8 research outputs found

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

    Get PDF
    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

    Alternative genomic diagnoses for individuals with a clinical diagnosis of Dubowitz syndrome.

    No full text
    Dubowitz syndrome (DubS) is considered a recognizable syndrome characterized by a distinctive facial appearance and deficits in growth and development. There have been over 200 individuals reported with Dubowitz or a "Dubowitz-like" condition, although no single gene has been implicated as responsible for its cause. We have performed exome (ES) or genome sequencing (GS) for 31 individuals clinically diagnosed with DubS. After genome-wide sequencing, rare variant filtering and computational and Mendelian genomic analyses, a presumptive molecular diagnosis was made in 13/27 (48%) families. The molecular diagnoses included biallelic variants in SKIV2L, SLC35C1, BRCA1, NSUN2; de novo variants in ARID1B, ARID1A, CREBBP, POGZ, TAF1, HDAC8, and copy-number variation at1p36.11(ARID1A), 8q22.2(VPS13B), Xp22, and Xq13(HDAC8). Variants of unknown significance in known disease genes, and also in genes of uncertain significance, were observed in 7/27 (26%) additional families. Only one gene, HDAC8, could explain the phenotype in more than one family (N = 2). All but two of the genomic diagnoses were for genes discovered, or for conditions recognized, since the introduction of next-generation sequencing. Overall, the DubS-like clinical phenotype is associated with extensive locus heterogeneity and the molecular diagnoses made are for emerging clinical conditions sharing characteristic features that overlap the DubS phenotype

    Alternative genomic diagnoses for individuals with a clinical diagnosis of Dubowitz syndrome

    No full text
    Abstract Dubowitz syndrome (DubS) is considered a recognizable syndrome characterized by a distinctive facial appearance and deficits in growth and development. There have been over 200 individuals reported with Dubowitz or a “Dubowitz-like” condition, although no single gene has been implicated as responsible for its cause. We have performed exome (ES) or genome sequencing (GS) for 31 individuals clinically diagnosed with DubS. After genome-wide sequencing, rare variant filtering and computational and Mendelian genomic analyses, a presumptive molecular diagnosis was made in 13/27 (48%) families. The molecular diagnoses included biallelic variants in SKIV2L, SLC35C1, BRCA1, NSUN2; de novo variants in ARID1B, ARID1A, CREBBP, POGZ, TAF1, HDAC8, and copy-number variation at1p36.11(ARID1A), 8q22.2(VPS13B), Xp22, and Xq13(HDAC8). Variants of unknown significance in known disease genes, and also in genes of uncertain significance, were observed in 7/27 (26%) additional families. Only one gene, HDAC8, could explain the phenotype in more than one family (N = 2). All but two of the genomic diagnoses were for genes discovered, or for conditions recognized, since the introduction of next-generation sequencing. Overall, the DubS-like clinical phenotype is associated with extensive locus heterogeneity and the molecular diagnoses made are for emerging clinical conditions sharing characteristic features that overlap the DubS phenotype

    Effect of Noninvasive Respiratory Strategies on Intubation or Mortality Among Patients With Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure and COVID-19: The RECOVERY-RS Randomized Clinical Trial.

    No full text
    Importance Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) have been recommended for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in patients with COVID-19. Uncertainty exists regarding the effectiveness and safety of these noninvasive respiratory strategies. Objective To determine whether either CPAP or HFNO, compared with conventional oxygen therapy, improves clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Design, Setting, and Participants A parallel group, adaptive, randomized clinical trial of 1273 hospitalized adults with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. The trial was conducted between April 6, 2020, and May 3, 2021, across 48 acute care hospitals in the UK and Jersey. Final follow-up occurred on June 20, 2021. Interventions Adult patients were randomized to receive CPAP (n = 380), HFNO (n = 418), or conventional oxygen therapy (n = 475). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was a composite of tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days. Results The trial was stopped prematurely due to declining COVID-19 case numbers in the UK and the end of the funded recruitment period. Of the 1273 randomized patients (mean age, 57.4 [95% CI, 56.7 to 58.1] years; 66% male; 65% White race), primary outcome data were available for 1260. Crossover between interventions occurred in 17.1% of participants (15.3% in the CPAP group, 11.5% in the HFNO group, and 23.6% in the conventional oxygen therapy group). The requirement for tracheal intubation or mortality within 30 days was significantly lower with CPAP (36.3%; 137 of 377 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (44.4%; 158 of 356 participants) (absolute difference, -8% [95% CI, -15% to -1%], P = .03), but was not significantly different with HFNO (44.3%; 184 of 415 participants) vs conventional oxygen therapy (45.1%; 166 of 368 participants) (absolute difference, -1% [95% CI, -8% to 6%], P = .83). Adverse events occurred in 34.2% (130/380) of participants in the CPAP group, 20.6% (86/418) in the HFNO group, and 13.9% (66/475) in the conventional oxygen therapy group. Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19, an initial strategy of CPAP significantly reduced the risk of tracheal intubation or mortality compared with conventional oxygen therapy, but there was no significant difference between an initial strategy of HFNO compared with conventional oxygen therapy. The study may have been underpowered for the comparison of HFNO vs conventional oxygen therapy, and early study termination and crossover among the groups should be considered when interpreting the findings. Trial Registration isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16912075

    Effect of Antiplatelet Therapy on Survival and Organ Support–Free Days in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19

    No full text
    International audienc
    corecore