what epidural opioid results in the best analgesia outcomes and fewest side effects after surgery- a...

October 2014 Volume 119 Number 4 www.anesthesia-analgesia.org 965

Copyright 2014 International Anesthesia Research SocietyDOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000377

Epidural opioids have been widely used for facilitation of central neuraxial blockade and postoperative anal-gesia. Although they may be used alone in this regard, multiple studies have shown that analgesia is more effec-tive when they are combined with local anesthetics.13 Such mixtures minimize the risk of respiratory depression, som-nolence, and pruritus associated with solitary narcotic use, while also reducing incidence of motor block, and hypoten-sion associated with local anesthetics. Even more importantly,

this multimodal approach has been shown to provide supe-rior postoperative analgesia to that of IV patient-controlled analgesia with opioids.2 Despite the effectiveness of such epi-dural combinations, differences in analgesic ef!cacy and side effect rates among opioids remain to be elucidated. This may be a function of physician preference, hospital-speci!c poli-cies, or the speci!c opioids available on formulary. Given the unique pharmacologic properties of each opioid and studies that show different rates of accumulation in the cerebrospi-nal "uid, there is biologic plausibility for differences in the side effect pro!les and analgesia among different opioids.47 No single large randomized controlled trial (RCT) has de!ni-tively identi!ed the ideal opioid for a postoperative epidural infusion, either with or without local anesthetic. This ideal opioid should improve subjective postoperative analgesia while minimizing the aforementioned side effects.

As such, we conducted a meta-analysis of all RCTs com-paring perioperative epidural opioid infusions. Most of these trials involved local anestheticopioid mixtures. Speci!cally, we sought to determine which opioid offers the best epidural analgesia in terms of postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores while minimizing opioid side effects after surgery.

METHODSEthicsThe HIREB (Hamilton Integrated REB) does not require ethics approval for systematic reviews, including network

BACKGROUND: Epidural opioids are widely used for central neuraxial blockade and postopera-tive analgesia. However, differences in analgesic ef!cacy and side effect rates among individual opioids remain controversial.METHODS: We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared at least 2 continuous epidural infusions for acute postoperative analgesia over at least 24 hours. Individual study data were weighted by the inverse-variance method. Visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores were the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included opioid side effects, such as pruritus, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), sedation, hypoten-sion, and respiratory depression.RESULTS: Nineteen of the 24 trials included compared 2 of the following opioids: morphine, fentanyl, or sufentanil. The total subjects studied were 1513. Pooled analysis by type of surgery showed no clinically signi!cant differences in VAS pain scores at any time after surgery. There were more PONV (OR = 1.91; 95% CI, 1.143.18; P = 0.014) and perhaps pruritus (OR = 1.64; 95% CI, 0.982.76; P = 0.162) with morphine compared to fentanyl. Total opioid consumption differed only in the trials comparing morphine and fentanyl, where patients in the morphine group required 1.2 mg (of morphine equivalent) less (95% CI, 0.272.18). Use of analgesic adjuncts was similar for all but 2 studies.CONCLUSIONS: Analgesic outcome, in terms of VAS pain score, was similar between the epi-dural opioids studied. These similarities in analgesia may re"ect the common practices of con-currently using epidural local anesthetics with the opioids and titrating infusion rates according to a patients pain status. With respect to side effects, the incidence of PONV and possibly pru-ritus was higher with morphine compared with fentanyl, despite there being similar total opioid consumption between those groups. (Anesth Analg 2014;119:96577)

What Epidural Opioid Results in the Best Analgesia Outcomes and Fewest Side Effects After Surgery?: AMeta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled TrialsNayer Youssef, MD,* David Orlov, MD, Tristan Alie, MSc, MD,* Matthew Chong, MD, Ji Cheng, MSc, Lehana Thabane, PhD,* and James Paul, MD, MSc, FRCPC*

From the *Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario; Department of Anesthesia, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario; Michael G. School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario; and Biostatistics Unit, St. Josephs Health-care Hamilton, Hamilton, Ontario.Accepted for publication June 3, 2014.Funding: This study was supported by the Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University.The authors declare no con"icts of interest.Parts of this report were presented at the 2013 ASA meeting in San Francisco.Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journals website (www.anesthesia-analgesia.org).Reprints will not be available from the authors.Address correspondence to James Paul, MD, MSc, FRCPC, Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, HSC-2U, 1280 Main St. West, Hamilton, ON L8S 4K1. Address e-mail to [email protected].

Pain MedicineSection Editor: Spencer S. Liu

966 www.anesthesia-analgesia.org ANESTHESIA & ANALGESIA

Meta-Analysis: Best Epidural Opioid with Least Side Effects

meta-analyses, because there are no data being collected from patients. We only evaluated and synthesized data that had been reported in published trials, and only used aggre-gate level data reported from the original trials.

Literature SearchComputerized searches of Ovid MEDLINE (from 1950 to November 2013), EMBASE (from 1980 to December 2013), and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CCTR up to November 2013) were conducted. While identifying clinical trials, a sensitive search strategy developed by Haynes et al.8 was used along with free text combinations and MeSH terms (Appendix, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/AA/A931). The searches were designed to be sensitive and identify the maximum number of RCTs that compared at least 2 different perioperative epidural opioid infusions. The search was restricted to studies pub-lished or translated to the English language. Unpublished studies were not sought.

Study SelectionInclusion for data abstraction was determined by reviewing each study abstract identi!ed by the search. All abstracts were read by 2 authors, and agreement was reached by con-sensus to either include or exclude a study. Full articles were obtained so that reference lists could be reviewed to further identify additionally relevant studies. The reviewers were not blinded to the authors names, af!liated institutions, or the journal of publication for any of the studies.

