Literature DB >> 34260427

Perioperative Opioid Consumption and Clinical Outcomes in Surgical Patients With a Pre-existing Opioid-Based Intrathecal Drug Delivery System.

Ryan S D'Souza1, Matthew A Warner2, Oludare O Olatoye1, Brendan J Langford3, Danette L Bruns4, Darrell R Schroeder5, William D Mauck1, Kalli K Schaefer1, Nafisseh S Warner1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Intrathecal drug delivery systems (IDDS) have been utilized for over 3 decades for management of chronic pain and spasticity. Patients with IDDS may present for surgical procedures unrelated to the IDDS device, although data are limited regarding perioperative outcomes.
METHODS: This is a historical matched cohort study conducted between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2016 of patients with an opioid-based IDDS versus matched control patients undergoing surgery excluding interventional pain procedures. Patients in the IDDS group were matched with up to 2 patients without an IDDS. Multivariable regression analyses were utilized to assess differences in the primary outcome of cumulative perioperative opioid consumption (ie, intraoperative and postanesthesia care unit [PACU] opioid consumption), and opioid consumption during the first 24 and 72 postoperative hours. Postoperative clinical outcomes were also assessed including escalating oxygen requirements, naloxone administration, pain-sedation mismatch, and perioperative pain service consultation.
RESULTS: A total of 321 surgeries were included, 112 with IDDS and 209 controls, with median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 57 (49-64) years. Compared to matched controls, patients with an IDDS had greater perioperative opioid consumption (median [IQR] oral morphine milligram equivalents [OME] of 110 [60-163] vs 93 [IQR, 53-142]; adjusted multiplicative increase 1.28 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.03-1.59]; P = .026). IDDS patients also had greater opioid consumption in the first 24 and 72 postoperative hours (multiplicative increases of 2.23 [95% CI, 1.36-3.63], P = .001, and 2.46 [95% CI, 1.41-4.32], P = .002, respectively). There were no significant differences in postoperative oxygen requirements, naloxone administration, or pain-sedation mismatch. Inpatient pain medicine consultation was more frequent in IDDS patients compared to controls (51.8% vs 6.2%; P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with opioid-based IDDS received more perioperative opioids and were more likely to receive postoperative pain service consultation compared to matched controls. There were no significant differences in clinical safety outcomes, suggesting tolerance for higher opioid doses. Further research is warranted to optimize perioperative outcomes in those with IDDS.
Copyright © 2021 International Anesthesia Research Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 34260427      PMCID: PMC8678135          DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000005662

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Anesth Analg        ISSN: 0003-2999            Impact factor:   5.108


  31 in total

Review 1.  Implantable intrathecal pumps for chronic pain: highlights and updates.

Authors:  Karen H Knight; Frances M Brand; Ali S Mchaourab; Giorgio Veneziano
Journal:  Croat Med J       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 1.351

2.  Spinal anesthesia using subcutaneously implanted pumps for intrathecal drug infusion.

Authors:  D W Coombs; N Fine
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  1991-08       Impact factor: 5.108

3.  Perioperative management of patients with an intrathecal drug delivery system for chronic pain.

Authors:  Jay S Grider; Raeford E Brown; George W Colclough
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 5.108

4.  Intrathecal Drug Delivery Systems for the Management of Chronic Noncancer Pain: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations.

Authors:  Rui V Duarte; Tosin Lambe; Jon H Raphael; Sam Eldabe; Lazaros Andronis
Journal:  Pain Pract       Date:  2017-12-01       Impact factor: 3.183

5.  Analgesia and tolerance to intrathecal morphine and norepinephrine infusion via implanted mini-osmotic pumps in the rat.

Authors:  Brian Milne; Frank Cervenko; Khem Jhamandas; Christopher Loomis; Maaja Sutak
Journal:  Pain       Date:  1985-06       Impact factor: 6.961

Review 6.  Spinal Cord Stimulation: Clinical Efficacy and Potential Mechanisms.

Authors:  Andrei D Sdrulla; Yun Guan; Srinivasa N Raja
Journal:  Pain Pract       Date:  2018-04-23       Impact factor: 3.183

7.  The appropriate use of neurostimulation: new and evolving neurostimulation therapies and applicable treatment for chronic pain and selected disease states. Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee.

Authors:  Timothy R Deer; Elliot Krames; Nagy Mekhail; Jason Pope; Michael Leong; Michael Stanton-Hicks; Stan Golovac; Leo Kapural; Ken Alo; Jack Anderson; Robert D Foreman; David Caraway; Samer Narouze; Bengt Linderoth; Asokumar Buvanendran; Claudio Feler; Lawrence Poree; Paul Lynch; Tory McJunkin; Ted Swing; Peter Staats; Liong Liem; Kayode Williams
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2014-08

8.  Association Between Spine Surgery and Availability of Opioid Medication.

Authors:  Nafisseh S Warner; Elizabeth B Habermann; W Michael Hooten; Andrew C Hanson; Darrell R Schroeder; Jennifer L St Sauver; Paul M Huddleston; Mohamad Bydon; Julie L Cunningham; Halena M Gazelka; David O Warner
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2020-06-01

9.  Systemic Opioid Reduction and Discontinuation Following Implantation of Intrathecal Drug-Delivery Systems for Chronic Pain: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

Authors:  John A Hatheway; Megha Bansal; Christine I Nichols-Ricker
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2019-10-11

Review 10.  Best practices for intrathecal drug delivery for pain.

Authors:  Joshua Prager; Timothy Deer; Robert Levy; Brian Bruel; Eric Buchser; David Caraway; Michael Cousins; Marilyn Jacobs; Gail McGlothlen; Richard Rauck; Peter Staats; Lisa Stearns
Journal:  Neuromodulation       Date:  2014-01-21
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.