4.4 Article

Management of neonatal abstinence syndrome in neonates born to opioid maintained women

Journal

DRUG AND ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE
Volume 87, Issue 2-3, Pages 131-138

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.08.024

Keywords

pregnancy; opioid dependence; maintenance therapy; neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Neonates born to opioid-maintained mothers are at risk of developing neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS), which often requires pharmacological treatment. This study examined the effect of opioid maintenance treatment on the incidence and timing of NAS, and compared two different NAS treatments (phenobarbital versus morphine hydrochloride). Fifty-three neonates born to opioid-maintained mothers were included in this study. The mothers received methadone (n = 22), slow-release oral morphine (n = 17) or buprenorphine (n = 14) throughout pregnancy. Irrespective of maintenance treatment, all neonates showed APGAR scores comparable to infants of non-opioid dependent mothers. No difference was found between the three maintenance groups regarding neonatal weight, length or head circumference. Sixty percent (n = 32) of neonates required treatment for NAS [68% in the methadone-maintained group (n = 15), 82% in the morphine-maintained group (n = 14), and 21% in the buprenorphine-maintained group (n = 3)]. The mean duration from birth to requirement of NAS treatment was 33 h for the morphine-maintained group, 34 h for the buprenorphine-maintained group and 58 h for the methadone-maintained group. In neonates requiring NAS treatment, those receiving morphine required a significantly shorter mean duration of treatment (9.9 days) versus those treated with phenobarbital (17.7 days). Results suggest that morphine hydrochloride is preferable for neonates suffering NAS due to opioid withdrawal. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ireland 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

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available