoperative nausea and vomiting, itching) were recorded for 24 h after surgery. RESULTS: The study was stopped after inclusion of 2 x 12 patients due to slow onset of analgesia in the morphine patients. In the nalbuphine group, when compared to the morphine group, the time to a pain score <3 cm (8+/-6 vs. 31+/-32 min, P<0.001), the time to the lowest pain score (18+/-11 vs. 66+/-75 min, P<0.001) and the time to the first systemic analgesic intervention for a pain score >3 cm (218+/-256 vs. 1076+/-440 min, P<0.05) were significantly shorter. The analgesic requirements during the first 24 h were significantly lower in the morphine group (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: We conclude that after total hip replacement, administration of intrathecal nalbuphine resulted in a significantly faster onset of pain relief and shorter duration of analgesia than intrathecal morphine.     

The effect of intrathecal epinephrine on epidural infused analgesics during labor

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In order to prolong labor analgesia, one may add intrathecal epinephrine to the combination of bupivacaine and fentanyl. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that the addition of intrathecal epinephrine would lessen the requirement for a rescue dose of epidural analgesia during labor. METHODS: One hundred-eight parturients randomly received intrathecal bupivacaine 2.5 mg and fentanyl 25 microgram with epinephrine 100 microgram (Group BFE) or without (Group BF). Analgesia was assessed by visual analogue pain score (VAPS) 15 and 30 minutes after drug administration. Then, epidural analgesia (0.1% bupivacaine with 0.0002% fentanyl and 1:250,000 epinephrine at 10 mL/h) was initiated. If the patient requested additional analgesia and VAPS was over 30 mm, we added 8 mL epidural bupivacaine 0.125%. The requirement for additional analgesia, the incidence of motor block assessed by a modified Bromage score, hypotension, nausea, and pruritus was noted. RESULTS: Except for 3 parturients in Group BF, satisfactory analgesia was achieved in all parturients 30 minutes after intrathecal drug administration. Following 30 minutes of intrathecal drug administration, VAPSs (mean +/- SD) were 0 +/- 4 mm in Group BFE and 4 +/- 11 mm in Group BF. The number of patients who required additional labor analgesia in Group BFE (11 patients, 20%) was significantly less than in Group BF (26 patients, 48%) (P =.003). The incidence of motor block 30 minutes after spinal analgesia in Group BFE (12 patients, 22%) was significantly higher than in Group BF (3 patients, 6%) (P =.024). Nausea and pruritus were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: The addition of epinephrine to intrathecal bupivacaine-fentanyl lessened the requirement for additional epidural analgesia without increasing hypotension, nausea, or pruritus. However, the incidence of motor block may be increased without labor prolongation.     

A double-blinded,randomized comparison of intrathecal and epidural morphine for elective cesarean delivery

We randomized 150 parturients into a double-blinded trial to receive intrathecal (IT) 100 microg (IT 100 group) or 200 microg (IT 200 group) or epidural 3 mg (Epidural group) of morphine for elective cesarean delivery with a combined spinal/epidural technique. The patients additionally received ketoprofen 300 mg/d. Postoperative pain relief and side effects were registered every 3 h up to 24 h, and all patients were interviewed on the first postoperative day. Pain control was equally good, but the parturients in the IT 100 group requested rescue analgesics more often compared with the other groups (P < 0.05). Itching was a common complaint and was reported by 74% of the parturients in the Epidural group and 65% and 91% in the IT 100 and IT 200 groups, respectively (P < 0.01). Medication for itching was requested by 44%, 24%, and 45% of the patients, respectively (P < 0.05). There was no difference in postoperative nausea or vomiting. The pain relief was perceived as good by >90% of the patients in all groups. In conclusion, because of the decreased incidence of and lesser requirements of medication for itching, IT morphine 100 microg with ketoprofen is recommended in cesarean deliveries. Rescue analgesics nevertheless need to be prescribed. IMPLICATIONS: Spinal morphine is an effective analgesic after cesarean delivery, but it has several side effects. The purpose of this study was to compare the prevalence of side effects and the level of analgesia of epidural morphine with two different doses of spinal morphine after elective cesarean delivery. Although rescue analgesics may be required, intrathecal morphine 100 microg is suggested for postoperative analgesia after cesarean delivery.     

