Intravenous Methadone versus Intrathecal Morphine as Part of an Enhanced Recovery After Cardiac Surgery Protocol on Postoperative Pain and Outcomes: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Evaluate the effect of intravenous (IV) methadone versus intrathecal morphine (ITM) within an Enhanced Recovery After Cardiac Surgery (ERACS) pathway on postoperative pain and outcomes (length of hospital stay and postoperative complications) after cardiac surgery. Retrospective cohort study. Two tertiary academic medical institutions within the same health system. Eligible 289 adult patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery with an enhanced recovery pathway from January 2020 through July 2021. Patients were administered ITM (0.25 mg) or IV methadone (0.1 mg/kg) if ITM was contraindicated. All patients were enrolled in an ERACS pathway using current Enhanced Recovery After Surgery society guidelines. Primary outcome measures included postoperative pain scores and opioid consumption measured as oral morphine equivalents. We analyzed patient demographics, procedural factors, intraoperative medications, and outcomes. Adjusted linear mixed models were fit to analyze associations between intervention and pain outcomes. ITM was associated with decrease in pain scores on postoperative day 0 after adjusting for clinical variables (average marginal effect, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.002-0.977; p = 0.049). No difference in opioid consumption could be demonstrated between groups after adjusting for postoperative day and other variables of interest. ITM when compared with IV methadone was associated with a decrease in pain scores without any difference in opioid consumption after elective cardiac surgery. Methadone can be considered as a safe and effective alternative to ITM for ERACS protocols. Future large prospective studies are needed to validate this finding and further improve analgesia and safety.

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.