Single dose intravenous paracetamol or intravenous propacetamol for postoperative pain

Multimodal Pain Control in Abdominoplasty: A Systematic Review and Algorithm of Optimal Pain Management

The procedure with the highest rate of opioid prescription in plastic surgery is abdominoplasty. Additionally, plastic surgery patients are at a particularly elevated risk of becoming opioid-dependent. The main objective of this study was to perform a systematic review and create an algorithm for a multimodal pain regimen specific to patients undergoing abdominoplasty. A systematic search of the research literature was performed to summarize the prevailing understanding of multimodal pain control in the management of abdominoplasty. The initial search yielded 448 articles. Sixty-eight manuscripts were identified for full-text review. The effectiveness of current strategies was evaluated by way of pain scores, opioid usage, and length of stay, as well as other measures of physical function such as time to early mobilization. In 32 studies involving 2451 patients, the efficacy of different pain regimens during abdominoplasty was evaluated. Among nontraditional, opioid-sparing analgesia, efficacy of treatment interventions for improved pain and decreased opioid usage was found inall studies. Among local infusion studies, efficacy of treatment interventions for improved pain and decreased opioid usage was found in 78% of studies. Last, among regional block studies, efficacy of treatment interventions for improved pain was found in 87%, with 73% efficacy for decreased opioid usage. Multimodal pain regimens in abdominoplasty have the potential to play an important role in opioid-sparing practices in medicine by incorporating nonopioid pain adjuvants such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and transversus abdominis plane blocks in the preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative periods.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2

Early Opioid Use and Postoperative Delirium Following Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

Postoperative delirium is a common complication following open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (OAR). Opioids have been found to contribute to delirium, especially at higher doses. This study assessed the impact of early postoperative opioid analgesia on postoperative delirium incidence and time to onset. We hypothesized that higher early postoperative opioid utilization would be associated with increased postoperative delirium incidence.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of OAR cases at a single quaternary care center from years 2012-2020. The primary exposure was oral morphine equivalents use (OME), calculated for postoperative days 1-7. A cut point analysis using a receiver operator curve for postoperative delirium determined the threshold for high OME (OME>37 mg). The primary outcome was postoperative delirium incidence identified via chart review. Multivariable logistic regression was performed for postoperative delirium and adjusted for covariates meeting P < 0.1 on bivariate analysis.

RESULTS

Among 194 OAR cases, 67 (35%) developed postoperative delirium with median time to onset of 3 days (IQR = 2-6). Patients with postoperative delirium were older (74 years vs. 69 years), more frequently presented with symptomatic AAA (47% vs. 27%) and had a higher proportion of comorbidities (all P < 0.05). Cases with high OME utilization on postoperative day 1 (55%) were younger (69 vs. 73 years), less frequently had an epidural (46% vs. 77%), and more frequently developed delirium (42% vs. 25%, all P < 0.05). Epidural use was associated with a significant decrease in OME utilization on postoperative day 1 (33 vs. 83, P < 0.01). Postoperative delirium onset was later in those with high OME use (4 vs. 2 days, P = 0.04). On multivariable analysis, high OME remained associated with postoperative delirium (Table II).

CONCLUSIONS

High opioid utilization on postoperative day 1 is associated with increased postoperative delirium and epidural along with acetaminophen use reduced opioid utilization. Future study should examine the impact of opioid reduction strategies on outcomes after major vascular surgery.

Single Dose Intravenous Paracetamol versus Placebo in Postorthognathic Surgery Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background

The postorthognathic surgery patients experienced moderate to severe pain and could be at risk for opioid-related side effects. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a single dose of intravenous paracetamol to control postorthognathic surgery pain and reduce opioid consumption.

Methods

The patients were randomized into two groups. The study group received intravenous paracetamol and the control group received a placebo immediately postoperation. The visual analogue pain scale (VAS) at 1-, 4-, 8-, 12-, 16-, 20-, and 24 -h postoperatively, morphine consumption, side effects from morphine, and patient satisfaction were analyzed.

Results

Sixty-two patients (thirty-one patients in each group) were included. The postoperative VAS in the study group was significantly lower than those in the control group (p value <0.001) at all time points. The total postoperative morphine consumption in the study group (45.1 ± 21.2 mcg/kg) was significantly lower compared with the control group (136.5 ± 49.9 mcg/kg) (p value <0.001). Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in the study group (4.7 ± 0.5 out of 5 points) than in the control group (4.1 ± 0.7 out of 5 points) (p value <0.001). The incidence of nausea and vomiting was significantly lower in the study group compared with the control group (p value <0.001 and 0.002, respectively).

Conclusion

A single dose of intravenous paracetamol as part of multimodal analgesia was effective for postorthognathic surgery pain. It provided significant benefits to patients, including reduced pain scores, decreased opioid consumption, reduced nausea and vomiting, and improved satisfaction. This trial is registered with TCTR20210908002.

Opioid and Nerve Block Administration in Knee Arthroplasty: An Observational Retrospective Evaluation

AIMS

Increasing opioid-related adverse events and deaths have amplified interest in non-opioid analgesic options. Peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs) are useful in pain management, especially in minimally invasive day surgeries. This evaluation sought to examine patterns of opioid use among adult patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty, stratified by use of PNBs.

DESIGN

A retrospective, observational design.

SETTINGS

A large tertiary medical center and community hospital in the Inland Northwest.

PARTICIPANTS/SUBJECTS

A dataset of 8,493 adult patients undergoing elective total knee arthroplasty, 3,432 of which received a PNB while 5,061 did not.

METHODS

A deidentified dataset was obtained to evaluate: (a) opioid use frequency, (b) average morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) administered, (c) independent factors associated with opioid administration, and (d) time to first opioid administered in adults undergoing total knee arthroplasty while in the recovery room, stratified by use of PNBs.

RESULTS

When controlling for general anesthesia, opioid use frequency was reduced when PNBs were administered (p < .05). The amount of MMEs consumed was 15 mg less in the group receiving a PNB (p < .001). In a linear regression model, PNBs reduced the MMEs consumed by 5 mg (p = .014). Time-to-first opioid was increased in patients receiving general anesthesia and PNBs with a hazards ratio of 0.70 (p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Peripheral nerve blocks are an opioid-sparing technique in adult patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

The results confirm best practices regarding opioid-sparing PNBs. Postoperative opioids are appropriate, but regimens incorporating PNB administration for total knee arthroplasty help reduce opioid use.

Efficacy and feasibility of scheduled intravenous acetaminophen administration after pancreatoduodenectomy: a propensity score-matched study

PURPOSE

The efficiency and safety of routine intravenous administration of acetaminophen after highly invasive hepatobiliary pancreatic surgery remain unclear. In particular, there have been no studies focusing on pancreatoduodenectomy. The present study clarified its clinical utility for patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected 179 patients who underwent open pancreatoduodenectomy from 2015 to 2020. The analgesic effects and adverse events in patients with scheduled intravenous administration of acetaminophen were evaluated using propensity score matching.

RESULTS

After 40 patients from each group were selected by propensity score matching, the postoperative liver function tests were not significantly different between the control and acetaminophen groups. No significant differences were found in the self-reported pain intensity score or postoperative nausea and vomiting; however, the rate of pentazocine use and the total number of additional analgesics were significantly lower in the acetaminophen group than in the control group (p = 0.003 and 0.002, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The scheduled intravenous administration of acetaminophen did not affect the postoperative liver function and had a good analgesic effect after pancreatoduodenectomy.

Pain treatment after total hip arthroplasty: Detailed statistical analysis plan for the RECIPE randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The RECIPE trial systematically investigates the effects of different combinations of paracetamol, ibuprofen and dexamethasone for pain treatment after total hip arthroplasty. To preserve transparency, minimise risk of bias and to prevent data-driven analysis, we present this detailed statistical analysis plan.

METHODS

The RECIPE trial is a randomised, blinded, parallel four-group multicenter clinical trial for patients undergoing planned primary total hip arthroplasty. Interventions are initiated preoperatively and continued for 24 h postoperatively. Primary outcome is total opioid consumption 0-24 h after end of surgery. Primary analysis will be performed in the modified intention to treat population of all patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty, and all analyses will be stratified for site. We will perform pairwise comparisons between each of the four groups. The primary outcome will be analysed using the van Elteren test and we will present Hodges-Lehmann median differences and confidence intervals. Binary outcomes will be analysed using logistic regression. To preserve a family-wise error rate of <0.05, we will use a Bonferroni-adjusted alfa of 0.05/6 = 0.0083 for all six pairwise comparisons between groups when analysing the primary outcome. We will systematically assess the underlying statistical assumptions for each analysis. Data will be analysed by two blinded independent statisticians, and we will write abstracts covering all possible combinations of conclusions, before breaking the blind.

