Opioid Reduction Strategies Research Articles

Comparison of postoperative opioid reduction strategies following gynecologic surgery

Objective: The purpose of this study was to test the efficacy and acceptability of 2 differing restrictive postoperative opioid-prescribing approaches across a generalizable gynecologic oncology surgery population.

Financial and Clinical Ramifications of Introducing a Novel Pediatric Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Pathway for Pediatric Complex Hip Reconstructive Surgery.

Enhanced recovery after surgery pathways confer significant perioperative benefits to patients and are currently well described for adult patients undergoing a variety of surgical procedures. Robust data to support enhanced recovery pathway use in children are relatively lacking in the medical literature, though clinical benefits are reported in targeted pediatric surgical populations. Surgery for complex hip pathology in the adolescent patient is painful, often requiring prolonged courses of opioid analgesia. Postoperative opioid-related side effects may lead to prolonged recovery periods and suboptimal postoperative physical function. Excessive opioid use in the perioperative period is also a major risk factor for the development of opioid misuse in adolescents. Perioperative opioid reduction strategies in this vulnerable population will help to mitigate this risk. A total of 85 adolescents undergoing complex hip reconstructive surgery were enrolled into an enhanced recovery after surgery pathway (October 2015 to December 2018) and were compared with 110 patients undergoing similar procedures in previous years (March 2010 to September 2015). The primary outcome was total perioperative opioid consumption. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay, postoperative nausea, intraoperative blood loss, and other perioperative outcomes. Total cost of care and specific charge sectors were also assessed. Segmented regression was used to assess the effects of pathway implementation on outcomes, adjusting for potential confounders, including the preimplementation trend over time. Before pathway implementation, there was a significant downward trend over time in average perioperative opioid consumption (-0.10 mg total morphine equivalents/90 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.20 to 0.00) and several secondary perioperative outcomes. However, there was no evidence that pathway implementation by itself significantly altered the prepathway trend in perioperative opioid consumption (ie, the preceding trend continued). For postanesthesia care unit time, the downward trend leveled off significantly (pre: -5.25 min/90 d; 95% CI, -6.13 to -4.36; post: 1.04 min/90 d; 95% CI, -0.47 to 2.56; Change: 6.29; 95% CI, 4.53-8.06). Clinical, laboratory, pharmacy, operating room, and total charges were significantly associated with pathway implementation. There was no evidence that pathway implementation significantly altered the prepathway trend in other secondary outcomes. The impacts of our pediatric enhanced recovery pathway for adolescents undergoing complex hip reconstruction are consistent with the ongoing improvement in perioperative metrics at our institution but are difficult to distinguish from the impacts of other initiatives and evolving practice patterns in a pragmatic setting. The ERAS pathway helped codify and organize this new pattern of care, promoting multidisciplinary evidence-based care patterns and sustaining positive preexisting trends in financial and clinical metrics.

Effects of Implementing a Comprehensive Opioid Reduction Protocol on Overall Opioid Prescribing Among Patients with Chronic, Non-Cancer Pain in a Rural Family Medicine Clinic: A Controlled Cross-over Trial.

The opioid crisis presents many challenges for family practice providers in rural communities who treat patients with chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP). Unfortunately, evidence for effective opioid reduction strategies is sparse. We evaluated the effects of implementing a comprehensive opioid reduction protocol on overall opioid prescribing among patients with chronic non-cancer pain in our rural family medicine clinics. We compared mean daily milligrams morphine equivalent (MME) prescribed to patients with CNCP in our rural family medicine clinic (n = 93) with another matched clinic (n =93) after implementation of our comprehensive protocol. We also compared mean daily MME prescribed to our patients with CNCP before and after implementation of the protocol. In a subsequent cross over phase, we examined the effects of the protocol when applied to the original control group patients. Mean daily MME in the intervention clinic (29.77) was significantly lower than the control clinic (93.2) after the intervention (t = 6.03; P < .00). Mean daily MME in the intervention group was significantly lower after implementation of the protocol (29.77) than before the protocol (MME 80.34) (t = 5.889; P < .00). After crossover, the mean daily MME was significantly lower (14.34) in the original control group than prior to the cross over intervention (85.68); (t = 8.19; P = .00). Our comprehensive opioid reduction protocol led to significant reductions in opioid prescribing in our rural family medicine clinics. Future studies should include important qualitative outcome measures such as patient function.

Anaesthetic Considerations for Rationalizing Drug Use in the Operating Theatre: Strategies in a Singapore Hospital During COVID-19.

COVID-19 patients in the critical care unit tend to have prolonged hospital stay requiring high doses of sedation and paralysis to treat acute respiratory distress syndrome, resulting in a shortage of these drugs. In our hospital, we have instituted strategies to rationalise drug and oxygen usage. This includes prioritising time-sensitive elective cases, reducing overall elective case load, favouring opioid-reduction strategies and usage of alternative anaesthetic agents not commonly used in ICU. Both intensive care physicians and anaesthesiologists have to cooperate on drug conservation as similar drugs are used in elective operating lists as in the ICU. Patient safety is of utmost importance and we should keep in mind some pitfalls and ethical concerns of these alternative strategies.

