Skip to main content
Log in

Randomized Clinical Trial of an Intravenous Hydromorphone Titration Protocol versus Usual Care for Management of Acute Pain in Older Emergency Department Patients

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Drugs & Aging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background and Objectives

Opioid titration is an effective strategy for treating pain; however, titration is generally impractical in the busy emergency department (ED) setting. Our objective was to test a rapid, two-step, hydromorphone titration protocol against usual care in older patients presenting to the ED with acute severe pain.

Methods

This was a prospective, randomized clinical trial of patients 65 years of age and older presenting to an adult, urban, academic ED with acute severe pain. The study was registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01429285). Patients randomized to the hydromorphone titration protocol initially received 0.5 mg intravenous hydromorphone. Patients randomized to usual care received any dose of any intravenous opioid. At 15 min, patients in both groups were asked, ‘Do you want more pain medication?’ Patients in the hydromorphone titration group who answered ‘yes’ received a second dose of 0.5 mg intravenous hydromorphone. Patients in the usual care group who answered ‘yes’ had their ED attending physician notified, who then could administer any (or no) additional medication. The primary efficacy outcome was satisfactory analgesia defined a priori as the patient declining additional analgesia at least once when asked at 15 or 60 min after administration of the initial opioid. Dose was calculated in morphine equivalent units (MEU: 1 mg hydromorphone = 7 mg morphine). The need for naloxone to reverse adverse opioid effects was the primary safety outcome.

Results

83.0 % of 153 patients in the hydromorphone titration group achieved satisfactory analgesia compared with 82.5 % of 166 patients in the usual care group (p = 0.91). Patients in the hydromorphone titration group received lower mean initial doses of opioids at baseline than patients in the usual care group (3.5 MEU vs. 4.7 MEU, respectively; p ≤ 0.001) and lower total opioids through 60 min (5.3 MEU vs. 6.0 MEU; p = 0.03). No patient needed naloxone.

Conclusions

Low-dose titration of intravenous hydromorphone in increments of 0.5 mg provides comparable analgesia to usual care with less opioid over 60 min.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Cavalieri TA. Pain management in the elderly. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2002;102(9):481–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. McCarberg BH. Introduction. Pain and the elderly. Clin J Pain. 2004;20(4):205–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Blanda MP. Pharmacologic issues in geriatric emergency medicine. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2006;24(2):449–65, viii.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chang AK, Bijur PE, Davitt M, et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing a patient-driven titration protocol of intravenous hydromorphone with traditional physician-driven management of emergency department patients with acute severe pain. Ann Emerg Med. 2009;54(4):561–7 e2.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Callahan CM, Unverzagt FW, Hui SL, et al. Six-item screener to identify cognitive impairment among potential subjects for clinical research. Med Care. 2002;40(9):771–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bijur PE, Latimer CT, Gallagher EJ. Validation of a verbally administered numerical rating scale of acute pain for use in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med. 2003;10(4):390–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bijur PE, Kenny MK, Gallagher EJ. Intravenous morphine at 0.1 mg/kg is not effective for controlling severe acute pain in the majority of patients. Ann Emerg Med. 2005;46(4):362–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Birnbaum A, Esses D, Bijur PE, et al. 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. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;49(4):445–53, 453.e1–2.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Aubrun F, Langeron O, Quesnel C, et al. Relationships between measurement of pain using visual analog score and morphine requirements during postoperative intravenous morphine titration. Anesthesiology. 2003;98(6):1415–21.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Galinski M, Dolveck F, Borron SW, et al. A randomized, double-blind study comparing morphine with fentanyl in prehospital analgesia. Am J Emerg Med. 2005;23(2):114–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chang AK, Bijur PE, Napolitano A, et al. Two milligrams i.v. hydromorphone is efficacious for treating pain but is associated with oxygen desaturation. J Opioid Manag. 2009;5(2):75–80.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hardman JG, Limbird LE, Gilman AG. Goodman & Gilman’s the pharmacological basis of therapeutics. 10th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Wilson E. Probable inference, the law of succession, and statistical inference. J Am Stat Assoc. 1927;22:209–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Leon RV. The concept of the confidence interval for the mean. http://web.utk.edu/~leon/stat201/Confidence%20Interval%20Concept.html (cited 19 Apr 2012).

