Paracetamol and selective and non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the reduction in morphine-related side-effects after major surgery: a systematic review

Statewide Utilization of Multimodal Analgesia and Length of Stay After Colectomy

BACKGROUND

Both enhanced recovery and anesthesia literature recommend multimodal perioperative analgesia to hasten recovery, prevent adverse events, and reduce opioid use after surgery. However, adherence to, and outcomes of, these recommendations are unknown. We sought to characterize use of multimodal analgesia and its association with length of stay after colectomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Within a statewide, 72-hospital collaborative quality initiative, we evaluated postoperative analgesia regimens among adult patients undergoing elective colectomy between 2012 and 2015. We used logistic regression to identify factors associated with the use of multimodal analgesia and performed multivariable linear regression to evaluate its association with postoperative length of stay (LOS).

RESULTS

Among 7265 patients who underwent elective colectomy in the study period, 4660 (64.1%) received multimodal analgesia, 2405 (33.1%) received opioids alone, and 200 (2.8%) received one nonopioid pain medication alone. Multimodal analgesia was independently associated with shorter adjusted postoperative LOS, compared with opioids alone (5.60 d [95% CI 5.38-5.81] versus 5.96 d [5.68-6.24], P = 0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

Multimodal analgesia is associated with shorter LOS, yet one-third of patients statewide received opioids alone after colectomy. As surgeons increasingly focus on our role in the opioid crisis, particularly in postdischarge opioid prescribing, we must also focus on inpatient postoperative pain management to limit opioid exposure. At the hospital level, this may have the added benefit of decreasing LOS and hastening recovery.

The intraoperative use of non-opioid adjuvant analgesic agents: a survey of anaesthetists in Australia and New Zealand

BACKGROUND

Opioids have long been the mainstay of drugs used for intra-operative analgesia. Due to their well-known short and long term side effects, the use of non-opioid analgesics has often been encouraged to decrease the dose of opioid required and minimise these side effects. The trends in using non-opioid adjuvants among Australian Anaesthetists have not been examined before. This study has attempted to determine the use of non-opioid analgesics as part of an opioid sparing practice among anaesthetists across Australia and New Zealand.

METHODS

A survey was distributed to 985 anaesthetists in Australia and New Zealand. The questions focused on frequency of use of different adjuvants and any reasons for not using individual agents. The agents surveyed were paracetamol, dexamethasone, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs), tramadol, ketamine, anticonvulsants, intravenous lidocaine, systemic alpha 2 agonists, magnesium sulphate, and beta blockers. Descriptive statistics were used and data are expressed as a percentage of response for each drug.

RESULTS

The response rate was 33.4%. Paracetamol was the most frequently used; with 72% of the respondents describing frequent usage (defined as usage above 70% of the time); followed by parecoxib (42% reported frequent usage) and dexamethasone (35% reported frequent usage). Other adjuvants were used much less commonly, with anaesthetists reporting their frequent usage at less than 10%. The majority of respondents suggested that they would never consider dexmedetomidine, magnesium, esmolol, pregabalin or gabapentin. Perceived disincentives for the use of analgesic adjuvants varied. The main concerns were side effects, lack of evidence for benefit, and anaesthetists' experience. The latter two were the major factors for magnesium, dexmedetomidine and esmolol.

CONCLUSION

The uptake of tramadol, lidocaine and magnesium amongst respondents from anaesthetists in Australia and New Zealand was poor. Gabapentin, pregabalin, dexmedetomidine and esmolol use was relatively rare. Most anaesthetists need substantial evidence before introducing a non-opioid adjuvant into their routine practice. Future trials should focus on assessing the opioid sparing benefits and relative risk of using individual non-opioid adjuvants in the perioperative period for specific procedures and patient populations.

Association of the Use of a Mandatory Prescription Drug Monitoring Program With Prescribing Practices for Patients Undergoing Elective Surgery

Importance

Most states have adopted the routine use of a prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP) to curb overprescribing of opioids. The American College of Surgeons promotes the use of these programs as a "guiding principle to curb the opioid epidemic." However, there is a paucity of data on the effects of the use of these programs for surgical patient populations.

Objective

To determine the association of the mandatory use of a PDMP with the opioid prescribing practices for patients undergoing general surgery.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A prospective observational cohort study was conducted at an academic hospital in New Hampshire among 1057 patients undergoing representative elective general surgical procedures from July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2017.

Exposures

New state legislation mandated the use of a PDMP and opioid risk-assessment tool for all patients receiving an outpatient opioid prescription in New Hampshire beginning January 1, 2017. The electronic medical prescribing system was modified to facilitate and support compliance with the new requirements.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Change in opioid prescribing practices after January 1, 2017, and time to complete PDMP requirements.

Results

Among the 1057 patients (569 women [53.8%] and 488 men [46.2%]; mean [SD] age, 56.8 [15.4] years), the percentage of patients prescribed opioids after surgery did not decrease significantly (429 of 536 [80.0%] before the new requirements vs 401 of 521 [77.0%] after the requirements; P = .29). The mean number of opioid pills prescribed decreased from 30.8 to 24.0 (22.1%) in the 6 months prior to the mandatory PDMP requirement; the rate of decrease was actually less (from 22.8 to 21.9 pills [3.9%]) in the 6 months after the legislation. These new requirements did not identify any high-risk patients who subsequently were not prescribed opioids. The query and opioid abuse risk calculator together took a median time of 7 minutes (range, 2-17 minutes) to complete.

Conclusions and Relevance

A mandatory PDMP query requirement was not significantly associated with the overall rate of opioid prescribing or the mean number of pills prescribed for patients undergoing general surgical procedures. In no cases was a high-risk patient identified, leading to avoidance of an opioid prescription. A PDMP can be a useful adjunct in certain settings, but this study found that it did not have the intended effect in a population undergoing elective surgical procedures. Legislative efforts to mandate PDMP use should be targeted to populations in which benefit can be demonstrated.

Opioid stewardship after emergency laparoscopic general surgery

Background

Opioid administration in postoperative patients has contributed to the opioid crisis by increasing the load of opioids available in the community. Implementation of evidence-based practices is key to optimizing the use of opioids for acute pain control. This study aims to characterize the administration and prescribing practices after emergency laparoscopic general surgery procedures with the goal of identifying areas for improvement.

