4.2 Article

Effect of μ-opioid receptor A118G polymorphism on the ED50 of epidural sufentanil for labor analgesia

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRIC ANESTHESIA
Volume 21, Issue 1, Pages 40-44

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2011.10.001

Keywords

Labor analgesia; Epidural; Sufentanil; Polymorphism; mu-opioid receptor

Funding

  1. Swiss National Foundation (SNF) [3200B0-114129]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: A common polymorphism of the mu-opioid receptor gene (OPRM1, p.118A/G), which has been shown to effect the response to neuraxial opioids, occurs in 30% of Caucasian women. This double-blind up-down sequential allocation study was designed to examine the effect of p.118A/G on the ED50 of epidural sufentanil for labor analgesia. Methods: Nulliparous women were recruited at 35 weeks of gestation (n = 77) and genotyped for p.118A/G. Those subsequently requesting epidural labor analgesia were enrolled. Each woman received epidural sufentanil diluted with 0.9% saline to a volume of 5 mL. The initial sufentanil dose was 21 mu g, with subsequent doses determined by the response of the previous patient (testing interval 1 mu g). Efficacy was accepted if the visual analogue score decreased to <10 mm on a 100-mm scale within 30 min of drug administration. Results: Twenty patients were excluded, leaving 57 women from whom data were analyzed: 33 in Group A (wild-type A118 homozygotes) and 24 in Group G (heterozygotes and homozygotes G118). The ED50 for epidural sufentanil was 25.2 mu g in Group A (95% CI 23.2-26.4) and 20.2 mu g in Group G (95% CI 14.2-23.6) (P = 0.03). The potency ratio for epidural sufentanil in Group G compared to Group A was 1.25 (95% CI 1.00-1.64). Conclusion: Women carrying the variant allele of p.118A/G of OPRM1 (G118) had a lower ED50 for epidural sufentanil given for early labor analgesia than women homozygous for the wild-type allele. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available