  15. Chang AK, Bijur PE, Gallagher EJ. Randomized clinical trial comparing the safety and efficacy of a hydromorphone titration protocol to usual care in the management of adult emergency department patients with acute severe pain. Ann Emerg Med. 2011;58(4):352–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Chang AK, Bijur PE, Lupow J, et al. Randomized clinical trial of efficacy and safety of a single 2 mg IV dose of hydromorphone vs. usual care in the management of acute pain. Acad Emerg Med. 2013;20:185–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Federman AD, Litke A, Morrison RS. Association of age with analgesic use for back and joint disorders in outpatient settings. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. 2006;4(4):306–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Jones JS, Johnson K, McNinch M. Age as a risk factor for inadequate emergency department analgesia. Am J Emerg Med. 1996;14(2):157–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Hwang U, Richardson LD, Harris B, et al. The quality of emergency department pain care for older adult patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010;58(11):2122–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Platts-Mills TF, Esserman DA, Brown DL, et al. Older US emergency department patients are less likely to receive pain medication than younger patients: results from a national survey. Ann Emerg Med. 2012;60(2):199–206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Greenwald DA. Aging, the gastrointestinal tract, and risk of acid-related disease. Am J Med. 2004;117 Suppl 5A:8-S–13-S.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Forchheimer MB, Richards JS, Chiodo AE, et al. Cut point determination in the measurement of pain and its relationship to psychosocial and functional measures after traumatic spinal cord injury: a retrospective model spinal cord injury system analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92(3):419–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Chang AK, Bijur PE, Baccelieri A, et al. Efficacy and safety profile of a single dose of hydromorphone compared with morphine in older adults with acute, severe pain: a prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. 2009;7(1):1–10.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Chang AK, Bijur PE, Campbell CM, et al. Safety and efficacy of rapid titration using 1 mg doses of intravenous hydromorphone in emergency department patients with acute severe pain: the “1+1” protocol. Ann Emerg Med. 2009;54(2):221–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Chang AK, Bijur PE, Meyer RH, et al. Safety and efficacy of hydromorphone as an analgesic alternative to morphine in acute pain: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Emerg Med. 2006;48(2):164–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Todd KH, Ducharme J, Choiniere M, et al. Pain in the emergency department: results of the pain and emergency medicine initiative (PEMI) multicenter study. J Pain. 2007;8(6):460–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Todd KH, Lee T, Hoffman JR. The effect of ethnicity on physician estimates of pain severity in patients with isolated extremity trauma. JAMA. 1994;271(12):925–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Todd KH, Samaroo N, Hoffman JR. Ethnicity as a risk factor for inadequate emergency department analgesia. JAMA. 1993;269(12):1537–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

Dr. Chang is supported by a grant from the NIA (K23 AG033100-01A2). None of the other authors have any financial or personal conflicts of interest.

Author contributions

Andrew K. Chang created the study concept and design, managed acquisition of subjects, and prepared the manuscript; Polly E. Bijur provided all statistical analyses, and edited the manuscript; Michelle Davitt assisted in data collection and auditing, and edited the manuscript; E. John Gallagaher was involved in the design of the study, and edited the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew K. Chang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chang, A.K., Bijur, P.E., Davitt, M. et al. Randomized Clinical Trial of an Intravenous Hydromorphone Titration Protocol versus Usual Care for Management of Acute Pain in Older Emergency Department Patients. Drugs Aging 30, 747–754 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40266-013-0103-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40266-013-0103-y

Keywords

Navigation