Opioid use trends in patients undergoing elective thoracic and lumbar spine surgery.

Opioid use in North America has increased rapidly in recent years. Preoperative opioid use is associated with several negative outcomes. Our objectives were to assess patterns of opioid use over time in Canadian patients who undergo spine surgery and to determine the effect of spine surgery on 1-year postoperative opioid use. A retrospective analysis was performed on prospectively collected data from the Canadian Spine Outcomes and Research Network for patients undergoing elective thoracic and lumbar surgery. Self-reported opioid use at baseline, before surgery and at 1 year after surgery was compared. Baseline opioid use was compared by age, sex, radiologic diagnosis and presenting complaint. All patients meeting eligibility criteria from 2008 to 2017 were included. A total of 3134 patients provided baseline opioid use data. No significant change in the proportion of patients taking daily (range 32.3%-38.2%) or intermittent (range 13.7%-22.5%) opioids was found from pre-2014 to 2017. Among patients who waited more than 6 weeks for surgery, the frequency of opioid use did not differ significantly between the baseline and preoperative time points. Significantly more patients using opioids had a chief complaint of back pain or radiculopathy than neurogenic claudication (p < 0.001), and significantly more were under 65 years of age than aged 65 years or older (p < 0.001). Approximately 41% of patients on daily opioids at baseline remained so at 1 year after surgery. These data suggest that additional opioid reduction strategies are needed in the population of patients undergoing elective thoracic and lumbar spine surgery. Spine surgeons can be involved in identifying patients taking opioids preoperatively, emphasizing the risks of continued opioid use and referring patients to appropriate evidence-based treatment programs.

Dedicated emergency department physical therapy is associated with reduced imaging, opioid administration, and length of stay: A prospective observational study.

BackgroundEmergency department based Physical Therapy (ED-PT) has been practiced globally in various forms for over 20 years and is an emerging resource in the US. While there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that ED-PT has a positive effect on a number of clinical and operational outcomes in patients presenting with musculoskeletal (MSK) pain, there are few published narratives that quantify this in the US. Although there are international papers that offer outcome data on reduction of pain, imaging, throughput time, and the ability of physical therapists to appropriately manage MSK conditions in the ED setting, most papers to date have been descriptive in nature. The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of ED-PT on imaging studies obtained, rates of opioids prescribed, and ED length of stay.MethodsWe prospectively identified patients presenting with musculoskeletal pain to an urban academic ED in Salt Lake City between January 2017 and June 2018. During the study, a physical therapist was in the ED three days (24 hours) per week and was available to evaluate and treat patients after consultation by the ED provider. We noted patient demographic information, imaging performed in the ED, medications administered and prescribed, and ED length of stay. We classified patients as those who received PT in the ED and those who did not and compared clinical outcomes between groups. We performed a subgroup analysis of patients presenting with low back pain and matched patients by age and gender.ResultsOver the 18-month study period, we identified 524 patients presenting to the ED with musculoskeletal pain. 381 (72.7%) received ED-initiated PT. The PT and non-PT groups were similar in average age (42.8 years vs. 45.1 years, p = 0.155), gender (% female: 53% vs. 46.9%, p-0.209), and primary presenting chief complaint (cervical, thoracic, or lumbar pain: 57.7% vs. 53.1%, p = 0.345). Patients who received PT had lower rates of imaging (38.3% vs. 51%, p = 0.009), ED opioid administration (17.5% vs. 32.9%, p<0.001), and a shorter average ED length of stay (4 hours vs. 6.2 hours, p<0.001). Rates of outpatient opioid prescriptions were similar between groups (16% vs. 21.7%, p = 0.129). In a subgroup analysis of patients presenting with low back pain, we found that PT patients had fewer imaging studies (PT 25% vs. non-PT 57%, p = 0.029) but found no difference in average ED length of stay (PT 3.7 hours vs. non-PT 4.6 hours, p = 0.21), opioid administration in the ED (PT 36% vs. non-PT 43%, P = 0.792), nor outpatient opioid administration (PT 17.9%. vs non-PT 17.9%, p = 1.0).ConclusionIn our experience, being seen by a physical therapist for MSK pain within the ED was associated with reduced use of imaging and time spent in the ED. Patients seeing a Physical Therapist were also less likely to receive an opioid prescription within the ED, a potentially significant finding given the need for opioid reduction strategies.

