Preoperative intravenous parecoxib reduces length of stay on ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Risks of serious adverse events with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in gastrointestinal surgery: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly recommended for perioperative opioid-sparing multimodal analgesic treatments. Concerns regarding the potential for serious adverse events (SAEs) associated with perioperative NSAID treatment are especially relevant following gastrointestinal surgery. We assessed the risks of SAEs with perioperative NSAID treatment in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of randomised clinical trials assessing the harmful effects of NSAIDs versus placebo, usual care or no intervention in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. The primary outcome was an incidence of SAEs. We systematically searched for eligible trials in five major databases up to January 2024. We performed risk of bias assessments to account for systematic errors, trial sequential analysis (TSA) to account for the risks of random errors, performed meta-analyses using R and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework to describe the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

We included 22 trials enrolling 1622 patients for our primary analyses. Most trials were at high risk of bias. Meta-analyses (risk ratio 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-1.19; I2 = 4%; p = .24; very low certainty of evidence) and TSA indicated a lack of information on the effects of NSAIDs compared to placebo on the risks of SAEs. Post-hoc beta-binomial regression sensitivity analyses including trials with zero events showed a reduction in SAEs with NSAIDs versus placebo (odds ratio 0.73; CI 0.54-0.99; p = .042).

CONCLUSION

In adult patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery, there was insufficient information to draw firm conclusions on the effects of NSAIDs on SAEs. The certainty of the evidence was very low.

Risk factors for prolonged time to hospital discharge after ambulatory cholecystectomy under general anaesthesia. A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Although predictive models have already integrated demographic factors and comorbidities as risk factors for a prolonged hospital stay, factors related to anaesthesia management in ambulatory surgery have not been yet characterized. This study aims to identify anaesthetic factors associated with a prolonged discharge time in ambulatory surgery.

METHODS

All clinical records of patients who underwent ambulatory cholecystectomy in a French University Hospital (Hôpital Saint Antoine, Paris) between January 1st, 2012 and December 31st, 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. The primary endpoint was the discharge time, defined as the time between the end of surgery and discharge. A multivariable Cox proportional-hazards model was fitted to investigate the factors associated with a prolonged discharge time.

RESULTS

Five hundred and thirty-five (535) patients were included. The median time for discharge was 150 min (interquartile range - IQR [129-192]). A bivariable analysis highlighted a positive correlation between discharge timeline and the doses-weight of ketamine and sufentanil. In the multivariable Cox proportional hazards model analysis, the anaesthesia-related factors independently associated with prolonged discharge time were the dose-weight of ketamine in interaction with the dose weight of sufentanil (HR 0.10 per increment of 0.1 mg/kg of ketamine or 0.2 μg/kg of sufentanil, CI 95% [0.01-0.61], p = 0.013) and the non-use of a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) (HR 0.81 [0.67-0.98], p = 0.034). Twenty patients (4%) had unscheduled hospitalization following surgery.

CONCLUSION

Anaesthesia management, namely the use of ketamine and the non-use of NSAID, affects time to hospital discharge.

Clinical effect of preoperative intravenous non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs on relief of postoperative pain in patients after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: Intravenous ibuprofen vs. intravenous ketorolac

Backgrounds/Aims

Postoperative pain management is a key to enhanced recovery after surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical effect of preoperative intravenous (IV) non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on relief of postoperative pain in patients after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Methods

This single center, retrospective study was conducted between September 2019 and May 2020. A total of 163 patients were divided into two groups: Ibuprofen group (preoperative IV ibuprofen, n = 77) and Ketorolac group (preoperative IV ketorolac, n = 86). The primary outcome was postoperative pain score measured immediately in the recovery room.

Results

There was no difference in demographic characteristics between the two groups of patients. Postoperative pain score measured immediately in the recovery room was significantly higher in the Ibuprofen group than in the Ketorolac group (mean value: 5.09 vs. 4.61; p = 0.027). The number of patients who needed analgesics immediately in the recovery room was also higher in the Ibuprofen group than in the Ketorolac group (28 [36.4%] vs. 18 [20.9%]; p = 0.036).

Conclusions

In this study, preoperative IV injection with ketorolac reduced postoperative pain and analgesic requirement in the recovery room more effectively than that with ibuprofen. However, both showed similar effects on peak pain and pain at discharge. Numbers of patients requiring additional analgesics were also similar between the two groups.