PopulationStudies were included if they enrolled male or female par-ticipants of any age undergoing either elective or emergency surgery. Studies involving epidural analgesia in parturients during labor were excluded for many potential confound-ing factors, including differences between labor and postop-erative pain, variability in epidural insertion site, and time use during labor.9

InterventionStudies must have compared at least 2 different continu-ous epidural opioid infusions ceteris paribus for at least 24 hours postoperatively. Studies were limited to opioids used in common practice, which include morphine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, oxycodone, or sufentanil. In most cases, opioids were combined with local anesthetics. Studies were excluded if comparisons involved only varying concentra-tions of the same opioid or various types of local anesthetics.

OutcomesAnalgesia in terms of VAS pain scores measured for at least 24 hours was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included opioid side effects, such as nausea/vomiting, pru-ritus, and respiratory depression. No a priori de!nition was set for the latter, although in the majority of studies it was de!ned as administration of naloxone.

Study DesignOnly RCTs were included in our review, regardless of the quality of assessment or results. Crossover trials were not included due to the potential for inadequate washout period between compared opioids.

Study EvaluationEach study included in the analysis was assessed indepen-dently by each author, and any discrepancies were resolved by consensus. The assessment was performed using a modi-!ed version of the 5-point methodological quality scale designed by Jadad et al.10 To receive full points, a study had to meet the following criteria: be randomized; be double-blind; include appropriate follow-up for 24 hours at a mini-mum; use suitable techniques to create the randomization sequence; and describe an acceptable blinding method. To satisfy the follow-up criteria of the modi!ed Jadad scale, withdrawals/dropouts must be described or all study par-ticipants accounted for in the results.10 Funnel plots were constructed of the primary outcome to evaluate for publica-tion bias.

Data ExtractionThe methodological data were extracted and later veri-!ed. The extracted methodological data included the type of surgery and detail of the anesthetics. Medications used at induction, maintenance, and emergence were recorded. Descriptions of the epidural included the level of insertion, initiation of the epidural within the delivery of anesthesia, and time course for epidural administration. Additionally, the number and baseline characteristics of subjects in each treatment group were recorded. Numerical data were extracted and also veri!ed. These data included VAS pain scores at rest (primary outcome) and incidence of opioid-related side effects (secondary outcomes). Pain scores could not be extracted from the study by Coppe and Willaert11 because poor graphical quality precluded differentiation of the treatment arms. Numerous attempts to contact the authors were unsuccessful, and only partial data (concern-ing opioid side effects) were included.

Statistical AnalysisThe reporting of this review was done in accordance with the PRISMA guideline.12 The selection process for articles is summarized using a "ow diagram. Due to interstudy variability in the timing of pain assessment, pain scores were grouped in 6- to 8-hour intervals where necessary. In cases where the standard deviation (SD) was not reported, it was derived from range or interquartile range. When studies reported multiple infusion rates for the same opi-oid, data for the most equipotent dose (the one most simi-lar to the comparison opioid in the trial) were retained for analysis. Categorical outcomes (e.g., none, mild, and severe) were converted into binary data by summing the number of patients who experienced the outcome, regardless of severity.

Due to the known dose dependency of opioid analge-sia and side effects,13 we conducted subgroup analyses to explore (1) whether equipotent infusion rates were used within individual studies and (2) whether comparable doses of the same opioid were used among studies. Equipotency was determined by comparing the relative average rates of infusion within a study to epidural equianalgesic tables.14 Total opioid consumption was also analyzed for studies that administered opioids via equianalgesic infusions and a non-!xed amount of opioid.


Under each prede!ned clinical outcome, the eligible studies with available data were pooled using the random-effects model, which incorporated statistical heterogeneity. The weight of each individual study was calculated using the inverse-variance method. The overall pooled estimates were reported as weighted mean difference and odds ratio with the associated con!dence intervals for continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively. The statistical hetero-geneity was quanti!ed as the I2 statistic, which measures the between-study variance as a percentage of total vari-ance. The Q test was used to test heterogeneity. The criteria used to de!ne statistical signi!cance were set at = 0.01 for continuous data (because there were multiple comparisons over time) and = 0.05 for dichotomous data. The over-all pooled estimates and individual studies included were graphically presented using forest plots. Bias was assessed through funnel plots and Eggers regression. Stata 12.0 (StataCorp, College Station, TX) was used to conduct the meta-analyses and assessment of bias.

A Priori Hypothesis for Sources of HeterogeneityBefore analyzing the results, potential sources of heterogene-ity among studies were identi!ed, and hypotheses were for-mulated to explain this heterogeneity. Much of the possible heterogeneity from RCTs comparing opioids was thought to depend on dose dependency of opioid analgesia and side effects.13 First, inconsistent use of analgesic adjuncts (nonste-roidal antiin"ammatory drugs or local anesthetics) among studies may result in an opioid-sparing effect, which may decrease rates of side effects and give rise to synergistic or additive bene!ts.15 Second, deviation from equianalgesic dosing within a study may in"ate the number of side effects in patients receiving inappropriately large amounts of opi-oid or increase pain in those receiving too little. Third, it is important to consider the infusion rates of the same opioid between each study, which in some cases varied by approxi-mately 10-fold. Higher rates of infusion may lead to better analgesia and a higher incidence of side effects.13

In addition to factors related to opioid dosage, addi-tional anesthetic and surgical factors should be consid-ered. Intraoperative factors include administration of any antipruritic or antiemetic medication. Furthermore, certain anesthetic drugs are associated with particular side effects, such as nitrous oxide and postoperative nausea and vomit-ing (PONV).16 In addition, administration of opioids intra-operatively may raise the risk of side effects in 1 group if it is unevenly distributed.13 With respect to the type of sur-gery, certain procedures are more invasive than others and thus may give rise to more postoperative pain, leading to increased opioid consumption and systemic side effects.13,17 Additionally, thoracic surgery has relatively higher rates of postoperative respiratory complications compared with other types of operations.18 With respect to data reporting, continuous versus dichotomous outcome measures may give rise to differences in side effect pro!les among patients, due to the higher sensitivity of a continuous scale to detect a difference.