DISCUSSION

The RECIPE trial will provide important information on benefit and harm of combinations of the most frequently used non-opioid analgesics for pain after primary hip arthroplasty.

Is Paracetamol Better than Diclofenac Sodium in Management of Postoperative Pain and Edema Following Major Maxillofacial Surgeries?

Introduction

Paracetamol is an optimal non-opioid analgesic and holds considerable advantages over NSAIDs in managing post-operative pain. Literature to date doesn't provide substantial documentation of it's efficacy and safety in major oral and maxillofacial surgeries. The study is designed to compare the effectiveness of intravenous paracetamol with diclofenac sodium for controlling post-operative pain and edema in major oral and maxillofacial surgeries.

Method

The double-blind randomised prospective study includes 140 healthy patients with ASA grades I and II. Patients were divided into Group A (1gm paracetamol) and B (75 mg diclofenac sodium), 70 patients each, undergoing similar surgical procedures. VAS and VRS were assessed for pain and thread method for measuring swelling. Mouth opening in space infections was measured with calliper and scale.

Results

Independent samples t-test and chi-square test showed longer pain-free interval, more interval between first and second dose, lesser number of doses required in Group A than Group B (p-value < 0.05). Independent samples t-test and Mann-Whitney test showed faster resolution of swelling in Group A (p-value < 0.05). Independent samples t-test showed lesser time taken for resolution of trismus in space infections in Group A (p-value < 0.05).

Discussion

Paracetamol 1 g was found to be an effective analgesic with less adverse effects. It is superior non-opioid analgesic in reducing the intensity of post-operative pain and swelling, also requires less number of doses than diclofenac sodium in major surgeries. Patients treated with paracetamol had better quality of life during post-operative period.

Paracetamol, ibuprofen and dexamethasone for pain treatment after total hip arthroplasty: protocol for the randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel 4-group, blinded, multicentre RECIPE trial

INTRODUCTION

Multimodal analgesia with paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug and glucocorticoid is recommended for hip arthroplasty, but with uncertain effects of the different combinations. We aim to investigate benefit and harm of different combinations of paracetamol, ibuprofen and dexamethasone following total hip arthroplasty.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

RECIPE is a randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel 4-group, blinded trial with 90-day and 1-year follow-up performed at nine Danish hospitals. Interventions are initiated preoperatively and continued for 24 hours postoperatively. Eligible participants undergoing total hip arthroplasty are randomised to:group A: oral paracetamol 1000 mg × 4+oral ibuprofen 400 mg × 4+intravenous placebo; group B: oral paracetamol 1000 mg × 4+intravenous dexamethasone 24 mg+oral placebo; group C: oral ibuprofen 400 mg × 4+intravenous dexamethasone 24 mg+oral placebo; group D: oral paracetamol 1000 mg × 4+oral ibuprofen 400 mg × 4+intravenous dexamethasone 24 mg.Primary outcome is cumulative opioid consumption at 0-24 hours. Secondary outcomes are pain at rest, during mobilisation and during a 5 m walk and adverse events. Follow-up includes serious adverse events and patient reported outcome measures at 90 days and 1 year. A total of 1060 participants are needed to demonstrate a difference of 8 mg in 24-hour morphine consumption assuming an SD of 24.5 mg, a risk of type I errors of 0.0083 and a risk of type 2 errors of 0.2. Primary analysis will be a modified intention-to-treat analysis.With this trial we aim to verify recommendations for pain treatment after total hip arthroplasty, and investigate the role of dexamethasone as an analgesic adjuvant to paracetamol and ibuprofen.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This trial is approved by the Region Zealand Committee on Health Research Ethics (SJ-799). Plans for dissemination include publication in peer-reviewed journals and presentation at scientific meetings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04123873.

Effect of Intravenous Paracetamol on Opioid Consumption in Multimodal Analgesia After Lumbar Disc Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: Intravenous paracetamol, as an adjunct to multimodal analgesia, has been shown to successfully reduce opioid consumption after joint arthroplasty, abdominal surgery, and caesarean delivery. However, there are limited data on the opioid-sparing effect of intravenous paracetamol on lumbar disc surgery. Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness and safety of intravenous paracetamol for reducing opioid consumption in lumbar disc surgery. The primary outcome was cumulative opioid consumption within 24 h postoperatively. Method: We followed the PRISMA-P guidelines and used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence. The review was registered in PROSPERO under the registration number CRD42021288168. Two reviewers conducted electronic searches in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Scopus, and Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the postoperative opioid consumption of intravenous paracetamol with placebo in lumbar discectomy were included. Results: Five trials comprising a total of 271 patients were included. The overall opioid consumption within 24 h postoperatively was reduced [mean difference (MD), -10.61 (95% CI, -16.00 to -5.22) mg, p = 0.0001, I2 = 90%] in patients with intravenous paracetamol. Intravenous paracetamol significantly reduced the postoperative pain scores at 1 h [MD, -2.37 (95%CI, -3.81 to -0.94), p = 0.001, I2 = 82%], 2 h [MD, -3.17 (95%CI, -3.85 to -2.48), p < 0.00001, I2 = 38%], 6 h [MD, -1.75 (95%CI, -3.10 to -0.40), p = 0.01], 12 h [MD, -0.96 (95%CI, -1.77 to -0.15), p = 0.02], and 24 h [MD, -0.97 (95%CI, -1.67 to -0.27), p = 0.006] compared with the placebo. There were no differences in postoperative adverse effects. Conclusion: Intravenous paracetamol reduced postoperative opioid consumption and decreased postoperative pain scores without increasing adverse effects. The overall GRADE quality of the evidence was rated as low to moderate. Intravenous paracetamol appears to be an applicable option as an important part of multimodal analgesia for postoperative analgesia after lumbar disc surgery. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, CRD42021288168.

ABO blood group is not a predictive factor for the amount of early opioid consumption in postanesthesia care unit: a prospective cohort study in 3,316 patients

Background

Immediate postoperative pain in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) is common. Titration of opioid is the most popular strategy for controlling early postoperative pain. ABO blood group has been found to be associated with pain perception. We aimed to find the factors including ABO blood group for predicting the amount of opioid requirement in PACU.

Methods

This prospective cohort study was performed in 3316 patients who underwent various kinds of anesthetic techniques and received immediate postoperative care in PACU. Preoperative, intraoperative and PACU data were collected. A directed acyclic graph (DAG) representing the hypothesized causal pathways of preoperative, intraoperative and PACU data were compiled prior to conducting multinomial logistic regression analysis. Statistical significance in all models was defined as a P-value < 0.05.

Results

Female sex, body mass index, preoperative use of gabapentin, preoperative anxiety score, anesthetic techniques, type of operation, amount of consumed intraoperative opioids, intraoperative use of paracetamol, parecoxib and ondansetron, duration of anesthesia and surgery, amount of blood loss, pain upon PACU arrival, use of paracetamol and parecoxib in PACU were found to be factors influencing amount of opioid consumption in PACU. ABO blood group was not associated with early postoperative opioid requirement.

Conclusions

A significant number of factors are related to amount of opioid requirement in PACU. Some factors can be adjusted to provide better pain relief in early postoperative period. However, ABO blood group is not identified to be a predictive factor for early postoperative opioid consumption in PACU.

Intravenous Acetaminophen Does Not Provide Adequate Postoperative Analgesia in Dogs Following Ovariohysterectomy

Simple Summary

Acetaminophen is the most commonly used pain relief (analgesic) agent in humans worldwide and its use is becoming more frequent in dogs. However, limited evidence supports this use. This study aimed to investigate the analgesic effect of acetaminophen when administered as an intravenous injection post-operatively in female dogs. A total of 34 dogs were randomly divided into two groups and either administered acetaminophen or saline intravenously immediately after desexing. The dogs had their pain levels evaluated at 10, 20, 40, 60, 120, and 180 min after awakening from general anesthesia and the pain levels between groups were compared. Concurrently, the dogs had blood collected at 2, 5, 10, 40, and 80 min following injection of the acetaminophen. The blood was analyzed to quantify the levels of acetaminophen in the body. This study found that acetaminophen was no better than saline in providing analgesia in dogs following surgery. This study suggests that acetaminophen used alone may not be an appropriate post-operative analgesic agent for desexing procedures.