Revision Arthroplasty Does Not Require More Opioids Than Primaries: A Review of Prescribing Practices After Implementation of a Structured Perioperative Pain Management Strategy

BackgroundThere is a growing body of literature on opioid mitigation strategies following total joint arthroplasty. However, these have almost exclusively been studied in populations undergoing primary procedures, with revision arthroplasty historically thought to be more resistant due to procedural variability and complexity. We report on opioid utilization for revision arthroplasty following implementation of a structured, standardized opioid reduction strategy. MethodsBeginning January 2015, a comprehensive multidisciplinary pain protocol was developed and applied universally to all patients undergoing hip and knee arthroplasty, including revisions, without exclusion. We performed a retrospective review of opioid prescription trends for the revision arthroplasty subgroup between January 2014 and July 2018, with the first year serving as a baseline for comparison. Inpatient and outpatient opioid prescription data, inpatient satisfaction scores, and quality metrics were also reviewed. ResultsWe identified 1273 revision arthroplasty cases in the study period. There was a significant reduction in average oral morphine equivalents utilized per procedure when comparing preintervention and postimplementation values. Overall, inpatient prescriptions decreased 24.1% and outpatient utilization decreased 62.4% over the study period. Significant reductions were seen in both the total hip (60.6%) and total knee (64.0%) subgroups. Although revision arthroplasty patients were prescribed 32.5% more oral morphine equivalents at baseline, at year 5 there was no significant difference in outpatient prescriptions between primary and revision subgroups. ConclusionAt our institution, a standardized opioid reduction strategy has resulted in marked reduction in opioid prescriptions for revision arthroplasty patients in line with generally successful reductions for primary arthroplasty. More importantly, with this approach, revision arthroplasty patients required no more outpatient opioids than their primary counterparts. Level of EvidenceLevel III, Retrospective cohort study.

Developing a Practical and Sustainable Opioid Reduction Strategy Individualized to the Prescriber for Common General Surgery Operations

Developing a Practical and Sustainable Opioid Reduction Strategy Individualized to the Prescriber for Common General Surgery Operations

Optimizing Pain Control During the Opioid Epidemic.

The current opioid crisis has raised awareness of the risks of misuse, addiction, and overdose with opioid prescribing for pain management in the perioperative and nonoperative care of surgical patients. Despite these risks, it is essential for surgical providers to provide safe and adequate functional pain control to enhance recovery. The purpose of this review is to outline the relevance of the US opioid crisis to surgical prescribing, describe strategies for opioid reduction using a stepwise therapy approach, and provide recommendations for improving the safety of opioid prescribing. Additional recommendations for risk assessment and naloxone coprescribing for high-risk patients are addressed.

Fighting Back: Institutional Strategies to Combat the Opioid Epidemic: A Systematic Review.

Current research on opioid use within orthopedic surgery has focused on efforts to identify patients at risk for chronic opioid use. Studies addressing prevention of opioid misuse related to orthopedic care are lacking. Evidence-based interventions to reduce the reliance on opioids for post-operative pain relief will be a key component of any comprehensive institutional opioid policy. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate institutional strategies that reduce opioid administration or consumption after orthopedic surgery. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist, a search was conducted of the PubMed database for English-language articles that analyzed interventions by physicians, nurses, pharmacists, physical therapists, or other hospital staff to reduce post-operative opioid use or narcotic prescription amounts after surgery. Studies that contained objective outcome measures (i.e., no expert opinion articles) were selected. Investigations on the effect of pharmacologic adjuvants, cryotherapy, or regional nerve blockades on opioid use were excluded. The initial search yielded 6598 titles, of which 13 full-text articles were ultimately selected for inclusion in this systematic review. The review identified two major categories of interventions-patient-focused and provider-focused (e.g., physicians, nurses, physical therapists, pharmacists). Formal patient education programs were most effective in reducing opioid use. On the provider side, prescribing guidelines appear to decrease the overall number of pills prescribed, often without changes in patient satisfaction or requests for refills. Researchers are just beginning to establish the most effective ways for institutions to reduce opioid use and promote responsible post-operative prescribing. Institutional prescribing guidelines, standardized bedside pain-management programs, and formal patient education curriculums are all evidence-based interventions that can achieve these goals. The available research also supports an interprofessional approach in any institutional opioid-reduction strategy.

Perioperative opioid usage: avoiding adverse effects.

Opioids remain the most common analgesic tool for the surgeon, owing to their cost-effectiveness in both the inpatient and outpatient setting. Aside from these attributes, opioids have significant side effects that are associated with morbidity and mortality. Specifically, obese patients, patients with sleep apnea, and the elderly may be at an increased risk of experiencing sedation and respiratory depression in response to opioids. Opioid reduction strategies prove useful for decreasing total opioid dose and, in turn, their associated adverse effects. Such strategies may include adjuvant nonopioid analgesics such as α-2 agonists, gabapentinoids, and N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor agonists as well as local, regional, or neuraxial anesthesia and modification of surgical technique where possible for operative patients. Patients may also present to surgeons while taking chronic opioids, including high-dose opioids and opioid agonist/antagonists. These clinical scenarios are associated with extreme challenges in postoperative analgesic management. With all opioid prescribing, other sedative medications should be limited or avoided as the risk for additive sedation is significant. This review aims to describe systematic methods to reduce opioid side effects and identify specific risk-reduction strategies within each risk group.