Association between Colonoscopy Sedation Type and Polyp Detection: A Registry-based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related death. Adenomas and serrated polyps are precursors of colorectal cancer, with serrated polyps being more difficult to detect during colonoscopy. The relationship between propofol use and polyp detection remains unclear. The authors investigated the association of propofol-based versus mild-moderate sedation on adenoma and serrated polyp detection during colonoscopy. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used observational data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. Patients aged greater than 50 yr with screening or surveillance colonoscopies between January 1, 2015, and February 28, 2020, were included. Exclusions were diagnostic examinations, no sedation, missing pathology data, and poor bowel preparation. Multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate differences in polyp detection between propofol and moderate sedation in the full sample while adjusting for covariates. Propensity score adjustment and clustering at the endoscopist level were used in a restricted sample analysis that included endoscopists and facilities with between 5% and 95% propofol sedation use. RESULTS: A total of 54,063 colonoscopies were analyzed in the full sample and 18,998 in the restricted sample. Serrated polyp prevalence was significantly higher using propofol (9,957 of 29,312; 34.0% [95% CI, 33.4 to 34.5%]) versus moderate sedation (6,066 of 24,751; 24.5% [95% CI, 24.0 to 25.1%]) in the full sample and restricted samples (1,410 of 4,661; 30.3% [95% CI, 28.9 to 31.6%] vs. 3,690 of 14,337; 25.7% [95% CI, 25.0 to 26.5%]). In the full sample multivariate logistic regression, propofol was associated with higher neoplasm (adjusted odds ratio, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.21 to 1.29]), adenoma (odds ratio, 1.07 [95% CI, 1.03 to 1.11]), and serrated polyp detection (odds ratio, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.46 to 1.57]). In the restricted sample using inverse probability of treatment weighted propensity score adjustment and clustering at the endoscopist level, an attenuated but statistically significant effect size was observed for serrated polyps (odds ratio, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.07 to 1.19]), but not for adenomas (odds ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.95 to 1.05]) or any neoplastic lesion (odds ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.98 to 1.08]). CONCLUSIONS: Propofol sedation during colonoscopy may be associated with improved detection of serrated polyps, but not adenomas.

A prospective, randomized trial of liposomal bupivacaine compared to conventional bupivacaine on pain control and postoperative opioid use in adults receiving adductor canal blocks for total knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a commonly performed procedure to alleviate pain and improve functional limitations caused by end-stage joint damage. Effective management of postoperative pain following TKA is crucial to the prevention of complications and enhancement of recovery. Adductor canal blocks (ACB) with conventional bupivacaine (CB) provide adequate analgesia after TKA, but carry a risk of rebound pain following block resolution. Liposomal bupivacaine (LB) is an extended-release local anesthetic that can provide up to 72 h of pain relief. The objective of this study was to compare postoperative outcomes between ACBs using LB and CB after TKA. METHODS: This single institution, prospective, randomized, clinical trial enrolled patients scheduled for TKA. Participants were randomized to receive ACB with either LB or CB. Pain scores up to 72 h postoperatively were assessed as the primary outcome. Opioid consumption and length of stay were evaluated as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 80 patients were enrolled. Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar between the two groups. LB group showed significantly lower cumulative opioid use during the 72 h evaluated (P = 0.016). There were no differences in pain scores or length of stay between the groups. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated that LB ACBs led to significantly lower opioid consumption in the days following TKA without affecting pain scores or length of stay. This finding has important implications for improving postoperative outcomes and reducing opioid use in TKA patients. Previous studies have reported inconsistent results regarding the benefits of LB, highlighting the need for further research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This project was retrospectively registered with clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT05635916 ) on 2 December 2022.

Buprenorphine Continuation During Critical Illness Associated With Decreased Inpatient Opioid Use in Individuals Maintained on Buprenorphine for Opioid Use Disorder in a Retrospective Study.

The number of patients maintained on buprenorphine is steadily increasing. To date, no study has reported buprenorphine management practices for these patients during critical illness, nor its relationship with supplemental full-agonist opioid administration during their hospital stay. In this single-center retrospective study, we have explored the incidence of buprenorphine continuation during critical illness among patients receiving buprenorphine for the treatment of opioid use disorder. Additionally, we investigated the relationship between nonbuprenorphine opioid exposure and buprenorphine administration during the intensive care unit (ICU) and post-ICU phases of care. Our study included adults maintained on buprenorphine for opioid use disorder admitted to the ICU between December 1, 2014, and May 31, 2019. Nonbuprenorphine, full agonist opioid doses were converted to fentanyl equivalents (FEs). Fifty-one (44%) patients received buprenorphine during the ICU phase of care, with an average dose of 8 (8-12) mg/day. During the post-ICU phase of care, 68 (62%) received buprenorphine, with an average dose of 10 (7-14) mg/day. Lack of mechanical ventilation and acetaminophen use were also associated with buprenorphine use. Full agonist opioid use was more frequent on days when buprenorphine was not given (odds ratio [OR], 6.2 [95% CI, 2.3-16.4]; P < .001). Additionally, the average cumulative dose of opioids given on nonbuprenorphine administration days was significantly higher both in the ICU (OR, 1803 [95% CI, 1271-2553] vs OR, 327 [95% CI, 152-708] FEs/day; P < 0.001) and after ICU discharge (OR, 1476 [95% CI, 962-2265] vs OR, 238 [95% CI, 150-377] FEs/day; P < .001). Given these findings, buprenorphine continuation during critical illness should be considered, as it is associated with significantly decreased full agonist opioid use.

Does Pain Reduction with Oral Steroids Predict Pain Reduction after a First-Time Cervical Epidural Steroid Injection in Patients with Cervical Radicular Pain? A Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVE: Oral and injected steroids are used commonly in the treatment of cervical radicular pain despite a paucity of data demonstrating their efficacy. The purpose of this study is to assess whether the response to orally administered steroids among patients with acute cervical radicular pain who develop recurrent pain is associated with their subsequent response to cervical epidural steroid injections. METHODS: Patients referred to our center were evaluated and then referred for cervical epidural steroid injections at the clinical discretion of the provider; those who met inclusion criteria were offered participation in the study. After the injection was administered, patients were contacted by telephone and asked to complete the Brief Pain Inventory Short Form at one week, one month, three months, and six months postinjection. RESULTS: Pain reduction after cervical steroid injection was not significantly different between 49 patients who reported pain reduction with a prior course of oral steroids and 22 patients who reported no pain reduction. Average pain scores decreased over six months (P < 0.001) among 72 patients treated with epidural steroid injection for cervical radicular pain. Of the 55 who provided baseline and six-month data, 14 (25.5%) reported complete relief at six months and 20 (36.4%) reported decreased pain. CONCLUSIONS: Patients can be reassured that they may experience pain reduction after a cervical epidural steroid injection even if oral steroid therapy was not effective. The majority of patients treated for cervical radicular pain with epidural steroid injection have reduced or absent pain for at least six months after treatment.