Abstract

(1) Objective: To investigate the analgesic effects of intravenous acetaminophen after intravenous administration in dogs presenting for ovariohysterectomy. (2) Methods: 14 ASA I client-owned female entire dogs. In this randomized, blinded, clinical study, dogs were given meperidine and acepromazine intramuscularly before induction of anesthesia with intravenous propofol. Anesthesia was maintained with isoflurane in oxygen. Intravenous acetaminophen 20 mg/kg or 0.9% NaCl was administered postoperatively. Pain assessments were conducted using the Glasgow Pain Scale short form before premedication and at 10, 20, 60, 120, and 180 min post-extubation or until rescue analgesia was given. The pain scores, times, and incidences of rescue analgesia between the groups was compared. Blood was collected before and 2, 5, 10, 20, 40, and 80 min after acetaminophen administration. Acetaminophen plasma concentration was quantified by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. The acetaminophen plasma concentration at the time of each pain score evaluation was subsequently calculated. (3) Results: There was no significant difference in pain scores at 10 min, highest pain scores, or time of rescue analgesia between groups. In each group, 3 dogs (43%) received rescue analgesia within 20 min. (4) Conclusions: Following ovariohysterectomy in dogs, there was no detectable analgesic effect of a 20 mg/kg dosage of intravenous acetaminophen administered at the end of surgery.

Systematic Review of Systemic and Neuraxial Effects of Acetaminophen in Preclinical Models of Nociceptive Processing

Acetaminophen (APAP) in humans has robust effects with a high therapeutic index in altering postoperative and inflammatory pain states in clinical and experimental pain paradigms with no known abuse potential. This review considers the literature reflecting the preclinical actions of acetaminophen in a variety of pain models. Significant observations arising from this review are as follows: 1) acetaminophen has little effect upon acute nociceptive thresholds; 2) acetaminophen robustly reduces facilitated states as generated by mechanical and thermal hyperalgesic end points in mouse and rat models of carrageenan and complete Freund’s adjuvant evoked inflammation; 3) an antihyperalgesic effect is observed in models of facilitated processing with minimal inflammation (eg, phase II intraplantar formalin); and 4) potent anti-hyperpathic effects on the thermal hyperalgesia, mechanical and cold allodynia, allodynic thresholds in rat and mouse models of polyneuropathy and mononeuropathies and bone cancer pain. These results reflect a surprisingly robust drug effect upon a variety of facilitated states that clearly translate into a wide range of efficacy in preclinical models and to important end points in human therapy. The specific systems upon which acetaminophen may act based on targeted delivery suggest both a spinal and a supraspinal action. Review of current targets for this molecule excludes a role of cyclooxygenase inhibitor but includes effects that may be mediated through metabolites acting on the TRPV1 channel, or by effect upon cannabinoid and serotonin signaling. These findings suggest that the mode of action of acetaminophen, a drug with a long therapeutic history of utilization, has surprisingly robust effects on a variety of pain states in clinical patients and in preclinical models with a good therapeutic index, but in spite of its extensive use, its mechanisms of action are yet poorly understood.

Postoperative oral energy and protein intakes for an enhanced recovery after surgery program incorporating early enteral nutrition for pancreaticoduodenectomy: A retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Although postoperative early oral feeding in the enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program for pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is deemed safe, the assessment of oral intakes has been insufficient. This study aimed to investigate postoperative oral intakes and the effectiveness of an ERAS program incorporating early enteral nutrition (EN).

METHODS

In total, 203 patients with PD were enrolled retrospectively. The first group (group E1; n = 61) comprised 11 ERAS care elements, whereas the second group (group E2; n = 106) comprised 19 elements. The control group (group C; n = 36) was managed using traditional care before ERAS was implemented. Postoperative energy and protein requirements were estimated at 25-30 kcal per kilogram of ideal body weight and 1.2-1.5 g per kilogram of ideal body weight, respectively, and were investigated along with the length of hospital stay (LOS).

RESULTS

The oral energy and protein intakes from the diets in the ERAS groups at postoperative day 7 significantly increased compared with those in group C. Intakes in groups E1 and E2 were not significantly different and provided <30% of the requirements. However, the total intakes, which were compensated by EN, were maintained at >80% of the requirements. LOS was significantly shorter in groups E1 (31 days) and E2 (19 days) than in group C (52 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Postoperative early oral energy and protein intakes of this modified ERAS program failed to meet the dietary requirements. However, early EN compensated for the shortages and contributed to the reduction of LOS.

Opioid use, misuse, and abuse: a narrative review about interventions to reduce opioid consumption and related adverse events in the perioperative setting

Opioids remain the most potent and predictable drug available for perioperative analgesia and moderate-to-severe cancer-related pain. However, their efficacy has been questioned in other clinical settings. Moreover, opioids are associated with a wide variety of dose-dependent adverse events, limiting their use. The indiscriminate prescription of opioids has fueled the so-called "opioid epidemic" in the United States and other developed countries. Thus, there has been a significant effort to develop strategies to curtail their unnecessary prescription. Here, we summarize the history, current trends, and new directions in perioperative opioid prescription in an unbiased manner.

Assessing efficacy of intravenous acetaminophen for perioperative pain control for oocyte retrieval: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effect of preoperative intravenous (IV) acetaminophen versus oral (PO) acetaminophen or placebo on postoperative pain scores and the time to discharge in women undergoing oocyte retrieval.

DESIGN

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

SETTING

Single academic fertility center.

PATIENT(S)

Women aged 18-43 years undergoing oocyte retrieval.

INTERVENTION(S)

Randomization to preoperative 1,000 mg IV acetaminophen and PO placebo (group A), IV placebo and 1,000 mg PO acetaminophen (group B), or IV and PO placebo (group C) MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Difference in patient-reported postoperative visual analog scale pain scores from baseline and the time to discharge.

RESULT(S)

Of the 159 women who completed the study, there were no differences in the mean postoperative pain score differences or the time to discharge. Although not statistically significant, the mean postoperative opioid dose requirement in group A was lower than that in groups B and C (0.24 vs. 0.59 vs. 0.58 mg IV morphine equivalents, respectively) due to fewer women in group A requiring rescue pain medication (8% vs. 19% vs. 15%, respectively). Group A also reported less constipation when compared with groups B and C (19% vs. 33% vs. 40%, respectively). The rates of postoperative nausea were similar, and there were no differences in embryology or early pregnancy outcomes between the study groups.

CONCLUSION(S)

Preoperative IV acetaminophen for women undergoing oocyte retrieval did not reduce postoperative pain scores or shorten the time to discharge when compared with PO acetaminophen or placebo and, thus, cannot currently be recommended routinely in this patient population.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03073980.

[Perioperative analgesia with nonopioid analgesics : Joint interdisciplinary consensus-based recommendations of the German Pain Society, the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine and the German Society of Surgery]

BACKGROUND

Nonopioid analgesics are frequently used for perioperative analgesia; however, insufficient research is available on several practical issues. Often hospitals have no strategy for how to proceed, e.g., for informing patients or for the timing of perioperative administration of nonopioid analgesics.

METHODS

An expert panel representing the German national societies of pain, anaesthesiology and intensive care medicine and surgery developed recommendations for the perioperative use of nonopioid analgesics within a formal, structured consensus process.

RESULTS

The panel agreed that nonopioid analgesics shall be part of a multimodal analgesia concept and that patients have to be informed preoperatively about possible complications and alternative treatment options. Patients' history of pain and analgesic intake shall be evaluated. Patients at risk of severe postoperative pain and possible chronification of postsurgical pain shall be identified. Depending on the duration of surgery, nonopioid analgesics can already be administered preoperatively or intraoperatively so that plasma concentrations are sufficient after emergence from anesthesia. Nonopioid analgesics or combinations of analgesics shall be administered for a limited time only. An interdisciplinary written standard of care, comprising the nonopioid analgesic of choice, possible alternatives, adequate dosing and timing of administration as well as surgery-specific policies, have to be agreed upon by all departments involved. At discharge, the patient's physician shall be informed of analgesics given and those necessary after discharge. Patients shall be informed of possible side effects and symptoms and timely discontinuation of analgesic drugs.

CONCLUSION

The use of nonopioid analgesics as part of a perioperative multimodal concept should be approved and established as an interdisciplinary and interprofessional concept for the adequate treatment of postoperative pain.

[Perioperative analgesia with nonopioid analgesics : Joint interdisciplinary consensus-based recommendations of the German Pain Society, the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine and the German Society of Surgery]

BACKGROUND

Nonopioid analgesics are frequently used for perioperative analgesia; however, insufficient research is available on several practical issues. Often hospitals have no strategy for how to proceed, e.g., for informing patients or for the timing of perioperative administration of nonopioid analgesics.

