'Desire for more analgesic treatment': pain and patient-reported outcome after paediatric tonsillectomy and appendectomy

Cost-effectiveness of the Perioperative Pain Management Bundle a registry-based study

Introduction

The Perioperative Pain Management Bundle was introduced in 10 Serbian PAIN OUT network hospitals to improve the quality of postoperative pain management. The Bundle consists of 4 elements: informing patients about postoperative pain treatment options; administering a full daily dose of 1-2 non-opioid analgesics; administering regional blocks and/or surgical wound infiltration; and assessing pain after surgery. In this study, we aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the Bundle during the initial 24 h after surgery.

Materials and methods

The assessment of cost-effectiveness was carried out by comparing patients before and after Bundle implementation and by comparing patients who received all Bundle elements to those with no Bundle element. Costs of postoperative pain management included costs of the analgesic medications, costs of labor for administering these medications, and related disposable materials. A multidimensional Pain Composite Score (PCS), the effectiveness measurement, was obtained by averaging variables from the International Pain Outcomes questionnaire evaluating pain intensity, interference of pain with activities and emotions, and side effects of analgesic medications. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated as the incremental change in costs divided by the incremental change in PCS and plotted on the cost-effectiveness plane along with the economic preference analysis.

Results

The ICER value calculated when comparing patients before and after Bundle implementation was 181.89 RSD (1.55 EUR) with plotted ICERs located in the northeast and southeast quadrants of the cost-effectiveness plane. However, when comparing patients with no Bundle elements and those with all four Bundle elements, the calculated ICER was -800.63 RSD (-6.82 EUR) with plotted ICERs located in the southeast quadrant of the cost-effectiveness plane. ICER values differ across surgical disciplines.

Conclusion

The proposed perioperative pain management Bundle is cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness varies depending on the number of implemented Bundle elements and fluctuates across surgical disciplines.

Response rates in clinical quality registries and databases that collect patient reported outcome measures: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are being increasingly introduced in clinical registries, providing a personal perspective on the expectations and impact of treatment. The aim of this study was to describe response rates (RR) to PROMs in clinical registries and databases and to examine the trends over time, and how they change with the registry type, region and disease or condition captured.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping literature review of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, in addition to Google Scholar and grey literature. All English studies on clinical registries capturing PROMs at one or more time points were included. Follow up time points were defined as follows: baseline (if available), < 1 year, 1 to < 2 years, 2 to < 5 years, 5 to < 10 years and 10 + years. Registries were grouped according to regions of the world and health conditions. Subgroup analyses were conducted to identify trends in RRs over time. These included calculating average RRs, standard deviation and change in RRs according to total follow up time.

RESULTS

The search strategy yielded 1,767 publications. Combined with 20 reports and four websites, a total of 141 sources were used in the data extraction and analysis process. Following the data extraction, 121 registries capturing PROMs were identified. The overall average RR at baseline started at 71% and decreased to 56% at 10 + year at follow up. The highest average baseline RR of 99% was observed in Asian registries and in registries capturing data on chronic conditions (85%). Overall, the average RR declined as follow up time increased.

CONCLUSION

A large variation and downward trend in PROMs RRs was observed in most of the registries identified in our review. Formal recommendations are required for consistent collection, follow up and reporting of PROMs data in a registry setting to improve patient care and clinical practice. Further research studies are needed to determine acceptable RRs for PROMs captured in clinical registries.

Association of Multimodal Pain Control with Patient-Reported Outcomes in Children Undergoing Surgery

INTRODUCTION

Our aim was to describe practices in multimodal pain management at US children's hospitals and evaluate the association between non-opioid pain management strategies and pediatric patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

METHODS

Data were collected as part of the 18-hospital ENhanced Recovery In CHildren Undergoing Surgery (ENRICH-US) clinical trial. Non-opioid pain management strategies included use of preoperative and postoperative non-opioid analgesics, regional anesthetic blocks, and a biobehavioral intervention. PROs included perioperative nervousness, pain-related functional disability, health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Associations were analyzed using multinomial logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Among 186 patients, 62 (33%) received preoperative analgesics, 186 (100%) postoperative analgesics, 81 (44%) regional anesthetic block, and 135 (73%) used a biobehavioral intervention. Patients were less likely to report worsened as compared to stable nervousness following regional anesthetic block (relative risk ratio [RRR]:0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI]:0.11-0.85), use of a biobehavioral technique (RRR:0.26, 95% CI:0.10-0.70), and both in combination (RRR:0.08, 95% CI:0.02-0.34). There were no associations of non-opioid pain control modalities with pain-related functional disability or HRQoL.