Methods

A retrospective chart review of 200 patients undergoing emergency laparoscopic appendectomies and cholecystectomies was conducted for a 2-year period at a single institution. Eligible patients were opioid-naïve adults admitted through the emergency department. Opioid administration and discharge prescriptions were converted to oral morphine equivalents (OME), and analyzed and compared with published literature and local guidelines.

Results

Opioid analgesia was provided as needed to 69% of patients in hospital with average dosing of 26.7 OME/day; comparatively, 99.5% of patients received prescriptions for opioids on discharge at an average dosing of 61.7 OME/day. The average dosing in the discharge prescriptions was not correlated with in-hospital needs (Pearson=−0.04; p=0.56); and higher narcotic doses were associated with combination opioid prescriptions compared with separate opioid prescriptions (73.8 (1.90) vs. 50.1 (1.90) OME/day; p<0.01). This difference was driven by the combination medication, Percocet.

Conclusions

In the immediate postoperative period, most patients were managed in hospital with opioid analgesia dosages that fell within guidelines. Nearly all patients were provided with prescriptions for opioids on discharge, these prescriptions both exceeded local guidelines and were not correlated with in-hospital narcotic needs or pain scores.

Level of evidence

Level 3 retrospective cohort study.

Opioids and analgesics use after adult spinal deformity surgery correlates with sagittal alignment and preoperative analgesic pattern

PURPOSE

To assess pain, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) scores and sagittal parameters of adult spinal deformity (ASD)-operated patients in the context of their analgesic consumption especially opioids (narcotics) over the first year postoperative period.

METHODS

In total, 372 patients from a multicenter database were stratified into 3 groups at baseline: 241 patients in the minimal group (no analgesic, or NSAIDs/narcotics weekly or less), 64 in the NSAIDs every day group and 67 in the narcotics every day group. HRQOL and back and leg pain scores were evaluated at 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. Also several sagittal alignment parameters were assessed.

RESULTS

Significant improvements in pain and HRQOL scores were observed across all 3 groups by 1 year (P < 0.05) postoperatively. While the minimal group had the best pre- and postoperative HRQOL scores, the NSAID group demonstrated the best improvement in HRQOL. Only the minimal group displayed continued improvement from 6 months to 1 year. 90%, 65% and 40% of minimal, NSAID and narcotic groups of patients, respectively, no longer took any analgesics at 1 year postoperatively. Alternatively, 36% of patients in the narcotics group continued to take narcotics at 1 year. Residual malalignment increased NSAIDs consumption in different groups at 1 year.

CONCLUSION

This study evaluated the analgesics use after ASD surgery in relation to the clinical and radiological outcomes. Despite important postoperative opioids consumption in the narcotics group, clinical outcome yet improved. Malalignment parameters demonstrated a predictive value in regard to NSAIDs' usage. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Non-opioid analgesics as adjuvants to opioid for pain management in adult patients in the ICU: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To identify the impact of non-opioid analgesics as adjuvants to opioid on opioid consumption and its side effects, as well as the analgesic effectiveness in adult patients in the ICU.

METHODS

Only randomized clinical trials using non-opioid analgesics for analgesia in the ICU were included. Pooled analyses with 95% CI were determined.

RESULTS

Twelve studies (mainly surgical and Guillain-Barre syndrome patients) were included. Non-opioid analgesics as adjuvants to opioid were associated with a significant reduction in the consumption of opioids when compared with opioid use alone at Day 1 (MD -15.40; 95% CI -22.41 to -8.39; P < .001) and Day 2 (MD -22.93; 95% CI -27.70 to -18.16; P < .001). Non-opioid analgesics as adjuvants to opioid were associated with a significantly lower incidence of nausea and vomiting when compared with opioid use alone (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.68; P < .001). Non-opioid analgesics as adjuvants to opioid significantly decreased the pain score at Day 1 (MD -0.68; 95% CI -1.28 to -0.08; P = .03) and Day 2 (MD -1.36; 95% CI -2.47 to -0.24; P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Non-opioid analgesics as adjuvants to opioid reduced the consumption and the side effects of opioids in adult surgical and Guillain-Barre syndrome patients in the ICU.

TRIAL REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews on January 23, 2017, registration number CRD42017055768.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and pain in cancer patients: a systematic review and reappraisal of the evidence

BACKGROUND

Emerging data highlights the potential role of cyclooxygenase (COX) inhibitors in the primary prevention of malignancy, reducing metastatic spread and improving overall mortality. Despite nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) forming a key component of the WHO analgesic ladder, their use in cancer pain management remains relatively low. This review re-appraises the current evidence regarding the efficacy of COX inhibitors as analgesics in cancer pain, providing a succinct resource to aid clinicians' decision making when determining treatment strategies.

METHODS

Medline® and Embase® databases were searched for publications up to November 2018. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and double-blind controlled studies considering the use of NSAIDs for management of cancer-related pain in adults were included. Animal studies, case reports, and retrospective observational data were excluded.

RESULTS

Thirty studies investigating the use of NSAIDs in cancer pain management were identified. There is a lack of high-quality evidence regarding the analgesic efficacy of NSAIDs in cancer pain, with short study durations and heterogeneity in outcome measures limiting the ability to draw meaningful conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the renewed interest in these cost-effective, well-established medications in cancer treatment outcomes, there is a paucity of data from the past 15 yr regarding their efficacy in cancer pain management. However, when analgesic strategies in the cancer population are being formulated, it is important that the potential benefits of this class of drug are considered. Further work investigating the role of NSAIDs in cancer pain management is undoubtedly warranted.

Potential role of pharmacogenomics testing in the setting of enhanced recovery pathways after surgery

In 2001, a group of European academic surgeons created the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) study group and established the first official ERAS protocol. One of the most significant challenges during ERAS implementation is variability of drugs used throughout the perioperative period. Pharmacogenomic testing (blood or saliva) results (obtained within approximately 48 hrs) provide guidelines on how to prescribe the optimal drug with the optimal dosage to each patient based on an individual's unique genetic profile. Pharmacogenomic testing of various methods of multimodal analgesia is an essential element of ERAS protocols spanning the entire perioperative period to ultimately optimize postoperative pain control. The key goal for anesthetic management in ERAS protocols is to facilitate rapid emergence by using the shortest acting agents available, thus accelerating recovery and reducing length of stay, hospital expenses, and postoperative complications. Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is an additional challenge that should be overcome to ensure an enhanced recovery and shorter length of stay with the use of antiemetics. Postoperative ileus (POI) can result in longer hospital stay with increasing susceptibility to associated morbidities along with an increase in associated hospitalization costs. Genetics-guided pharmacotherapy and its impact on clinical outcomes should be thoroughly studied for better understanding and managing drug administration in the settings of ERAS.

