This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Data Supplement Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Web of Science (2) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Mazoit, J. X. Articles by Samii, K. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Mazoit, J. X. Articles by Samii, K. Related Collections Pain Medicine Pharmacology

---

ANESTHETIC PHARMACOLOGY

Morphine in Postoperative Patients: Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Metabolites

From the Univ Paris-Sud, Laboratoire d’Anesthésie UPRES 3540, Faculté de Médecine, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France F-94276; AP-HP, Département d’Anesthésie, Hôpital Bicêtre, Le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France F-94275.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Jean-Xavier Mazoit, MD, PhD, Departement d’Anesthésie, Hôpital Bicêtre, F-94275 Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France. Address e-mail to jean-xavier.mazoit{at}u-psud.fr.

BACKGROUND: There is great variability in the need for morphine in the postoperative period. We performed a pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic study considering the potential effect of the two main metabolites of morphine.

METHODS: Fifty patients with moderate to severe pain received morphine as an IV titration, followed by IM administration postoperatively. The plasma concentration of morphine, morphine-6-glucuronide (M-6-G), morphine-3-glucuronide (M-3-G), and pain intensity were measured at frequent intervals. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic fitting was performed with the software NONMEM.

RESULTS: The pharmacokinetics were largely predictable. M-6-G and M-3-G clearances were markedly decreased in patients with renal failure. The pharmacodynamics was less predictable, with an important interindividual variability. M-6-G was 7.8 times more potent than morphine, but the average time to peak concentration in the effect compartment after a bolus injection of morphine was 4.25 h for M-6-G, when compared to 0.33 h for morphine. M-3-G showed mild inhibition of the analgesic properties of morphine and of M-6-G. The time to M-3-G peak concentration in the effect compartment after a bolus injection of morphine was 10 h.

CONCLUSIONS: M-6-G is a potent opioid agonist and M-3-G a mild opioid antagonist. Both are poorly excreted in patients with renal failure. However, the metabolism of morphine was rapid when compared to the transfer of metabolites through the blood–brain barrier, which appears to be the limiting process. Because poor analgesia due to M-3-G’s effect may occur in some patients after 1 or 2 days, a switch to other molecules should be considered.