Suppr超能文献

围手术期无阿片类药物麻醉——一项初步回顾性匹配队列研究

Opioid-Free Anesthesia in the Perioperative Setting-A Preliminary Retrospective Matched Cohort Study.

作者信息

Bell Austin, Andrews Christopher, Highland Krista B, Senese Forbes Angela

机构信息

Anesthesiology Department, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA.

Defense and Veterans Center for Integrative Pain Management, Department of Military and Emergency Medicine, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA.

出版信息

Mil Med. 2022 Mar 28;187(3-4):e290-e296. doi: 10.1093/milmed/usaa570.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Anesthesiologists have long used multimodal analgesia for effective pain control. Opioid-sparing anesthetics are gaining popularity among practitioners in light of increasing concerns for both immediate opioid side effects and the long-term opioid misuse among susceptible patients. Currently, there is a critical gap in knowledge regarding outcomes after an opioid-free anesthetic (OFA) during general anesthesia. We hypothesized that an opioid-free general anesthetic will not be inferior to a traditional opioid anesthetic (OA) as measured by the perioperative outcomes of postanesthesia care unit (PACU) duration, 12-hour postoperative summed pain intensity (SPI12) scores, total morphine equivalent doses (MEDs) utilized in the 12-hour postoperative inpatient (MED12) and total MEDs utilized in the 90-day outpatient periods (MED90).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients were included if they were  ≥18 years old, met criteria for American Society of Anesthesiologists classification I-IV, received general endotracheal anesthesia from a single anesthesia provider for a surgical operation in 2016, did not receive intraoperative administration of opioids, and were recovered in the PACU. A total of 25 patients were included in the OFA group and 29 control patients in the OA group (n = 54). A retrospective chart review of intraoperative records, perioperative pain scores, and medication utilization (inpatient and outpatient) was performed to obtain the data for the analysis of the primary outcomes.

RESULTS

In both OFA and OA groups, the continuous outcomes were not normally distributed. Subsequent bivariate tests of the indicated OA versus OFA age (d = 0.58), surgery duration (d = 0.24), and preoperative pain score (d = 0.51) warranted inclusion in the multinomial regression. Surgical duration was not significantly associated with the primary outcomes. However, the continuous variables of age and preoperative Defense and Veterans Pain Rating Scale score were associated with differences in primary outcomes. Every 1-year increase in the age was associated with a 5.06 increase in SPI12 and 5.73 mg increase in MED12. Every 1-point increase in the preoperative Defense and Veterans Pain Rating Scale score was associated with an 8.45 minutes increase in PACU duration, 11.25 increase in SPI12, 17.85 mg increase in MED12, and 20.83 mg increase in MED90. In regard to the primary outcomes, there was a lack of significant differences between the OFA and OA groups in all outcomes (PACU duration, mean SPI12, MED12, and MED90).

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the first matched cohort study directly comparing an OFA with a traditional anesthetic for general anesthesia in a wide range of surgical and clinical scenarios. There was no significant difference in SPI12 between the OFA group and OA group, suggesting that patients' subjective pain was similar immediately after surgery whether or not they received intraoperative opioids. Concurrently, no "catch-up" effect was observed as the PACU duration; MED12 and MED90 were not different between the OFA and OA groups. However, there were many covariates identified in this study because of the small sample size or each group. Additional research is needed to explore if these findings can be extrapolated to a larger more heterogeneous population. Our preliminary work suggests that eliminating patient exposure to opioids in the intraoperative period does not have a deleterious effect on perioperative patient outcomes.

摘要

引言

长期以来,麻醉医生一直使用多模式镇痛来有效控制疼痛。鉴于对阿片类药物即刻副作用以及易感患者中长期阿片类药物滥用问题的日益关注,阿片类药物节省型麻醉方法在从业者中越来越受欢迎。目前,关于全身麻醉期间无阿片类麻醉(OFA)后的结果,在知识方面存在关键差距。我们假设,通过麻醉后护理单元(PACU)时长、术后12小时累计疼痛强度(SPI12)评分、术后12小时住院期间使用的总吗啡当量剂量(MED12)以及90天门诊期间使用的总MED(MED90)等围手术期结果来衡量,无阿片类全身麻醉并不劣于传统阿片类麻醉(OA)。

材料与方法

纳入年龄≥18岁、符合美国麻醉医师协会I-IV级分类标准、2016年由单一麻醉提供者实施全身气管插管麻醉进行外科手术、术中未接受阿片类药物给药且在PACU恢复的患者。OFA组共纳入25例患者,OA组纳入29例对照患者(n = 54)。对术中记录、围手术期疼痛评分及药物使用情况(住院和门诊)进行回顾性病历审查,以获取分析主要结局的数据。

结果

在OFA组和OA组中,连续型结局均不呈正态分布。随后对指定的OA与OFA年龄(d = 0.58)、手术时长(d = 0.24)和术前疼痛评分(d = 0.51)进行的双变量检验表明,这些因素应纳入多项回归分析。手术时长与主要结局无显著相关性。然而,年龄和术前国防与退伍军人疼痛评定量表评分的连续变量与主要结局的差异相关。年龄每增加1岁,SPI12增加5.06,MED12增加5.73mg。术前国防与退伍军人疼痛评定量表评分每增加1分,PACU时长增加8.45分钟,SPI12增加11.25,MED12增加17.85mg,MED90增加20.83mg。关于主要结局,OFA组和OA组在所有结局(PACU时长、平均SPI12、MED12和MED90)方面均无显著差异。

结论

据我们所知,这是第一项在广泛的手术和临床场景中直接比较OFA与传统全身麻醉的匹配队列研究。OFA组和OA组之间SPI12无显著差异,这表明无论患者术中是否接受阿片类药物,术后即刻的主观疼痛相似。同时,未观察到PACU时长有“追赶”效应;OFA组和OA组之间MED12和MED90无差异。然而,由于每组样本量较小,本研究中确定了许多协变量。需要进一步研究以探讨这些发现是否可外推至更大、更具异质性的人群。我们的初步工作表明,在术中消除患者对阿片类药物的暴露对围手术期患者结局没有有害影响。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验