Intravenous titration with morphine for severe cancer pain: Report of 28 cases

Citation
L. Radbruch et al., Intravenous titration with morphine for severe cancer pain: Report of 28 cases, CLIN J PAIN, 15(3), 1999, pp. 173-178
Citations number
18
Categorie Soggetti
Neurology
Journal title
CLINICAL JOURNAL OF PAIN
ISSN journal
07498047 → ACNP
Volume
15
Issue
3
Year of publication
1999
Pages
173 - 178
Database
ISI
SICI code
0749-8047(199909)15:3<173:ITWMFS>2.0.ZU;2-M
Abstract
Background: In a multicenter study, 28 patients with cancer pain and insuff icient pain relief with analgesic treatment according to step II of the gui delines of the World Health Organization (WHO) were switched to oral slow-r elease morphine. Methods: Patients received intravenous morphine through a patient-controlle d pump (PCA) for the first 24 hours (bolus = 1 mg, lockout interval = 5 min utes, maximum dose = 12 mg/hour). From day 2 patients were treated with ora l slow-release morphine. Daily doses were calculated from the requirements of the day before. Breakthrough pain was treated with PCA until stable dose s were reached (<2 boluses/day) and then with oral immediate-release morphi ne solution. Pain intensity was reported in a diary four times a day, in ad dition to mood, activity, and quality of sleep once daily. Results: Mean duration until adequate pain relief reported (<30 on a 101-st ep numerical scale; NRS) was 5 hours (range = 80-620 minutes). Mean pain in tensity was reduced from 67 NRS to 22 NRS. Mean doses of oral morphine were 133 mg/day initially and then 154 mg/day on day 14. Serious adverse events such as respiratory depression were not observed. Two patients terminated the study due to progressive symptoms of gastrointestinal obstruction. Seve nty-five percent of the patients evaluated the effectiveness of the analges ic regime as good. Conclusions: Dose finding with intravenous PCA may be appropriate for a sma ll minority of patients with severe pain. Higher treatment costs and the ri sk of complications are drawbacks of this method compared with conventional oral titration.