Dataset Information

Opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after surgical discharge: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Excessive prescribing after surgery has contributed to a public health crisis of opioid addiction and overdose in North America. However, the value of prescribing opioids to manage postoperative pain after surgical discharge remains unclear. We propose a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the extent to which opioid analgesia impact postoperative pain intensity and adverse events in comparison to opioid-free analgesia in patients discharged after surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Major electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, AMED, BIOSIS, CINAHL and PsycINFO) will be searched for multi-dose randomised-trials examining the comparative effectiveness of opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after surgical discharge. Studies published from January 1990 to July 2019 will be targeted, with no language restrictions. The search will be re-run before manuscript submission to include most recent literature. We will consider studies involving patients undergoing minor and major surgery. Teams of reviewers will, independently and in duplicate, assess eligibility, extract data and evaluate risk of bias. Our main outcomes of interest are pain intensity and postoperative vomiting. Study results will be pooled using random effects models. When trials report outcomes for a common domain (eg, pain intensity) using different scales, we will convert effect sizes to a common standard metric (eg, Visual Analogue Scale). Minimally important clinical differences reported in previous literature will be considered when interpreting results. Subgroup analyses defined a priori will be conducted to explore heterogeneity. Risk of bias will be assessed according to the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. The quality of evidence for all outcomes will be evaluated using the GRADE rating system. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval is not required since this is a systematic review of published studies. Our results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences. Further knowledge dissemination will be sought via public and patient organisations focussed on pain and opioid-related harms.

SUBMITTER: El-Kefraoui C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7045253 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after surgical discharge: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

El-Kefraoui Charbel C Olleik Ghadeer G Chay Marc-Aurele MA Kouyoumdjian Araz A Nguyen-Powanda Philip P Rajabiyazdi Fateme F Do Uyen U Derksen Alexa A Landry Tara T Amar-Zifkin Alexandre A Ramanakumar Agnihotram V AV Martel Marc-Olivier MO Baldini Gabriele G Feldman Liane L Fiore Julio F JF

BMJ open 20200202 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>Excessive prescribing after surgery has contributed to a public health crisis of opioid addiction and overdose in North America. However, the value of prescribing opioids to manage postoperative pain after surgical discharge remains unclear. We propose a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the extent to which opioid analgesia impact postoperative pain intensity and adverse events in comparison to opioid-free analgesia in patients discharged after surgery.<h4>Method ...[more]

PMID: 32014880

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Opioids and multimodal analgesia are widely administered to manage postoperative pain. However, little is known on how improvements in inpatient pain control are correlated with high-risk (> 90 daily OME) discharge opioid prescriptions for opioid naïve surgical patients. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective observational study of adult opioid-naïve patients undergoing surgery from June 2012 through December 2018 at a large academic medical center. We used multivariate logistic regression to assess whether multimodal analgesic drugs consumed in the 24 h prior to discharge was associated with a reduction in high-risk opioid discharge prescriptions. We identified other risk factors for receiving a high-risk discharge opioid prescription. RESULTS:Among the 32,511 patients, 83% of patients were discharged with an opioid prescription. In 2013, 34.1% of patients with a discharge opioid prescription received a high-risk prescription and this declined to 17.7% by 2018. Use of multimodal analgesic agents during the final 24 h of hospitalization increased each year, with over 80% receiving at least one multimodal analgesic agent by 2018. The median OME consumed in the 24 h prior to discharge peaked in 2013 at 31 and steadily decreased to 19.8 by 2018. There was a significant association between the use of acetaminophen in the 24 h prior to discharge and a high-risk prescription at discharge (p < 0.01). OMEs consumed in the 24 h prior to discharge was a significant predictor of receiving a high-risk discharge prescription, even at low doses. Other factors associated with receipt of a high-risk discharge opioid prescription included male gender, race, history of anxiety disorder, and discharge service. DISCUSSION:Use of multimodal analgesia regimens in hospitalized surgical patients in the 24 h prior to hospital discharge increased between 2012 and 2018. Simultaneously, opioid use prior to hospital discharge decreased. Despite these gains, approximately one in five discharge prescriptions was high-risk (> 90 daily OME). In addition, we found that prescribing of discharge opioids above inpatient opioid requirements remains common in opioid naive surgical patients. CONCLUSION:Providers should account for pre-discharge opioid consumption and use of multimodal analgesia when considering the total and daily OME's that may be appropriate for an individual surgical patient on the discharge opioid prescription.