METHODS

An expert panel representing the German national societies of pain, anaesthesiology and intensive care medicine and surgery developed recommendations for the perioperative use of nonopioid analgesics within a formal, structured consensus process.

RESULTS

The panel agreed that nonopioid analgesics shall be part of a multimodal analgesia concept and that patients have to be informed preoperatively about possible complications and alternative treatment options. Patients' history of pain and analgesic intake shall be evaluated. Patients at risk of severe postoperative pain and possible chronification of postsurgical pain shall be identified. Depending on the duration of surgery, nonopioid analgesics can already be administered preoperatively or intraoperatively so that plasma concentrations are sufficient after emergence from anesthesia. Nonopioid analgesics or combinations of analgesics shall be administered for a limited time only. An interdisciplinary written standard of care, comprising the nonopioid analgesic of choice, possible alternatives, adequate dosing and timing of administration as well as surgery-specific policies, have to be agreed upon by all departments involved. At discharge, the patient's physician shall be informed of analgesics given and those necessary after discharge. Patients shall be informed of possible side effects and symptoms and timely discontinuation of analgesic drugs.

CONCLUSION

The use of nonopioid analgesics as part of a perioperative multimodal concept should be approved and established as an interdisciplinary and interprofessional concept for the adequate treatment of postoperative pain.

[Perioperative analgesia with nonopioid analgesics : Joint interdisciplinary consensus-based recommendations of the German Pain Society, the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine and the German Society of Surgery]

Hintergrund

Nichtopioidanalgetika werden bei vielen Patienten zur perioperativen Analgesie eingesetzt. Zu einigen praktischen Fragen beim Einsatz von Nichtopioidanalgetika liegen z. T. nur wenig Informationen aus Studien vor, und in Krankenhäusern existieren häufig keine Konzepte zum Vorgehen, z. B. zur Patientenaufklärung und zum Zeitpunkt der perioperativen Gabe.

Methodik

Eine Expertengruppe der beteiligten Fachgesellschaften hat konsensbasierte Empfehlungen zum perioperativen Einsatz von Nichtopioidanalgetika erarbeitet und in einem strukturierten formalen Konsensusprozess verabschiedet.

Ergebnisse

Die Arbeitsgruppe stimmt überein, dass Nichtopioidanalgetika Bestandteil eines perioperativen multimodalen Analgesiekonzepts sein sollen und Patienten präoperativ über Nutzen, Risiken und alternative Behandlungsmöglichkeiten aufgeklärt werden sollen. Die präoperative Patienteninformation und -edukation soll auch eine Schmerz- und Analgetikaanamnese umfassen und Patienten mit Risikofaktoren für starke Schmerzen und eine Schmerzchronifizierung sollen identifiziert werden. Unter Berücksichtigung von Kontraindikationen können Nichtopioidanalgetika abhängig von der Operationsdauer auch schon prä- oder intraoperativ gegeben werden, um nach Beendigung der Anästhesie ausreichende Plasmakonzentrationen zu erzielen. Nichtopioidanalgetika oder Kombinationen von (Nichtopioid‑)Analgetika sollen nur für einen begrenzten Zeitraum gegeben werden. Ein gemeinsam erarbeiteter abteilungsübergreifender Behandlungsstandard mit dem Nichtopioidanalgetikum erster Wahl, weiteren Therapieoptionen sowie adäquaten Dosierungen, ergänzt durch eingriffsspezifische Konzepte, soll schriftlich hinterlegt werden. Bei Entlassung aus dem Krankenhaus soll der nachbehandelnde Arzt zu perioperativ gegebenen und aktuell noch eingenommenen Analgetika schriftliche Informationen erhalten. Patienten sollen zu möglichen Nebenwirkungen der Analgetika und ihrer Symptome, die auch nach Krankenhausentlassung auftreten können, und die befristete Einnahmedauer informiert werden.

Schlussfolgerung

Die Anwendung von Nichtopioidanalgetika soll als Bestandteil eines perioperativen multimodalen Analgesiekonzepts mit klaren Vorgaben zu Indikationen, Kontraindikationen, Dosierungen und Behandlungsdauer in einem abteilungsübergreifenden Behandlungsstandard schriftlich hinterlegt werden.

Zusatzmaterial online

Die Offenlegung von Interessen ist in der Online-Version dieses Artikels (10.1007/s00104-021-01421-w) enthalten.

Single-dose intravenous ketorolac for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pain is common and may be severe. Postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces patient opioid requirements and, in turn, may reduce the incidence and severity of opioid-induced adverse events (AEs).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose intravenous ketorolac, compared with placebo or an active comparator, for moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases without language restrictions: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and LILACS on 20 April 2020. We checked clinical trials registers and reference lists of retrieved articles for additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized double-blind trials that compared a single postoperative dose of intravenous ketorolac with placebo or another active treatment, for treating acute postoperative pain in adults following any surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.  Our primary outcome was the number of participants in each arm achieving at least 50% pain relief over a four- and six-hour period. Our secondary outcomes were time to and number of participants using rescue medication; withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, adverse events (AEs), and for any other cause; and number of participants experiencing any AE, serious AEs (SAEs), and NSAID-related or opioid-related AEs. For subgroup analysis, we planned to analyze different doses of parenteral ketorolac separately and to analyze results based on the type of surgery performed. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 studies, involving 1905 participants undergoing various surgeries (pelvic/abdominal, dental, and orthopedic), with 17 to 83 participants receiving intravenous ketorolac in each study. Mean study population ages ranged from 22.5 years to 67.4 years. Most studies administered a dose of ketorolac of 30 mg; one study assessed 15 mg, and another administered 60 mg. Most studies had an unclear risk of bias for some domains, particularly allocation concealment and blinding, and a high risk of bias due to small sample size. The overall certainty of evidence for each outcome ranged from very low to moderate. Reasons for downgrading certainty included serious study limitations, inconsistency and imprecision. Ketorolac versus placebo Very low-certainty evidence from eight studies (658 participants) suggests that ketorolac results in a large increase in the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over four hours compared to placebo, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 2.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.80 to 4.37). The number needed to treat for one additional participant to benefit (NNTB) was 2.4 (95% CI 1.8 to 3.7). Low-certainty evidence from 10 studies (914 participants) demonstrates that ketorolac may result in a large increase in the number of participants achieving at least 50% pain relief over six hours compared to placebo (RR 3.26, 95% CI 1.93 to 5.51). The NNTB was 2.5 (95% CI 1.9 to 3.7). Among secondary outcomes, for time to rescue medication, moderate-certainty evidence comparing intravenous ketorolac versus placebo demonstrated a mean median of 271 minutes for ketorolac versus 104 minutes for placebo (6 studies, 633 participants). For the number of participants using rescue medication, very low-certainty evidence from five studies (417 participants) compared ketorolac with placebo. The RR was 0.60 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.00), that is, it did not demonstrate a difference between groups. Ketorolac probably results in a slight increase in total adverse event rates compared with placebo (74% versus 65%; 8 studies, 810 participants; RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.19; number needed to treat for an additional harmful event (NNTH) 16.7, 95% CI 8.3 to infinite, moderate-certainty evidence). Serious AEs were rare. Low-certainty evidence from eight studies (703 participants) did not demonstrate a difference in rates between ketorolac and placebo (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.13 to 3.03). Ketorolac versus NSAIDs  Ketorolac was compared to parecoxib in four studies and diclofenac in two studies. For our primary outcome, over both four and six hours there was no evidence of a difference between intravenous ketorolac and another NSAID (low-certainty and moderate-certainty evidence, respectively). Over four hours, four studies (337 participants) produced an RR of 1.04 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.21) and over six hours, six studies (603 participants) produced an RR of 1.06 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.19). For time to rescue medication, low-certainty evidence from four studies (427 participants) suggested that participants receiving ketorolac waited an extra 35 minutes (mean median 331 minutes versus 296 minutes). For the number of participants using rescue medication, very low-certainty evidence from three studies (260 participants) compared ketorolac with another NSAID. The RR was 0.90 (95% CI 0.58 to 1.40), that is, there may be little or no difference between groups.   Ketorolac probably results in a slight increase in total adverse event rates compared with another NSAID (76% versus 68%, 5 studies, 516 participants; RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.23; NNTH 12.5, 95% CI 6.7 to infinite, moderate-certainty evidence). Serious AEs were rare. Low-certainty evidence from five studies (530 participants) did not demonstrate a difference in rates between ketorolac and another NSAID (RR 3.18, 95% CI 0.13 to 76.99). Only one of the five studies reported a single serious AE.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The amount and certainty of evidence for the use of intravenous ketorolac as a treatment for postoperative pain varies across efficacy and safety outcomes and amongst comparators, from very low to moderate. The available evidence indicates that postoperative intravenous ketorolac administration may offer substantial pain relief for most patients, but further research may impact this estimate. Adverse events appear to occur at a slightly higher rate in comparison to placebo and to other NSAIDs. Insufficient information is available to assess whether intravenous ketorolac has a different rate of gastrointestinal or surgical-site bleeding, renal dysfunction, or cardiovascular events versus other NSAIDs. There was a lack of studies in cardiovascular surgeries and in elderly populations who may be at increased risk for adverse events.