Combined use of intrathecal morphine and diclofenac suppository for postoperative analgesia after caesarean section

BACKGROUND: Intrathecal morphine for postoperative analgesia after caesarean section has been used in Europe and North America, but its use is not common in Japan. METHODS: We randomized 40 parturients to two groups, given either intrathecal saline (control group) or intrathecal morphine 0.05 mg (morphine group) for caesarean section. To both groups, we gave a diclofenac suppository 50 mg every 8 hours after surgery. RESULTS: The area under curve for the visual analogue scale for pain during 24 hours after operation was significantly lower (P < 0.01) in the morphine group than the control group. In addition, the parturients who required pentazocine as a rescue analgesia was significantly fewer in the morphine group (5 parturients) than the control group (11 parturients). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the Apgar score of infants, pH in umbilical cord arterial and venous blood and the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. The incidence of pruritus was significantly higher in the morphine group (11 parturients) than the control group (no parturient). CONCLUSIONS: Intrathecal morphine 0.05 mg and diclofenac suppository 50 mg given every 8 hours produced effective postoperative analgesia with minimum side effects after caesarean section.     

Premedication with low dose oral clonidine does not enhance postoperative analgesia of intrathecal morphine

PURPOSE: A number of studies have demonstrated that perioperative intravenous, intrathecal, and epidural clonidine enhance postoperative analgesia. The results of previous studies on the usefulness of oral clonidine on enhancing postoperative analgesia have been mixed. The effect of a single preoperative dose of oral clonidine on postoperative analgesia was assessed in this study. METHODS: Forty-three male patients undergoing radical prostectomy were randomized to receive either 3 microg x kg(-1) clonidine or placebo po 90 min prior to surgery. All patients received isobaric 15 mg bupivacaine and intrathecal 5 microg x kg morphine, followed by a standardized general anesthetic, consisting of thiopental, sufentanil, rocuronium, isoflurane, oxygen and air. Postoperatively, PCA morphine use and visual analogue pain scores were recorded for the first 48 hr. The incidence and severity of side effects such as sedation, nausea, and pruritus were assessed, as well as patient satisfaction. Usage of PCA morphine was compared. RESULTS: There was no difference in total morphine requirements between the placebo and oral clonidine groups, nor in six hourly morphine usage (P = 0.96). Second, there was no difference in visual analogue pain scores, or the incidence of side effects. Patient satisfaction was high in both groups and again, no differences between groups was noted. CONCLUSIONS: Oral clonidine 3 microg x kg(-1) as a premedication does not prolong the effect of intrathecal morphine: there was no difference in PCA morphine requirements (P = 0.96). Clonidine did not effect the incidence or severity of nausea or pruritus.     

Treatment of intrathecal morphine-induced pruritus following Caesarean section

Purpose

To compare both the efficacy and cost of nalbuphine and diphenhydramine in the treatment of intrathecal morphine-induced pruritus following Caesarean section.

Methods

Eighty patients, undergoing elective Caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia, were randomized, in a prospective, double-blind trial, to receive either nalbuphine (Group NAL) or diphenhydramine (Group DIP) for the treatment of SAB morphine-induced pruritus. All patients received an intrathecal injection of 10–12 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine 0.75% and 200 μg preservative free morphine. Postoperative pruritus was assessed, using a visual analogue scale (VAS), for 24 hr. Pruritus treatment was administered upon patient request and by a nurse blinded to the treatment given. Patients who failed to respond to three doses of the study drug were deemed treatment failures. Patient satisfaction was assessed with a questionnaire given 24 to 48 hr after surgery. Direct drug costs were calculated based on the pharmacy provision costs as of April 1996.