With regard to pediatric studies, the measurement of pain in pediatric patients relies on assessing cues, such as cry-ing or facial expression.19 These third-person methods may differ in sensitivity from the standard VAS administered to

adult patients.19 Furthermore, pediatric patients as a group are heterogeneous and experience different rates of side effects based on age.20 Thus, for these reasons, pediatric studies were analyzed separately.

RESULTSLiterature SearchThe initial search retrieved 8219 articles. After title review, 113 studies were retained for abstract and/or full-text review (Fig.1). Ultimately, 24 of these studies met the inclu-sion criteria (Table1).11,2143

Study DescriptionNineteen studies obtained a Jadad quality score of 3/5 or higher. The most common methodological shortcomings were failure to fully describe the randomization or blinding technique.

Abdominal, orthopedic, and cesarean delivery with non-laboring epidural accounted for 10, 7, and 2 of the 24 stud-ies, respectively. Five trials included a mix of abdominal or thoracic surgery. Of the 24 studies, 2 included pediatric patients.

Suf!cient data were available to analyze the following secondary outcomes: nausea and vomiting (24/24), pruritus (22/24), respiratory depression (19/24), sedation (17/24), and hypotension (9/24).

Most studies described con!rmation of epidural catheter placement (18/24) at a spinal level appropriate for the spe-ci!c operations reported (16/24) (Table1).44 In addition, the majority of trials made a binary comparison between two different opioids, except the pediatric study by Goodarzi that compared morphine, fentanyl, and hydromorphone (Table1).43

Primary Outcome: VAS Pain ScoresPain scores were compared for at least the !rst 24 hours among various intervals of time, if pain was assessed dur-ing that interval. For trials comparing morphine to fentanyl, pooled analysis revealed signi!cant heterogeneity at the 0 to 6, 13 to 18, 19 to 24, and 48-hour time intervals. Given the overall small number of studies, this heterogeneity appeared to be primarily driven by certain individual stud-ies that showed signi!cant pain reduction in favor of either opioid (Fig.2).2426,28,31 Subgroup analysis by type of surgery signi!cantly reduced the amount of heterogeneity at these time points (Fig.3). Care was taken not to pool studies in this subgroup analysis unless there were at least 3 studies comparing the same type of surgery at that time interval, in order to avoid presenting a misleading pooled estimate.

There was no signi!cant difference between pain scores for fentanyl versus sufentanil (Fig.4). The signi!cant het-erogeneity at the 19- to 24-hour time interval was likely driven by the single discordant study that favored sufent-anil.37 Subgroup analysis was not feasible given the small number of studies.

Other comparisons involving morphine versus either sufentanil or oxycodone did not reveal any differences (data not shown). There were also no differences detected by the single adult study comparing morphine to hydromorphone and 2 pediatric studies that compared the same opioids.4143



Table 1. Description of Included Studies Table 1. Continued

Comparison ReferenceData extraction

sourceType of surgery

Total subjects

Jadad score

(out of 5) PruritusNausea and

vomitingRespiratory depression Sedation Hypotension

Equianalgesic dosing

Postoperative adjuncts to epidural

anesthesiaEpidural

level

Appropriate epidural

insertion level

Confirmed epidural

placementAdult

patientsMorphine vs sufentanil Kim et al.21 Tables and in-text Abdominal 60 5 X X X X Yes IM meperidine T7-8 Yes Yes

Broekema et al.22 Tables, !gures, and in-text Abdominal 59 3 X X X X X Yes Diclofenac suppository T7-9 No YesDyer et al.23 Tables, !gures, and in-text Abdominal 40 4 X X X X X No IV morphine L2-3 ND NoCoppe et al.11 Tables and in-text Abdominal 46 4 X X X X No T7-8 No Yes

Morphine vs fentanyl Valairucha et al.24 Tables and in-text Abdominal and thoracic 79 2 X X Yes T6-9 Yes YesVallejo et al.25 Tables, !gures, and in-text Abdominal 60 3 X X Yes IV bupivacaine L2-3 Yes YesBerti et al.26 Tables, !gures, and in-text Orthopedics 30 5 X X X Yes IV diclofenac L2-4 Yes YesGedney and Liu27 Tables, !gures, and in-text Orthopedics 64 3 X X X X No IV bupivacaine L2-4 Yes NDTsueda et al.28 Tables and in-text Orthopedics 47 5 X X X X No L2-4 Yes YesSaito et al.29 Tables, !gures, and in-text Abdominal and thoracic 85 2 X X X X X Yes IV pentazocine or

buprenorphineT5-9 Yes Yes

White et al.30 Figures and in-text Orthopedics 66 3 X X X X X No L2-4 Yes YesTsui et al.31 Tables and in-text Abdominal and thoracic 35 2 X X Yes L2-3 No YesChrubasik et al.32 Tables, !gures, and in-text Abdominal 40 3 X X X Yes T6-L3 Yes YesFischer et al.33 Figures and in-text C-section 105 4 X X X X Yes IM meperidine T4-5 No ND

