RATIONALE: Opioids are commonly used to relieve dyspnea, but clinical data are mixed and practice varies widely. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the effect of morphine on dyspnea and ventilatory drive under well-controlled laboratory conditions. METHODS:Six healthy volunteers received morphine (0.07 mg/kg) and placebo intravenously on separate days (randomized, blinded). We measured two responses to a CO(2) stimulus: (1) perceptual response (breathing discomfort; described by subjects as "air hunger") induced by increasing partial pressure of end-tidal carbon dioxide (Pet(CO2)) during restricted ventilation, measured with a visual analog scale (range, "neutral" to "intolerable"); and (2) ventilatory response, measured in separate trials during unrestricted breathing. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We determined the Pet(CO2) that produced a 60% breathing discomfort rating in each subject before morphine (median, 8.5 mm Hg above resting Pet(CO2)). At the same Pet(CO2) after morphine administration, median breathing discomfort was reduced by 65% of its pretreatment value; P < 0.001. Ventilation fell 28% at the same Pet(CO2); P < 0.01. The effect of morphine on breathing discomfort was not significantly correlated with the effect on ventilatory response. Placebo had no effect. CONCLUSIONS: (1) A moderate morphine dose produced substantial relief of laboratory dyspnea, with a smaller reduction of ventilation. (2) In contrast to an earlier laboratory model of breathing effort, this laboratory model of air hunger established a highly significant treatment effect consistent in magnitude with clinical studies of opioids. Laboratory studies require fewer subjects and enable physiological measurements that are difficult to make in a clinical setting. Within-subject comparison of the response to carefully controlled laboratory stimuli can be an efficient means to optimize treatments before clinical trials.
RCT Entities:
RATIONALE: Opioids are commonly used to relieve dyspnea, but clinical data are mixed and practice varies widely. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the effect of morphine on dyspnea and ventilatory drive under well-controlled laboratory conditions. METHODS: Six healthy volunteers received morphine (0.07 mg/kg) and placebo intravenously on separate days (randomized, blinded). We measured two responses to a CO(2) stimulus: (1) perceptual response (breathing discomfort; described by subjects as "air hunger") induced by increasing partial pressure of end-tidal carbon dioxide (Pet(CO2)) during restricted ventilation, measured with a visual analog scale (range, "neutral" to "intolerable"); and (2) ventilatory response, measured in separate trials during unrestricted breathing. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We determined the Pet(CO2) that produced a 60% breathing discomfort rating in each subject before morphine (median, 8.5 mm Hg above resting Pet(CO2)). At the same Pet(CO2) after morphine administration, median breathing discomfort was reduced by 65% of its pretreatment value; P < 0.001. Ventilation fell 28% at the same Pet(CO2); P < 0.01. The effect of morphine on breathing discomfort was not significantly correlated with the effect on ventilatory response. Placebo had no effect. CONCLUSIONS: (1) A moderate morphine dose produced substantial relief of laboratory dyspnea, with a smaller reduction of ventilation. (2) In contrast to an earlier laboratory model of breathing effort, this laboratory model of air hunger established a highly significant treatment effect consistent in magnitude with clinical studies of opioids. Laboratory studies require fewer subjects and enable physiological measurements that are difficult to make in a clinical setting. Within-subject comparison of the response to carefully controlled laboratory stimuli can be an efficient means to optimize treatments before clinical trials.
Authors: Andreas von Leupoldt; Tobias Sommer; Sarah Kegat; Hans Jörg Baumann; Hans Klose; Bernhard Dahme; Christian Büchel Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2009-06-12 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Paula M Meek; Robert Banzett; Mark B Parsall; Richard H Gracely; Richard M Schwartzstein; Robert Lansing Journal: Chest Date: 2012-01-19 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Capucine Morélot-Panzini; Carl R O'Donnell; Robert W Lansing; Richard M Schwartzstein; Robert B Banzett Journal: Respir Physiol Neurobiol Date: 2017-10-12 Impact factor: 1.931
Authors: Mark B Parshall; Richard M Schwartzstein; Lewis Adams; Robert B Banzett; Harold L Manning; Jean Bourbeau; Peter M Calverley; Audrey G Gift; Andrew Harver; Suzanne C Lareau; Donald A Mahler; Paula M Meek; Denis E O'Donnell Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2012-02-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Mihaela S Stefan; David H Au; Richard A Mularski; Jerry A Krishnan; Eduard T Naureckas; Shannon S Carson; Patrick Godwin; Aruna Priya; Penelope S Pekow; Peter K Lindenauer Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2015-07-20 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Nathan Clark; Vincent S Fan; Christopher G Slatore; Emily Locke; Heather E Whitson; Linda Nici; Stephen M Thielke Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2014-07
Authors: Matthieu Schmidt; Robert B Banzett; Mathieu Raux; Capucine Morélot-Panzini; Laurence Dangers; Thomas Similowski; Alexandre Demoule Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2013-10-17 Impact factor: 17.440