• M Rabinov, F L Rosenfeldt, and A J McLean.
• Aust N Z J Surg. 1987 Apr 1; 57 (4): 227-31.

AbstractThe analgesic efficacy, side effects and cost of administration of regimens of intravenous buprenorphine and intravenous morphine were compared in a randomized double-blind trial performed during the first 24 h after cardiac surgery. Seven patients received buprenorphine by intermittent intravenous injection and six received morphine by continuous infusion. Both these regimens provided good analgesia for the entire 24 h period, with only mild pain at rest and moderate pain on vigorous coughing. Both regimens also produced mild respiratory depression but this was not of clinical importance: the mean arterial PCO2 in both groups was less than 45 mmHg after extubation. The major difference between drugs in the clinical setting was the ease of administration. Buprenorphine had no narcotic code restriction and could be given by intermittent intravenous injection, whereas morphine required checking and handling as a restricted drug and administration by continuous intravenous infusion. When labour and material costs were computed, over the first 24 postoperative hours, it cost $19.76 per patient to administer morphine, but only $3.16 to administer buprenorphine. Thus the use of buprenorphine injections for the first 24 h after cardiac surgery produced pain relief and respiratory depression comparable to that produced by a morphine infusion, but with a significant cost saving in terms of labour and materials.

24 keywords...

hide…