The Efficacy of Acetominophen for Total Laparoscopic Hysterectomy

OBJECTIVE

Despite limited data, acetaminophen, along with other agents, is commonly included in enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols following laparoscopic hysterectomy. We aimed to systematically review the efficacy of acetaminophen on the management of postoperative pain after laparoscopic hysterectomy.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for relevant clinical trials investigating the role of acetaminophen in the management of pain after laparoscopic hysterectomy. We performed the risk of bias according to Cochrane's risk of bias tool. We performed the analysis of homogeneous data under the fixed-effects model during the analysis of heterogeneous data under the random-effects model. The primary outcome was the assessment of pain score after 2, 6, 12, and 24 h.

RESULTS

A total of 495 patients in 13 trials were included in our meta-analysis. Acetaminophen was not superior at reducing postoperative pain scores. Further analysis at progressive temporal points revealed no further significance; effect size at after 2 h (SMD = -0.020, 95% CI (-0.216; 0.176)), 6 h (SMD = -0.115, 95% CI (-0.312; 0.083)), 12 h (SMD = -0.126, 95% CI (-0.277; 0.025)), or 24 h (SMD = 0.063, 95% CI (-0.065; 0.191)). Pooled analysis was heterogeneous (P < 0.1); therefore, we conducted a sensitivity analysis yielding homogeneous results. The drug did not reduce opioid need (MD = -0.16, 95% CI (-2.39, 2.06), P = 0.89).

CONCLUSION

We conclude that acetaminophen is not beneficial for reducing pain after laparoscopic hysterectomy. Other alternatives have better results. Caution should be given to the inclusion of acetaminophen in ERAS protocols designed for laparoscopic hysterectomy, especially as a single agent or to reduce opioid consumption.

[Considerations concerning the perioperative use of metamizole]

BACKGROUND

The non-opioid analgesic metamizole (dipyrone) is approved for the treatment of severe pain and is often used in the perioperative period. As it can cause agranulocytosis, a severe adverse event, its perioperative administration is controversially discussed.

OBJECTIVE

Is there enough evidence for a high risk of metamizol-induced agranulocytosis (MIA)? What are the consequences of its perioperative use with respect to the risk profiles of alternative analgesics?

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Rapid review of the literature on the risk of MIA and adverse effects of non-opioid analgesics.

RESULTS

The incidence of MIA is estimated to be one case per million inhabitants per year. The risk seems low compared to other drugs associated with a risk of agranulocytosis, such as antithyroid drugs and ticlopidine. The risk profile of metamizole concerning hepatotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, bleeding and cardiovascular adverse effects is favorable compared to other non-opioid analgesics. None of the non-opioid analgesics are licensed to be administered intraoperatively.

CONCLUSION

The perioperative use of metamizole is possible after a thorough evaluation of the indications as it provides good analgesia with a generally favorable side effect profile and is administered intravenously. The risk of agranulocytosis is small but needs to be mentioned during patient informed consent in order to optimize early recognition. Intraoperative administration aims at reducing the expected severe postoperative pain. A documentation and justification for the evaluation of the indications are recommended.

Effect of Intravenous Lidocaine on Postoperative Pain in Patients Undergoing Intraspinal Tumor Resection: Study Protocol for a Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

Purpose

Patients undergoing intraspinal tumor resection usually experience severe acute pain, delaying postoperative rehabilitation, and increasing incidence of chronic pain. Recently, an increasing number of studies have found that low-dose intravenous lidocaine infusion during and/or after surgery can reduce opioid usage and the incidence of related side effects, inhibit hyperalgesia and promote recovery. Thus far, no studies have evaluated the analgesic effect and safety of perioperative intravenous lidocaine infusion for intraspinal tumor resection, especially the long-term analgesic effects of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with lidocaine during the first postoperative 48 hours. This study tests the hypothesis that intra- and postoperative systemic lidocaine infusion for patients undergoing intraspinal tumor resection can relieve postoperative acute or chronic pain and reduce the opioid dosage and incidence of related side effects without other problems.

Study Design and Methods

This is a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, and double-blinded study. In total, 180 participants scheduled for intraspinal tumor resection will be randomly divided into lidocaine and placebo groups. The lidocaine group will be administered lidocaine intravenously during anesthesia and postoperative pain management during the first 48 postoperative hours; the placebo group will be administered normal saline at the same volume, infusion rate, and timing. The primary outcome will be the postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) score. Secondary outcomes will be postoperative cumulative sufentanil consumption, indicators of postoperative recovery, and the incidence of perioperative adverse events.

Discussion

This study investigates the effect of continuous intravenous lidocaine infusion on postoperative sufentanil consumption and VAS scores. The findings will provide a new strategy of anesthesia and analgesia management for intraspinal tumor resection.

A systematic review and trial sequential analysis of intravenous vs. oral peri-operative paracetamol

Postoperative pain might be different after intravenous vs. oral paracetamol. We systematically reviewed randomised controlled trials in patients >15 years that compared intravenous with oral paracetamol for postoperative pain. We identified 14 trials with 1695 participants. There was inconclusive evidence for an effect of route of paracetamol administration on postoperative pain at 0–2 h (734 participants), 2–6 h (766 participants), 6–24 h (1115 participants) and >24 h (248 participants), with differences in standardised mean (95%CI) pain scores for intravenous vs. oral of −0.17 (−0.45 to 0.10), −0.09 (−0.24 to 0.06), 0.06 (−0.12 to 0.23) and 0.03 (−0.22 to 0.28), respectively. Trial sequential analyses suggested that a total of 3948 participants would be needed to demonstrate a meaningful difference in pain or its absence at 0–2 h. There were no differences in secondary outcomes. Intravenous paracetamol is more expensive than oral paracetamol. Substitution of oral paracetamol in half the patients given intravenous paracetamol in our hospital would save around £ 38,711 (€ 43,960 or US$ 47,498) per annum.

Practice review: Evidence-based and effective management of pain in patients with advanced cancer

BACKGROUND

Pain of a moderate or severe intensity affects over half of patients with advanced cancer and remains undertreated in at least one-third of these patients.

AIM

The aim of this study was to provide a pragmatic overview of the evidence supporting the use of interventions in pain management in advanced cancer and to identify where encouraging preliminary results are demonstrated but further research is required.

DESIGN

A scoping review approach was used to examine the evidence supporting the use of guideline-recommended interventions in pain management practice.

DATA SOURCES

National or international guidelines were selected if they described pain management in adult cancer patients and were written within the last 5 years in English. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 2014 to January 2019) was searched for 'cancer' AND 'pain' in the title, abstract or keywords. A MEDLINE search was also made.

RESULTS

A strong opioid remains the drug of choice for treating moderate or severe pain. Bisphosphonates and radiotherapy are also effective for cancer-related bone pain. Optimal management requires a tailored approach, support for self-management and review of treatment outcomes. There is likely a role for non-pharmacological approaches. Paracetamol should not be used in patients taking a strong opioid to treat pain. Cannabis-based medicines are not recommended. Weak opioids, ketamine and lidocaine are indicated in specific situations only.

CONCLUSION

Interventions commonly recommended by guidelines are not always supported by a robust evidence base. Research is required to evaluate the efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, anti-convulsants, anti-depressants, corticosteroids, some invasive anaesthetic techniques, complementary therapies and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation.

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.