Results

Eighty patients were enrolled and 45 requested treatment for pruritus. Patients treated with NAL (n = 24) were more likely to achieve a VAS score of zero with treatment (83% vs 43%, P < 0.01), had a higher ΔVAS following treatment (4 ± 2 vs 2 ± 2, P < 0.003), and experienced fewer treatment failures (4% vs 29%, P < 0.04), than those treated with DIP (n = 21). Group NAL patients were also more likely to rate their pruritus treatment as being good to excellent (96% vs 57%, P < 0.004). Direct drug costs were higher for NAL than for DIP ($6.4 ± 3.1 vs $ 1.7 ± 0.7, respectively, P < 0.0001).

Conclusion

Nalbuphine is more effective than diphenhydramine in relieving pruritus caused by intrathecal morphine and the cost differences are small.     

Prophylactic ondansetron is effective in the treatment of nausea and vomiting but not on pruritus after cesarean delivery with intrathecal sufentanil-morphine

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and efficacy of ondansetron for prevention of pruritus, nausea and vomiting after cesarean delivery with intrathecal sufentanil-morphine. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. SETTING: Referral center, institutional practice. PATIENTS: 100 nonbreastfeeding women undergoing elective cesarean delivery with sufentanil-morphine-bupivacaine anesthesia. INTERVENTIONS: After the umbilical cord was clamped, patients in Group 1 received ondansetron 8 mg intravenously (IV) and patients in Group 2 received placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Frequency and severity of postoperative (24-hour) pruritus, nausea and vomiting, surgical pain, and side effects related to ondansetron were recorded. MAIN RESULTS: In the ondansetron group, 38 patients had pruritus (16 mild and 22 severe) and 9 patients had nausea and vomiting (5 mild and 4 severe). In the placebo group, 41 patients had pruritus (21 mild and 20 severe) and 29 patients had nausea and vomiting (9 mild and 15 severe). The frequency and severity of the nausea and vomiting episodes were significantly reduced in the ondansetron group. Pain scores were comparable between groups. No side effects related to ondansetron were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic IV ondansetron 8 mg is safe and effective in reducing the frequency and the severity of nausea and vomiting, but not pruritus, following cesarean delivery with intrathecal sufentanil-morphine.     

A comparison between post-operative analgesia after intrathecal nalbuphine with bupivacaine and intrathecal fentanyl with bupivacaine after cesarean section

BackgroundAdding intrathecal opioids to intrathecal local anesthetics to decrease their doses and provide hemodynamic stability are major goals during spinal anesthesia in cesarean section. Different opioids were used to select the one with the longest duration of analgesia and the least side effects. In this study, intrathecal nalbuphine was compared with intrathecal fentanyl as an adjuvant to hyperbaric bupivacaine in cesarean section.Patients and methodsSixty female patients of ASA grades I and II presented for elective cesarean deliveries with spinal anesthesia were randomly allocated to 2 equal groups; Group F: 30 patients received intrathecal injection of 2 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine plus 0.5 ml fentanyl (25 μg); Group N: 30 patients received intrathecal injection of 2 ml of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine plus 0.5 ml nalbuphine (0.8 mg). The onset of sensory and complete motor blockade, time of sensory blockade, duration of analgesia and motor blockade, fetal Apgar score, visual analog scale score, oxygen saturation, adverse effects and hemodynamic parameters were recorded intra-operatively and up to 4 h post-operatively. The effective analgesic time was recorded.ResultsThe onset of complete motor block was significantly more rapid in fentanyl group than in nalbuphine group. The duration of post-operative analgesia was more prolonged in nalbuphine group but the difference was insignificant. No significant difference was found between both groups as regards the duration of sensory block, motor block, duration of analgesia, fetal Apgar score, visual analog scale score, hemodynamic parameters and oxygen saturation. Adverse effects were less common in nalbuphine group but the difference was insignificant.ConclusionEither intrathecal nalbuphine 0.8 mg or intrathecal fentanyl 25 μg combined with 10 mg bupivacaine provides good intra-operative and early post-operative analgesia in cesarean section.