| Title |
Morphine versus methylprednisolone or aminophylline for relieving dyspnea in patients with advanced cancer in China: a retrospective study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40064-016-3651-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cong Tian, Jiong-Yi Wang, Mei-Ling Wang, Bin Jiang, Lu-Lu Zhang, Feng Liu |
| Abstract |
Dyspnea is one of the most common and distressing symptoms that occurs in terminal cancer patients. However, there are no existing treatment guidelines for this condition in China. This single-center, retrospective, observational study aimed to compare the efficacy of using morphine, methylprednisolone, or aminophylline to relieve the symptom of breathlessness in patients with advanced malignant tumors and to investigate the safety of these regimens during the treatment of dyspnea. Between August 2011 and January 2015 we retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 343 terminally ill cancer patients with dyspnea who received morphine, methylprednisolone, or aminophylline. The therapeutic effect of each treatment by means of visual analogue scale (VAS) scores was assessed and compared. Statistical methods included Chi square and analysis of variance tests. Differences were considered significant when P < 0.05. VAS scores after treatment were (16.82 ± 10.89), (25.72 ± 15.03), and (31.95 ± 16.00) points in the morphine, methylprednisolone, and aminophylline group, respectively. These differences were found to be significantly different (P < 0.05). The effectiveness ratings were 86.44, 62.16, and 49.12%, respectively (P < 0.05). We found that morphine subcutaneous injection for advanced cancer patients with dyspnea was safe and typically more effective than methylprednisolone or aminophylline. Therefore, morphine treatment could significantly improve the quality of life in terminal cancer patients with short life expectancies who are experiencing shortness of breath. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 19 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 21% |
| Unknown | 8 | 42% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 21% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 16% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 8 | 42% |