CONCLUSION

Use of postoperative non-opioid analgesics have been largely adopted, while preoperative non-opioid analgesics and regional anesthetic blocks are used less frequently. Regional anesthetic blocks and biobehavioral interventions may mitigate postoperative nervousness in children.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Intraoperative dexmedetomidine on postoperative pain in gastrointestinal surgery: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is widely used for adjuvant sedation and analgesia in gastrointestinal surgeries. The authors aimed to reassess the effects of intraoperative DEX on acute pain by comprehensive analysis of the multiple dimensions of pain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this multicentre cohort study, patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgeries were prospectively enrolled in the China Acute Postoperative Pain Study. Patients were divided into DEX and non-DEX groups based on whether DEX was used during surgery. Patient satisfaction with pain treatment (rated on a numeric rating score, 0-10) and other pain-related outcomes were evaluated using the International Pain Outcome Questionnaire on the first postoperative day. The effects of intraoperative DEX were analyzed using logistic or linear regression for dichotomous or continuous variables, respectively. Propensity score matching and subgroup analyses were performed to appraise the correlation between intraoperative DEX and postoperative pain outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 1260 patients eligible for analysis, 711 (56.4%) received intraoperative DEX. Propensity score matching resulted in 415 patients in each group. Intraoperative DEX was associated with higher patient satisfaction (β: 0.556; 95% CI: 0.366-0.745), and a decrease in the percentage of time spent in severe pain (β: -0.081; 95% CI: -0.104- -0.058), anxiety (odds ratio: 0.394; 95% CI: 0.307-0.506), helplessness (odds ratio: 0.539; 95% CI: 0.411-0.707), and postoperative opioid consumption (β: -16.342; 95% CI: -27.528- -5.155).

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative DEX was associated with the prognosis of acute postoperative pain in multiple aspects in patients undergoing major gastrointestinal surgery, including increased patient satisfaction, and a reduction in the duration of severe pain, postoperative anxiety and helplessness, and postoperative opioid consumption. Future studies to determine the dose and timing of DEX administration on pain-related outcomes are warranted.

Postoperative Pain Management in Children Undergoing Laparoscopic Appendectomy: A Scoping Review

Laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) is one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures in children and is associated with extreme postoperative discomfort due to peritoneal inflammation and infection. The main objective of this study was to investigate the effects of postoperative pain (POP) in children after laparoscopic appendectomy. Articles describing or evaluating the control of POP in children with LA were considered eligible. All available literature such as randomized controls, prospective controls, retrospective as well as clinical studies were considered. A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Clinical trials.gov, and Google scholar. The initial search took place on 23 April 2021, and was updated on 24 August 2021. There were no language or date restrictions. Each of the included articles was evaluated separately by two independent reviewers. Additional papers were found by searching the reference lists of eligible studies. Eighteen papers were considered. All papers, and many of them used different methods to treat POP in children undergoing LA, such as lidocaine infusion, different analgesic approaches, ultrasound-guided transverse abdominis blockade (UGTAP), ultrasound-guided quadratus lumborum blockade (UGQLB), and comparison of open appendectomy (OA) with local anesthetics in relation to POP management in children. Laparoscopic appendectomy is the surgical procedure preferred by clinicians compared with open appendectomy in children. A multimodal analgesic approach is optimal and efficient surgical techniques such as UGBRSB, UGQLB, and UGTAP block might significantly impact POP in children except that there are contraindications. Dexmedetomidine proved to be an effective adjuvant that can enhance the effect of local anesthetics. The lack of a sufficient number of studies may be a factor affecting our confidence in the results of this study. Therefore, further evidence-based randomized control trials with a large sample size are needed to provide clarity.

Analgesic use and favourable patient-reported outcome measures after paediatric surgery: an analysis of registry data

BACKGROUND

Pain after paediatric appendectomy and tonsillectomy is often undertreated. Benchmarking of hospitals could reveal which measures are associated with improved patient- or parent-reported pain-related outcomes.

METHODS

A total of 898 anonymised cases from 11 European hospitals participating in PAIN OUT infant were analysed. The children completed a questionnaire on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) 24 h after surgery. According to a composite PRO measure, including pain intensity and pain-related interference, hospitals were allocated to Group I (favourable results), II (average results), and III (unfavourable results). Benchmarking of hospital groups was performed investigating process variables (dosing of non-opioid analgesics, opioids, and dexamethasone) associated with PROs, side-effects, and children's perception of care. Variables associated with PROs were analysed using multinomial regression analysis with the PRO score-related hospital group as a dependent variable (estimated odds ratios [OR], 95% confidence interval [CI]).

RESULTS

During the first 24 h after surgery, 1.2 (1.1-1.3) full daily doses of non-opioid analgesics (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug [NSAID], paracetamol, metamizole) were administered in group I and 0.7 (0.6-0.8) in group III (P<0.001). Intraoperative dexamethasone was administered to 70.1 and 52.6% of the children in Group I and Group III, respectively (P<0.001). A lower number of full daily doses of non-opioid analgesics: 0.22 [0.15-0.31]), less dexamethasone (0.49 [0.33-0.71]), fewer non-opioid analgesics before the end of surgery (0.37 [0.22-0.62]) and higher opioid doses were associated with hospital allocation to group III vs group I (Nagelkerke's R²=0.433).

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicated substantial deficits in the concept, application, and dosing of analgesics in paediatric patients after surgery. Timely administration of adequate analgesic doses can easily be introduced into daily clinical practice.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov NCT02083835.

