Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:01:42.455Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A comparative study of patient-controlled epidural diamorphine, subcutaneous diamorphine and an epidural diamorphine/bupivacaine combination for postoperative pain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 August 2006

C. Gopinathan
Affiliation:
Pain Relief Research Unit, King's College Hospital, Denmark Hill, London SE5 9RS, UK
I. Sockalingham
Affiliation:
Pain Relief Research Unit, King's College Hospital, Denmark Hill, London SE5 9RS, UK
M. A. Fung
Affiliation:
Pain Relief Research Unit, King's College Hospital, Denmark Hill, London SE5 9RS, UK
S. Peat
Affiliation:
Pain Relief Research Unit, King's College Hospital, Denmark Hill, London SE5 9RS, UK
M. H. Hanna
Affiliation:
Pain Relief Research Unit, King's College Hospital, Denmark Hill, London SE5 9RS, UK
Get access

Abstract

This randomized double blind study investigates the relative efficacies of controlled analgesia (PCA) regimens in three different patient groups: epidural diamorphine 2.5mg followed by PCA bolus 1mg with a 20-min lockout (Gp1), subcutaneous diamorphine 2.5mg followed by PCA bolus with a 10-min lockout period (Gp2) and epidural diamorphine 2.5mg in 4mL of 0.125% (w/v) bupivacaine followed by a PCA bolus of 1mg diamorphine in 4mL 0.125% (w/v) bupivacaine with a 20-min lockout (Gp3). Patients were evaluated at 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24 and 48 h. Patients in Gp2 consumed significantly more diamorphine than those in Gp1 or Gp3 (P>0.05), but their pain scores were higher only at 1, 2 and 3 h (P>0.05) with respect to Gp3 and at 1 h with respect to Gp1. Fewer side effects (sedation, pruritis and nausea as assessed by antiemetic requirements) occurred in Gp2 compared to Gp1 (P>0.05). Fewer patients in Gp2 required catheterization than in Gp3 (P>0.05). This study indicates that the use of PCA epidural diamorphine, either alone or in combination with bupivacaine, reduces the dose requirement for analgesia but offers little clinical advantage over subcutaneous PCA diamorphine.

Type
Original Article
Copyright
2000 European Society of Anaesthesiology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)