Project description:BackgroundOpioids are commonly prescribed after ureteroscopy. With an increasing adoption of ureteroscopy for management of urolithiasis, this subset of patients is at high risk for opioid dependence. We sought to pilot an opioid-free discharge protocol for patients undergoing ureteroscopy for urolithiasis.Materials and methodsA prospective cohort study was performed of all patients undergoing ureteroscopy for urolithiasis and compared them to a historical control group. An opioid-free discharge protocol was initiated targeting all areas of surgical care from June 20th, 2019 to September 20th, 2019 as part of an institutional quality improvement initiative. Demographic and surgical data were collected as were morphine equivalent doses (MEDs) prescribed at discharge, postoperative measures including phone calls, clinic visits, and emergency room visits for pain.ResultsBetween October 1st, 2017 and February 1st, 2018, a total of 54 patients who underwent ureteroscopy were identified and comprised the historical control cohort while 54 prospective patients met the inclusion criteria since institution of the quality improvement initiative. There were no statistically significant differences in baseline patient demographics or surgical characteristics between the 2 patient groups. Total 37% of the intervention group had a preexisting opioid prescription versus 42.6% of the control group with no difference in preoperative MED (p = 0.55). The intervention group had a mean MED of 12.03 at discharge versus 110.5 in the control cohort (p ≤ 0.001). At discharge 3.7% of the intervention group received an opioid prescription versus 88.9% of the control group (p < 0.001). Overall, there was no difference in postoperative pain related phone calls (p = 1.0) or emergency room visits (p = 1.0).ConclusionsAn opioid-free discharge protocol can dramatically reduce opioid prescription at discharge following ureteroscopy for urinary calculi without affecting postoperative measures such as phone calls, clinic visits, or subsequent prescriptions.

Project description:BACKGROUND:This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 4, 2006. Patients may control postoperative pain by self administration of intravenous opioids using devices designed for this purpose (patient controlled analgesia or PCA). A 1992 meta-analysis by Ballantyne et al found a strong patient preference for PCA over non-patient controlled analgesia, but disclosed no differences in analgesic consumption or length of postoperative hospital stay. Although Ballantyne's meta-analysis found that PCA did have a small but statistically significant benefit upon pain intensity, a 2001 review by Walder et al did not find statistically significant differences in pain intensity or pain relief between PCA and groups treated with non-patient controlled analgesia. OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of patient controlled intravenous opioid analgesia (termed PCA in this review) versus non-patient controlled opioid analgesia of as-needed opioid analgesia for postoperative pain relief. SEARCH METHODS:We ran the search for the previous review in November 2004. For this update, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014, Issue 12), MEDLINE (1966 to 28 January 2015), and EMBASE (1980 to 28 January 2015) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in any language, and reference lists of reviews and retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA:We selected RCTs that assessed pain intensity as a primary or secondary outcome. These studies compared PCA without a continuous background infusion with non-patient controlled opioid analgesic regimens. We excluded studies that explicitly stated they involved patients with chronic pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Two review authors independently extracted data, which included demographic variables, type of surgery, interventions, efficacy, and adverse events. We graded each included study for methodological quality by assessing risk of bias and employed the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence. We performed meta-analysis of outcomes that included pain intensity assessed by a 0 to 100 visual analog scale (VAS), opioid consumption, patient satisfaction, length of stay, and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS:Forty-nine studies with 1725 participants receiving PCA and 1687 participants assigned to a control group met the inclusion criteria. The original review included 55 studies with 2023 patients receiving PCA and 1838 patients assigned to a control group. There were fewer included studies in our updated review due to the revised exclusion criteria. For the primary outcome, participants receiving PCA had lower VAS pain intensity scores versus non-patient controlled analgesia over most time intervals, e.g., scores over 0 to 24 hours were nine points lower (95% confidence interval (CI) -13 to -5, moderate quality evidence) and over 0 to 48 hours were 10 points lower (95% CI -12 to -7, low quality evidence). Among the secondary outcomes, participants were more satisfied with PCA (81% versus 61%, P value = 0.002) and consumed higher amounts of opioids than controls (0 to 24 hours, 7 mg more of intravenous morphine equivalents, 95% CI 1 mg to 13 mg). Those receiving PCA had a higher incidence of pruritus (15% versus 8%, P value = 0.01) but had a similar incidence of other adverse events. There was no difference in the length of hospital stay. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:Since the last version of this review, we have found new studies providing additional information. We reanalyzed the data but the results did not substantially alter any of our previously published conclusions. This review provides moderate to low quality evidence that PCA is an efficacious alternative to non-patient controlled systemic analgesia for postoperative pain control.