Development of evidence-based recommendations for procedure-specific pain management: PROSPECT methodology

Effective peri‐operative pain management is a prerequisite for optimal recovery after surgery. Despite published evidence‐based guidelines from several professional groups, postoperative pain management remains inadequate. The procedure‐specific pain management (PROSPECT) collaboration consists of anaesthetists and surgeons with broad international representation that provide healthcare professionals with practical and evidence‐based recommendations formulated in a way that facilitates clinical decision‐making across all stages of the peri‐operative period on a procedure‐specific basis. The aim of this manuscript is to provide a detailed description of the current PROSPECT methodology with the intention of providing the rigour and transparency in which procedure‐specific pain management recommendations are developed. The high methodological standards of the recommendations should improve the quality of clinical practice.

Regional analgesia modalities in abdominal and lower limb surgery - comparison of efficacy

A significant component of all surgical procedures and postoperative treatment is pain management.Due to the physiological and psychological advantages of pain relief, it is one of the foremost indicators of quality of care. Today, there are various modalities of pain reduction, aimed to reduce patient discomfort andminimize side effects, which can be divided by therapeutic agents used (opioid or non-opioid), route of administration (intravenous, regional, oral, etc.) and modality (controlled by patients or "as needed"). Although opioids have proven to be very effective pain relief agents and are commonly used in postoperative analgesia, concerns about their side effects have spurred the development of modified, multimodal treatments that seek to minimize opioid use and associated drawbacks. Enhanced recovery protocols that emphasize sparing administration of opioids are growing in importance, andresulting in reduced length of hospital stay after abdominal and lower limb surgery. To further improve such protocols and optimize postoperative care for individual patient needs, it is imperative to fully assess the efficacy of available drugs and analgesia modalities.

Obstructive sleep apnoea in adults: peri-operative considerations: A narrative review

: Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is a common breathing disorder of sleep with a prevalence increasing in parallel with the worldwide rise in obesity. Alterations in sleep duration and architecture, hypersomnolence, abnormal gas exchange and also associated comorbidities may all feature in affected patients.The peri-operative period poses a special challenge for surgical patients with OSA who are often undiagnosed, and are at an increased risk for complications including pulmonary and cardiovascular, during that time. In order to ensure the best peri-operative management, anaesthetists caring for these patients should have a thorough understanding of the disorder, and be aware of the individual's peri-operative risk constellation, which depends on the severity and phenotype of OSA, the invasiveness of the surgical procedure, anaesthesia and also the requirement for postoperative opioids.The objective of this review is to educate clinicians in the epidemiology, pathogenesis and diagnosis of OSA in adults and also to highlight specific tasks in the preoperative assessment, namely to select a suitable intra-operative anaesthesia regimen, and manage the extent and duration of postoperative care to facilitate the best peri-operative outcome.

Chronic pain patient and anaesthesia

Severe chronic pain is often devastating for the affected individuals causing substantial suffering, health impairment, and a very low quality of life, including significant negative consequences for the patient and for society. Patients with complex pain disorders are seen often in relation to anaesthesia. They deserve special attention and require long time hospitalization and multiple contacts with health-care providers after discharge from hospital. A wider adoption of best perioperative and intraoperative pain management practice is required. This paper reviews current knowledge of perioperative and intraoperative pain management and anaesthetic care of the chronic pain patient. The individual topics covered include the magnitude of the problem created by chronic pain, the management of the patients taking various types of opioids, tolerance and opioid induced hyperalgesia and the multidisciplinary approach to pain management. The preventive and preemptive strategies for reducing the opioid needs and chronic pain after surgery are reviewed. The last section includes the role of acute pain services and an example of the implementation of a transitional pain service with the various benefits it offers; for example, the decrease of the opioid dose after discharge from the hospital. Patients also receive the continuity of care, with not only pain relief but also improvements in physical functioning, quality of life and emotional stress.

Combined ultrasound-guided Pecs II block and general anesthesia are effective for reducing pain from modified radical mastectomy

Purpose: Combined regional and general anesthesia are often used for the management of breast cancer surgery. Thoracic spinal block, thoracic epidural block, thoracic paravertebral block, and multiple intercostal nerve blocks are the regional anesthesia techniques which have been used in breast surgery, but some anesthesiologists are not comfortable because of the complication and side effects. In 2012, Blanco et al introduced pectoralis nerve (Pecs) II block or modified Pecs block as a novel approach to breast surgery. This study aims to determine the effectiveness of combined ultrasound-guided Pecs II block and general anesthesia for reducing intra- and postoperative pain from modified radical mastectomy.

Patients and methods: Fifty patients undergoing modified radical mastectomy with general anesthesia were divided into two groups randomly (n=25), to either Pecs (P) group or control (C) group. Ultrasound-guided Pecs II block was done with 0.25% bupivacaine (P group) or 0.9% NaCl (C group). Patient-controlled analgesia was used to control postoperative pain. Intraoperative opioid consumption, postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) score, and postoperative opioid consumption were measured.

Results: Intraoperative opioid consumption was significantly lower in P group (P≤0.05). VAS score at 3, 6, 12, and 24 hrs postoperative were significantly lower in P group (P≤0.05). Twenty-four hours postoperative opioid consumption was significantly lower in P group (P≤0.05). There are no complications following Pecs block in both groups, including pneumothorax, vascular puncture, and hematoma.

Conclusion: Combined ultrasound-guided Pecs II block and general anesthesia are effective in reducing pain both intra- and postoperatively in patients undergoing modified radical mastectomy. Ultrasound-guided Pecs II block is a relatively safe peripheral nerve block.

N-arylmethylideneaminophthalimide: Design, Synthesis and Evaluation as Analgesic and Anti-inflammatory Agents

Background and Objective:

N-aryl derivatives of phthalimide and 4-nitro phthalimide have demonstrated cyclooxygenase inhibitory activity. Also, they possess excellent analgesic and antiinflammatory activity. In this work, a new series of N-arylmethylideneamino derivatives of phthalimide and 4-nitro phthalimide were designed and synthesized.

