1. Introduction
Opioid addiction is a multifactorial problem involving physiological, psychological,
genetic, behavioral and environmental factors. No single treatment approach is effective
in all cases. Traditional methods of treatment include tapering with methadone or
buprenorphine or discontinuing opioids and administering oral clonidine to ameliorate
withdrawal syndrome. Even when pharmacologic agents are used in the management of
opioid withdrawal, there is often a significant amount of patient discomfort (1).
Opiates detoxification can be accomplished on an inpatient or outpatient basis. Withdrawal
symptoms usually last 72 hours or less regardless of the agent used for detoxification.
Addicts may complain of residual withdrawal symptoms for days or even weeks. After
detoxification, maintenance therapy is of great importance in abstinence period. Many
clinicians recommend daily administration of an orally active opiate blocking agent
(naltrexone, ReVia) (2).
2. Rapid and Ultra-rapid Detoxification
Attempts have been made to induce and shorten the opiate withdrawal by clonidine and
opiate antagonists since 1970s (3) Blachley et al. (4) were one of the first groups
suggested the use of anesthesia to make the process of detoxification more humane.
For the first time the ultrarapid detoxification method developed by Lomier et al.
(5), based on earlier rapid detoxification methods published by researchers at the
Yale University (6, 7). Since that time there has been several modifications and improvements
in the technique of ultrarapid opioid detoxification (8). The common underlying theme
in all the programmers of UROD is to shorten the detoxification process to a 6-8 hour
period by precipitating withdrawal following the administration of opioid antagonists
under general anesthesia, blunting the awareness of physical discomfort by deep sedation
or anesthesia appropriately and shortening the lag time between a patient’s last dose
of opioid and his or her transfer (induction) on to naltrexone maintenance. Johnson
and Carr (9) suggested that UROD is a procedure using general anesthesia of less than
6 hours, and ROD is a procedure with deep sedation of about 6-72 hours (8).
3. UROD in Iran
The history of UROD in Iran dates back to about 13 years ago after doing the first
one in the capital city, Tehran, and rapidly distributed to other large cities, and
then to all over the country. It was probably due to the high prevalence of opiate
addiction, introducing this method as a brief and painless procedure in advertisements,
and the most important was presumably the supposition of addicts that in this method
the blood is exchanged and the chance of relapse is very low or not at all. Day by
day the number of addicts requesting this kind of detoxification was increasing and
in addition to the increasing number of involved psychiatrists, anesthesiologists
started to manage addicts independently. After few years the Ministry of Health and
Medical Sciences decided to limit this kind of detoxification to educational and research
centers since 2007 due to mismanagement in some centers, and the belief that this
method is not more effective than other methods. At the same time methadone detoxification
was prohibited and buprenorphine detoxification was substituted in detoxification
centers, and methadone maintenance therapy centers increased rapidly, so there was
a shift of addicts from URD centers to buprenorphine detoxification and methadone
maintenance therapy centers (10).
4. Available Evidences
Considering the design of studies, 9 UROD and 12 ROD and according to O'Cannor and
Kosten (11) extensive research, most of studies used general anesthesia, and only
three studies included control group. Most of the studies focused on the completion
of detoxification or the severity of withdrawal of symptoms. In a clinical analytic
outcome study, 153 addicts enrolled in URD and the severity of withdrawal symptoms
was rated 12 hours after detoxification using SOWS. Results were indicated of well
controlled withdrawal syndrome (12).
Considering the long-term efficacy of URD Seoane et al. (13) reported that 93% of
patients were abstinent after one month. Rabinowitz reported that 57% of 113 patients
who were detoxified by this method were in abstinence after 12 months; and in Brewer
study, 76% of 510 addicts were in abstinence after 4 months (12). A literature review
was performed by Bell et al. (14) from 1980-2000 and 21 studies on naltrexone-accelerated
procedure were evaluated. According to this review withdrawal syndrome was quite protracted
with a mean duration of 3-4 days. The range of follow up study varied from 3 months
to one year (15), and the range of abstinence rate varied from 20% at 6 months (16)
to 68% at 12 months (17).
Comparing this method to methadone-tapering method, abstinence rate is significantly
higher in UROD (67%) than methadone group (33%) (17). Lawental (18) in a retrospective
follow-up study, compared the abstinence rate after 12 and 18 months between subjects
undergone UROD and those who had undergone a 30 day inpatient detoxification. He found
that 22% in the former group were in abstinence compared to 42% in the latter.
Three months follow up study comparing abstinence rate and withdrawal effects of UROD
with standard methadone tapering method shows significantly higher abstinence rate
and milder withdrawal symptoms in UROD group at 1 and 2 months follow up, but it was
not significant at 3 months (19). A follow up study of 16 patients undergone UROD
showed that 14 of them relapsed after 30 months (20).