Fentanyl vs sufentanil Jeon et al.34 Tables, !gures, and in-text Orthopedics 37 2 X X X X X No L3-5 Yes YesLutti et al.35 Tables and in-text Orthopedics 70 2 X X X Yes ND Yes YesWilhelm and Dieleman36 Tables, !gures, and in-text Abdominal and thoracic 53 4 X X X X X No ND Yes YesCohen et al.37 Tables, !gures, and in-text C-section 250 4 X X X X No L3-4 Yes NDGeller et al.38 Tables and in-text Abdominal 30 5 X X X X Yes T11-L2 Yes Yes

Morphine vs oxycodone Yanagidate and Dohi39 Tables, !gures, and in-text Abdominal 50 4 X X X Yes Diclofenac or pentazocine PO

T12-L2 Yes Yes

Backlund et al.40 Figures and in-text Abdominal 29 5 X X X X No IV or IM ketorolac T8-10 No YesMorphine vs hydromorphone Chaplan et al.41 Figures and in-text Abdominal and thoracic 54 5 X X X No Epidural fentanyl ND No Yes

Peds Fentanyl vs sufentanil Cho et al.42 Tables and in-text Abdominal 64 5 X X X X No Epidural ropivacaine L2-5 Yes NDMorphine vs fentanyl vs

hydromorphoneGoodarzi43 Tables, !gures, and in-text Orthopedics 60 3 X X X X a L3-4 No ND

ND = not described or could not be determined.aDosing for morphine versus fentanyl was equipotent but not for hydromorphone.

Figure 1. PRISMA "ow sheet describing the study selection process.


Secondary OutcomesPostoperative Nausea and VomitingThere was a higher incidence of PONV in patients receiv-ing morphine compared with fentanyl (OR = 1.91; 95% CI, 1.143.18; Fig.5). The absolute risk reduction for this result was 10.46%, which corresponds to a number needed-to-treat (NNT) of 9.6 patients (95% CI, 5.926.2). No other dif-ferences in PONV for other opioids were detected in pooled (Fig.5) and subgroup analyses.

PruritusPatients receiving morphine experienced more pruritus than those receiving fentanyl, although the data were not statistically signi!cant (OR = 1.64; 95% CI, 0.982.76; Fig.6). Two studies in this group were not pooled. First, we excluded the data from Tsui et al.31 because an anti-pruritic was randomly administered to all study subjects. Second, the study by Vallejo et al.25 was the only trial to report pruritus on a continuous scale, and no difference between the groups was detected. With respect to other opioids and subgroup analyses (data not shown), no fur-ther differences were detected.

Respiratory Depression, Hypotension, and SedationRegardless of the opioids being compared, the incidence of respiratory depression and hypotension was low across most trials, with 0 to 2 patients generally experiencing the outcome in each group. In addition, the number of patients experiencing sedation was generally similar between groups in the same trial but varied markedly among trials. For

example, 1 trial reported sedation in 98 of all 105 patients33 and another reported sedation in 2 of 64 patients.27 The only exception to this is the study by Chrubasik et al., where 0 and 9 of 20 patients receiving morphine and fentanyl were sedated, respectively.32 Given the similarity in respiratory depression, hypotension, and sedation among studies, it is unsurprising that pooled and subgroup analyses did not reveal any signi!cant differences in these outcomes (data not shown).

Total Opioid ConsumptionTotal opioid consumption was only compared for studies that used equipotent infusion rates and was standardized per 24 hours. As a caveat, not all studies reported the SD associated with the infusion rate, and in some cases it had to be estimated. There was slightly lower opioid consumption in the morphine group among trials comparing morphine versus fentanyl (1.22 mg of morphine equivalent; 95% CI, 0.272.18; P = 0.012; Fig. 7). There were no differences in opioid consumption in studies comparing fentanyl to suf-entanil and insuf!cient data to perform this analysis for the other groups.

Pediatric StudiesCho et al.42 showed a higher incidence of pruritus in the suf-entanil group compared with the fentanyl group (P = 0.026). Goodarzi43 showed a higher incidence of pruritus, urinary retention, and respiratory depression in the morphine group compared with both fentanyl and hydromorphone.

Table 1. Description of Included Studies Table 1. Continued

Comparison ReferenceData extraction

sourceType of surgery

Total subjects

Jadad score

(out of 5) PruritusNausea and

vomitingRespiratory depression Sedation Hypotension

Equianalgesic dosing

Postoperative adjuncts to epidural

anesthesiaEpidural

level

Appropriate epidural

insertion level

Confirmed epidural

placementAdult

patientsMorphine vs sufentanil Kim et al.21 Tables and in-text Abdominal 60 5 X X X X Yes IM meperidine T7-8 Yes Yes

Broekema et al.22 Tables, !gures, and in-text Abdominal 59 3 X X X X X Yes Diclofenac suppository T7-9 No YesDyer et al.23 Tables, !gures, and in-text Abdominal 40 4 X X X X X No IV morphine L2-3 ND NoCoppe et al.11 Tables and in-text Abdominal 46 4 X X X X No T7-8 No Yes

Morphine vs fentanyl Valairucha et al.24 Tables and in-text Abdominal and thoracic 79 2 X X Yes T6-9 Yes YesVallejo et al.25 Tables, !gures, and in-text Abdominal 60 3 X X Yes IV bupivacaine L2-3 Yes YesBerti et al.26 Tables, !gures, and in-text Orthopedics 30 5 X X X Yes IV diclofenac L2-4 Yes YesGedney and Liu27 Tables, !gures, and in-text Orthopedics 64 3 X X X X No IV bupivacaine L2-4 Yes NDTsueda et al.28 Tables and in-text Orthopedics 47 5 X X X X No L2-4 Yes YesSaito et al.29 Tables, !gures, and in-text Abdominal and thoracic 85 2 X X X X X Yes IV pentazocine or

buprenorphineT5-9 Yes Yes

White et al.30 Figures and in-text Orthopedics 66 3 X X X X X No L2-4 Yes YesTsui et al.31 Tables and in-text Abdominal and thoracic 35 2 X X Yes L2-3 No YesChrubasik et al.32 Tables, !gures, and in-text Abdominal 40 3 X X X Yes T6-L3 Yes YesFischer et al.33 Figures and in-text C-section 105 4 X X X X Yes IM meperidine T4-5 No ND