Methods:

The designed compounds were synthesized by condensation of the appropriate aldehyde and N-aminophthalimide in ethanol at room temperature at PH around 3. Their analgesic and antiinflammatory activity were evaluated by acetic acid-induced pain test and carrageenan-induced paw edema test in mice and rats, respectively.

Results and Conclusion::

The details of the synthesis and chemical characterization of the analogs are described. In vivo screening showed compounds 3a, 3b, 3f and 3h were the most potent analgesic compounds. In addition, compounds 3a, 3c, 3d, 3e and 3j indicated comparable anti-inflammatory activity to indomethacin as a reference drug.

Beyond Opioids for Pain Management in Adult Critically Ill Patients

Critically ill patients commonly experience pain, and the provision of analgesia is an essential component of intensive care unit (ICU) care. Opioids are the mainstay of pain management in the ICU but are limited by their adverse effects, risk of addiction and abuse, and recent drug shortages of injectable formulations. A multimodal analgesia approach, utilizing nonopioid analgesics as adjuncts to opioid therapy, is recommended since they may modulate the pain response and reduce opioid requirements by acting on multiple pain mediators. Nonopioid analgesics discussed in detail in this article are acetaminophen, α-2 receptor agonists, gabapentinoids, ketamine, lidocaine, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. This literature review describes the clinical pharmacology, supportive ICU and relevant non-ICU data, and practical considerations associated with the administration of nonopioid analgesics in critically ill adult patients.

Pain Management in Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) Protocols

Pain control is an integral part of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) protocols for colorectal surgery. While opioid therapy remains the mainstay of therapy for postsurgical pain, opioids have undesired side effects including delayed recovery of bowel function, respiratory depression, and postoperative nausea and vomiting. A variety of nonopioid systemic medical therapies as well as regional and neuraxial techniques have been described as improving pain control while reducing opioid use. Multimodal and preemptive analgesia as part of an ERAS protocol facilitates early mobility and early return of bowel function and decreases postoperative morbidity. In this review, we examine several multimodal therapies and their impact on postoperative analgesia, opioid use, and recovery for patients undergoing colorectal surgery.

Effect of Combination of Paracetamol (Acetaminophen) and Ibuprofen vs Either Alone on Patient-Controlled Morphine Consumption in the First 24 Hours After Total Hip Arthroplasty: The PANSAID Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Multimodal postoperative analgesia is widely used but lacks evidence of benefit.

OBJECTIVE

Investigate beneficial and harmful effects of 4 nonopioid analgesics regimens.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled, 4-group trial in 6 Danish hospitals with 90-day follow-up that included 556 patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) from December 2015 to October 2017. Final date of follow-up was January 1, 2018.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomized to receive paracetamol (acetaminophen) 1000 mg plus ibuprofen 400 mg (n = 136; PCM + IBU), paracetamol 1000 mg plus matched placebo (n = 142; PCM), ibuprofen 400 mg plus matched placebo (n = 141; IBU), or half-strength paracetamol 500 mg plus ibuprofen 200 mg (n = 140; HS-PCM + IBU) orally every 6 hours for 24 hours postoperatively, starting 1 hour before surgery.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Two co-primary outcomes: 24-hour morphine consumption using patient-controlled analgesia in pairwise comparisons between the 4 groups (multiplicity-adjusted thresholds for statistical significance, P < .0042; minimal clinically important difference, 10 mg), and proportion of patients with 1 or more serious adverse events (SAEs) within 90 days (multiplicity-adjusted thresholds for statistical significance, P < .025).

RESULTS

Among 559 randomized participants (mean age, 67 years; 277 [50%] women), 556 (99.5%) completed the trial and were included in the analysis. Median 24-hour morphine consumption was 20 mg (99.6% CI, 0-148) in the PCM + IBU group, 36 mg (99.6% CI, 0-166) for PCM alone, 26 mg (99.6% CI, 2-139) for IBU alone, and 28 mg (99.6% CI, 2-145) for HS-PCM + IBU. The median difference in morphine consumption between the PCM + IBU group vs PCM alone was 16 mg (99.6% CI, 6.5 to 24; P < .001); for the PCM-alone group vs HS-PCM + IBU, 8 mg (99.6% CI, -1 to 14; P = .001); and for the PCM + IBU group vs IBU alone, 6 mg (99.6% CI, -2 to 16; P = .002). The difference in morphine consumption was not statistically significant for the PCM + IBU group vs HS-PCM + IBU (8 mg [99.6% CI, -2 to 16]; P = .005) or for the PCM-alone group vs IBU alone (10 mg [99.6% CI, -2 to 16]; P = .004) after adjustment for multiple comparisons and 2 co-primary outcomes. There was no significant difference between the IBU-alone group vs HS-PCM + IBU (2 mg [99.6% CI, -10 to 7]; P = .81). The proportion of patients with SAEs in groups receiving IBU was 15%, and in the PCM-alone group, was 11%. The relative risk of SAE was 1.44 (97.5% CI, 0.79 to 2.64; P = .18).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients undergoing THA, paracetamol plus ibuprofen significantly reduced morphine consumption compared with paracetamol alone in the first 24 hours after surgery; there was no statistically significant increase in SAEs in the pooled groups receiving ibuprofen alone vs with paracetamol alone. However, the combination did not result in a clinically important improvement over ibuprofen alone, suggesting that ibuprofen alone may be a reasonable option for early postoperative oral analgesia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02571361.

An integrated safety analysis of combined acetaminophen and ibuprofen (Maxigesic /Combogesic®) in adults

INTRODUCTION

Acetaminophen (APAP) and ibuprofen (IBP) are two analgesic compounds with a long history of use. Both are considered safe at recommended over-the-counter daily doses. Chronic use, high doses, or concomitant medication can produce safety risks for both drugs. APAP is associated with increased risk of hepatic injury, while IBP can produce gastric bleeding and thromboembolic events. Using a combination of APAP and IBP provides superior analgesia without transgressing daily dose limits of each individual drug.