5. Controversies
To evaluate the usefulness of URD we have to consider its cons and pros. The procedure
nature enforces patients to complete the process, so its efficacy is 100% in the short-term
and greater number of patients enter long-term treatment using naltrexone maintenance
and psychological support. Beside, severity of withdrawal syndrome is at minimum level
comparing to conventional methods, so some patients who do not enter treatment because
of the fear of the pain are motivated to accept substitute detoxification with UROD
process (12). According to a school of thought it is the physician responsibility
to provide convenience in any procedure (21).
Preferring UROD method in addicts may be due to the fear of developing severe withdrawal
syndrome in traditional method, frustration in methadone detoxification and craving
to abuse methadone more and more (22). As long as neonates and children are chemically
but not psychologically dependent, UROD method could be effective for detoxification
in this age group (23).
Talking about harms and pitfalls of UROD, we have to consider morbidity and mortality
rates. There is a report about mortality rate of 4 of 10000 and reports about cases
of suicidal commit, thyroid suppression, respiratory distress, and renal failure following
UROD (24). One of the most important and critical accidental problems is abusing high
dose of opiate following UROD with naltrexone resulting in poisoning and even death
(25).
Naltrexone implant has its own consequences including pulmonary edema, aspiration
pneumonia, protracted withdrawal syndrome and six deaths in one of therapeutic centers
(26). Low education, joblessness and legal problems are factors with direct significant
association with relapse in URD (27).
There is no clear evidence that this procedure, as opposed to the standard detoxification,
leads to greater abstinence rates; although, the immediate and short-term outcomes
are encouraging whether these can be considered as valid outcomes, regarding the procedure
nature, is a debatable issue.
The American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) has issued elaborate recommendations
(28) for UROD incorporating many of the above ideas. It recommends that any method
of opioid detoxification is only a first step, and is not an effective treatment of
opioid addiction per se.
6. Author's Experiences
The author has personally performed more than 2500 UROD during the past 12 years and
what is coming in following parts are the most important issues we noticed.
7. Clients
In a sample size of 153 individuals referred for UROD, 98% of addicts were male and
0.2% were female. Considering educational status, 20.3% had primary school, 30.7%
middle school, 34% high school and 15% college level education. The mean age was 35.3
ranging from 20 to 62 years (12).
8. Procedure
Detoxification was performed under general anesthesia for about 4 hours. Induction
of general anesthesia was performed by propofol and atracurium. Shortly after intubation
and stabilization of patient, IV drip of naloxone was initiated for patient and maintained
for 3 hours. Knowing about the half-life of naloxone, after discontinuation of naloxone
IV drip, patient was received IV therapy for one hour. Cardiopulmonary status was
monitored continuously; while patient was under general anesthesia. Two mg of ondansetron
was administered subcutaneously to control diarrhea and vomiting (29).
9. Cardiovascular Changes During Procedure
Blood pressure of 36.6% of individuals was in the range of 40-140. 24.2% developed
hypotension, 35.3% developed hypertension and in 3.9% blood pressure was variable.
The heart rate in 75% of the cases was in the normal range (60-120), 11% developed
tachycardia, 12.4% developed bradycardia, and in 7% the heart rate was variable (12).
10. Withdrawal Syndrome
According to the report of Yassini et al. (12), the severity of withdrawal symptoms,
measuring by SWOS was fair in 35.9% of patients, good in 20.3% and excellent in the
remaining, and generally was less sever in those who were polyopiate substance abuser.
11. Complications
In one study, among 25 individuals who underwent URD procedure, one who injected 32
buprenorphine in a day developed severe depression 58 hours after detoxification,
two of them developed delirium and one of them developed pulmonary edema (30).
12. Follow Up
Follow up studies in the field of addiction in Iranian culture is not possible or
at least is very difficult. As long as they suppose that their inpatient chart will
make some difficulties, legal or familial, for them they usually give wrong name or
contact number, which makes follow up impossible. But according to what I have heard
from my clients in my office there are individuals who have underwent UROD 10 years
ago and they are still in abstinence.
13. Conclusions
In any type of detoxification, it is per se is the first step of addiction management,
and what is important for the clients is the duration and severity of withdrawal syndrome.
Studies are indicative of less withdrawal syndrome severity and less duration, but
as long as complication of URD is more than other detoxification methods, it is recommended
to use this method for educated, young and healthy individuals with enough motivation
and familial support. Generally its use in clinical settings is not supportable until
a clearly positive risk-benefit relationship can be demonstrated. Further research
on UROD should be conducted.