4.1 Article

Low-Dose Morphine for Dyspnea in Terminally Ill Patients with Idiopathic Interstitial Pneumonias

期刊

JOURNAL OF PALLIATIVE MEDICINE
卷 20, 期 8, 页码 879-883

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/jpm.2016.0432

关键词

dyspnea; idiopathic interstitial pneumonia; morphine

资金

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [17K15909] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Dyspnea is highly prevalent in patients with idiopathic interstitial pneumonias (IIPs). Objective: The objective of this study is to examine the effectiveness and safety of continuous subcutaneous morphine for dyspnea in terminally ill IIP patients. Setting/Subjects: We retrospectively reviewed cases of terminally ill IIP patients who received continuous subcutaneous morphine for dyspnea. Measurements: We reviewed dyspnea severity measured using numerical rating scale (NRS) and respiratory rate (RR) before and two and four hours after morphine initiation. We conducted subgroup analyses of patients with and without noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV). Results: Twenty-five patients were included in this study. Median morphine dose at morphine initiation and two and four hours after treatment was 0.25, 0.25, and 0.5mg/hour, respectively. Dyspnea NRS decreased significantly four hours after (meanstandard deviation: 5.32 +/- 2.58, p=0.04) but not two hours (5.52 +/- 2.43, p=0.11) after morphine initiation compared with baseline (7.08 +/- 2.33). RR did not change significantly either two or four hours after treatment compared with baseline. The median survival after morphine initiation was 47 hours. Patients who were not using NPPV showed significantly improved dyspnea both two and four hours after treatment compared with baseline, although patients who used NPPV showed no significant improvement with morphine. RR did not significantly change in either subgroup. Conclusions: Morphine might improve dyspnea in terminally ill IIP patients without decrease in RR.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据