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

Survey of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in trauma patients: current prescribing practices and concordance with clinical practice guidelines

Objectives Pharmacological venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis is recommended in the vast majority of trauma patients. The purpose of this study was to characterize current dosing practices and timing of initiation of pharmacological VTE chemoprophylaxis at trauma centers.Methods This was an international, cross-sectional survey of trauma providers. The survey was sponsored by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) and distributed to AAST members. The survey included 38 questions about practitioner demographics, experience, level and location of trauma center, and individual/site-specific practices regarding the dosing, selection, and timing of initiation of pharmacological VTE chemoprophylaxis in trauma patients.Results One hundred eighteen trauma providers responded (estimated response rate 6.9%). Most respondents were at level 1 trauma centers (100/118; 84.7%) and had >10 years of experience (73/118; 61.9%). While multiple dosing regimens were used, the most common dose reported was enoxaparin 30 mg every 12 hours (80/118; 67.8%). The majority of respondents (88/118; 74.6%) indicated adjusting the dose in patients with obesity. Seventy-eight (66.1%) routinely use antifactor Xa levels to guide dosing. Respondents at academic institutions were more likely to use guideline-directed dosing (based on the Eastern Association of the Surgery of Trauma and the Western Trauma Association guidelines) of VTE chemoprophylaxis compared with those at non-academic centers (86.2% vs 62.5%; p=0.0158) and guideline-directed dosing was reported more often if the trauma team included a clinical pharmacist (88.2% vs 69.0%; p=0.0142). Wide variability in initial timing of VTE chemoprophylaxis after traumatic brain injury, solid organ injury, and spinal cord injuries was found.Conclusions A high degree of variability exists in prescribing and monitoring practices for the prevention of VTE in trauma patients. Clinical pharmacists may be helpful on trauma teams to optimize dosing and increase prescribing of guideline-concordant VTE chemoprophylaxis

Survey of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in trauma patients: current prescribing practices and concordance with clinical practice guidelines

ObjectivesPharmacological venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis is recommended in the vast majority of trauma patients. The purpose of this study was to characterize current dosing practices and timing of initiation of pharmacological VTE chemoprophylaxis at trauma centers.MethodsThis was an international, cross-sectional survey of trauma providers. The survey was sponsored by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) and distributed to AAST members. The survey included 38 questions about practitioner demographics, experience, level and location of trauma center, and individual/site-specific practices regarding the dosing, selection, and timing of initiation of pharmacological VTE chemoprophylaxis in trauma patients.ResultsOne hundred eighteen trauma providers responded (estimated response rate 6.9%). Most respondents were at level 1 trauma centers (100/118; 84.7%) and had >10 years of experience (73/118; 61.9%). While multiple dosing regimens were used, the most common dose reported was enoxaparin 30 mg every 12 hours (80/118; 67.8%). The majority of respondents (88/118; 74.6%) indicated adjusting the dose in patients with obesity. Seventy-eight (66.1%) routinely use antifactor Xa levels to guide dosing. Respondents at academic institutions were more likely to use guideline-directed dosing (based on the Eastern Association of the Surgery of Trauma and the Western Trauma Association guidelines) of VTE chemoprophylaxis compared with those at non-academic centers (86.2% vs 62.5%; p=0.0158) and guideline-directed dosing was reported more often if the trauma team included a clinical pharmacist (88.2% vs 69.0%; p=0.0142). Wide variability in initial timing of VTE chemoprophylaxis after traumatic brain injury, solid organ injury, and spinal cord injuries was found.ConclusionsA high degree of variability exists in prescribing and monitoring practices for the prevention of VTE in trauma patients. Clinical pharmacists may be helpful on trauma teams to optimize dosing and increase prescribing of guideline-concordant VTE chemoprophylaxis

MOVING THE NEEDLE ON TIME TO RESUSCITATION: AN EAST PROSPECTIVE MULTICENTER STUDY OF VASCULAR ACCESS IN HYPOTENSIVE INJURED PATIENTS USING TRAUMA VIDEO REVIEW.

INTRODUCTION: Vascular access in hypotensive trauma patients is challenging. Little evidence exists on the time required and success rates of vascular access types. We hypothesized that intraosseous (IO) access would be faster and more successful than peripheral IV (PIV) and central venous catheter (CVC) access in hypotensive patients. METHODS: An EAST prospective multicenter trial was performed; 19 centers provided data. Trauma video review (TVR) was used to evaluate the resuscitations of hypotensive (systolic blood pressure ≤ 90 mmHg) trauma patients. Highly granular data from video recordings were abstracted. Data collected included vascular access attempt type, location, success rate, and procedural time. Demographic and injury-specific variables were obtained from the medical record. Success rates, procedural durations, and time to resuscitation were compared among access strategies (IO vs PIV vs CVC). RESULTS: 1,410 access attempts occurred in 581 patients with a median age of 40[27-59] years and an ISS of 22[10-34]. 932 PIV, 204 IO and 249 CVC were attempted. 70% of access attempts were successful but were significantly less likely to be successful in females (64% vs. 71%, p = 0.01). Median time to any access was 5.0[3.2-8.0] minutes. IO had higher success rates than PIV or CVC (93% vs. 67% vs. 59%, p \u3c 0.001) and remained higher after subsequent failures (second attempt 85% vs. 59% vs. 69%, p = 0.08; third attempt 100% vs 33% vs. 67%, p = 0.002). Duration varied by access type (IO 36[23-60]sec; PIV 44[31-61]sec; CVC 171[105-298]sec) and was significantly different between IO vs. CVC (p \u3c 0.001) and PIV vs. CVC (p \u3c 0.001) but not PIV vs. IO. Time to resuscitation initiation was shorter in patients whose initial access attempt was IO, 5.8 minutes vs. 6.7 minutes (p = 0.015). This was more pronounced in patients arriving to the hospital with no established access (5.7 minutes vs. 7.5 minutes, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: IO is as fast as PIV and more likely to be successful compared with other access strategies in hypotensive trauma patients. Patients whose initial access attempt was IO were resuscitated more expeditiously. IO access should be considered a first line therapy in hypotensive trauma patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II Therapeutic/Care Management