META-ANALYSIS OF INTRATHECAL MORPHINE FOR LUMBAR SPINE SURGERY

Transcription

1 META-ANALYSIS OF INTRATHECAL MORPHINE FOR LUMBAR SPINE SURGERY RESIDENT RESEARCH EXCHANGE DAY MAY 30 TH, 2014 SUPERVISOR: DR. JAMES PAUL SUSAN JO PGY4 SUZANNE LAMBERT PGY4 ADA HINDLE PGY4

2 INTRODUCTION WHY SPINE SURGERY? Readily accessible intrathecal sac Often severe post-op pain Practical and useful adjunct Some complex chronic pain patients

3 INTRODUCTION Opioid receptors first isolated in the spinal cord in 1976 First reported use of intrathecal morphine was in 1979 (Popping 2012, Wang 1979) Intrathecal morphine widely used as part of neuraxial techniques alone or in conjunction with general anesthesia for post-operative analgesia

4 INTRODUCTION Multiple studies have reported efficacious use of intrathecal morphine for various surgeries Meta-analysis by Meylan 2009 suggested efficacy in abdominal, cardiac and thoracic surgeries Outcomes specific to intrathecal morphine for spine surgery undefined

5 STUDY PURPOSE Aim of the current meta-analysis is to quantify the post-operative analgesic effect of various doses of intrathecal morphine for adult spine surgery based primarily on pain scores.

6 METHODS

7 METHODS CRITERIA Thorough literature review including published papers and abstracts in all languages by 2 independent reviewers Inclusion criteria: Population: Adults 18 yrs undergoing GA for spine surgery Intervention: intrathecal morphine versus placebo Outcome: Reported pain scores post-operatively Methodology: RCT

8 METHODS Modified Jadad score then used to assess eligibility for inclusion into study Included: Randomized? Double-blinded? Show completeness of follow-up? Use of suitable techniques to create randomization sequence? Describe an acceptable blinding method?

9 SOURCES OF HETEROGENEITY type of spine surgery time of intrathecal morphine administration doses of intrathecal morphine concurrent analgesic adjuncts

10 DATA ANALYSIS

11 DATA ANALYSIS Primary Outcome: VAS scores Secondary Outcomes: pruritis nausea sedation respiratory depression urinary retention post-dural puncture headache Random effects model: Weighted mean differences (minimal heterogeneity) Natural units Standard mean differences (significant heterogeneity) SD

12 RESULTS

13

14

15 STUDY SELECTION Study characteristics All 10 studies selected were RCTs 9 English 1 Spanish Single-centered, international Participants 520 total participants 453 participants analyzed Subgroup of 67 participants excluded as it did not meet our inclusion criteria Intervention Low dose < 150 mcg intrathecal morphine High dose > 150 mcg intrathecal morphine

16 FIGURE 1: VAS SCORES 0-6h 6-12h 12-18h 18-24h Significant WMD in VAS at: 0-6 h: h: h: -12

17 FIGURE 2: VAS SCORES-FUNNEL PLOT 0-6 Hours Funnel Plots for VAS Scores 6-12 Hours Sample size 30 Sample size Weighted Mean Difference Weighted Mean Difference Hours Hours Sample size 30 Sample size Weighted Mean Difference Weighted Mean Differnce