Fentanyl vs sufentanil Jeon et al.34 Tables, !gures, and in-text Orthopedics 37 2 X X X X X No L3-5 Yes YesLutti et al.35 Tables and in-text Orthopedics 70 2 X X X Yes ND Yes YesWilhelm and Dieleman36 Tables, !gures, and in-text Abdominal and thoracic 53 4 X X X X X No ND Yes YesCohen et al.37 Tables, !gures, and in-text C-section 250 4 X X X X No L3-4 Yes NDGeller et al.38 Tables and in-text Abdominal 30 5 X X X X Yes T11-L2 Yes Yes

Morphine vs oxycodone Yanagidate and Dohi39 Tables, !gures, and in-text Abdominal 50 4 X X X Yes Diclofenac or pentazocine PO

T12-L2 Yes Yes

Backlund et al.40 Figures and in-text Abdominal 29 5 X X X X No IV or IM ketorolac T8-10 No YesMorphine vs hydromorphone Chaplan et al.41 Figures and in-text Abdominal and thoracic 54 5 X X X No Epidural fentanyl ND No Yes

Peds Fentanyl vs sufentanil Cho et al.42 Tables and in-text Abdominal 64 5 X X X X No Epidural ropivacaine L2-5 Yes NDMorphine vs fentanyl vs

hydromorphoneGoodarzi43 Tables, !gures, and in-text Orthopedics 60 3 X X X X a L3-4 No ND

ND = not described or could not be determined.aDosing for morphine versus fentanyl was equipotent but not for hydromorphone.



Individual StudiesThe single study that compared morphine versus hydro-morphone found a higher incidence of pruritus in those receiving morphine in the !rst 24 hours postoperatively (44.4% vs 11.5%, respectively; P < 0.01) with no other differ-ences detected.41

Adjuncts to AnalgesiaDyer et al.23 reported signi!cantly higher use of supple-mentary IV morphine in the epidural sufentanil group compared with the epidural morphine group. In addition, despite detecting no difference in VAS pain scores, the pediatric study by Cho et al.42 showed that patients in the fentanyl group required more rescue analgesia than those receiving sufentanil (6/32 subjects compared with 0/32 subjects; P=0.012). Otherwise, the use of analgesic adjuncts was similar in the rest of the studies.

Assessment of Publication BiasFunnel plots were constructed for the analyses pre-sented in Figures2 to 6 (Supplemental Digital Content2, http://links.lww.com/AA/A932). Eggers regression was nonsigni!cant (P > 0.05) for all these analyses, and all the plots were symmetric with the exception of that corresponding to Figure3. The symmetry in these plots suggests that there was no publication bias in this review. This asymmetry in the plot for the studies in Figure 3 may have been due to the small number of studies included in that analysis, given the nonsigni!cant Eggers regression.

DISCUSSIONSummary of Key FindingsThis novel meta-analysis identi!ed 24 RCTs that com-pared various continuous infusions of epidural opioids

Figure 2. Visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores for trials comparing morphine to fentanyl grouped by time. SD = standard deviation; CI = con!dence interval.


for postoperative analgesia and side effects. Most trials (19/24) compared the clinically relevant opioids mor-phine, fentanyl, and sufentanil. Overall, there were no clinically signi!cant differences in analgesia. There was an increased rate of PONV (OR = 1.91; 95% CI, 1.143.18; and NNT 9.6; 95% CI, 5.926.2) and pruritus (OR = 1.64; 95% CI, 0.982.76) among patients receiving morphine versus fentanyl. There were no other differences in opioid side effects detected, including respiratory depression, which had a low event rate. Limitations of our analysis included the heterogeneity in surgical populations, dif-ferences in outcome reporting among studies, and overall paucity of trials.

AnalgesiaIt was challenging to combine the data for analgesia in a man-ner that is both clinically meaningful and not misleading.

For instance, a pooled analysis ignoring the type of surgery would have been better powered but at the cost of equating the bony pain of orthopedics to the laboring pain of a par-turient.9,45 Furthermore, by virtue of their interaction with different parts of the body, certain surgical procedures give rise to higher rates of side effects, such as the increased risk of respiratory complications after thoracotomy.18 With this rationale in mind, we opted to pool only data involving the same type of surgery and at least 3 trials for adequate power.

Very few individual studies24,25 reported statistically signi!cant differences in analgesia that met the 20-mm VAS threshold suggested by Farrar et al.46,47 for clinically meaningful pain reduction. These isolated !ndings did not persist when studies were pooled overall and in subgroup analysis by type of surgery. Importantly, the use of analgesic adjuncts was similar between groups (for all but 2 trials),23,42 as was overall total opioid consumption.

Figure 3. Visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores for trials comparing morphine to fentanyl grouped by time and pooled by type of surgery. SD = standard deviation; CI = con!dence interval.



Several factors may account for this lack of difference in analgesia. First, all studies reported epidural titration according to the patients VAS pain scores using either a bolus or increase in infusion rate of the study solution (by patient-controlled analgesia or staff administration) or analgesic adjunct pro re nata. Although the standard of care, such protocols were problematic when interpreting pain scores because they minimize any difference between the opioids being compared. As an alternative to pain scores, time to !rst rescue analgesia and total opioid con-sumption can be considered.48,49 Unfortunately, none of the studies reported the former. With respect to the latter, the small magnitude of the reduced morphine consump-tion (1.2 mg of morphine equivalent; 95% CI, 0.272.18) from the morphine versus fentanyl analysis would not be considered clinicallyrelevant.