American Society for Enhanced Recovery and Perioperative Quality Initiative Joint Consensus Statement on Perioperative Opioid Minimization in Opioid-Naïve Patients

Surgical care episodes place opioid-naïve patients at risk for transitioning to new persistent postoperative opioid use. With one of the central principles being the application of multimodal pain interventions to reduce the reliance on opioid-based medications, enhanced recovery pathways provide a framework that decreases perioperative opioid use. The fourth Perioperative Quality Initiative brought together a group of international experts representing anesthesiology, surgery, and nursing with the objective of providing consensus recommendations on this important topic. Fourth Perioperative Quality Initiative was a consensus-building conference designed around a modified Delphi process in which the group alternately convened for plenary discussion sessions in between small group discussions. The process included several iterative steps including a literature review of the topics, building consensus around the important questions related to the topic, and sequential steps of content building and refinement until agreement was achieved and a consensus document was produced. During the fourth Perioperative Quality Initiative conference and thereafter as a writing group, reference applicability to the topic was discussed in any area where there was disagreement. For this manuscript, the questions answered included (1) What are the potential strategies for preventing persistent postoperative opioid use? (2) Is opioid-free anesthesia and analgesia feasible and appropriate for routine operations? and (3) Is opioid-free (intraoperative) anesthesia associated with equivalent or superior outcomes compared to an opioid minimization in the perioperative period? We will discuss the relevant literature for each questions, emphasize what we do not know, and prioritize the areas for future research.

Systematic review of analgesics and dexamethasone for post-tonsillectomy pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Intense pain can last several days after tonsillectomy. It is often undertreated and improved analgesic strategies that can be safely used at home are needed.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of systemic medications used for post-tonsillectomy pain in adult and adolescent (13 yr old) patients. Studies were identified from PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and by hand searching reference lists from studies and review articles. Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies reporting on pain intensity or use of rescue analgesia were included.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine randomised controlled trials representing 1816 subjects met the inclusion criteria. Follow-up time was ≤24 h in 15 studies, in which the majority were taking nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Thirteen studies were suitable for meta-analysis. In pooled analysis, paracetamol, dexamethasone, and gabapentinoids reduced pain intensity on the day of operation. In individual studies, ketoprofen, ibuprofen, lornoxicam, parecoxib, rofecoxib, indomethacin and dextromethorphan reduced pain intensity, need for rescue analgesics, or both on the day of operation. Oral celecoxib for 2 postoperative weeks or i.v. ketamine on the day of operation were not effective at the studied doses. Dexamethasone in multiple doses provided analgesia beyond 1 postoperative day. Pain was moderate to strong in both study and control groups during the first postoperative week.

CONCLUSIONS

Single analgesics and dexamethasone provide only a weak to moderate effect for post-tonsillectomy pain on the day of operation and thus a multimodal analgesic strategy is recommended. Short follow-up times and clinical heterogeneity of studies limit the usefulness of results.

The prescription opioid crisis: role of the anaesthesiologist in reducing opioid use and misuse

Reports of strategies to prevent and treat the opioid epidemic are growing. Significant attention has been paid to the benefits of opioid addiction research, clinical prescribing, and public policy initiatives in curbing the epidemic. However, the role of the anaesthesiologist in minimising opioid use and misuse remains underexplored. For many patients with an opioid use disorder, the perioperative period represents the source of initial exposure. As perioperative physicians, anaesthesiologists are in the unique position to manage pain effectively while simultaneously decreasing opioid consumption. Multiple opportunities exist for anaesthesiologists to minimise opioid exposure and prevent subsequent persistent opioid use. We present a global strategy for decreasing perioperative opioid use and misuse among surgical patients. A historical perspective of the opioid epidemic is presented, together with an analysis of opioid supply and demand forces. We then present specific temporal strategies for opioid use reduction in the perioperative period. We emphasise the importance of preoperative identification of patients at risk for long-term opioid use and misuse, review the evidence supporting the opioid sparing capacity of individual multimodal analgesic agents, and discuss the benefits of regional anaesthesia for minimising opioid consumption. We describe postoperative and post-discharge tools, including effective multimodal analgesia and the role of a transitional pain service. Finally, we offer general institutional strategies that can be led by anaesthesiologists, identify gaps in knowledge, and offer directions for future research.

A Quality Improvement Initiative to Decrease Inappropriate Intravenous Acetaminophen Use at an Academic Medical Center

Background: Following availability in the United States in 2011, intravenous acetaminophen (IV APAP) was added to many hospital formularies for multimodal pain control. In 2014, the price of IV APAP increased from $12/g to $33/g and became a top 10 medication expenditure at our institution. Objective: To promote appropriate IV APAP prescribing and reduce costs. Design, Setting, Participants: Quality improvement project at a 562-bed academic medical center involving all inpatient admissions from 2010 to 2017. Interventions: Using Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) methodology, our Pharmacy & Therapeutics (P&T) committee aimed to reduce inappropriate use of IV APAP by refinement of restriction criteria, development of clinical decision support in the electronic medical record, education of clinical staff on appropriate use, and empowerment of hospital pharmacists to enforce restrictions. Measurements: Monthly IV APAP utilization and spending were assessed using statistical process control charts. Balancing measures included monthly usage of IV opioid, IV ketorolac, and oral ibuprofen. Results: Five PDSA cycles were conducted during the study period. Monthly spending on IV APAP decreased from the highest average of $56 038 per month to $5822 per month at study conclusion. Interventions resulted in an 80% annual cost savings, or an approximate savings of $600 000 per year. Usage of IV opioids, IV ketorolac, and oral ibuprofen showed no major changes during the study period. Conclusions: IV APAP can be restricted in a safe and cost effective manner without concomitant increase in IV opioid use.

Randomized Clinical Trial of Intravenous Acetaminophen as an Analgesic Adjunct for Older Adults With Acute Severe Pain

OBJECTIVES

Older adults are at risk for undertreatment of pain. We examined intravenous (IV) acetaminophen as an analgesic adjunct to IV opioids in the care of older emergency department (ED) patients with acute severe pain.

METHODS

This was a randomized clinical trial conducted in two EDs in the Bronx, New York. Eligible adults aged 65 years and older with acute severe pain were randomized to 0.5 mg of IV hydromorphone and 1 g of IV acetaminophen or 0.5 mg of IV hydromorphone and 100 mL of normal saline placebo. The primary outcome was the between group difference in improvement of numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores at 60 minutes. Secondary outcomes were the between-group differences in the proportion of patients who chose to forgo additional pain medications at 60 minutes; the proportion who developed side effects; the proportion who required rescue analgesia; and between-group differences in NRS pain scores at 5, 15, 30, and 45 minutes.

RESULTS

Eighty-one patients were allocated to each arm. Eighty patients in the IV acetaminophen arm and 79 patients in the placebo arm had sufficient data for analysis. At 60 minutes, patients in the hydromorphone + IV acetaminophen group improved by 5.7 NRS units while those in the hydromorphone + placebo group improved by 5.2 NRS units, for a difference of 0.6 NRS units (95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.4 to 1.5). A total of 28.7% of patients in the hydromorphone + IV acetaminophen group wanted more analgesia at 60 minutes versus 29.1% in the hydromorphone + placebo group, for a difference of -0.4% (95% CI = -14.3% to 13.5%). These differences were neither clinically nor statistically significant. Safety profiles were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

In this randomized clinical trial, the addition of IV acetaminophen to IV hydromorphone as an adjunctive analgesic for acute, severe, pain in older adults provided neither clinically nor statistically superior pain relief when compared to hydromorphone alone within the first hour of treatment.

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.

Intravenous Acetaminophen For the Management of Pain During Vaso-occlusive Crises in Pediatric Patients

BACKGROUND

Children with sickle cell disease experience vaso-occlusive crises (VOC) that requires opioid pharmacotherapy. Multimodal analgesic therapy may reduce pain and opioid-induced adverse effects.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective was to examine the effectiveness of intravenous (IV) acetaminophen in children presenting with pain from VOC. Secondary objectives were to document the safety and opioid-sparing effects of IV acetaminophen during VOC in pediatric patients.

SETTING

Children's Medical Center, NYU-Winthrop Hospital.

METHOD

This retrospective study had two groups of patients, those who received opioids alone (group O) and those who received acetaminophen with opioids (group OA). Children two to 19 years of age who were admitted to the children's medical center for VOC were eligible for inclusion.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

A reduction in pain by at least 1 out of 10. With every analgesic dose, we documented pain scales and pain scores before and after each dose, the number of doses administered per day, and mg/kg/day. Data were analyzed using the mixed effect model. All opioids administered to patients were converted to morphine equivalents. We documented length of stay and adverse events.

