Impact of opioid-free analgesia on pain severity and patient satisfaction after discharge from surgery: multispecialty, prospective cohort study in 25 countries

Background: Balancing opioid stewardship and the need for adequate analgesia following discharge after surgery is challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes for patients discharged with opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after common surgical procedures.Methods: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study collected data from patients undergoing common acute and elective general surgical, urological, gynaecological, and orthopaedic procedures. The primary outcomes were patient-reported time in severe pain measured on a numerical analogue scale from 0 to 100% and patient-reported satisfaction with pain relief during the first week following discharge. Data were collected by in-hospital chart review and patient telephone interview 1 week after discharge.Results: The study recruited 4273 patients from 144 centres in 25 countries; 1311 patients (30.7%) were prescribed opioid analgesia at discharge. Patients reported being in severe pain for 10 (i.q.r. 1-30)% of the first week after discharge and rated satisfaction with analgesia as 90 (i.q.r. 80-100) of 100. After adjustment for confounders, opioid analgesia on discharge was independently associated with increased pain severity (risk ratio 1.52, 95% c.i. 1.31 to 1.76; P < 0.001) and re-presentation to healthcare providers owing to side-effects of medication (OR 2.38, 95% c.i. 1.36 to 4.17; P = 0.004), but not with satisfaction with analgesia (beta coefficient 0.92, 95% c.i. -1.52 to 3.36; P = 0.468) compared with opioid-free analgesia. Although opioid prescribing varied greatly between high-income and low- and middle-income countries, patient-reported outcomes did not.Conclusion: Opioid analgesia prescription on surgical discharge is associated with a higher risk of re-presentation owing to side-effects of medication and increased patient-reported pain, but not with changes in patient-reported satisfaction. Opioid-free discharge analgesia should be adopted routinely

Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

Correction to: Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake

Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

Validation of the English and translated Chinese version of the Comprehensive Needs Assessment Tool for Cancer Caregivers (CNAT-C)

10.1080/09699260.2019.1627090Progress in Palliative Care273103-10

A Non-Synonymous Single Nucleotide Polymorphism in an <em>OPRM1</em> Splice Variant Is Associated with Fentanyl-Induced Emesis in Women Undergoing Minor Gynaecological Surgery

<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Fentanyl-induced emesis (FIE) is a distressing adverse effect in the postoperative setting. The genetic basis of FIE remains largely unknown, therefore, we examined whether it was associated with specific genetic variants of <em>OPRM1</em>, the gene encoding the main receptor target of fentanyl.</p> <h3>Methods</h3><p>In this prospective case-control study, 193 women undergoing gynaecological surgery under a standardized anaesthetic with a low emetogenic risk were enrolled. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were designed to select extreme phenotypes as well as to ensure that most major confounders for FIE were either excluded or present in all patients. To control for unforeseen intra- and postoperative confounders for FIE, only 161 patients were further analysed, out of which 10 were categorized as having FIE, defined by the presence of at least one of three symptoms: nausea, vomiting or retching that was likely to be fentanyl-related. To identify SNPs relevant to FIE in our population, DNA from 40 controls and 10 cases was sequenced at the following <em>OPRM1</em> regions: 3 kbp of the promoter, main and alternative exons as well as 2 kbp of the 3′ downstream region. The genotype of the significant SNP was further determined in the remaining 111 controls.</p> <h3>Results</h3><p>The incidence of FIE was 6.2%. Initial sequencing of 10 cases and 40 controls identified 25 SNPs. Only rs540825, a non-synonymous SNP in the splice variant, MOR1X, showed a significant association with FIE post-Bonferroni correction. This SNP was further examined in the remaining 111 controls which confirmed its significant association with FIE (p = 0.019 post-Bonferroni, OR: 5.6, 95% CI: 1.42–21.91).</p> <h3>Conclusions</h3><p>This is the first report of an association between the occurrence of FIE in Chinese women undergoing gynaecological surgery and an <em>OPRM1</em> splice variant SNP, rs540825.</p> </div

Flowchart of study perioperative anaesthetic protocol of low emetogenicity for minor gynaecological day surgery.

<p>No prophylactic anti-emetics were given pre and intraoperatively. Total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) using an intravenous (IV) target controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol, was administered using a propofol infusor (Asena PK Syringe Pump, Carefusion USA). The infusor was pre-programmed with the Marsh algorithm <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0048416#pone.0048416-Marsh1" target="_blank">[18]</a>, which computed propofol dosing rates to attain a target perioperative plasma propofol concentration of 4–6 ug/ml and 3–6 ug/ml in the induction and maintenance phase of anaesthesia respectively in every patient.</p

Inclusion and exclusion criteria for study subjects.

<p>Abbreviations: KKWH: KK Womens Hospital.</p

Boxplots indicating the distribution of values for 3 variables in 151 controls and 10 cases.

<p>These 3 variables could contribute to the occurrence of emesis but could not be controlled for in the study design (a) Age (b) Total propofol dose (c) Total fentanyl dose. The median is the horizontal line bisecting the shaded box of the boxplot and the median value placed adjacent to the horizontal line. There are no significant differences (p<0.05) between the median values of controls and cases for the 3 variables.</p