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

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Optical Coherence Tomography in Patients with Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis without Optic Neuritis: A 20-Month Longitudinal Study (vol 37, pg 104, 2013)

WOS: 00032225650000

Impact of next‐generation sequencing panels in the evaluation of limb‐girdle muscular dystrophies

Introduction Limb-girdle muscular dystrophy (LGMD) is the fourth most common muscular dystrophy, with progressive proximal muscle weakness. However, a large number of neuromuscular conditions are similarly presented. Because of this, the use of high-throughput methods such as next-generation sequencing (NGS) is important in the evaluation of LGMD. Methods In this report, we applied a custom target capture-based NGS panel covering 31 LGMD-associated genes (MYOT, LMNA, CAV3, DES, DNAJB6, FLNC, CAPN3, DYSF, SGCG, SGCA, SGCB, SGCD, TCAP, TRIM32, FRKP, TTN, POMT1, ANO5, FKTN, POMT2, POMGnT1, DAG1, PLEC, GAA, GMPPB, HNRNPDL, TNPO3, LIMS2, POMK, TRAPPC11, ISPD) in 74 patients suspected of LGMD. Results In 25 (33.8%) out of 74 patients analyzed, one or more pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in 13 different genes were detected. Six of the patients had the variants that were not found in databases and literature; thus, they were interpreted as novel pathogenic variants. Discussion The diagnosis rate achieved (33.8%) is consistent with previous literature reports and underlines the efficiency and importance of NGS technology in the molecular genetic evaluation of LGMD

Impact of next-generation sequencing panels in the evaluation of limb-girdle muscular dystrophies

Introduction Limb-girdle muscular dystrophy (LGMD) is the fourth most common muscular dystrophy, with progressive proximal muscle weakness. However, a large number of neuromuscular conditions are similarly presented. Because of this, the use of high-throughput methods such as next-generation sequencing (NGS) is important in the evaluation of LGMD. Methods In this report, we applied a custom target capture-based NGS panel covering 31 LGMD-associated genes (MYOT, LMNA, CAV3, DES, DNAJB6, FLNC, CAPN3, DYSF, SGCG, SGCA, SGCB, SGCD, TCAP, TRIM32, FRKP, TTN, POMT1, ANO5, FKTN, POMT2, POMGnT1, DAG1, PLEC, GAA, GMPPB, HNRNPDL, TNPO3, LIMS2, POMK, TRAPPC11, ISPD) in 74 patients suspected of LGMD. Results In 25 (33.8%) out of 74 patients analyzed, one or more pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in 13 different genes were detected. Six of the patients had the variants that were not found in databases and literature; thus, they were interpreted as novel pathogenic variants. Discussion The diagnosis rate achieved (33.8%) is consistent with previous literature reports and underlines the efficiency and importance of NGS technology in the molecular genetic evaluation of LGMD

Clinical and molecular evaluation of MEFV gene variants in the Turkish population: a study by the National Genetics Consortium

Familial Mediterranean fever (FMF) is a monogenic autoinflammatory disorder with recurrent fever, abdominal pain, serositis, articular manifestations, erysipelas-like erythema, and renal complications as its main features. Caused by the mutations in the MEditerranean FeVer (MEFV) gene, it mainly affects people of Mediterranean descent with a higher incidence in the Turkish, Jewish, Arabic, and Armenian populations. As our understanding of FMF improves, it becomes clearer that we are facing with a more complex picture of FMF with respect to its pathogenesis, penetrance, variant type (gain-of-function vs. loss-of-function), and inheritance. In this study, MEFV gene analysis results and clinical findings of 27,504 patients from 35 universities and institutions in Turkey and Northern Cyprus are combined in an effort to provide a better insight into the genotype-phenotype correlation and how a specific variant contributes to certain clinical findings in FMF patients. Our results may help better understand this complex disease and how the genotype may sometimes contribute to phenotype. Unlike many studies in the literature, our study investigated a broader symptomatic spectrum and the relationship between the genotype and phenotype data. In this sense, we aimed to guide all clinicians and academicians who work in this field to better establish a comprehensive data set for the patients. One of the biggest messages of our study is that lack of uniformity in some clinical and demographic data of participants may become an obstacle in approaching FMF patients and understanding this complex disease