Pre-emptive and preventive NSAIDs for postoperative pain in adults undergoing all types of surgery

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pain is a common consequence of surgery and can have many negative perioperative effects. It has been suggested that the administration of analgesia before a painful stimulus may improve pain control. We defined pre-emptive nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) as those given before surgery but not continued afterwards and preventive NSAIDs as those given before surgery and continued afterwards. These were compared to a control group given the NSAIDs after surgery instead of before surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy of preventive and pre-emptive NSAIDs for reducing postoperative pain in adults undergoing all types of surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED and CINAHL (up to June 2020). In addition, we searched for unpublished studies in three clinical trial databases, conference proceedings, grey literature databases, and reference lists of retrieved articles. We did not apply any restrictions on language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs) only. We included adult participants undergoing any type of surgery. We defined pre-emptive NSAIDs as those given before surgery but not continued afterwards and preventive NSAIDs as those given before surgery and continued afterwards. These were compared to a control group given the NSAIDs after surgery instead of before surgery. We included studies that gave the medication by any route but not given on the skin.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methods expected by Cochrane, as well as a novel publication bias test developed by our research group. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Outcomes included acute postoperative pain (minimal clinically important difference (MCID): 1.5 on a 0-10 scale), adverse events of NSAIDs, nausea and vomiting, 24-hour morphine consumption (MCID: 10 mg reduction), time to analgesic request (MCID: one hour), pruritus, sedation, patient satisfaction, chronic pain and time to first bowel movement (MCID: 12 hours).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 71 RCTs. Seven studies are awaiting classification. We included 45 studies that evaluated pre-emptive NSAIDs and 26 studies that evaluated preventive NSAIDs. We considered only four studies to be at low risk of bias for most domains. The operations and NSAIDs used varied, although most studies were conducted in abdominal, orthopaedic and dental surgery. Most studies were conducted in secondary care and in low-risk participants. Common exclusions were participants on analgesic medications prior to surgery and those with chronic pain. Pre-emptive NSAIDs compared to post-incision NSAIDs For pre-emptive NSAIDs, there is probably a decrease in early acute postoperative pain (MD -0.69, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.41; studies = 36; participants = 2032; I² = 96%; moderate-certainty evidence). None of the included studies that reported on acute postoperative pain reported adverse events as an outcome. There may be little or no difference between the groups in short-term (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.94; studies = 2; participants = 100; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence) or long-term nausea and vomiting (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38; studies = 5; participants = 228; I² = 29%; low-certainty evidence). There may be a reduction in late acute postoperative pain (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.44 to 0.00; studies = 28; participants = 1645; I² = 97%; low-certainty evidence). There may be a reduction in 24-hour morphine consumption with pre-emptive NSAIDs (MD -5.62 mg, 95% CI -9.00 mg to -2.24 mg; studies = 16; participants = 854; I² = 99%; low-certainty evidence) and an increase in the time to analgesic request (MD 17.04 minutes, 95% CI 3.77 minutes to 30.31 minutes; studies = 18; participants = 975; I² = 95%; low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in opioid adverse events such as pruritus (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.76; studies = 4; participants = 254; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence) or sedation (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.68; studies = 4; participants = 281; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence), although the number of included studies for these outcomes was small. No study reported patient satisfaction, chronic pain or time to first bowel movement for pre-emptive NSAIDs. Preventive NSAIDs compared to post-incision NSAIDs For preventive NSAIDs, there may be little or no difference in early acute postoperative pain (MD -0.14, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.12; studies = 18; participants = 1140; I² = 75%; low-certainty evidence). One study reported adverse events from NSAIDs (reoperation for bleeding) although the events were low which did not allow any meaningful conclusions to be drawn (RR 1.95; 95% CI 0.18 to 20.68). There may be little or no difference in rates of short-term (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.49 to 3.30; studies = 1; participants = 76; low-certainty evidence) or long-term (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.38; studies = 5; participants = 456; I² = 29%; low-certainty evidence) nausea and vomiting. There may be a reduction in late acute postoperative pain (MD -0.33, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.07; studies = 21; participants = 1441; I² = 81%; low-certainty evidence). There is probably a reduction in 24-hour morphine consumption (MD -1.93 mg, 95% CI -3.55 mg to -0.32 mg; studies = 16; participants = 1323; I² = 49%; moderate-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if there is any difference in time to analgesic request (MD 8.51 minutes, 95% CI -31.24 minutes to 48.27 minutes; studies = 8; participants = 410; I² = 98%; very low-certainty evidence). As with pre-emptive NSAIDs, there may be little or no difference in other opioid adverse events such as pruritus (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.09 to 3.35; studies = 3; participants = 211; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence) and sedation (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.63; studies = 5; participants = 497; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in patient satisfaction (MD -0.42; 95% CI -1.09 to 0.25; studies = 1; participants = 72; moderate-certainty evidence). No study reported on chronic pain. There is probably little or no difference in time to first bowel movement (MD 0.00; 95% CI -15.99 to 15.99; studies = 1; participants = 76; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was some evidence that pre-emptive and preventive NSAIDs reduce both pain and morphine consumption, although this was not universal for all pain and morphine consumption outcomes. Any differences found were not clinically significant, although we cannot exclude this in more painful operations. Moreover, without any evidence of reductions in opioid adverse effects, the clinical significance of these results is questionable although few studies reported these outcomes. Only one study reported clinically significant adverse events from NSAIDs administered before surgery and, therefore, we have very few data to assess the safety of either pre-emptive or preventive NSAIDs. Therefore, future research should aim to adhere to the highest methodology and be adequately powered to assess serious adverse events of NSAIDs and reductions in opioid adverse events.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of factors which reduce the length of stay associated with elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is a safe ambulatory procedure in appropriately selected patients; however, day case rates remain low. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to identify interventions which are effective in reducing the length of stay (LOS) or improving the day case rate for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