RESULTS

We had a total of 46 children: 28 in group O and 18 in group OA. Acetaminophen reduced the pain from VOC by 2.3/10. There were trends in different assessments of opioid-sparing effects, in reducing opioid dosage (-0.5 mg/kg morphine equivalent; P = 0.45), reducing overall morphine equivalent doses (-18.5 mg; P = 0.066), and opioid-related adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to demonstrate the effectiveness of IV acetaminophen in treating VOC pain in children, supporting multimodal analgesic therapy in this setting. Opioid-sparing effects were also encouraging.

Single-dose intravenous diclofenac for acute postoperative pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces patient opioid requirements and, in turn, reduces the incidence and severity of opioid-induced adverse events (AEs).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose intravenous diclofenac, compared with placebo or an active comparator, for moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases without language restrictions: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Register of Studies Online), MEDLINE, and Embase on 22 May 2018. We checked clinical trials registers and reference lists of retrieved articles for additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized trials that compared a single postoperative dose of intravenous diclofenac with placebo or another active treatment, for treating acute postoperative pain in adults following any surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently considered trials for review inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data.Our primary outcome was the number of participants in each arm achieving at least 50% pain relief over a four- and six-hour period.Our secondary outcomes were time to, and number of participants using rescue medication; withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, AEs, and for any cause; and number of participants experiencing any AE, serious AEs (SAEs), and NSAID-related AEs. We performed a post hoc analysis of opioid-related AEs, to enable indirect comparisons with other analyses of postoperative analgesics.For subgroup analysis, we planned to analyze different doses and formulations of parenteral diclofenac separately.We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE and created two 'Summary of findings' tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies, involving 1756 participants undergoing various surgeries (dental, mixed minor, abdominal, and orthopedic), with 20 to 175 participants receiving intravenous diclofenac in each study. Mean study population ages ranged from 24.5 years to 54.5 years. Intravenous diclofenac doses varied among and within studies, ranging from 3.75 mg to 75 mg. Five studies assessed newer formulations of parenteral diclofenac that could be administered as an undiluted intravenous bolus. Most studies had an unclear risk of bias for several domains and a high risk of bias due to small sample size. The overall quality of evidence for each outcome was generally low for reasons including unclear risk of bias in studies, imprecision, and low event numbers.Primary outcomeThree studies (277 participants) produced a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) for at least 50% of maximum pain relief versus placebo of 2.4 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.9 to 3.1) over four hours (low-quality evidence). Four studies (436 participants) produced an NNTB of 3.8 versus placebo (95% CI 2.9 to 5.9) over six hours (low-quality evidence). No studies provided data for the comparison of intravenous diclofenac with another NSAID over four hours. At six hours there was no difference between intravenous diclofenac and another NSAID (low-quality evidence).Secondary outcomesFor secondary efficacy outcomes, intravenous diclofenac was generally superior to placebo and similar to other NSAIDs.For time to rescue medication, comparison of intravenous diclofenac versus placebo demonstrated a median of 226 minutes for diclofenac versus 80 minutes for placebo (5 studies, 542 participants, low-quality evidence). There were insufficient data for pooled analysis for comparisons of diclofenac with another NSAID (very low-quality evidence).For the number of participants using rescue medication, two studies (235 participants) compared diclofenac with placebo. The number needed to treat to prevent one additional harmful event (NNTp) (here, the need for rescue medication) compared with placebo was 3.0 (2.2 to 4.5, low-quality evidence). The comparison of diclofenac with another NSAID included only one study (98 participants). The NNTp was 4.5 (2.5 to 33) for ketorolac versus diclofenac (very low-quality evidence).The numbers of participants withdrawing were generally low and inconsistently reported (very low-quality evidence). Participant withdrawals were: 6% (8/140) diclofenac versus 5% (7/128) placebo, and 9% (8/87) diclofenac versus 7% (6/82) another NSAID for lack of efficacy; 2% (4/211) diclofenac versus 0% (0/198) placebo, and 3% (4/138) diclofenac versus 2% (2/129) another NSAID due to AEs; and 11% (21/191) diclofenac versus 17% (30/179) placebo, and 18% (21/118) diclofenac versus 15% (17/111) another NSAID for any cause.Overall adverse event rates were similar between intravenous diclofenac and placebo (71% in both groups, 2 studies, 296 participants) and between intravenous diclofenac and another NSAID (55% and 58%, respectively, 2 studies, 265 participants) (low-quality evidence for both comparisons). Serious and specific AEs were rare, preventing meta-analysis.There were sufficient data for a dose-effect analysis for our primary outcome for only one alternative dose, 18.75 mg. Analysis of the highest dose employed in each study demonstrated a relative benefit compared with placebo of 1.9 (1.4 to 2.4), whereas for the group receiving 18.75 mg, the relative benefit versus placebo was 1.6 (1.2 to 2.1, 2 studies). Compared to another NSAID, the high-dose analysis demonstrated a relative benefit of 0.9 (0.8 to 1.1), for the group receiving 18.75 mg, the relative benefit was 0.78 (0.65 to 0.93). For direct comparison of high dose versus 18.75 mg, the proportion of participants with at least 50% pain relief was 66% (90/137) for the high-dose arm versus 57% (77/135) in the low-dose arm. There were insufficient data for subgroup meta-analysis of different diclofenac formulations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The amount and quality of evidence for the use of intravenous diclofenac as a treatment for postoperative pain is low. The available evidence indicates that postoperative intravenous diclofenac administration offers good pain relief for the majority of patients, but further research may impact this estimate. Adverse events appear to occur at a similar rate to other NSAIDs. Insufficient information is available to assess whether intravenous diclofenac has a different rate of bleeding, renal dysfunction, or cardiovascular events versus other NSAIDs. There was insufficient information to evaluate the efficacy and safety of newer versus traditional formulations of intravenous diclofenac. There was a lack of studies in major and cardiovascular surgeries and in elderly populations, which may be at increased risk for adverse events.

Effect profile of paracetamol, Δ9-THC and promethazine using an evoked pain test battery in healthy subjects

BACKGROUND

A battery of evoked pain tasks (PainCart) was developed to investigate the pharmacodynamic properties of novel analgesics in early-phase clinical research. As part of its clinical validation, compounds with different pharmacological mechanisms of actions are investigated. The aim was to investigate the analgesic effects of classic and nonclassic analgesics compared to a sedating negative control in a randomized placebo-controlled crossover study in 24 healthy volunteers using the PainCart.

METHODS

The PainCart consisted of pain tasks eliciting electrical, pressure, heat, cold and inflammatory pain. Subjective scales for cognitive functioning and psychotomimetic effects were included. Subjects were administered each of the following oral treatments: paracetamol (1000 mg), Δ9-THC (10 mg), promethazine (50 mg) or matching placebo. Pharmacodynamic measurements were performed at baseline and repeated up to 10 h postdose.

RESULTS

Paracetamol did not show a significant reduction in pain sensation or subjective cognitive functioning compared to placebo. Promethazine induced a statistically significant reduction in PTT for cold pressor and pressure stimulation. Furthermore, reduced subjective alertness was observed. Δ9-THC showed a statistically significant decrease in PTT for electrical and pressure stimulation. Δ9-THC also demonstrated subjective effects, including changes in alertness and calmness, as well as feeling high and psychotomimetic effects.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found a decreased pain tolerance due to Δ9-THC and promethazine, or lack thereof, using an evoked pain task battery. Pain thresholds following paracetamol administration remained unchanged, which may be due to insufficient statistical power. We showed that pain thresholds determined using this pain test battery are not driven by sedation.

SIGNIFICANCE

The multimodal battery of evoked pain tasks utilized in this study may play an important role in early-phase clinical drug development. This battery of pain tasks is not sensitive to the effects of sedation alone, and thus suitable to investigate the analgesic potential of novel analgesic compounds.

New Advances in Acute Postoperative Pain Management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Postoperative pain remains one of the most common challenges following inpatient and outpatient surgeries. With our advances in modern medicine, pain following surgical procedures still remains a challenge, though significant accomplishments have been made over the past few decades. This article highlights some of the promising new advances and approaches in postoperative pain management.

RECENT FINDINGS

Over the last decade, Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) pathways and protocols are becoming the benchmark standards for enhancing postoperative recovery. Multimodal analgesia (MMA) is an essential component of such care. Further, in the wake of serious and persistent concern on the opioid epidemic in the USA, there has been a recent renewal of interest in non-opioid alternatives or adjuncts in controlling postoperative pain, often in the context of MMA. Intravenous (IV) acetaminophen, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), magnesium, ketamine, dexmedetomidine, liposomal bupivacaine, and newer neuraxial and peripheral regional techniques as well as patient-controlled modalities are gaining importance. Gabapentinoids have become popular but recent meta-analytic reviews have cast doubt on their routine use in perioperative settings. Among opioids, sublingual sufentanil, IV oxycodone, and iontophoretic transdermal fentanyl hold promise. Acupuncture and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation may be useful as adjuncts in MMA packages. Genetic testing, derivatives of herbal preparations, and an extended role of acute pain services may emerge as potential areas of importance in the future. There are, however, critical gaps in good quality evidence in many of the practice guideline recommendations. In the era of opioid epidemic, several lines of evidence have emerged to support non-opioid-based drugs and approaches along with a few newer opioid formulations for postoperative pain management, although more research is needed to find the right balance of efficacy and safety.