METHODS

The present study aimed to determine if treatment with a fixed-dose combination (FDC) containing APAP and IBP results in any unexpected adverse events (AEs) and/or changes in the safety profiles of its two ingredients compared to monotherapy. The analysis will examine clinical safety data obtained from either single dose trials, multiple dose trials, a long-term exposure trial, and post-marketing surveillance data of APAP/IBP FDC tablets (Maxigesic®/Combogesic®, AFT Pharmaceuticals Ltd). The largest dataset was obtained by pooling the four randomized-controlled, multiple-dose clinical studies with either APAP 325 mg + IBP 97.5 mg (FDC 325/97.5, three tablets per dose) or APAP 500 mg + IBP 150 mg (FDC 500/150, two tablets per dose). At maximum doses, the two FDCs are bioequivalent, permitting the pooling of data for the analysis of safety.

RESULTS

A safety population of 922 patients who received full doses of either FDC, APAP alone, IBP alone, or placebo was compiled from the four studies. A total of 521 AEs were experienced with the incidence of FDC AEs similar to or below either monotherapy group or placebo. The FDC did not alter the incidence and percentage of the most common AEs, including gastrointestinal events and postoperative bleeding.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the FDC is well tolerated and has a strong safety profile at single and multiple doses with improved efficacy over monotherapy.

Pain Management in Trauma in the Age of the Opioid Crisis

It is imperative to find the balance between pain control and addressing the opioid epidemic. Opioids, although effective in the acute pain management, have multiple side effects and can lead to dependence, abuse, overdose, or death. Physicians should identify patients who abuse opioids, using their states' prescription drug-monitoring programs and use screening tools to identify patients at increased risk of developing opioid dependence. Multimodal analgesic plans, incorporating regional techniques, and nonopioid medications should be employed to reduce the amount of opioids received by patients.

Testing a pain self-management intervention by exploring reduction of analgesics' side effects in cancer outpatients and the involvement of family caregivers: a study protocol (PEINCA-FAM)

Background

Pain is one of cancer patients’ most frequent and distressing symptoms; however, analgesics’ side effects often increase symptom burden. Further, with the home rapidly becoming the primary cancer care setting, family caregivers (FCs) commonly play central roles in patients’ pain self-management, but with little or no preparation. One US-tested intervention, the PRO-SELF© Plus Pain Control Program (PCP), designed to support cancer outpatients and their FCs in pain self-management, is currently being tested in the Swiss multi-centre PEINCA study. The current PEINCA-FAM study is a sub-study of PEINCA. The aims of PEINCA-FAM are: a) to test the efficacy of the adapted German PRO-SELF © Plus PCP to reduce side effects of analgesics; b) to enhance patients’/FCs’ knowledge regarding cancer pain; and c) to explore FCs’ involvement in patients’ pain self-management.

Methods

This mixed methods project combines a multi-centre randomized controlled clinical trial with qualitative data collection techniques and includes 210 patients recruited from three oncology outpatient clinics. FCs involved in patients’ pain self-management are also invited to participate. After baseline evaluation, eligible participants are randomized to a 6-week intervention group and a control group. Both groups complete a daily pain and symptom diary. Intervention group patients/FCs receive the weekly psychoeducational PRO-SELF© Plus PCP interventions; control group patients receive usual care. After completing the six-week study procedures, a subsample of 7–10 patients/FCs per group and hospital (N = 42–60) will be interviewed regarding their pain management experiences. Data collection will take place from April 2016 until December 2018. An intent-to-treat analysis and generalized linear mixed models will be applied. Qualitative data will be analysed by using interpretive description. Quantitative and qualitative results will be combined within a mixed method matrix.

Discussion

In clinical practice, specially trained oncology nurses in outpatient clinics could apply the intervention to reduce side effects and to enhance patients’/FCs’ self-efficacy and pain management knowledge.

Trial registration

The PEINCA study is registered in the Clinical Trials.gov site (code: NCT02713919, 08 March 2016).

Patient choice compared with no choice of intrathecal morphine dose for caesarean analgesia: a randomized clinical trial

Background

The study aimed to determine whether a patient's choice for their intrathecal morphine (ITM) dose reflects their opioid requirements and pain after caesarean delivery and if giving women a choice of ITM dose would reduce opioid use and improve pain scores compared with women who did not have a choice.

Methods

A total of 120 women undergoing caesarean delivery with spinal anaesthesia were enrolled in this randomized, double-blind study. Patients were randomly assigned to a choice of 100 or 200 μg ITM or no choice. The study involved deception, such that all participants were still randomly assigned 100 or 200 μg ITM regardless of choice. Rescue opioid use over the 48-h study period was the primary outcome measure. Pain at rest and movement and side effect (pruritus, nausea, and vomiting) data were collected 3, 6, 12, 24, 36 and 48 h postoperatively. Data are presented as median [95% confidence interval (CI)].

Results

Women who requested the larger ITM dose required more supplemental opioid [median 0.8 (95% CI 0.4-1.3)] mg morphine equivalents at each assessment interval; P  < 0.001] and reported more pain with movement [median 1.2 (95% CI 0.5-1.9)] verbal numerical rating score of 0-10 points] than patients who requested the smaller ITM dose ( P  = 0.0008), regardless of the ITM dose given. There was no difference in opioid use whether the patient was offered a perceived choice or not.

Conclusions

Women who were given a choice and chose the larger ITM dose correctly anticipated a greater postoperative opioid requirement and more pain compared with women who chose the smaller dose. Simply being offered a choice did not impact opioid use or pain scores after caesarean delivery.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01425762).

Scheduled Intravenous Acetaminophen Improves Patient Satisfaction With Postcraniotomy Pain Management: A Prospective, Randomized, Placebo-controlled, Double-blind Study

BACKGROUND

Postcraniotomy pain can be difficult to manage with opioids due to opioid-related side effects, including drowsiness, nausea/vomiting, confusion, and pupillary changes, potentially masking the signs of postoperative neurological deterioration. Intravenous (IV) acetaminophen, a nonopioid analgesic, has been reported to have opioid-sparing effects after abdominal and orthopedic surgeries. This study investigates whether IV acetaminophen has similar effects after craniotomy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial, 100 adult patients scheduled to undergo supratentorial craniotomy for excision of a brain mass were randomized to receive either IV acetaminophen or placebo preincision and then every 6 hours for a total of 24 hours after surgery. Total 24-hour opioid consumption, pain scores, satisfaction with overall pain management, time to meet postanesthesia care unit discharge criteria, and incidence of opioid-related side effects were compared.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the 24-hour postoperative opioid consumption in morphine equivalents between the IV acetaminophen group (median, 11 mg; n=45) and the placebo group (median, 10.1 mg; n=41). No statistically significant difference of visual analog scale pain score was observed between 2 treatment groups. Patient satisfaction with overall postoperative pain management was significantly higher in the IV acetaminophen group than the placebo group on a 1 to 10 scale (8.1±0.4 vs. 6.9±0.4; P=0.03). There was no significant difference in secondary outcomes, including the incidence of opioid-related side effects.