Opioid Side EffectsWith respect to secondary outcomes, our meta-analysis revealed more similarities than differences among the side effect pro!les of opioids being compared. Notably, morphine resulted in more PONV (OR = 1.91; 95% CI,

1.143.18) and perhaps pruritus (OR = 1.64; 95% CI, 0.982.76) relative to fentanyl. The NNT for the former is


nature, which permits similar penetration of the bloodbrain barrier and onset of central nervous system effects (effect-site equilibration time of 6.2 minutes for sufent-anil versus 6.8 minutes for fentanyl).50 In contrast, bet-ter powered analyses (in other clinical contexts) have found differences in analgesia and side effects between sufentanil and fentanyl that were not observed herein.51 Biologic plausibility for such a difference is suggested by animal studies that show sufentanil has a much larger spinal volume of distribution compared with fentanyl, which instead preferentially distributes to the epidural space and fat.52

A meta-analysis on intrathecal opioids (in combination with local anesthetics) found similar results to the study presented herein, with higher rates of PONV with intra-thecal morphine compared with fentanyl.52 This study addressed a different clinical question in that it assessed epidural opioids that were given in combination with local anesthetic and compared head to head with another opioid in a randomized fashion.

LimitationsThere are several limitations to our analysis. Article asses-sors were not blinded, and we did not include non-English language studies. Only one study published in Italian53 that compared morphine to sufentanil was excluded for this reason. Unfortunately, only the abstract for this trial is accessible.53 Although analgesia was found to be equivalent, the incidence of pruritus and PONV was an unspeci!ed amount higher with morphine (P < 0.0001).53 Without a proper full-text appraisal of this study, it is dif!cult to ascertain how our results would be affected. We also speci!ed a priori that we would exclude cross-over trials due to the potential for inadequate washout of longer-acting opioids, but no trials had to be excluded for this reason.

We considered epidural anesthesia-speci!c quality fac-tors such as surgery-appropriate level of epidural catheter insertion and con!rmation of epidural placement. With regard to the former, catheter-congruent epidural anes-thesia (relative to the surgical incision level) results in decreased side effects and patient morbidity.54 Although

Figure 5. Odds ratios of postoperative nausea and vomiting. CI = con!dence interval.



only two-thirds of studies described catheter-congruence, the one-third that did not were mainly concentrated in sin-gle studies and had minimal impact on our pooled analyses. With respect to the latter, the majority of studies did con!rm placement, and it is hoped that the standard of care was fol-lowed in cases where it was left undescribed.

There was a paucity of trials comparing certain opi-oids and much variability in the surgical populations and outcome reporting among trials. Therefore, some of our analyses (particularly those related to analgesia) were relatively underpowered because data could not be pooled in full. In addition, our subgroup analyses relied on reported equianalgesic ratios for epidural opi-oids,14 which some authors argue are widely variable.55 Thus, the results of any dependent analyses may differ if repeated using a different set. Furthermore, in contrast to the 10 trials comparing morphine to fentanyl, there was a relative dearth of data comparing other opioids and thus less power to detect any differences. Last, due to differ-ences in the timing of pain assessment across studies, we grouped pain scores by time. These bands of time created

dif!culty with detecting differences in analgesia at !ner time points. The comparison of the same subjects across many time points also may have introduced an inherent autocorrelation in the results, obscuring any differences in analgesia.

CONCLUSIONSIn summary, this meta-analysis did not demonstrate any convincing or clinically meaningful differences in analgesia or total opioid consumption among the opioids studied. It is reasonable to conclude that fentanyl gives rise to less PONV and perhaps pruritus compared with morphine. As most trials focused on morphine versus fentanyl and fentanyl versus sufentanil, further studies are required to elucidate any differences in analgesia and side effect pro!les between other opioids. E

DISCLOSURESAll authors are members of the McMaster Epidural Research Group.

Figure 6. Odds ratios of postoperative pruritus. CI = con!dence interval.


Name: Nayer Youssef, MD.Contribution: This author was responsible for identifying the clinical question and performing the literature search.Attestation: Nayer Youssef approved the !nal manuscript and attests to the integrity of the original data and the analysis reported in this manuscript.Name: David Orlov, MD.Contribution: This author was responsible for identifying the clinical question and performing the literature search.Attestation: David Orlov approved the !nal manuscript. David Orlov attests to the integrity of the original data and the analy-sis reported in this manuscript.Name: Tristan Alie, MSc, MD.Contribution: This author was responsible for extracting meth-odological data and identifying the approach for data extrac-tion from graphical sources.Attestation: Tristan Alie approved the !nal manuscript and attests to the integrity of the original data and the analysis reported in this manuscript.Name: Matthew Chong, MD.Contribution: This author was responsible for extracting numeri-cal data, performing the data analysis, and interpreting the results.Attestation: Matthew Chong approved the !nal manuscript and attests to the integrity of the original data and the analysis reported in this manuscript.Name: Ji Cheng, PhD.Contribution: This author analyzed the data and reviewed drafts of the manuscript.

Attestation: Ji Cheng approved the !nal manuscript and attests to the integrity of the original data and the analysis reported in this manuscript.Name: Lehana Thabane, PhD.Contribution: This author supervised the analysis and reviewed drafts of the manuscript.Attestation: Lehana Thabane approved the !nal manuscript.Name: James Paul, MD, MSc, FRCPC.Contribution: This author is the principal investigator and supervised the completion of the project. James Paul will act as the archival author.Attestation: James Paul approved the !nal manuscript.This manuscript was handled by: Spencer S. Liu, MD.