Association between intravenous acetaminophen and reduction in intraoperative opioid consumption during transsphenoidal surgery for pituitary tumors

Background and Aims

Pain during and after transsphenoidal surgeries originates from stimulation of branches of the trigeminal cranial nerve that supply the inner aspect of the nose cavity and dura mater. Thereby, patients undergoing transsphenoidal surgery may require moderate-to-large amounts of analgesics including opioids. Intravenous acetaminophen provides analgesia and reduces opioid consumption for a wide variety of surgeries. We hypothesized that the use of intravenous acetaminophen is associated with a reduction in intraoperative opioid consumption and provides significant analgesia during and after transsphenoidal surgery.

Material and Methods

This retrospective study included 413 patients who underwent transsphenoidal surgery for pituitary adenomas. The primary outcome of this study was intraoperative opioid consumption. Secondary outcomes included pain intensity, Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale scores, and nausea and vomiting upon arrival to postoperative anesthesia care unit. Patients were divided into two groups based on the intraoperative acetaminophen use. A prospensity score matching analysis was used to balance for important variables between the two groups of treatment. Regression models were fitted after matching the covariates. A P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

After matching, 126 patients were included in each group of treatment. Patients in the acetaminophen group required significantly less amount (a decrease by 14.9%) of opioids during surgery than those in the non-acetaminophen group. Postoperative pain, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and sedation scores were not significantly different between patients who received intravenous acetaminophen and those who did not.

Conclusion

Intravenous acetaminophen is associated with a reduction in intraoperative opioids during transsphenoidal pituitary surgery.

Double-Blind Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial of Single-Dose Intravenous Acetaminophen for Pain Associated With Adenotonsillectomy in Pediatric Patients With Sleep-Disordered Breathing

OBJECTIVES

Adequate pain control is an important component in the postoperative outcome for pediatric adenotonsillectomy patients with sleep-disordered breathing (SDB). Intravenous acetaminophen appears to be a favorable analgesic adjunct owing to its predictable pharmacokinetics and opioid-sparing effects; however, its role in pediatric adenotonsillectomy pain management remains unclear.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, double-blinded, controlled study, subjects with the diagnosis of SDB, aged 2 to 8 years, who required extended postoperative admission, received intravenous acetaminophen (15 mg/kg) or saline placebo intraoperatively in addition to morphine (0.1 mg/kg) for postoperative surgical analgesia. Pain scores in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) using the FLACC (Faces, Leg, Activity, Cry, Consolability) score were used to determine the need for supplemental analgesic agents in the PACU. The PACU time and time to the first request for pain medication on the inpatient ward were also measured.

RESULTS

A total of 239 patients were included in the final data analysis (118 in the intravenous acetaminophen group and 121 in the saline placebo group). The 2 groups did not differ in the proportion of patients reaching FLACC scores = 4 in the PACU (p = 0.223); mean FLACC scores in the PACU (p = 0.336); mean PACU time (p = 0.883); or time to requesting pain medication on the inpatient ward (p = 0.640).

CONCLUSIONS

A single intraoperative dose of intravenous acetaminophen did not alter the postoperative course of pediatric patients with SDB following adenotonsillectomy.

Comparison of paracetamol, ibuprofen, and diclofenac potassium for pain relief following dental extractions and deep cavity preparations

Objectives:

To compare the effectiveness of different oral analgesics for relieving pain and distress in adults following the extraction of teeth and deep cavity preparations under local anesthesia.

Methods:

This randomized controlled study was conducted between November 2015 and May 2016. One hundred and twenty patients were randomly allocated to 3 groups. Forty patients were in the paracetamol (1 gram) group, 40 in the ibuprofen (400 mg) group and 40 in the diclofenac potassium (50 mg) group. Evaluation of the post extraction and deep cavity preparations pain was made by patients immediately postoperatively, 2, 4 and 6 hours postoperatively on standard 100 mm visual analogue scales (VAS). Furthermore, each patient was observed preoperatively and immediately postoperatively for signs of distress by using a 5 point face scale.

Results:

There were significant decreases in mean pain VAS scores for diclofenac potassium group compared to paracetamol and ibuprofen groups at 4 hours postoperatively (one-way Analysis of Variance: p=0.0001, p=0.001) and 6 hours postoperatively (p=0.04, p=0.005). Changes in distress scores from the preoperative score to the postoperative score were made using the paired sample t-test. There were significant decreases in distress scores between the preoperative and postoperative scores (p=0.0001).

Conclusions:

Diclofenac potassium was more effective than paracetamol or ibuprofen for reducing postoperative pain associated with tooth extraction and deep cavity preparation. Patients’ distress levels can be alleviated by using preemptive analgesics.

Hospitalization Costs for Patients Undergoing Orthopedic Surgery Treated With Intravenous Acetaminophen (IV-APAP) Plus Other IV Analgesics or IV Opioid Monotherapy for Postoperative Pain

INTRODUCTION

To assess the impact on hospitalization costs of multimodal analgesia (MMA), including intravenous acetaminophen (IV-APAP), versus IV opioid monotherapy for postoperative pain management in patients undergoing orthopedic surgery.

METHODS

Utilizing the Truven Health MarketScan® Hospital Drug Database (HDD), patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA), total hip arthroplasty (THA), or surgical repair of hip fracture between 1/1/2011 and 8/31/2014 were separated into postoperative pain management groups: MMA with IV-APAP plus other IV analgesics (IV-APAP group) or an IV opioid monotherapy group. All patients could have received oral analgesics. Baseline characteristics and total hospitalization costs were compared. Additionally, an inverse probability treatment weighting [IPTW] with propensity scores analysis further assessed hospitalization cost differences.

RESULTS

The IV-APAP group (n = 33,954) and IV opioid monotherapy group (n = 110,300) differed significantly (P < 0.0001) across baseline characteristics, though the differences may not have been clinically meaningful. Total hospitalization costs (mean ± standard deviation) were significantly lower for the IV-APAP group than the IV opioid monotherapy group (US$12,540 ± $9564 vs. $13,242 ± $35,825; P < 0.0001). Medical costs accounted for $701 of the $702 between-group difference. Pharmacy costs were similar between groups. Results of the IPTW-adjusted analysis further supported the statistically significant cost difference.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing orthopedic surgery who received MMA for postoperative pain management, including IV-APAP, had significantly lower total costs than patients who received IV opioid monotherapy. This difference was driven by medical costs; importantly, there was no difference in pharmacy costs. Generalizability of the results may be limited to patients admitted to hospitals similar to those included in HDD. Dosing could not be determined, so it was not possible to quantify utilization of IV-APAP or ascertain differences in opioid consumption between the 2 groups. This study did not account for healthcare utilization post-discharge.

A Single Perioperative Injection of Dexamethasone Decreases Nausea, Vomiting, and Pain after Laparoscopic Donor Nephrectomy

Background. A single dose of perioperative dexamethasone (8–10 mg) reportedly decreases postoperative nausea, vomiting, and pain but has not been widely used in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN). Methods. We performed a retrospective cohort study of living donors who underwent LDN between 2013 and 2015. Donors who received a lower dose (4–6 mg)  (n = 70) or a higher dose (8–14 mg) of dexamethasone (n = 100) were compared with 111 donors who did not receive dexamethasone (control). Outcomes and incidence of postoperative nausea, vomiting, and pain within 24 h after LDN were compared before and after propensity-score matching. Results. The higher dose of dexamethasone reduced postoperative nausea and vomiting incidences by 28% (P = 0.010) compared to control, but the lower dose did not. Total opioid use was 29% lower in donors who received the higher dose than in control (P = 0.004). The higher dose was identified as an independent factor for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting. Postoperative complication rates and hospital stays did not differ between the groups. After propensity-score matching, the results were the same as for the unmatched analysis. Conclusion. A single perioperative injection of 8–14 mg dexamethasone decreases antiemetic and narcotic requirements in the first 24 h, with no increase in surgical complications.