Annals of Emergency Medicine
Volume 49, Issue 4 , Pages 445-453.e2, April 2007

Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial of Two Intravenous Morphine Dosages (0.10 mg/kg and 0.15 mg/kg) in Emergency Department Patients With Moderate to Severe Acute Pain

Department of Emergency Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY.

Received 6 April 2006; received in revised form 2 June 2006; accepted 12 June 2006. published online 19 September 2006.

Study objective

We compare pain relief and safety of morphine 0.10 mg/kg with 0.15 mg/kg in adult emergency department (ED) patients with acute pain.

Methods

This was a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of intravenous morphine 0.10 mg/kg versus 0.15 mg/kg, (delivered in 2 divided doses) in adult ED patients with acute pain requiring opioid analgesia. Assessment was made at baseline, 30 minutes, and 60 minutes with a validated verbal numeric rating scale. Pain reduction and satisfaction scores were measured at 30 and 60 minutes. The primary outcome measure was the between-group difference in mean before-after change in numeric rating scale from baseline to 60 minutes.

Results

Two hundred eighty patients were enrolled. Between-group difference in numeric rating scale improvement from baseline to 60 minutes was 0.8 (95% confidence interval 0.1 to 1.5), favoring the 0.15 mg/kg group. Pain relief scores and adverse events were similar in the 2 groups.

Conclusion

Although 0.15 mg/kg of morphine is safe and provides statistically superior analgesia compared with a dose of morphine at 0.10 mg/kg, this difference in pain reduction did not reach the threshold of greater than 1.3 numeric rating scale units required to declare the higher dose of morphine clinically superior.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Supervising editor: Steven M. Green, MDAuthor contributions: AB, DE, PEB, LH, and EJG conceived the study and designed the trial. DE supervised the conduct of the trial, the research associates, and data collection, including quality control. PB provided statistical advice on study design and analysis of the data. AB analyzed the data. PB conducted the interim analysis. AB drafted the article, and all authors contributed substantially to its revision. AB takes responsibility for the paper as a whole.Funding and support: The authors report this study did not receive any outside funding or support.Available online September 15, 2006.Reprints not available from the authors.

PII: S0196-0644(06)00885-7

doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2006.06.030

Annals of Emergency Medicine
Volume 49, Issue 4 , Pages 445-453.e2, April 2007