METHODS

Comparative English-language studies describing perioperative interventions applicable to elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy in adult patients and their impact on LOS or day case rate were included.

RESULTS

Quantitative data were available for meta-analysis from 80 studies of 10,615 patients. There were an additional 17 studies included for systematic review. The included studies evaluated 14 peri-operative interventions. Implementation of a formal day case care pathway was associated with a significantly shorter LOS (MD = 24.9 h, 95% CI, 18.7-31.2, p < 0.001) and an improved day case rate (OR = 3.5; 95% CI, 1.5-8.1, p = 0.005). Use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, dexamethasone and prophylactic antibiotics were associated with smaller reductions in LOS.

CONCLUSION

Care pathway implementation demonstrated a significant impact on LOS and day case rates. A limited effect was noted for smaller independent interventions. In order to achieve optimal day case targets, a greater understanding of the effective elements of a care pathway and local barriers to implementation is required.

Protective efficacy of combined use of parecoxib and dexmedetomidine on postoperative hyperalgesia and early cognitive dysfunction after laparoscopic cholecystectomy for elderly patients

PURPOSE

To investigate efficacy of combined use of parecoxib and dexmedetomidine on postoperative pain and early cognitive dysfunction after laparoscopic cholecystectomy for elderly patients.

METHODS

The present prospective randomized controlled study included a total of 80 patients who underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgery during January 2016 to November 2017 in our hospital. All patients were randomly divided into 4 groups, the parecoxib group, the dexmedetomidine group, the parecoxib and dexmedetomidine combined group, and the control group. Demographic data and clinical data were collected. Indexes of heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), levels of jugular venous oxygen saturation (SjvO2) and jugular venous oxygen pressure (PjvO2) were recorded at different time points before and during the surgery. The mini-mental state examination (MMSE) score, Ramsay score and Visual Analogue Score (VAS) were measured.

RESULTS

Levels of both SjvO2 and PjvO2 were significantly higher in parecoxib group, dexmedetomidine group and the combined group than the control group. Meanwhile, levels of both SjvO2 and PjvO2 in the combined group were the highest. VAS scores were significantly lower in the combined group than all other groups, and total patient controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA) pressing times within 48 h after surgery were the lowest in the combined group. Both Ramsay and MMSE scores were the highest in the combined group compared with other groups, while were the lowest in the control group.

CONCLUSION

The combined use of parecoxib and dexmedetomidine could reduce the postoperative pain and improve the postoperative sedation and cognitive conditions of patients after laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Anesthetic therapy for acute pain relief after laparoscopic cholecystectomy: systematic review

Inappropriate therapy of postoperative pain in laparoscopic cholecystectomy may lead to late mobilization, patient dissatisfaction, delayed hospital discharge, and chronic pain development. Our objective was to identify the best therapeutic strategy available to the anesthesiologist for the acute postoperative pain of patients submitted to elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. This is a systematic review that included 36 complete articles indexed in the Medline, Scopus, Web of Science and LILACS databases, with a five-year time cut (2012 to 2016), resulting from controlled and randomized studies that were submitted to qualitative analysis. In a proposal for multimodal analgesia, it is important to consider the contraindications, adverse effects, dose and optimal timing of interventions. Non-opioid drugs, such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)/cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors, gabapentin/pregabalin, N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists, and others. Opioids may be used at low doses associated with multimodal therapy or are restricted to cases where non-opioid multimodal analgesia is insufficient. We conclude that there is no consensus as to the best analgesic strategy to be implemented in the acute postoperative pain of laparoscopic cholecystectomy, which requires its applicability in an individualized way, based on the scientific evidence found in the literature. As contribution to medical learning and practice, we point out the theoretical enrichment of the analgesic drug options available for the therapy of postoperative pain in patients submitted to elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and alert the team to consider the adverse effects of the interventions implemented.