18 FIGURE 3: OVERALL SIDE EFFECTS Pruritis First author, dose (year) Pruritis Johnson, mg (1989) Ross1, 0.25mg (1991) Ross2, 0.125mg (1991) Ross3, 0.5mg (1991) Martin-Laurrari, 0.5mg (1995) Urban1, 10mcg/kg (2002) Urban2, 20mcg/kg (2002) Techanivate, 0.3mg (2003) Yorukoglu, 0.1mg (2005) Ziegler, 0.4mg (2008) Subtotal (I-squared = 0.0%, p = 0.522) OR (95% CI) 6.52 (0.31, ) 1.10 (0.02, 75.25) 0.21 (0.01, 8.21) 0.19 (0.01, 6.91) 8.68 (0.41, ) 4.28 (0.73, 25.12) 5.18 (0.92, 29.24) (1.73, ) 1.00 (0.02, 52.85) 6.11 (0.65, 57.15) 3.99 (1.78, 8.91) morphine 3/17 1/14 0/14 0/14 3/15 9/19 12/23 9/20.5/21 5/ /180 control 0/13.3/4.6.3/4.6.4/4.8 0/15 2/11.5 2/11.5 1/20.5/21 1/23 7.5/129 Weight % Nausea Nausea Johnson, mg (1989) Ross1, 0.25mg (1991) Ross2, 0.125mg (1991) Ross3, 0.5mg (1991) Martin-Laurrari, 0.5mg (1995) Urban1, 10mcg/kg (2002) Urban2, 20mcg/kg (2002) Techanivate, 0.3mg (2003) Yorukoglu, 0.1mg (2005) Ziegler, 0.4mg (2008) Subtotal (I-squared = 36.9%, p = 0.113) (0.59, ) 1.11 (0.05, 24.64) 0.51 (0.02, 15.23) 0.83 (0.05, 14.11) (2.16, ) 0.89 (0.13, 6.33) 0.71 (0.10, 5.00) 0.54 (0.15, 1.92) 0.44 (0.13, 1.57) 2.49 (0.75, 8.34) 1.26 (0.58, 2.72) 5/17 2/14 1/14 2/14 9/15 3/19 3/23 7/20 8/20 16/23 56/179 0/13.6/4.6.6/4.6.8/4.8 1/15 2/11.5 2/ /20 12/20 11/23 40/ Sedation Respiratory Depression Sedation Johnson, mg (1989) Ross1, 0.25mg (1991) Ross2, 0.125mg (1991) Ross3, 0.5mg (1991) Techanivate, 0.3mg (2003) Subtotal (I-squared = 0.0%, p = 0.934) Resp Depression Johnson, mg (1989) Ross1, 0.25mg (1991) Ross2, 0.125mg (1991) Ross3, 0.5mg (1991) Martin-Laurrari, 0.5mg (1995) Techanivate, 0.3mg (2003) Subtotal (I-squared = 0.0%, p = 0.993) 0.13 (0.01, 2.99) 0.21 (0.01, 8.21) 0.21 (0.01, 8.21) 0.85 (0.02, 38.70) 0.43 (0.12, 1.57) 0.35 (0.12, 1.00) 0.77 (0.01, 41.44) 0.35 (0.01, 20.14) 1.13 (0.04, 32.59) 2.12 (0.09, 52.10) 1.00 (0.02, 53.66) 1.00 (0.02, 52.85) 1.01 (0.22, 4.59) 0/17 0/14 0/14 1/14 10/20 11/79.5/18.5/15 1/14 2/14.5/16.5/21 5/98 2/13.3/4.6.3/4.6.4/4.8 14/20 17/47.5/14.5/5.6 0/4.6 0/4.8.5/16.5/21 2/ Significant OR with morphine: Pruritis: 3.9 Sedation: 0.35 Urinary Retention Johnson, mg (1989) Ross1, 0.25mg (1991) Ross2, 0.125mg (1991) Ross3, 0.5mg (1991) Martin-Laurrari, 0.5mg (1995) Yorukoglu, 0.1mg (2005) Subtotal (I-squared = 61.1%, p = 0.025) PDPH Martin-Laurrari, 0.5mg (1995) Techanivate, 0.3mg (2003) Ziegler, 0.4mg (2008) Subtotal (I-squared = 0.0%, p = 1.000). NOTE: Weights are from random effects analysis 2.45 (0.09, 65.26) 0.54 (0.05, 5.62) 0.11 (0.01, 1.43) 0.32 (0.03, 3.70) (2.82, ) 0.53 (0.11, 2.60) 0.91 (0.20, 4.24) 1.00 (0.02, 53.66) 1.00 (0.02, 52.85) 1.00 (0.13, 7.78) 1.00 (0.19, 5.24) 1/17 6/12 2/11 4/10 10/15 3/20 26/85.5/16.5/21 2/23 3/60 0/13 2.6/4 2.7/4 2.7/4 1/15 5/20 14/60.5/16.5/21 2/23 3/ Urinary Retention PDPH

19 FIGURE 4: SIDE EFFECT PROFILE-FUNNEL PLOT Pruritis Funnel Plots for Overall Side Effects Nausea Sedation SE (log OR) 1 SE (log OR) 1 SE (log OR) Log OR Log OR Log OR Resp Depression Urinary Retention PDPH SE (log OR) 1 SE (log OR) 1 SE (log OR) Log OR Log OR Log OR

20 DISCUSSION

21 DISCUSSION PRIMARY OUTCOMES ITM beneficial when compared to placebo as suggested by lower VAS scores up to 18 hours post-op. Effectiveness beyond 24 hours cannot be established. Unable to establish ideal ITM dosing

22 DISCUSSION SECONDARY OUTCOMES Increased incidence of pruritis in ITM group Trend toward decreased sedation with ITM Combining high and low dose groups produced no change in outcome Meta-analysis showed that there were no major increases in the incidence of respiratory depression, urinary retention, nausea/ vomiting

23 DISCUSSION-RESPIRATORY DEPRESSION Major concern w/ ITM is risk of delayed respiratory depression Based on this meta-analysis, difficult to draw conclusions regarding risk of respiratory depression due to: Limited number of pts Only 6 total pts identified as having respiratory depression Variability amongst studies in defining respiratory depression 2 studies defined changes in PaCO2 3 studies NOT defined 5 studies resp rate variable (RR 8-12) Treatment guidelines inconsistent amongst studies

24 STUDY LIMITATIONS Small sample size High variability use of analgesic regiments and adjuncts Inconsistent side effect profile reporting Lack of consistent blinding of outcome assessors Difficult to standardize type of spine surgery