CONCLUSIONS

IV acetaminophen, as adjunctive therapy for craniotomy procedures, did not show an opioid-sparing effect in patients for the 24 hours after craniotomy; however, it was associated with improved patient satisfaction regarding overall pain control.

Ambulatory unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Short outcome of 50 first cases

INTRODUCTION

The reduction in length of stay (LOS) in orthopedic surgery has been steady for several years. For the past 3 or 4 years in France, the trend toward outpatient surgery has been growing upwards, as it is a goal for hospital administration.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a prospective, continuous, mono-centric, single operator study on 56 UKAs. Included were all UKAs carried out between January 2014 and December 2015, meeting the following criteria: voluntary patients, supportive family environment, absence of comorbidity (oral anticoagulants, diabetes, obesity), ASA score≤3. Preoperatively, patients received: Dexamethasone 2mg/10kg, Tranexamic acid 2g, Cefazolin 2g IV. All patients were operated on under general anesthesia with the same technique: Alpina^® (Zimmer-Biomet) uni-prosthesis without tourniquet. The arthrotomy was closed after a capsular injection of a solution of 150mg Ropivacaine+30mg Bi-Profenid^®. Patient discharge on the same day evening was authorized by both surgeon and anesthesiologist. Three criteria were quantified: number of patients seen before the date of the first consultation for the removal of stitches (around day 12), Visual Pain Scale (10 points scale) on the first 12 days, and the level of satisfaction at the one-month postoperative visit.

RESULTS

Six patients (11%) were not included in the ambulatory program during the initial consultation. Three patients were not able to be discharged on the same day evening due to nausea and therefore remained hospitalized for one night. Eighteen patients (38%) were reviewed before D10: 13 patients were reviewed between D1 and D4 for bleeding through the dressing and 5 for pain not controlled by level 1 and 2 analgesics. The Visual Pain Scale (VPS) reached level 6±2 by the 2nd day and then dropped to 1±1 by the 12th day. At 1 month, 85% of the patients were satisfied or very satisfied with their care. There were no general or localized complications.

DISCUSSION

Ambulatory UKA surgery is possible for most patients. The inclusion rate for ambulatory UKA was 88% for Berger RA in 2010, therefore very close to this study rate of 89%. Ambulatory care is not only a change in surgical and anesthetic practice but a totally new management process involving all medical and non-medical actors. Ambulatory UKA surgery is feasible and safe for most patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective cohort study.

Effect of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on post-surgical complications against the backdrop of the opioid crisis

The USA is currently going through an opioid crisis, associated with tremendous economic and societal impacts. In response to this crisis, healthcare professionals are looking for alternative pain management methods, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are a sensible choice because of their effectiveness after surgical procedures. However, before surgeons start prescribing NSAIDs in place of opioids, it is crucial to first understand their potential post-surgical complications. The goal of this review is to summarize the data obtained through both animal and human studies, which suggest how a dramatic increase in NSAID use may affect these post-surgical complications. We first provide a short review outlining the mechanisms of action of NSAIDs, followed by a summary of animal studies, which show a trend towards the negative effects of NSAIDs on wound healing and an association between NSAID use and wound infections. Lastly, we present evidence from human studies on the association of NSAIDs with the following complications: anastomotic leaks, necrotizing soft tissue infections, bleeding complications, orthopedic injuries, wound healing, and cancer care. The human studies are much more variable in their conclusions as to whether NSAIDs are beneficial or not, with the only strong evidence showing that NSAIDs inhibit bone healing. This may partially be explained by male and female differences in response to NSAIDs as many animal studies showing the inhibitory effects of NSAIDs were performed on females, while all the human studies were performed with both sexes. We conclude that strong caution should be used in the prescription of NSAIDs, especially in female patients, but larger scale studies are warranted before solid recommendations can be made.

Efficacy of Intravenous Acetaminophen in Length of Stay and Postoperative Pain Control in Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Surgery Patients

Background: Opiate-based pain medications may incur adverse effects following bariatric surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of intravenous Acetaminophen (IVAPAP) on length of stay (LOS) after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) surgery.

Methods: This was a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial conducted from October 2011 to March 2014 at a 416-bed teaching hospital. Eighty-nine total patients were included (control group, n = 45; treatment group, n = 44). Patients were administered either 1000 mg of IVAPAP or placebo every 6 h beginning preoperatively and continuing for four doses. LOS, total narcotic consumption, pain and nausea scores, time to return of flatus (ROF), and postoperative rescue pain medication used were measured during the first 24 h after surgery.

Results: LOS was significantly decreased in the treatment group compared with control (2.72 days vs. 3.18 days; p = 0.03). There was significant reduction in time to ROF (1.87 days vs. 2.24 days; p = 0.04). Pain was significantly decreased in the first 2 postoperative hours in the treatment group (p = 0.02). Total opioid consumption, postoperative nausea scores, and use of rescue pain medications were not affected.

Conclusions: The use of IVAPAP significantly decreases LOS following LRYGB, improves acute postoperative pain control, and mediates quicker return of bowel function.

Enhanced recovery after cesarean delivery

Enhanced recovery after surgery is a concept initially developed for patients undergoing colorectal surgery but has been adopted by other surgical specialties with similar positive outcomes. The adoption of enhanced recovery after surgery in the obstetric patient population is rapidly gaining popularity. This review highlights perioperative interventions that should be considered in an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol for women undergoing cesarean delivery.

Role of Multimodal Analgesia in the Evolving Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Pathways

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) are specially designed multimodal perioperative care pathways which are intended to attain and improve rapid recovery after surgical interventions by supporting preoperative organ function and attenuating the stress response caused by surgical trauma, allowing patients to get back to normal activities as soon as possible. Evidence-based protocols are prepared and published to implement the conception of ERAS. Although they vary amongst health care institutions, the main three elements (preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative components) remain the cornerstones. Postoperative pain influences the quality and length of the postoperative recovery period, and later, the quality of life. Therefore, the optimal postoperative pain management (PPM) applying multimodal analgesia (MA) is one of the most important components of ERAS. The main purpose of this article is to discuss the concept of MA in PPM, particularly reviewing the use of opioid-sparing measures such as paracetamol, nonsteroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), other adjuvants, and regional techniques.