Efficacy and Safety of Postoperative Pain Relief by Parecoxib Injection after Laparoscopic Surgeries: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of parecoxib injection in pain relief after laparoscopic surgeries.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search based on 4 online databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science) was applied to retrieve all related randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two independent reviewers screened each article for eligibility according to the predetermined inclusion criteria. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool was applied to evaluate the methodological quality of included studies. A standardized data collection sheet was designed to extract data from included studies. RevMan version 5.3 (The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark) was selected to perform meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 1,060 participants who were scheduled for gynecological laparoscopic surgery or laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) were enrolled in 12 selected RCTs. The methodological qualities of the studies were evaluated as moderate to high. The combined data showed that perioperative parecoxib injection could significantly reduce the proportion of patients who required adjuvant pain relieve after laparoscopic surgeries. Significantly lower pain scores in the parecoxib groups were observed, which proved that preoperative or intraoperative injection of 40 mg parecoxib was more effective than placebo for immediate pain relief after LC. But preoperative injection of 40 mg parecoxib showed no improvement compared with placebo in the management of immediate pain following gynecological laparoscopic surgery. The occurrence of adverse events showed no differences between perioperative parecoxib administration and placebo control.

CONCLUSION

Perioperative parecoxib administration was effective in reducing the proportion of patients who required adjuvant pain relief after laparoscopic surgeries without significant adverse events compared with placebo. The effect of parecoxib injection on immediate pain relief remains in question. Future RCTs with larger sample sizes are encouraged.

Parecoxib relieves pain and has an opioid-sparing effect following major gastrointestinal surgery

Purpose

Parecoxib provides analgesia following a variety of surgeries, including minor gastrointestinal procedures. To our knowledge, there is no data on parecoxib following major gastrointestinal surgery. This study assessed the efficacy and opioid-sparing effects of parecoxib following major gastrointestinal surgeries.

Patients and methods

Patients in this analysis were a subset from a large, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of parecoxib following noncardiac surgeries and consisted of those undergoing a variety of major gastrointestinal surgeries via laparotomy. Pain, pain interference with function, supplemental opioid utilization, opioid-related symptoms, and Patient/Physician Global Evaluation of Study Medication were compared between placebo and parecoxib groups in the 2−3 days following surgery.

Results

Significantly (p<0.001) lower pain scores were observed in the parecoxib group (n=111), relative to placebo (n=126), on Day 2 (−33%) and Day 3 (−35%). Pain interference with function scores was also significantly (p<0.001) lower among patients receiving parecoxib compared with placebo on Day 2 (−29%) and Day 3 (−36%). At 24, 48, and 72 hours, the cumulative amount of supplemental morphine consumed was 45%, 41%, and 40% less in patients receiving parecoxib compared with placebo (all p<0.001). The risk of experiencing ≥1 opioid-related symptoms was also significantly lower with parecoxib than with placebo on Day 2 (relative risk=0.75; p<0.001). Specifically, the risks of fatigue and drowsiness were significantly (both p<0.05) lower in patients receiving parecoxib compared to those receiving placebo. Patient and Physician Global Evaluation of Study Medication scores were significantly better in the parecoxib group than in the placebo group (p<0.001).

Conclusion

This study is the first to demonstrate that multiple-dose parecoxib, initiated upon recovery from anesthesia, provides analgesia and opioid-sparing effects following a variety of major gastrointestinal surgeries employing laparotomy.

Efficacy of a single 40-mg intravenous dose of parecoxib for postoperative pain control after elective cesarean delivery: A double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial

AIM

The aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of a single 40-mg intravenous (i.v.) dose of parecoxib as an adjunctive analgesia to intrathecal morphine after elective cesarean delivery (CD).

METHODS

A total of 82 low-risk term pregnant women who were scheduled for elective CD during the June 2014-June 2015 study period were enrolled. Two hours after surgery, subjects were randomly assigned to receive either i.v. injection of 2 mL (40 mg) parecoxib (study group; n = 41) or 2 mL normal saline solution (control group; n = 41). Patient randomization into groups was determined by the hospital's central computer system. Outcome measurements included total postoperative supplemental meperidine consumption, recorded pain score by numeric pain rating scale at 6, 12, 18, and 24 h, postoperatively, and patient satisfaction.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics and pregnancy outcomes were comparable between groups. Total postoperative meperidine consumption was not significantly different between groups (12.7 ± 18.8 mg vs 8.3 ± 16.7 mg; P > 0.05). Compared with control, the study group was significantly less likely to experience moderate to severe postoperative pain (score ≥ 4) at 6 h (0% vs 21.9%; P = 0.002). Study group patients reported higher satisfaction than control group patients (median score: 8 vs 6; P < 0.01). No patients in either group reported adverse effects from their assigned intervention.

CONCLUSION

Parecoxib did not demonstrate effectiveness in reducing patient requirement for supplementary meperidine after CD. However, administration of a single 40-mg dose of i.v. parecoxib after elective CD demonstrated effectiveness in reducing pain scores, with a resulting increase in patient satisfaction.