REFERENCES 1. Block BM, Liu SS, Rowlingson AJ, Cowan AR, Cowan JA Jr,

Wu CL. Ef!cacy of postoperative epidural analgesia: a meta- analysis. JAMA 2003;290:245563

2. Wu CL, Cohen SR, Richman JM, Rowlingson AJ, Courpas GE, Cheung K, Lin EE, Liu SS. Ef!cacy of postopera-tive patient-controlled and continuous infusion epidural analgesia versus intravenous patient-controlled analgesia with opioids: a meta-analysis. Anesthesiology 2005;103: 107988

3. Wheatley RG, Schug SA, Watson D. Safety and ef!cacy of postoperative epidural analgesia. Br J Anaesth 2001;87: 4761

4. Gourlay GK, Cherry DA, Cousins MJ. Cephalad migration of morphine in CSF following lumbar epidural administration in patients with cancer pain. Pain 1985;23:31726

Figure 7. Weighted mean difference in epidural opioid consumption per day (expressed in morphine equivalence) for morphine versus fentanyl. CI = con!dence interval.



5. Bromage PR, Camporesi EM, Durant PA, Nielsen CH. Rostral spread of epidural morphine. Anesthesiology 1982;56:4316

6. de Leon-Casasola OA, Lema MJ. Postoperative epidural opioid analgesia: what are the choices? Anesth Analg 1996;83:86775

7. Roy SD, Flynn GL. Solubility and related physicochemical properties of narcotic analgesics. Pharm Res 1988;5:5806

8. Haynes RB, Wilczynski N, McKibbon KA, Walker CJ, Sinclair JC. Developing optimal search strategies for detecting clini-cally sound studies in MEDLINE. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1994;1:44758

9. Lowe NK. The nature of labor pain. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:S1624

10. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, McQuay HJ. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996;17:112

11. Coppe E, Willaert J. Postoperative analgesia for major abdomi-nal surgery with continuous thoracic epidural infusion of bupi-vacaine with sufentanil, versus bupivacaine with morphine. A randomized double blind study. Acta Anaesthesiol Belg 1992;43:1317

12. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interven-tions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62: e134

13. Chaney MA. Side effects of intrathecal and epidural opioids. Can J Anaesth 1995;42:891903

14. Cousins MJ, Bridenbaugh PO, Carr DB, Horlocker TT. Cousins and Bridenbaughs Neural Blockade in Clinical Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. 4th ed. China. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2008

15. Chen JY, Ko TL, Wen YR, Wu SC, Chou YH, Yien HW, Kuo CD. Opioid-sparing effects of ketorolac and its correlation with the recovery of postoperative bowel function in colorectal surgery patients: a prospective randomized double-blinded study. Clin J Pain 2009;25:4859

16. Tramr M, Moore A, McQuay H. Omitting nitrous oxide in general anaesthesia: meta-analysis of intraoperative awareness and postoperative emesis in randomized controlled trials. Br J Anaesth 1996;76:18693

17. Unruh AM. Gender variations in clinical pain experience. Pain 1996;65:12367

18. Nomori H, Kobayashi R, Fuyuno G, Morinaga S, Yashima H. Preoperative respiratory muscle training. Assessment in tho-racic surgery patients with special reference to postoperative pulmonary complications. Chest 1994;105:17828

19. Manworren RC, Hynan LS. Clinical validation of FLACC: pre-verbal patient pain scale. Pediatr Nurs 2003;29:1406

20. Cohen MM, Cameron CB, Duncan PG. Pediatric anesthesia morbidity and mortality in the perioperative period. Anesth Analg 1990;70:1607

21. Kim JY, Lee SJ, Koo BN, Noh SH, Kil HK, Kim HS, Ban SY. The effect of epidural sufentanil in ropivacaine on urinary retention in patients undergoing gastrectomy. Br J Anaesth 2006;97:4148

22. Broekema AA, Veen A, Fidler V, Gielen MJ, Hennis PJ. Postoperative analgesia with intramuscular morphine at !xed rate versus epidural morphine or sufentanil and bupivacaine in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. Anesth Analg 1998;87:134653

23. Dyer RA, Anderson BJ, Michell WL, Hall JM. Postoperative pain control with a continuous infusion of epidural sufentanil in the intensive care unit: a comparison with epidural mor-phine. Anesth Analg 1990;71:1306

24. Valairucha S, Maboonvanon P, Napachoti T, Sirivanasandha B, Suraseranuvongse S. Cost-effectiveness of thoracic patient-controlled epidural analgesia using bupivacaine with fentanyl vs bupivacaine with morphine after thoracotomy and upper abdominal surgery. J Med Assoc Thai 2005;88:9217

25. Vallejo MC, Edwards RP, Shannon KT, Kaul B, Finegold H, Morrison HL, Ramanathan S. Improved bowel function after

gynecological surgery with epidural bupivacaine-fentanyl than bupivacaine-morphine infusion. Can J Anaesth 2000;47:40611

26. Berti M, Fanelli G, Casati A, Lugani D, Aldegheri G, Torri G. Comparison between epidural infusion of fentanyl/bupiva-caine and morphine/bupivacaine after orthopaedic surgery. Can J Anaesth 1998;45:54550

27. Gedney JA, Liu EH. Side-effects of epidural infusions of opioid bupivacaine mixtures. Anaesthesia 1998;53:114855

28. Tsueda K, Mosca PJ, Heine MF, Loyd GE, Durkis DA, Malkani AL, Hurst HE. Mood during epidural patient-controlled analge-sia with morphine or fentanyl. Anesthesiology 1998;88:88591

