MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413766437 · doi:10.1111/anae.16754

Intravenous methadone for pain management in cardiac surgery: a randomised controlled trial with plasma concentration analysis*

2025· article· en· W4413766437 on OpenAlexaff
Man Kin Henry Wong, Veronica Ka Wai Lai, Lok Ching Sandra Chiu, Wai‐Tat Wong, Siu Kwan Wo, Zhong Zuo, Xiaodong Liu, Randolph H.L. Wong, Kwok M. Ho

Bibliographic record

VenueAnaesthesia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Opioid Use
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
FundersHealth Bureau
KeywordsMedicineMethadonePain managementAnesthesiaRandomized controlled trialCardiac surgerySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Introduction Postoperative pain after cardiac surgery remains significant despite the administration of opioids. Methadone may improve pain control and decrease the need for postoperative opioids. Randomised controlled trials, however, are limited and the effects of cardiopulmonary bypass on methadone pharmacokinetics are unclear. The aims of this study were to compare methadone and morphine in cardiac surgery, measuring methadone concentrations and correlating them with pain control. Methods Patients undergoing cardiac surgery that required cardiopulmonary bypass were allocated randomly to receive either 0.2 mg.kg ‐1 methadone or 0.2 mg.kg ‐1 morphine (based on actual body weight, maximum 20 mg for both drugs). Postoperative pain was assessed at 15 min and 8 h, 12 h, 24 h, 48 h and 72 h after tracheal extubation, by analysis of morphine consumption and pain scores. Opioid‐related adverse events were evaluated. Postoperative blood samples were collected for 96 h to measure plasma methadone concentrations. Results In total, 80 patients were analysed (40 allocated to the methadone group, 40 allocated to the morphine group). Patients allocated to the methadone group had significantly reduced 24‐h and total postoperative morphine requirements compared to those allocated to the morphine group (median (IQR [range]) 9 (5–16 [0–40]) mg vs. 24 (17–43 [4–54]) mg (p < 0.001) at 24 h and 35 (23–52 [5–66]) mg vs. 11 (7–20 [0–44]) mg (p < 0.001) total). Patients allocated to the methadone group had lower pain scores at rest (β ‐2.24, standard error 0.49, p < 0.001) and on coughing (β ‐2.16, standard error 0.50, p < 0.001). There was no difference in the incidence of opioid‐related adverse effects between the two groups. Plasma methadone concentration decreased during cardiopulmonary bypass but remained above the minimum effective analgesic concentration for approximately 24 h after administration (mean (SD) 51 (24.7) ng.ml ‐1 at baseline to 30 (10.7) ng.ml ‐1 at 24 h). Discussion Intra‐operative methadone reduces postoperative analgesia requirements without increasing the incidence of opioid‐related adverse events.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.610

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnaesthesiaSame topicPain Management and Opioid UseFrench-language works237,207