Improved Outcomes Associated With the Use of Intravenous Acetaminophen for Management of Acute Post-Surgical Pain in Cesarean Sections and Hysterectomies

Background

Post-surgical pain impacts many patient outcomes. Effective pain management increasingly relies on multimodal analgesia regimens in which acetaminophen (APAP) is a key component. The aim of our study was to examine the impact of oral APAP versus intravenous (IV) APAP as a component of post-surgical pain management after Cesarean sections and hysterectomies.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of the Cerner HealthFacts® database (from January, 2011 to December, 2015) was conducted to compare outcomes of Cesarean section and hysterectomy surgery patients who received oral APAP to those who received IV APAP post-surgically. Length of stay (LOS), daily morphine milligram equivalent (MME) consumption, the presence of potential opioid-related adverse events (ORADEs), and total pharmacy costs were assessed. Adjusted results were derived using inverse probability weighted regression adjustment (IPW-RA) estimators based on covariates that included demographics, comorbidities, patient clinical characteristics, and hospital characteristics.

Results

The study identified 29,124 Cesarean section patients (24,612 oral APAP; 4,512 IV APAP) and 9,767 hysterectomy surgery patients (5,586 oral APAP; 4,181 IV APAP). Compared to the oral APAP group, the IV APAP group had reductions in adjusted LOS (Cesarean section: -11.7% days (P < 0.001), hysterectomy: -11.8% days (P = 0.005)), lowered adjusted daily MME consumption from day 0 to day 3 (Cesarean section: -1.6 mg (P < 0.001), hysterectomy: -1.7 mg (P = 0.014)), and reduced risk of ORADEs for Cesarean sections (relative risk of 0.45, P < 0.001). Total pharmacy costs were not significantly different between the two APAP groups.

Conclusions

Post-surgical pain managed with IV APAP in patients undergoing Cesarean section or hysterectomy was associated with shorter LOS, reduced risk of ORADEs, and lower opioid consumption compared to patients managed with oral APAP, without adversely impacting total pharmacy costs.

Utilization and effectiveness of multimodal discharge analgesia for postoperative pain management

BACKGROUND

Although evidence-based guidelines recommend a multimodal approach to pain management, limited information exists on adherence to these guidelines and its association with outcomes in a generalized population. We sought to assess the association between discharge multimodal analgesia and postoperative pain outcomes in two diverse health care settings.

METHODS

We evaluated patients undergoing four common surgeries associated with high pain in electronic health records from an academic hospital (AH) and Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Multimodal analgesia at discharge was characterized as opioids in combination with acetaminophen (O + A) and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory (O + A + N) drugs. Hierarchical models estimated associations of analgesia with 45-d follow-up pain scores and 30-d readmissions.

RESULTS

We identified 7893 patients at AH and 34,581 at VHA. In both settings, most patients were discharged with O + A (60.6% and 54.8%, respectively), yet a significant proportion received opioids alone (AH: 24.3% and VHA: 18.8%). Combining acetaminophen with opioids was associated with decreased follow-up pain in VHA (Odds ratio [OR]: 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79, 0.93) and readmissions (AH OR: 0.74, CI: 0.60, 0.90; VHA OR: 0.89, CI: 0.82, 0.96). Further addition of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs was associated with further decreased follow-up pain (AH OR: 0.71, CI: 0.53, 0.96; VHA OR: 0.77, CI: 0.69, 0.86) and readmissions (AH OR: 0.46, CI: 0.31, 0.69; VHA OR: 0.84, CI: 0.76, 0.93). In both systems, patients receiving multimodal analgesia received 10%-40% less opioids per day compared to opioids only.

CONCLUSIONS

A majority of surgical patients receive a multimodal pain approach at discharge yet many receive only opioids. Multimodal regimen at discharge was associated with better follow-up pain and all-cause readmissions compared to the opioid-only regimen.

The Analgesic Efficacy of Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Agents (NSAIDs) in Patients Undergoing Cesarean Deliveries: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Postoperative pain after cesarean delivery, which accounts for approximately 1 in 3 live births in the United States, can be severe in many patients. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs) are potent analgesics that are effective in the treatment of postoperative pain. In this meta-analysis, we assessed the analgesic efficacy of NSAIDs in postoperative cesarean delivery patients.

METHODS

An electronic literature search of the Library of Medicine's PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, and EMBASE databases was conducted in May 2013 and updated in January 2015 (Appendix, Supplemental Digital Content 1, http://links.lww.com/AAP/A174). Searches were limited to randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome variable was visual analog scale or numerical rating scale pain scores. Secondary outcomes included cumulative postoperative opioid consumption and opioid-related adverse effects (drowsiness/sedation, nausea, and vomiting). Data extraction was performed independently by 2 reviewers. Extracted data were input into Review Manager.

RESULTS

Twenty-two randomized controlled trials compared a NSAID (n = 639) to a control (n = 674). Patients in the NSAID group versus control reported lower pain scores at 12 hours (P = 0.003) and at 24 hours (P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed a significant difference in pain scores at 24 hours, with patients receiving NSAIDs via intravenous/intramuscular (P < 0.001) route, but not the oral (P = 0.39) or rectal routes (P = 0.99). Significantly lower average pain scores were reported for pain with movement at 24 hours in the NSAID group (P = 0.001). Patients in the NSAID group versus controls consumed significantly less opioids (P < 0.001) and had significantly less drowsiness/sedation (P = 0.03), but there was no significant difference between the groups with regard to nausea or vomiting (P = 0.48 and P = 0.17, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The perioperative use of NSAIDs in cesarean delivery patients will result in a significantly lower pain scores, less opioid consumption, and less drowsiness/sedation but no difference in nausea or vomiting compared to those who did not receive NSAIDs. Further research should address the optimal NSAID regimen and examine the effect of improved analgesia on patient-centered outcomes such as patient satisfaction and quality of breastfeeding.

