Resource use and costs associated with opioid-induced constipation following total hip or total knee replacement surgery.

PURPOSE: Constipation is a well-known complication of surgery that can be exacerbated by opioid analgesics. This study evaluated resource utilization and costs associated with opioid-induced constipation (OIC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective, observational, and propensity-matched cohort study utilized the Premier Healthcare Database. The study included adults ≥18 years of age undergoing total hip or total knee replacement as inpatients who received an opioid analgesic and were discharged between January 1, 2012, and June 30, 2015. Diagnosis codes identified patients with OIC who were then matched 1:1 to patients without OIC. Generalized linear and logistic regression models were used to compare inpatient resource utilization, total hospital costs, inpatient mortality, and 30-day all-cause readmissions and emergency department visits. RESULTS: Of 788,448 eligible patients, 40,891 (5.2%) had OIC. Covariates were well balanced between matched patients with and without OIC (n=40,890 each). In adjusted analyses, patients with OIC had longer hospital lengths of stay (3.6 versus 3.3 days; p<0.001), higher total hospital costs (US$17,479 versus US$16,265; p<0.001), greater risk of intensive care unit admission (odds ratio [OR]=1.12, 95% CI: 1.01-1.24), and increased likelihood of 30-day hospital read-missions (OR=1.16, 95% CI: 1.11-1.22) and emergency department visits (OR=1.38, 95% CI: 1.07-1.79) than patients without OIC. No statistically significant difference was found with inpatient mortality (OR=0.89, 95% CI: 0.59-1.35). CONCLUSION: OIC was associated with greater resource utilization and hospital costs for patients undergoing primarily elective total hip or total knee replacement surgery. These results support OIC screening and management strategies as part of perioperative care management.

Increased Burden of Healthcare Utilization and Cost Associated with Opioid-Related Constipation Among Patients with Noncancer Pain.

BACKGROUND: Opioids are widely accepted as treatment for moderate to severe pain, and opioid-induced constipation is one of the most common side effects of opioids. This side effect negatively affects pain management and patients' quality of life, which could result in increased healthcare utilization and costs. OBJECTIVE: To assess healthcare utilization and costs (all-cause, constipation-related, and pain-related) for individuals with and without opioid-induced constipation during the 12 months after initiation of opioid therapy for noncancer pain. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted using administrative claims data from HealthCore Integrated Research Environment between January 1, 2006, and June 30, 2014. The analysis was limited to patients aged ≥18 years who filled a prescription for continuous opioid treatment (≥28 days) for noncancer pain. Propensity scores were used to match opioid users with constipation (cohort 1) and opioid users without constipation (cohort 2), using a 1:1 ratio. Generalized linear models were used to estimate all-cause, constipation-related, and pain-related healthcare utilization and costs during the 12 months after the initiation of opioid therapy. RESULTS: After matching and balancing for all prespecified variables, 17,384 patients were retained in each cohort (mean age, 56 years; 63% female). Opioid users with constipation were twice as likely as those without constipation to have ≥1 inpatient hospitalizations (odds ratio, 2.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.17-2.39) during the 12 months. The total mean adjusted overall costs per patient during the study period were $12,413 higher for patients with constipation versus those without it (95% CI, $11,726-$13,116). The total mean adjusted overall pain-related costs per patient were $6778 (95% CI, $6293-$7279) higher for the patients with constipation than those without. Among patients using opioids for noncancer pain, the annual mean constipation-related costs per patient totaled $4646 (total average plan-paid costs, $4424; total patient-paid costs, $222). CONCLUSIONS: Patients using opioids with newly diagnosed constipation had significantly greater healthcare utilization and costs than patients without constipation; these costs accounted for approximately 16% of the total healthcare costs per patient during the 12-month study period. Recognition and effective treatment of opioid-induced constipation may decrease healthcare utilization for patients with chronic noncancer pain and may reduce the economic burden of pain therapy.

Dolasetron versus ondansetron for the treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting.

The management of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) remains a persistent problem. Despite the use of prophylactic antiemetics, breakthrough nausea and vomiting still frequently occur. There have been no published studies comparing dolasetron and ondansetron for the treatment of PONV. This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study in adult outpatient surgery patients. We screened 559 consecutive adult surgery patients, with 92 patients randomized to either ondansetron or dolasetron. The objectives of the study were 1) to determine whether treatment of PONV with ondansetron 4 mg IV or dolasetron 12.5 mg IV would result in better outcomes in patients undergoing day surgery and 2) to compare the cost of drugs used for treating PONV. Thirty-three (70%) of 47 patients given ondansetron required rescue medication, compared with 18 (40%) of 45 patients given dolasetron (P < 0.004). Dolasetron was approximately 40% less expensive than ondansetron, and the costs of the study drug plus rescue antiemetics were 30% less in the dolasetron group than in the ondansetron group. Dolasetron provided greater efficacy for antiemetic treatment because of the need for less rescue therapy. Because of the decreased use of rescue antiemetics and acquisition cost at our hospital, costs in the dolasetron group were less than costs in the ondansetron group.

Eliminating intensive postoperative care in same-day surgery patients using short-acting anesthetics.

BACKGROUND: A multidisciplinary effort was undertaken to determine whether patients could safely bypass the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) after same-day surgery by moving to an earlier time point evaluation of recovery criteria. METHODS: A prospective, outcomes research study with a baseline month, an intervention month, and a follow-up month was designed. Five surgical centers (three community-based hospitals and two freestanding ambulatory surgical centers) were utilized. Two thousand five hundred eight patients were involved in the baseline period, and 2,354 were involved in the follow-up period. Outcome measures included PACU bypass rates and adverse events. Intervention consisted of a multidisciplinary educational program and routine feedback reports. RESULTS: The overall PACU bypass rate (58%) was significantly different from baseline (15.9%, P < 0.001), for patients to whom a general anesthetic was administered (0.4-31.8%, P < 0.001), and for those given other anesthetic techniques (monitored anesthesia care, regional or local anesthetics; 29.1-84.2%, P < 0.001). During the follow-up period, the average (SD) recovery duration for patients who bypassed the PACU was significantly shorter compared to that for patients who did not bypass, 84.6 (61.5) versus 175.1 (98.8) min, P < 0.001, with no change in patient outcome. Patients receiving only short-acting anesthetics were 78% more likely (P < 0.002) to bypass the PACU after adjusting for various surgical procedures. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents a substantial change in clinical practice in the perioperative setting. Same-day surgical patients given short-acting anesthetic agents and who are awake, alert, and mobile requiring no parenteral pain medications and with no bleeding or nausea at the end of an operative procedure can safely bypass the PACU.