25 CONCLUSIONS ITM efficacy well know for post-op analgesia in multiple patient populations. This review demonstrated that ITM was effective in reduced pain scores for up to 18 hours after spine surgery Consistent with current body of evidence supports the superiority of ITM in the first 24 hours post-op However, comes at the cost of increasing the incidence of pruritis ITM shows a decreased risk of sedation (? respiratory depression)

26 QUESTIONS?

27 REFERENCES (1) (1) France JC, Jorgenson SS, Lowe TG, Dwyer AP. The use of intrathecal morphine for analgesia after posterolateral lumbar fusion: a prospective, double-blind, randomized study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1997 Oct 1;22(19): (2) Gehling M, Tryba M. Risks and side-effects of intrathecal morphine combined with spinal anaesthesia: a meta-analysis. Anaesthesia 2009 Jun;64(6): (3) Gwirtz KH. Intrathecal combination of bupivacaine-fentanyl-morphine. Anesth Analg 1990 Jul;71(1):106. (4) Johnson RG, Miller M, Murphy M. Intraspinal narcotic analgesia. A comparison of two methods of postoperative pain relief. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1989 Apr;14(4): (5) Martin-Larrauri R, Mestre C, Barcena A, Canizal JM, de la Torre J. Decrease in isoflurane requirements and of postoperative pain with preanesthetic intrathecal morphine. Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim 1995 Feb;42(2): (6) Meylan N, Elia N, Lysakowski C, Tramer MR. Benefit and risk of intrathecal morphine without local anaesthetic in patients undergoing major surgery: meta-analysis of randomized trials. Br J Anaesth 2009 Feb;102(2): (7) O'Neill P, Knickenberg C, Bogahalanda S, Booth AE. Use of intrathecal morphine for postoperative pain relief following lumbar spine surgery. J Neurosurg 1985 Sep;63(3): (8) Popping DM, Elia N, Marret E, Wenk M, Tramer MR. Opioids added to local anesthetics for single-shot intrathecal anesthesia in patients undergoing minor surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Pain 2012 Apr;153(4):

28 REFERENCES (CONTINUED) (9) Ross DA, Drasner K, Weinstein PR, Flaherty JF, Barbaro NM. Use of intrathecally administered morphine in the treatment of postoperative pain after lumbar spinal surgery: a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Neurosurgery 1991 May;28(5): (10) Techanivate A, Kiatgungwanglia P, Yingsakmongkol W. Spinal morphine for post-operative analgesia after lumbar laminectomy with fusion. J Med Assoc Thai 2003 Mar;86(3): (11) Urban MK, Jules-Elysee K, Urquhart B, Cammisa FP, Boachie-Adjei O. Reduction in postoperative pain after spinal fusion with instrumentation using intrathecal morphine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002 Mar 1;27(5): (12) Yorukoglu D, Ates Y, Temiz H, Yamali H, Kecik Y. Comparison of low-dose intrathecal and epidural morphine and bupivacaine infiltration for postoperative pain control after surgery for lumbar disc disease. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2005 Jul;17(3): (13) Ziegeler S, Fritsch E, Bauer C, Mencke T, Muller BI, Soltesz S, et al. Therapeutic effect of intrathecal morphine after posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery: a prospective, double-blind, randomized study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2008 Oct 15;33(22): (14) Almadni K, Yen D. Single-dose intrathecal morphine for postoperative pain control following lumbar spine surgery. Can J Surg June; 53(3): S31 S32.

29

30 RANDOM EFFECTS MODEL Employed as it was assumed that the included studies were a random sample of population of studies investigating intrathecal morphine Weighted mean differences (minimal heterogeneity) Natural units Standard mean differences (significant heterogeneity) SD

31 STUDY CHARACTERISTICS Duration of data collection ranged from 20 hours to 10 days Data analysis grouped into 6 hour time frames for VAS scores Maximum time frame of 24 hours for VAS scores VAS scores standardized to 100 point scale Limited number of studies with low does ITM Low and high dose results pooled Nausea and vomiting pooled

32 RESULTS Primary outcomes ITM group had significantly lower VAS scores at 0-6, 6-12, and hours (95% CI) compared to placebo no significant difference in the VAS at 18-24h Secondary outcomes ITM group had significantly higher incidence of pruritis ITM group had significantly lower incidence of sedation No significant difference between control and ITM for nausea, respiratory depression, urinary retention or PDPH.

33 DISCUSSION Results confirm that ITM efficacious for postoperative analgesia but at a cost of increased pruritis Consistent w/ other studies by Meylan et al., Gehling et al., and Popping et al. Our results also reveal that ITM does not increase the incidence of respiratory depression which contrasts those findings by Meylan et al. and Popping et al. Even with MA sample may be too small to rule out an effect on respiratory depression Large variability exists in literature due to underpowered studies