A bundle of opioid-sparing strategies to eliminate routine opioid prescribing in a urogynecology practice.

BACKGROUND: Current evidence supports that many patients do not use prescribed opioids following reconstructive pelvic surgery, yet it remains unclear if it is feasible to eliminate routine opioid prescriptions without a negative impact on patients or providers. OBJECTIVE: To determine if there is a difference in the proportion of patients discharged without opioids after implementing a bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol compared to usual care after minimally invasive pelvic reconstructive surgery (transvaginal, laparoscopic, or robotic). Secondary objectives include measures of patient-perceived pain control and provider workload. STUDY DESIGN: The bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol intervention was implemented as a division-wide evidence-based practice change on August 1, 2022. This retrospective cohort compares a 6-month postintervention (bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol) cohort to 6-month preintervention (usual care) of patients undergoing minimally invasive pelvic reconstructive surgery. A 3-month washout period was observed after bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol initiation. We excluded patients <18 years, failure to consent to research, combined surgery with other specialties, urge urinary incontinence or urinary retention procedures alone, and minor procedures not typically requiring opioids. Primary outcome was measured by proportion discharged without opioids and total oral morphine equivalents prescribed. Pain control was measured by pain scores, postdischarge prescriptions and refills, phone calls and visits related to pain, and satisfaction with pain control. Provider workload was demonstrated by phone calls and postdischarge prescription refills. Data were obtained through chart review on all patients who met inclusion criteria. Primary analysis only included patients prescribed opioids according to the bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol protocol. Two sample t tests compared continuous variables and chi-square tests compared categorical variables. RESULTS: Four hundred sixteen patients were included in the primary analysis (207 bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol, 209 usual care). Baseline demographics were similar between groups, except a lower proportion of irritable bowel syndrome (13% vs 23%; P<.01) and pelvic pain (15% vs 24.9%; P=.01), and higher history of prior gynecologic surgery (69.1% vs 58.4%; P=.02) in the bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol cohort. The bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol cohort was more likely to be discharged without opioids (68.1% vs 10.0%; P<.01). In those prescribed opioids, total oral morphine equivalents on discharge was significantly lower in the bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol cohort (48.1 vs 81.8; P<.01). The bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol cohort had a 20.6 greater odds (confidence interval 11.4, 37.1) of being discharged without opioids after adjusting for surgery type, arthritis/joint pain, IBS, pelvic pain, and contraindication to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol cohort was also less likely to receive a rescue opioid prescription after discharge (1.4% vs 9.5%; P=.03). There were no differences in opioid prescription refills (19.7% vs 18.1%; P=.77), emergency room visits for pain (3.4% vs 2.9%; P=.76), postoperative pain scores (mean 4.7 vs 4.0; P=.07), or patient satisfaction with pain control (81.5% vs 85.6%; P=.21). After bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol implementation, the proportion of postoperative phone calls for pain also decreased (12.6% vs 21.5%; P=.02). Similar results were identified when nonadherent prescribing was included in the analysis. CONCLUSION: A bundle of evidence-based opioid sparing strategies and tiered prescribing based on inpatient use increases the proportion of patients discharged without opioids after minimally invasive pelvic reconstructive surgery without evidence of uncontrolled pain or increased provider workload.

Pitfalls in Expiratory Flow Limitation Assessment at Peak Exercise in Children: Role of Thoracic Gas Compression.

PURPOSE: Thoracic gas compression and exercise-induced bronchodilation can influence the assessment of expiratory flow limitation (EFL) during cardiopulmonary exercise tests. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of thoracic gas compression and exercise-induced bronchodilation on the assessment of EFL in children with and without obesity. METHODS: Forty children (10.7 ± 1.0 yr; 27 obese; 15 with EFL) completed pulmonary function tests and incremental exercise tests. Inspiratory capacity maneuvers were performed during the incremental exercise test for the placement of tidal flow volume loops within the maximal expiratory flow volume (MEFV) loops, and EFL was calculated as the overlap between the tidal and the MEFV loops. MEFV loops were plotted with volume measured at the lung using plethysmography (MEFVp), with volume measured at the mouth using spirometry concurrent with measurements in the plethysmograph (MEFVm), and from spirometry before (MEFVpre) and after (MEFVpost) the incremental exercise test. Only the MEFVp loops were corrected for thoracic gas compression. RESULTS: Not correcting for thoracic gas compression resulted in incorrect diagnosis of EFL in 23% of children at peak exercise. EFL was 26% ± 15% VT higher for MEFVm compared with MEFVp (P < 0.001), with no differences between children with and without obesity (P = 0.833). The difference in EFL estimation using MEFVpre (37% ± 30% VT) and MEFVpost (31% ± 26% VT) did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.346). CONCLUSIONS: Not correcting the MEFV loops for thoracic gas compression leads to the overdiagnosis and overestimation of EFL. Because most commercially available metabolic measurement systems do not correct for thoracic gas compression during spirometry, there may be a significant overdiagnosis of EFL in cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Therefore, clinicians must exercise caution while interpreting EFL when the MEFV loop is derived through spirometry.