The influence of involving patients in postoperative pain treatment decisions on pain-related patient-reported outcomes: A STROBE-compliant registering observational study

The evidence regarding the influence of allowing patients to participate in postoperative pain treatment decisions on acute pain management is contradictory. This study aimed to identify the role of patient participation in influencing pain-related patient-reported outcomes (PROs). This is a cross-sectional study. The data were provided by PAIN OUT (www.pain-out.eu). A dataset specific to adult Chinese patients undergoing orthopedic surgery was selected. The PROs were assessed on postoperative day 1. The patient participant was assessed using an 11-point scale. Participants who reported >5 were allocated to the "participation" group, and those who reported ≤5 were allocated to the "nonparticipation" group. A 1:1 propensity score matching was conducted. The primary outcome was the desire for more pain treatment. All other items of PROs were the secondary outcomes comprising pain intensity, interference of pain with function, emotional impairment, adverse effects, and other patient perception. From February 2014 to November 2020, 2244 patients from 20 centers were approached, of whom 1804 patients were eligible and 726 pairs were matched. There was no significant difference between the groups in the desire for more pain treatment either before (25.4% vs 28.2%, risk ratio [95% CI]: 0.90 [0.77, 1.05], P = .18) or after matching (26.7% vs 28.8%, risk ratio [95% CI]: 0.93 [0.79, 1.10], P = .43). After matching, patients in the participation group reported significantly better PROs, including pain intensity (less time spent in severe pain [P < .01]), emotional impairment (less anxiety [P < .01]), interference with function (less interference with sleep [P < .01]), adverse effects (less drowsiness [P = .01]), and patient perception (more pain relief [P < .01] and more satisfaction [P < .01]), than the nonparticipation group. Patient participation in pain treatment decisions was associated with improved pain experience but failed to mitigate the desire for more treatment.

A novel methodology to integrate outcomes regarding perioperative pain experience into a composite score: prediction model development and validation

BACKGROUND

An integrated score that globally assesses perioperative pain experience and rationally weights each component has not yet been developed.

METHODS

A development dataset specific to adult Chinese patients undergoing orthopedic surgery was obtained from PAIN OUT (1985 qualified patients of 2244). A more recent validation dataset obeying the same conditions was obtained from the Chinese Anesthesia Shared-database Platform (1004 qualified patients of 1032). Outcomes were assessed using the International Pain Outcomes Questionnaire (IPO-Q), which comprises key patient-level outcomes of perioperative pain management, including pain experience and perceptions of care. Using principal component analysis and regression models, a composite score was inferred to integrate pain experience. The discrimination of the composite score for dissatisfaction and desire for more pain treatment was compared with that of the worst pain score.

RESULTS

A composite score was developed from the 12 items of the IPO-Q regarding pain experience. The weight for calculating the composite score was worst pain 11, least pain 17, time spent in severe pain 11, interference with activity in bed 9, interference with breathing deeply or coughing 10, interference with sleep 9, anxiety 12, helplessness 12, nausea 0, drowsiness 2, itch 5, and dizziness 2. In external validation, the composite score indicated superior discrimination to the worst pain in predicting dissatisfaction (P<0.001) and desire for more pain treatment (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study introduced a methodology to integrate outcomes regarding perioperative pain experience into a composite score, which was based on the weight of each item.

Researchers' choice of pain scales in trials of children undergoing surgery: A cross-sectional analysis of systematically searched randomized controlled trials and survey of authors

BACKGROUND

Many pain scales are used post-operatively in pediatric trials, making the comparison of trials, and the pooling of data for meta-analyses difficult. The Pediatric Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (PedIMMPACT) statement, published in 2008, attempted to address this issue. We aimed to investigate the reasons for authors' choice of pain scales and the potential impact of PedIMMPACT.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional analysis of systematically searched randomized controlled trials testing tramadol in children (up to 16 years) undergoing surgery, published between 2000 and 2020 (9 years prior to and 12 years following the publication of PedIMMPACT).

RESULTS

Among 76 trials (6211 children), 49 unique pain scales were used. The choice of the scales was explained in 18 trials (24%); in 13 of them, authors at least partly justified their choice by the fact that the pain scale was validated. In 52 trials (68%), the pain scales were referenced, with a total of 59 unique references, most often to prior studies using the same scale (36%) or to studies validating the chosen scale (31%). Twenty-three trials (30%) provided no explanation nor reference. One single trial referenced PedIMMPACT. There was no evidence of a change in the choice of pain scales after the publication of PedIMMPACT.

CONCLUSIONS

A large variety of pain scales are still used in pediatric post-operative pain trials 12 years after the publication of PedIMMPACT. Only a minority of trials provided an explanation for their choice of pain scale. The reasons given most often included that the scale was validated or it was justified by a reference to a prior study using that scale. The impact of the publication of the PedIMMPACT seems limited. The ethics of the ongoing usage of large numbers of pain scales in pediatric pain trials must be challenged.

[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.