Project description:BACKGROUND:North America is in the midst of an unabated opioid overdose epidemic due to the increasing non-medical use of fentanyl and ultra-potent opioids. Naloxone is an effective antidote to opioid toxicity, yet its optimal dosing in the context of fentanyl and ultra-potent opioid overdoses remains unknown. This review aims to determine the relationship between the first empiric dose of naloxone and reversal of toxicity, adverse events, and the total cumulative dose required among patients with undifferentiated opioid overdoses and those with suspected toxicity from ultra-potent opioids. Secondary objectives include evaluating the relationship between the cumulative naloxone dose and toxicity reversal and adverse events, among patients with undifferentiated opioid overdoses and those with suspected toxicity from ultra-potent opioids. METHODS:To identify studies, we will search MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, DARE, CDAG, CINAHL, Science Citation Index, multiple trial registries, and the gray literature. Included studies will evaluate patients with suspected or confirmed opioid toxicity from undifferentiated opioids and ultra-potent opioids, who received an empiric and possibly additional doses of naloxone. The main outcomes of interest are the relationship between naloxone dose and toxicity reversal and adverse events. We will include controlled and non-controlled interventional studies, observational studies, case reports/series, and reports from poison control centers. We will extract data and assess study quality in duplicate with discrepancies resolved by consensus or a third party. We will use the Downs and Black and Cochrane risk of bias tools for observational and randomized controlled studies. If we find sufficient variation in dose, we will fit a random effects one-stage model to estimate a dose-response relationship. We will conduct multiple subgroup analyses, including by type of opioid used and by suspected high and low prevalence of ultra-potent opioid use based on geographic location and time of the original studies. DISCUSSION:Our review will include the most up-to-date available data including ultra-potent opioids to inform the current response to the opioid epidemic, addressing the limitations of recent reviews. We anticipate limitations relating to study heterogeneity. We will disseminate study results widely to update overdose treatment guidelines and naloxone dosing in Take Home Naloxone programs.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Surgical and non-surgical interventions are the two categories for treatment of vertebral compression fractures (VCFs). However, there is clinical uncertainty over optimal management. This study aimed to examine the safety and effectiveness of surgical management for treatment of VCFs with osteopenia compared with non-surgical treatment. METHODS:We conducted a systematic search through electronic databases from inception to June 2014, with no limits on study data or language. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating surgical versus non-surgical interventions for treatment of patients with VCFs due to osteopenia were considered. Primary outcomes were pain and adverse effects. A random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled mean difference (MD) or risk ratios with 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS:Sixteen reports (11 studies) met the inclusion criteria, and provided data for the meta-analysis with a total of 1,401 participants. Compared with conservative treatment, surgical treatment was more effective in reducing pain (short-term: MD -2.05, 95% CI -3.55 to -0.56, P=0.007; mid-term: MD -1.70, 95% CI -2.78 to -0.62, P=0.002; long-term: MD -1.24, 95% CI -2.20 to -0.29, P=0.01) and disability on the Roland-Morris Disability score (short-term: MD -4.97, 95% CI -8.71 to -1.23, P=0.009), as well as improving quality of life on the Short-Form 36 Physical Component Summary score (short-term: MD 5.53, 95% CI 1.45 to 9.61, P=0.008) and the Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis score (short-term: MD -5.01, 95% CI -8.11 to -1.91, P=0.002). Indirect comparisons between vertebroplasty and kyphoplasty found no evidence that the treatment effect differed across the two interventions for any outcomes assessed. Compared with the sham procedure, surgical treatment showed no evidence of improvement in pain relief and physical function. Based on these two comparisons, no significant difference between groups was noted in the pooled results for adverse events. CONCLUSION:Compared to conservative treatment, surgical treatment was more effective in decreasing pain in the short,mid and long terms. However, no significant mid- and long-term differences in physical function and quality of life was observed. Little good evidence is available for surgical treatment compared with that for sham procedure. PV and BK are currently used to treat VCFs with osteopenia, with little difference in treatment effects. Evidence of better quality and from a larger sample size is required before a recommendation can be made. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO PROSPERO registration number: CRD42013005142.

