Morphine or hydromorphone: which should be preferred? A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review available paediatric literature on comparisons between morphine (Mo) and hydromorphone (Hm), to guide clinicians to rationally use these medications. DESIGN: Systematic review within four databases for all studies published from 1963 to July 2019. SETTING: All paediatric settings. ELIGIBILITY: All studies comparing Mo to Hm in individuals younger than 21 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was to compare clinical efficacy and side effects of Mo and Hm. The secondary outcomes were the comparison of pharmacokinetic profiles and the description of predefined Mo to Hm conversion ratios used across the paediatric literature. RESULTS: Among 754 abstracts reviewed, 59 full-text articles met inclusion criteria and 24 studies were included in the analysis: 4 studies compared pharmacodynamics of Mo and Hm and 20 studies reported the use of a predefined Mo to Hm conversion ratio. Most studies had a poor methodological quality. Available evidence suggests that, when given intravenously, the equianalgesic ratio of Mo to Hm is 5:1. Intravenous administration with this ratio results in a similar rate of adverse effects, including pruritus and nausea. The epidural administration with a ratio of 10:1 results in more pruritus and urinary retention with Mo than Hm. Pharmacokinetic data were reported in only one study. A wide range of pre-established ratios for different routes of administration were reported, but few were based on evidence. CONCLUSION: Current literature does not permit a rational choice between Mo and Hm. A ratio of 5:1 seems adequate for intravenous administration and leads to a similar rate of adverse effects.

Oral morphine protocol evaluation for the treatment of vaso-occlusive crisis in paediatric sickle cell patients.

BACKGROUND: Vaso-occlusive crisis (VOC) is one of the most frequent causes of emergency visit and admission in children with sickle cell disease (SCD). OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate whether the implementation of a protocol promoting the use of oral morphine as a primary intervention has led to improved care of SCD. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of patients with SCD who presented to the emergency department (ED) and hematology outpatient clinic (HOC) with VOC, in the year pre and postimplementation of the protocol. The primary outcome was the hospitalization rate. RESULTS: The protocol resulted in a significant 43% reduction of hospitalization rate (95% confidence interval [CI] -53.0, 26.5). Results also showed a 35% increase in the use of oral morphine as first-line opiate treatment (95% CI 17.9, 45.2), a 28% increase in the use of pain scales (95% CI 17.3, 43.2) and a 30% net increase in patients eventually not requiring intravenous (IV) line placement (95% CI 16.0, 39.9). While we did observe an overall decrease in length of stay in ED of -55 min (95% CI -100.6, -12.0), there was a nonsignificant decrease of 7 minutes (95% CI -26, 3) in the opiate administration time. CONCLUSIONS: This study validates the use of our oral morphine protocol for the treatment of VOC by significantly reducing the admission rate and decreasing the number of IVs.

External cold and vibration for pain management of children undergoing needle-related procedures in the emergency department: a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Needle-related procedures are considered as the most important source of pain and distress in children in hospital settings. Considering the physiological and psychological consequences that could result from these procedures, management of pain and distress through pharmacological and non-pharmacological methods is essential. Therefore, it is important to have interventions that are rapid, easy-to-use and likely to be translated into clinical practice for routine use. The aim of this study will be to determine whether a device combining cold and vibration (Buzzy) is non-inferior to a topical anaesthetic (liposomal lidocaine 4% cream) for pain management of children undergoing needle-related procedures in the emergency department. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will be a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial comparing the Buzzy device to liposomal lidocaine 4% cream for needle-related pain management. A total of 346 participants will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to one of the two study groups. The primary outcome will be the mean difference in pain intensity between groups during needle-related procedures. A non-inferiority margin of 0.70 on the Color Analogue Scale will be considered. A Non-inferiority margin of 0.70 on the Color Analogue Scale will be considered. The secondary outcomes will be the level of distress during the procedure, the success of the procedure at first attempt, the occurrence of adverse events, the satisfaction of both interventions and the memory of pain 24 hours after the procedure. The primary outcome will be assessed for non-inferiority and the secondary outcomes for superiority. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study protocol was reviewed and approved by the institutional review board of the study setting. Findings of this trial will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02616419.