Uses of fluoxetine in nociceptive pain management: A literature overview

Fluoxetine is one of the top ten prescribed antidepressants. Other therapeutic applications were approved for fluoxetine including, anxiety disorders, bulimia nervosa, and premature ejaculation. However, the role of fluoxetine in nociceptive pain management is still unclear. In this review, we discuss an overview of five possible roles of fluoxetine in pain management: intrinsic antinociceptive effect, enhancement of acute opioid analgesia, attenuation of tolerance development to opioid analgesia, attenuation of dependence development and abstinence syndrome, and attenuation of opioid induced hyperalgesia. Conflicting data were reported about fluoxetine intrinsic anti-nociceptive effect in preclinical and clinical studies except for inflammatory pain. Similar controversy was described in preclinical and clinical studies which explored the possible enhancement of opioid analgesia by fluoxetine co-administration. However, fluoxetine was found to have a promising effect on opioid tolerance and dependence in animal and human studies. Regarding opioid induced hyperalgesia, no studies examined fluoxetine effects in this regard. Our literature review revealed that, the most likely beneficial use of fluoxetine in nociceptive pain management is for alleviation of inflammatory pain and attenuation of opioid tolerance and dependence. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory and corticosteroids carry many adverse effects and toxicities. Effective alleviation of opioid tolerance and dependence represents a huge health burden and growing unmet medical need. Moreover, most agents used to attenuate these phenomena are either experimental or poorly tolerable drugs which limit their transitional value. Fluoxetine offers an effective, safe, and tolerable alternative for management of both inflammatory pain and opioid tolerance and dependence presently available to clinicians.

Comparison of Analgesic Effects of a Constant Rate Infusion of Both Tramadol and Acetaminophen Versus those of Infusions of Each Individual Drug in Horses

The choice of analgesic agents for the horse is limited, and many have side effects that can restrict their use for chronic and prolonged pain. Little information has been published on tramadol and acetaminophen use in the horse. The study evaluated the analgesic effects of coadministration of tramadol and acetaminophen compared to those of each drug individually in a crossover study. The study was performed on six healthy horses each infused with the following over 1 hour: control (normal saline), tramadol, acetaminophen, or both (acetaminophen and tramadol infused together). Nociception (using a pressure algometer) and any adverse effects were evaluated before the infusion, at 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 minutes during the infusion and at 15, 30, and 60 minutes after infusion completion. The pressure algometer was placed on the palmar surface of both the forelimbs. There was no difference in response to nociception between the control and single-agent (acetaminophen or tramadol) groups. However, coadministration of tramadol and acetaminophen resulted in a significant analgesic effect from 20 minutes after starting the infusion until the infusion was completed. Fifteen minutes after discontinuing the infusion, no significant differences remained between the groups. No side effects were seen, with the exception of one horse in the coadministration group which showed paroxysmal ventricular tachycardia 30 minutes after constant rate infusion (CRI) which resolved completely after discontinuing the infusion. Simultaneous infusion of tramadol and acetaminophen resulted in significant analgesia. Further research is required to evaluate its effect and possible side effects in clinical cases, such as horses suffering from laminitis.

Operating department practitioners care of the patient with diabetes in the perioperative period

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a of group metabolic diseases which are defined by hyperglycaemia affecting multiple organs. The condition is found in people of all ages and ethnicities. Diabetes mellitus affects 180 million people worldwide and increasing numbers of patients are presenting with diabetic complications and the need for surgical intervention. This article describes the pathophysiology of DM and the management of the condition, particularly type I and type 2, in the perioperative phase of the surgical patient journey.

Essential Elements of Multimodal Analgesia in Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Guidelines

Perioperative multimodal analgesia uses combinations of analgesic medications that act on different sites and pathways in an additive or synergistic manner to achieve pain relief with minimal or no opiate consumption. Although all medications have side effects, opiates have particularly concerning, multisystemic, long-term, and short-term side effects, which increase morbidity and prolong admissions. Enhanced recovery is a systematic process addressing each aspect affecting recovery. This article outlines the evidence base forming the current multimodal analgesia recommendations made by the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Society (ERAS). We describe current evidence and important future directions for effective perioperative multimodal analgesia in enhanced recovery pathways.

Chronic Opioid Use After Surgery: Implications for Perioperative Management in the Face of the Opioid Epidemic

Physicians, policymakers, and researchers are increasingly focused on finding ways to decrease opioid use and overdose in the United States both of which have sharply increased over the past decade. While many efforts are focused on the management of chronic pain, the use of opioids in surgical patients presents a particularly challenging problem requiring clinicians to balance 2 competing interests: managing acute pain in the immediate postoperative period and minimizing the risks of persistent opioid use after the surgery. Finding ways to minimize this risk is particularly salient in light of a growing literature suggesting that postsurgical patients are at increased risk for chronic opioid use. The perioperative care team, including surgeons and anesthesiologists, is poised to develop clinical- and systems-based interventions aimed at providing pain relief in the immediate postoperative period while also reducing the risks of opioid use longer term. In this paper, we discuss the consequences of chronic opioid use after surgery and present an analysis of the extent to which surgery has been associated with chronic opioid use. We follow with a discussion of the risk factors that are associated with chronic opioid use after surgery and proceed with an analysis of the extent to which opioid-sparing perioperative interventions (eg, nerve blockade) have been shown to reduce the risk of chronic opioid use after surgery. We then conclude with a discussion of future research directions.

Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Bariatric Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society Recommendations

BACKGROUND

During the last two decades, an increasing number of bariatric surgical procedures have been performed worldwide. There is no consensus regarding optimal perioperative care in bariatric surgery. This review aims to present such a consensus and to provide graded recommendations for elements in an evidence-based "enhanced" perioperative protocol.

METHODS

The English-language literature between January 1966 and January 2015 was searched, with particular attention paid to meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials and large prospective cohort studies. Selected studies were examined, reviewed and graded. After critical appraisal of these studies, the group of authors reached a consensus recommendation.

RESULTS

Although for some elements, recommendations are extrapolated from non-bariatric settings (mainly colorectal), most recommendations are based on good-quality trials or meta-analyses of good-quality trials.

CONCLUSIONS

A comprehensive evidence-based consensus was reached and is presented in this review by the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) Society. The guidelines were endorsed by the International Association for Surgical Metabolism and Nutrition (IASMEN) and based on the evidence available in the literature for each of the elements of the multimodal perioperative care pathway for patients undergoing bariatric surgery.