Project description:INTRODUCTION: Tracheostomy is one of the more commonly performed procedures in critically ill patients yet the optimal method of performing tracheostomies in this population remains to be established. The aim of this study was to systematically review and quantitatively synthesize all randomized clinical trials (RCTs), comparing elective percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) and surgical tracheostomy (ST) in adult critically ill patients with regards to major short and long term outcomes. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register databases were searched to identify relevant studies. Additionally, bibliographies and selected conference proceedings were reviewed, and experts in the field and manufacturers of two PDT kits were contacted. Randomized clinical trials comparing any method of elective PDT to ST that included critically ill adults and reported at least one clinically relevant outcome were included. Data extracted included trial characteristics, measures of study validity, and clinically relevant outcomes. RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs involving 1,212 patients were included. Most PDTs used a multiple dilator technique and were performed in the intensive care unit (ICU). The pooled odds ratio (OR) for wound infection was 0.28 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.16 to 0.49, p < 0.0005), indicating a significant reduction with PDT compared to ST. Overall, PDT was equivalent to ST for bleeding, major peri-procedural and long-term complications; however, subgroup analysis suggested PDT resulted in a lower incidence of bleeding (OR = 0.29 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.75, p = 0.01)) and death (OR = 0.71 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.0, p = 0.05)) when the STs were performed in the operating theatre. CONCLUSION: PDT reduces the overall incidence of wound infection and may further reduce clinical relevant bleeding and mortality when compared with ST performed in the operating theatre. PDT, performed in the ICU, should be considered the procedure of choice for performing elective tracheostomies in critically ill adult patients.

Project description:Cannabinoid co-administration may enable reduced opioid doses for analgesia. This updated systematic review on the opioid-sparing effects of cannabinoids considered preclinical and clinical studies where the outcome was analgesia or opioid dose requirements. We searched Scopus, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, Medline, and Embase (2016 onwards). Ninety-two studies met the search criteria including 15 ongoing trials. Meta-analysis of seven preclinical studies found the median effective dose (ED50) of morphine administered with delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol was 3.5 times lower (95% CI 2.04, 6.03) than the ED50 of morphine alone. Six preclinical studies found no evidence of increased opioid abuse liability with cannabinoid administration. Of five healthy-volunteer experimental pain studies, two found increased pain, two found decreased pain and one found reduced pain bothersomeness with cannabinoid administration; three demonstrated that cannabinoid co-administration may increase opioid abuse liability. Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) found no evidence of opioid-sparing effects of cannabinoids in acute pain. Meta-analysis of four RCTs in patients with cancer pain found no effect of cannabinoid administration on opioid dose (mean difference -3.8 mg, 95% CI -10.97, 3.37) or percentage change in pain scores (mean difference 1.84, 95% CI -2.05, 5.72); five studies found more adverse events with cannabinoids compared with placebo (risk ratio 1.13, 95% CI 1.03, 1.24). Of five controlled chronic non-cancer pain trials; one low-quality study with no control arm, and one single-dose study reported reduced pain scores with cannabinoids. Three RCTs found no treatment effect of dronabinol. Meta-analyses of observational studies found 39% reported opioid cessation (95% CI 0.15, 0.64, I2 95.5%, eight studies), and 85% reported reduction (95% CI 0.64, 0.99, I2 92.8%, seven studies). In summary, preclinical and observational studies demonstrate the potential opioid-sparing effects of cannabinoids in the context of analgesia, in contrast to higher-quality RCTs that did not provide evidence of opioid-sparing effects.

Dataset Information

Opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after surgical discharge: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after surgical discharge: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets