A perioperative approach to the opioid crisis

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials for Scalp Block in Craniotomy

BACKGROUND

Scalp block is regional anesthetic injection along nerves innervating the cranium. Scalp blocks for craniotomy may decrease postoperative pain and opioid consumption. Benefits may extend beyond the anesthetic period.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze evidence for scalp block on postoperative pain and opioid use.

METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis, Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews registration (CRD42022308048), included Ovid Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials inception through February 9, 2022. Only randomized controlled trials were included. We excluded studies not reporting either main outcome. Duplicate reviewers performed study selection, risk of bias assessment, data extraction, and evidence certainty Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation appraisal. Main outcomes were postoperative pain by visual analog scale within 72 hours and opioid consumption as morphine milligram equivalent (MME) within 48 hours.

RESULTS

Screening filtered 955 studies to 23 trials containing 1532 patients. Risk of bias was overall low. Scalp block reduced postoperative pain at 2 through 72 hours, visual analog scale mean differences of 0.79 to 1.40. Opioid requirements were reduced at 24 hours by 16.52 MME and 48 hours by 15.63 MME.

CONCLUSION

Scalp block reduces postoperative pain at 2 through 48 hours and may reduce pain at 72 hours. Scalp block likely reduces opioid consumption within 24 hours and may reduce opioid consumption to 48 hours. The clinical utility of these differences should be interpreted within the context of modest absolute reductions, overall care optimization, and patient populations. This is the first level 1A evidence to evaluate scalp block efficacy in craniotomy.

Feasibility of a multidisciplinary Transitional Pain Service in spine surgery patients to minimise opioid use and improve perioperative outcomes: a quality improvement study

INTRODUCTION

Spine surgery patients have high rates of perioperative opioid consumption, with a chronic opioid use prevalence of 20%. A proposed solution is the implementation of a Transitional Pain Service (TPS), which provides patient-tailored multidisciplinary care. Its feasibility has not been demonstrated in spine surgery. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a TPS programme in patients undergoing spine surgery.

METHODS

Patients were recruited between July 2020 and November 2021 at a single, tertiary care academic centre. Success of our study was defined as: (1) enrolment: ability to enrol ≥80% of eligible patients, (2) data collection: ability to collect data for ≥80% of participants, including effectiveness measures (oral morphine equivalent (OME) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)-perceived analgesic management and overall health) and programme resource requirements measures (appointment attendance, 60-day return to emergency and length of stay), and (3) efficacy: estimate potential programme effectiveness defined as ≥80% of patients weaned back to their intake OME requirements at programme discharge.

RESULTS

Thirty out of 36 (83.3%) eligible patients were enrolled and 26 completed the TPS programme. The main programme outcomes and resource measures were successfully tracked for >80% of patients. All 26 patients had the same or lower OME at programme discharge than at intake (intake 38.75 mg vs discharge 12.50 mg; p<0.001). At TPS discharge, patients reported similar overall health VAS (pre 60.0 vs post 70.0; p=0.14), improved scores for VAS-perceived analgesic management (pre 47.6 vs post 75.6; p<0.001) and improved Brief Pain Inventory pain intensity (pre 39.1 vs post 25.0; p=0.02).

CONCLUSION

Our feasibility study successfully met or exceeded our three main objectives. Based on this success and the defined clinical need for a TPS programme, we plan to expand our TPS care model to include other surgical procedures at our centre.

The iatrogenic opioid crisis: An example of 'institutional corruption of pharmaceuticals'?

RATIONALE

Prescribed opioids are major contributors to the international public health opioid crisis. Such widespread iatrogenic harms usually result from collective decision failures of healthcare organizations rather than solely of individual organizations or professionals. Findings from a system-wide safety analysis of the iatrogenic opioid crisis that includes roles of pertinent healthcare organizations may help avoid or mitigate similar future iatrogenic consequences. In this retrospective exploratory study, we report such an analysis.

METHODS

The study population encompassed the entire age spectrum and included those in whom opioids prescribed for chronic pain (unrelated to malignancy) were associated with death or morbidity. Root cause analysis, incorporating recent suggestions for improvement, was used to identify possible contributory factors from the literature. Based on their mandated roles and potential influences to prevent or mitigate the iatrogenic crisis, relevant organizations were grouped and stratified from most to least influential.

RESULTS

The analysis identified a chain of multiple interrelated causal factors within and between organizations. The most influential organizations were pharmaceutical, political, and drug regulatory; next: experts and their related societies, and publications. Less influential: accreditation, professional licensing and regulatory, academic and healthcare funding bodies. Collectively, their views and decisions influenced prescribing practices of frontline healthcare professionals and advocacy groups. Financial associations between pharmaceutical and most other organizations/groups were common. Ultimately, patients were adversely affected. There was a complex association with psychosocial variables.

LIMITATIONS

The analysis suggests associations not causality.

CONCLUSION

The iatrogenic crisis has multiple intricately linked roots. The major catalyst: pervasive pharma-linked financial conflicts of interest (CoIs) involving most other healthcare organizations. These extensive financial CoIs were likely triggers for a cascade of erroneous decisions and actions that adversely affected patients. The actions and decisions of pharma ranged from unethical to illegal. The iatrogenic opioid crisis may exemplify 'institutional corruption of pharmaceuticals'.

Interpretation of the four risk factors for postoperative nausea and vomiting in the Apfel simplified risk score: an analysis of published studies

PURPOSE

The Apfel simplified risk score, developed in 1999, is the most widely used tool for risk stratification of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). It includes four risk factors: female sex, non-smoking status, history of PONV or motion sickness, and use of postoperative opioids. Nevertheless, there is considerable heterogeneity in the definition and application of these risk factors in PONV research. Our aim was to determine how these risk factors are implemented in studies employing the Apfel score.

METHODS

Citations of the index Apfel score paper between 1 September 1999 and 1 September 2019 were identified in the Scopus database. Original full-text reports in English measuring all four risk factors were eligible for inclusion. Data collected included the definition, timing, and collection method of the four risk factors.

RESULTS

Of the identified studies, 255 of the 535 reported all four risk factors, with calculated Apfel risk scores reported in 116 of the 255 (46%) papers. Smoking, PONV, motion sickness, and postoperative opioid use were defined in four (2%), zero (0%), one (0.4%), and seven (3%) papers, respectively. Postoperative opioid use was defined as "anticipated" in 138 (54%) studies and "actual" in 72 (18%) studies and was unclear in 45 (28%) studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant variation exists in how the Apfel risk factors are defined and applied in PONV research, particularly with respect to postoperative opioid use. More guidance in the application of this tool may optimize risk estimation and PONV prophylaxis, and potentially improve research quality.