29. Saito Y, Uchida H, Kaneko M, Nakatani T, Kosaka Y. Comparison of continuous epidural infusion of morphine/bupivacaine with fentanyl/bupivacaine for postoperative pain relief. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1994;38:398401

30. White MJ, Berghausen EJ, Dumont SW, Tsueda K, Schroeder JA, Vogel RL, Heine MF, Huang KC. Side effects during continu-ous epidural infusion of morphine and fentanyl. Can J Anaesth 1992;39:57682

31. Tsui SL, Chan CS, Chan AS, Wong SJ, Lam CS, Jones RD. Postoperative analgesia for oesophageal surgery: a com-parison of three analgesic regimens. Anaesth Intensive Care 1991;19:32937

32. Chrubasik J, Wst H, Schulte-Mnting J, Thon K, Zindler M. Relative analgesic potency of epidural fentanyl, alfentanil, and morphine in treatment of postoperative pain. Anesthesiology 1988;68:92933

33. Fischer RL, Lubenow TR, Liceaga A, McCarthy RJ, Ivankovich AD. Comparison of continuous epidural infusion of fentanyl-bupivacaine and morphine-bupivacaine in management of postoperative pain. Anesth Analg 1988;67:55963

34. Jeon HR, Chae WS, Lee SJ, Lee JH, Cho SH, Kim SH, Jin HC, Lee JS, Kim YI. A comparison of sufentanil and fentanyl for patient-controlled epidural analgesia in arthroplasty. Korean J Anesthesiol 2011;60:416

35. Lutti MN, Vieira JL, Eickhoff DR, de Carli D, de Carvalho MA. Patient controlled analgesia with fentanyl or sufentanil in the postoperative period of knee ligament reconstruction: compar-ative study. Rev Bras Anestesiol 2002;52:16674

36. Wilhelm AJ, Dieleman HG. Epidural fentanyl and sufentanil for intra- and postoperative analgesia. A randomized, double-blind comparison. Pharm World Sci 1994;16:712

37. Cohen S, Amar D, Pantuck CB, Pantuck EJ, Goodman EJ, Widroff JS, Kanas RJ, Brady JA. Postcesarean delivery epi-dural patient-controlled analgesia. Fentanyl or sufentanil? Anesthesiology 1993;78:48691

38. Geller E, Chrubasik J, Graf R, Chrubasik S, Schulte-Mnting J. A randomized double-blind comparison of epidural sufen-tanil versus intravenous sufentanil or epidural fentanyl anal-gesia after major abdominal surgery. Anesth Analg 1993;76: 124350

39. Yanagidate F, Dohi S. Epidural oxycodone or morphine follow-ing gynaecological surgery. Br J Anaesth 2004;93:3627

40. Backlund M, Lindgren L, Kajimoto Y, Rosenberg PH. Comparison of epidural morphine and oxycodone for pain after abdominal surgery. J Clin Anesth 1997;9:305

41. Chaplan SR, Duncan SR, Brodsky JB, Brose WG. Morphine and hydromorphone epidural analgesia. A prospective, random-ized comparison. Anesthesiology 1992;77:10904

42. Cho JE, Kim JY, Kim JE, Chun DH, Jun NH, Kil HK. Epidural sufentanil provides better analgesia from 24 h after surgery compared with epidural fentanyl in children. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2008;52:13603

43. Goodarzi M. Comparison of epidural morphine, hydromor-phone and fentanyl for postoperative pain control in children undergoing orthopaedic surgery. Paediatr Anaesth 1999;9:41922

44. Jaffe RA, Samuels SI. Anesthesiologists Manual of Surgical Procedures. 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2009

45. Chelly JE, Ben-David B, Williams BA, Kentor ML. Anesthesia and postoperative analgesia: outcomes following orthopedic surgery. Orthopedics 2003;26:s86571


46. Farrar JT, Berlin JA, Strom BL. Clinically important changes in acute pain outcome measures: a validation study. J Pain Symptom Manage 2003;25:40611

47. Farrar JT, Portenoy RK, Berlin JA, Kinman JL, Strom BL. De!ning the clinically important difference in pain outcome measures. Pain 2000;88:28794

48. McQuay HJ. Pre-emptive analgesia. Br J Anaesth 1992;69:13 49. Ong CK, Lirk P, Seymour RA, Jenkins BJ. The ef!cacy of pre-

emptive analgesia for acute postoperative pain management: a meta-analysis. Anesth Analg 2005;100:75773

50. Scott JC, Cooke JE, Stanski DR. Electroencephalographic quan-titation of opioid effect: comparative pharmacodynamics of fentanyl and sufentanil. Anesthesiology 1991;74:3442

51. Davey J, Turner RM, Clarke MJ, Higgins JP. Characteristics of meta-analyses and their component studies in the Cochrane

Database of Systematic Reviews: a cross-sectional, descriptive analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol 2011;11:160

52. Ppping DM, Elia N, Marret E, Wenk M, Tramr MR. Opioids added to local anesthetics for single-shot intrathecal anesthesia in patients undergoing minor surgery: a meta-analysis of ran-domized trials. Pain 2012;153:78493

53. Gianferrari P, Clara ME, Borghi B, Marzullo A, Voltolina M, De Paolis P, Montone N. [Sufentanil vs morphine combined with ropivacaine for thoracic epidural analgesia in major abdominal surgery]. Minerva Anestesiol 2001;67:1559

54. Brown AK, Christo PJ, Wu CL. Strategies for postoperative pain management. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 2004;18:70317

55. Pereira J, Lawlor P, Vigano A, Dorgan M, Bruera E. Equianalgesic dose ratios for opioids. A critical review and proposals for long-term dosing. J Pain Symptom Manage 2001;22:67287

what epidural opioid results in the best analgesia outcomes and fewest side effects after surgery- a...

Documents