Comparison of continuous subcutaneous hydromorphone hydrochloride and morphine hydrochloride injection on skin disorders incidence: a retrospective study
2024

Comparing Skin Disorders from Hydromorphone and Morphine Injections

Sample size: 59 publication 10 minutes Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Tanaka Rei, Hashizume Takahiro, Hisanaga Tadashi, Masuda Shinya, Sato Junya, Ishikawa Hiroshi, Tanaka Hironori, Saitoh Akiyoshi, Sato Tetsumi, Kamoshida Takeshi, Sato Tetsu, Shino Michihiro

Primary Institution: Shizuoka Cancer Center, Shizuoka, Japan

Hypothesis

Does continuous subcutaneous administration of hydromorphone hydrochloride result in fewer skin disorders compared to morphine hydrochloride?

Conclusion

Subcutaneous hydromorphone hydrochloride administration had a lower risk of skin disorders than morphine hydrochloride injection.

Supporting Evidence

  • The incidence of skin disorders was 3.7% in the hydromorphone group and 28.1% in the morphine group.
  • Hydromorphone administration showed a significant negative correlation with skin disorders occurrence.
  • Prolonged administration period increased the risk of skin disorders.

Takeaway

This study found that using hydromorphone instead of morphine for injections can help prevent skin problems.

Methodology

A retrospective study analyzed medical records of patients receiving hydromorphone or morphine injections, comparing the incidence of skin disorders.

Potential Biases

The study's retrospective nature and reliance on medical records may have led to missing data on background factors.

Limitations

Opioid selection was at the physician's discretion, which may have introduced bias, and the study was retrospective, potentially affecting data accuracy.

Participant Demographics

Patients included were those receiving continuous subcutaneous injections of hydromorphone or morphine for cancer pain.

Statistical Information

P-Value

0.022

Confidence Interval

0.01–0.70

Statistical Significance

p=0.022

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1186/s40780-024-00401-6

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication