Noninferiority trials in acute pain research: a valid approach or a slippery slope?

The conduct and reporting of studies with a noninferiority hypothesis is challenging because of the complexity involved in their design and interpretation. However, studies with a noninferiority design have increased in popularity. A recently published trial reported on the noninferiority of lidocaine infusion to epidural analgesia in major abdominal surgeries. Apart from needing a critical appraisal, this draws attention to improve our understanding of noninferiority study framework and its unique features. Given the increasing focus on using various analgesic adjuncts and multiple approaches to fascial plane blocks to avoid more definitive and standard approaches, it is imperative that particular attention is paid to appropriate execution and reporting of noninferiority studies.

Opioid-free general anesthesia: considerations, techniques, and limitations.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To discuss the role of opioids during general anesthesia and examine their advantages and risks in the context of clinical practice. We define opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) as the absolute avoidance of intraoperative opioids. RECENT FINDINGS: In most minimally invasive and short-duration procedures, nonopioid analgesics, analgesic adjuvants, and local/regional analgesia can significantly spare the amount of intraoperative opioid needed. OFA should be considered in the context of tailoring to a specific patient and procedure, not as a universal approach. Strategies considered for OFA involve several adjuncts with low therapeutic range, requiring continuous infusions and resources, with potential for delayed recovery or other side effects, including increased short-term and long-term pain. No evidence indicates that OFA leads to decreased long-term opioid-related harms. SUMMARY: Complete avoidance of intraoperative opioids remains questionable, as it does not necessarily ensure avoidance of postoperative opioids. Multimodal analgesia including local/regional anesthesia may allow OFA for selected, minimally invasive surgeries, but further research is necessary in surgeries with high postoperative opioid requirements. Until there is definitive evidence regarding procedure and patient-specific combinations as well as the dose and duration of administration of adjunct agents, it is imperative to practice opioid-sparing approach in the intraoperative period.

Use of Psychedelics for Pain: A Scoping Review.

Chronic pain is a public health concern that affects approximately 1.5 billion people globally. Conventional therapeutic agents including opioid and non-opioid analgesics have been associated with adverse side effects, issues with addiction, and ineffective analgesia. Novel agents repurposed to treat pain via different mechanisms are needed to fill the therapeutic gap in chronic pain management. Psychedelics such as lysergic acid diethylamide and psilocybin (the active ingredient in psychedelic mushrooms) are thought to alter pain perception through direct serotonin receptor agonism, anti-inflammatory effects, and synaptic remodeling. This scoping review was conducted to identify human studies in which psychedelic agents were used for the treatment of pain. Twenty-one articles that assessed the effects of psychedelics in treating various pain states were included. The present scarcity of clinical trials and small sample sizes limit their application for clinical use. Overall, psychedelics appear to show promise for analgesia in patients with certain headache disorders and cancer pain diagnoses. Future studies must aim to examine the combined effects of psychotherapy and psychedelics on chronic pain.

Preoperative assessment of postoperative delirium: a cross-sectional study of patients and anesthesiologists in Canada.

PURPOSE: We sought to evaluate 1) patient- and anesthesiologist-reported rates of postoperative delirium (POD) risk discussion during preoperative meetings, 2) patients' and anesthesiologists' ratings of the importance of POD, and 3) predictors of patient-reported discussion of POD risk during preoperative meetings. METHODS: In this multicentre two-part cross-sectional survey study, patients ≥ 65 yr scheduled to undergo elective noncardiac surgery completed a five-minute survey after preoperative anesthesia consultation. Patients were asked about their perception of POD importance, and whether they discussed or were assessed for POD risk. Anesthesiologists were surveyed using self-administered surveys circulated via institutional email lists. Anesthesiologists were asked about the frequency of POD risk assessment and discussion in older adults, tools used, and perception of POD-screening barriers. RESULTS: Four hundred and twelve (of 510 approached) patients (50% male; mean age, 73 yr) and 267 anesthesiologists (of 1,205 invited via e-mail) participated in this study conducted in five Canadian hospitals. Postoperative delirium screening and discussion was reported by 88/412 (22%) patients and 229/267 (86%) anesthesiologists. Postoperative delirium was rated as "somewhat-extremely" important by 64% of patients. A previous history of delirium, higher education, the number of daily medications, and longer surgical duration were associated with POD discussion. On average, anesthesiologists rated the importance of POD at 8/10, and 42% ranked "patient risk factors" as the top reason prompting discussion. CONCLUSION: The combined evaluation of patients' and anesthesiologists' perspectives provides valuable information on preoperative POD screening and risk assessment, and highlights areas for improvement in the current practice. Most factors we identified to be associated with higher odds of POD discussion are recognized risk factors of POD.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Nous avons cherché à évaluer 1) les taux de discussion concernant le risque de delirium postopératoire (DPO) déclarés par les patient·es et les anesthésiologistes lors des rencontres préopératoires, 2) les évaluations des patient·es et des anesthésiologistes de l'importance de DPO, et 3) les prédicteurs d'une discussion telle que rapportée par les patient·es sur le risque de DPO pendant les rencontres préopératoires. MéTHODE: Dans ce sondage transversal multicentrique en deux parties, les patient·es ≥ 65 ans devant subir une chirurgie non cardiaque non urgente ont rempli un sondage de cinq minutes après la consultation d'anesthésie préopératoire. Les patient·es ont été interrogé·es sur leur perception de l'importance du DPO et si leur risque de DPO avait été discuté ou évalué. Des sondages auto-administrés ont été distribués aux anesthésiologistes via les listes de courriels institutionnelles. Ce sondage interrogeait les anesthésiologistes quant à la fréquence de l'évaluation et de la discussion des risques de DPO chez les personnes âgées, aux outils utilisés et à la perception des obstacles au dépistage de DPO. RéSULTATS: Quatre cent douze (des 510 personnes approchées) patient·es (50 % d'hommes; âge moyen, 73 ans) et 267 anesthésiologistes (sur 1205 invité·es par courriel) ont participé à cette étude menée dans cinq hôpitaux canadiens. Le dépistage et la discussion sur le delirium postopératoire ont été signalés par 88/412 (22 %) des patient·es et 229/267 (86 %) des anesthésiologistes. Le delirium postopératoire a été jugé « assez ­ extrêmement ¼ important par 64 % des patient·es. Des antécédents de delirium, des études supérieures, le nombre de médicaments quotidiens et une durée chirurgicale plus longue ont été associés à la discussion sur le DPO. En moyenne, les anesthésiologistes ont évalué l'importance du DPO à 8/10, et 42 % ont classé les « facteurs de risque liés au/à la patient·e ¼ comme la principale raison suscitant la discussion. CONCLUSION: L'évaluation combinée des points de vue des patient·es et des anesthésiologistes fournit des informations précieuses sur le dépistage préopératoire des DPO et l'évaluation des risques, et met en évidence les domaines à améliorer dans la pratique actuelle. La plupart des facteurs que nous avons identifiés comme étant associés à des probabilités plus élevées de discussion sur le DPO sont des facteurs de risque reconnus de DPO.

Reducing rebound pain severity after arthroscopic shoulder surgery under general anesthesia and interscalene block: a two-centre randomized controlled trial of pre-emptive opioid treatment compared with placebo.

PURPOSE: Although a single-injection interscalene block provides effective early postoperative analgesia following shoulder surgery, patients may experience "rebound pain" when the block resolves. Our objective was to determine if oral hydromorphone (2 mg) given six hours after a single-injection interscalene block for arthroscopic shoulder surgery leads to a clinically significant reduction in the severity of rebound pain. METHODS: After approval from research ethics boards, we conducted a two-centre, parallel-group, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled superiority trial. Patients received preoperative interscalene block, general anesthesia, and either hydromorphone or placebo six hours after the block. The primary outcome was the worst pain score in the first 24 hr postoperatively, measured on an 11-point (0-10) numerical rating scale. RESULTS: A total of 73 participants were randomly assigned to either the hydromorphone or placebo group. There was no statistically significant difference in the mean (standard deviation) worst pain score within 24 hr between the hydromorphone and placebo groups (6.5 [2.4] vs 5.9 [2.3]; mean difference, 0.6; 95% confidence interval, -0.5 to 1.8). Similarly, we did not find any significant difference in the pain trajectory, opioid use, or incidence of nausea and vomiting between the groups. The mean time to worst pain was 14.6 hr, and the mean time to first rescue analgesia was 11.3 hr after interscalene block. CONCLUSION: Hydromorphone 2 mg given six hours after interscalene block did not reduce the severity of rebound pain postoperatively compared with placebo in patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02939209); registered 19 October 2016.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Bien qu'un bloc interscalénique à injection unique fournisse une analgésie postopératoire précoce efficace après une chirurgie de l'épaule, les patient·es peuvent ressentir une « douleur de rebond ¼ lorsque le bloc se résorbe. Notre objectif était de déterminer si l'hydromorphone orale (2 mg) administrée six heures après une injection unique de bloc interscalénique pour une chirurgie arthroscopique de l'épaule entraînait une réduction cliniquement significative de la gravité de la douleur de rebond. MéTHODE: Après l'approbation des comités d'éthique de la recherche, nous avons mené une étude de supériorité dans deux centres, en groupes parallèles, à double insu, randomisée et contrôlée par placebo. Les patient·es ont reçu un bloc interscalénique préopératoire, une anesthésie générale et de l'hydromorphone ou un placebo six heures après le bloc. Le critère d'évaluation principal était le pire score de douleur au cours des premières 24 heures postopératoires, mesuré sur une échelle d'évaluation numérique de 11 points (0 à 10). RéSULTATS: Au total, 73 personnes ont participé à l'étude et ont été aléatoirement assignées au groupe hydromorphone ou au groupe placebo. Il n'y avait pas de différence statistiquement significative dans le score moyen (écart type) de la pire douleur dans les 24 heures entre les groupes hydromorphone et placebo (6,5 [2,4] vs 5,9 [2,3]; différence moyenne, 0,6; intervalle de confiance à 95 %, −0,5 à 1,8). De même, nous n'avons trouvé aucune différence significative dans la trajectoire de la douleur, la consommation d'opioïdes ou l'incidence de nausées et vomissements entre les groupes. Le temps moyen jusqu'à la pire douleur était de 14,6 heures, et le temps moyen jusqu'à la première analgésie de secours était de 11,3 heures après le bloc interscalénique. CONCLUSION: L'hydromorphone 2 mg administrée six heures après le bloc interscalénique n'a pas réduit la gravité de la douleur de rebond postopératoire par rapport au placebo chez les patient·es bénéficiant d'une chirurgie arthroscopique de l'épaule. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02939209); enregistrée le 19 octobre 2016.

Opioid versus non-opioid analgesia for spine surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: Opioids are the primary analgesics used in patients undergoing spine surgery. Postoperative pain is common despite their liberal use and so are opioid-associated side effects. Non-opioid analgesics are gaining popularity as alternative to opioids in spine surgery. METHODS: This systematic review evaluated current evidence regarding opioid and non-opioid intraoperative analgesia and their influence on immediate postoperative pain and adverse events in spine surgery. RESULTS: A total of 10,459 records were obtained by searching Medline, EMBASE and Web of Science databases and six randomized controlled trials were included. Differences in postoperative pain scores between opioid and non-opioid groups were not significant at 1 h: 4 studies, mean difference (MD) = 0.65 units, 95% confidence intervals (CI) [-0.12 to 1.41], p = 0.10, but favored non-opioid at 24 h after surgery: 3 studies, MD = 0.75 units, 95%CI [0.03 to 1.46], p = 0.04. The time for first postoperative analgesic requirement was shorter (MD = -45.06 min, 95%CI [-72.50 to -17.62], p = 0.001), and morphine consumption during first 24 h after surgery was higher in opioid compared to non-opioid group (MD = 4.54 mg, 95%CI [3.26 to 5.82], p < 0.00001). Adverse effects of postoperative nausea and vomiting (Relative risk (RR) = 2.15, 95%CI [1.37 to 3.38], p = 0.0009) and shivering (RR = 2.52, 95%CI [1.08 to 5.89], p = 0.03) were higher and bradycardia was lower (RR = 0.35, 95%CI [0.17 to 0.71], p = 0.004) with opioid analgesia. CONCLUSION: The certainty of evidence on GRADE assessment is low for studied outcomes. Available evidence supports intraoperative non-opioid analgesia for overall postoperative pain outcomes in spine surgery. More research is needed to find the best drug combination and dosing regimen. Prospero Registration: CRD42020209042.

The practice of regional anesthesia during the COVID-19 pandemic: an international survey of members of three regional anesthesia societies.

PURPOSE: To determine the preferences and attitudes of members of regional anesthesia societies during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We distributed an electronic survey to members of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, Regional Anaesthesia-UK, and the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia & Pain Therapy. A questionnaire consisting of 19 questions was developed by a panel of experienced regional anesthesiologists and distributed by email to the participants. The survey covered the following domains: participant information, practice settings, preference for the type of anesthetic technique, the use of personal protective equipment, and oxygen therapy. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 729 participants from 73 different countries, with a response rate of 20.1% (729/3,630) for the number of emails opened and 8.5% (729/8,572) for the number of emails sent. Most respondents (87.7%) identified as anesthesia staff (faculty or consultant) and practiced obstetric and non-obstetric anesthesia (55.3%). The practice of regional anesthesia either expanded or remained the same, with only 2% of respondents decreasing their use compared with the pre-pandemic period. The top reasons for an increase in the use of regional anesthesia was to reduce the need for an aerosol-generating medical procedure and to reduce the risk of possible complications to patients. The most common reason for decreased use of regional anesthesia was the risk of urgent conversion to general anesthesia. Approximately 70% of the responders used airborne precautions when providing care to a patient under regional anesthesia. The most common oxygen delivery method was nasal prongs (cannula) with a surgical mask layered over it (61%). CONCLUSIONS: Given the perceived benefits of regional over general anesthesia, approximately half of the members of three regional anesthesia societies seem to have expanded their use of regional anesthesia techniques during the initial surge of the COVID-19 pandemic.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Déterminer les préférences et les attitudes des membres des sociétés d'anesthésie régionale pendant la pandémie de COVID-19. MéTHODE: Nous avons distribué un sondage électronique aux membres de l'American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, de Regional Anesthesia-UK et de l'European Society of Regional Anaesthesia & Pain Therapy. Un questionnaire composé de 19 questions a été élaboré par un panel d'anesthésiologistes régionaux d'expérience et distribué par courriel aux participants. Le sondage couvrait les domaines suivants : les renseignements sur les participants, les contextes de pratique, leur préférence quant au type de technique d'anesthésie, l'utilisation d'équipement de protection individuelle et l'oxygénothérapie RéSULTATS: Le sondage a été complété par 729 participants provenant de 73 pays différents, avec un taux de réponse de 20,1 % (729/3630) pour le nombre de courriels ouverts et de 8,5 % (729/8572) pour le nombre de courriels envoyés. La plupart des répondants (87,7 %) se sont identifiés comme anesthésiologistes (académique ou consultant) et pratiquaient l'anesthésie obstétricale et non obstétricale (55,3 %). Leur pratique de l'anesthésie régionale s'est étendue ou est demeurée inchangée, et seulement 2 % des répondants ont indiqué avoir diminué leur utilisation de cette pratique par rapport à la période pré-pandémique. Les principales raisons d'une augmentation de l'utilisation de l'anesthésie régionale étaient de réduire la nécessité d'une intervention médicale générant des aérosols et de réduire le risque de complications potentielles pour les patients. La raison la plus courante de diminution du recours à l'anesthésie régionale était le risque de conversion urgente à une anesthésie générale. Environ 70 % des intervenants ont utilisé des précautions en matière de propagation des aérosols lorsqu'ils procuraient des soins à un patient sous anesthésie régionale. La méthode d'administration d'oxygène la plus fréquemment utilisée était les canules nasales avec un masque chirurgical superposé (61 %). CONCLUSION: Compte tenu des avantages perçus de l'anesthésie régionale par rapport à l'anesthésie générale, environ la moitié des membres de trois sociétés d'anesthésie régionale semblent avoir élargi leur utilisation des techniques d'anesthésie régionale pendant la vague initiale de la pandémie de COVID-19.

Reduction of opioid use after orthopedic surgery: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The opioid epidemic is one of the biggest public health crises of our time, and overprescribing of opioids after surgery has the potential to lead to long-term use. The purpose of this review was to identify and summarize the available evidence on interventions aimed at reducing opioid use after orthopedic surgery. METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, Embase and Medline from inception until August 2019 for studies comparing interventions aimed at reducing opioid use after orthopedic surgery to a control group. We recorded demographic data and data on intervention success, and recorded or calculated percent opioid reduction compared to control. RESULTS: We included 141 studies (20 963 patients) in the review, of which 113 (80.1%) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 6 (4.3%) were prospective cohort studies, 16 (11.4%) were retrospective cohort studies, 5 (3.6%) were case reports, and 1 (0.7%) was a case series. The majority of studies (95 [67.4%]) had a follow-up duration of 2 days or less. Interventions included the use of local anesthetics and/or nerve blocks (42 studies [29.8%]), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (31 [22.0%]), neuropathic pain medications (9 [6.4%]) and multimodal analgesic combinations (25 [17.7%]. In 127 studies (90.1%), a significant decrease in postoperative opioid consumption compared to the control intervention was reported; the median opioid reduction in these studies was 39.7% (range 5%-100%). Despite these reductions in opioid use, the effect on pain scores and on incidence of adverse effects was inconsistent. CONCLUSION: There is a large body of evidence from randomized trials showing the promise of a variety of interventions for reducing opioid use after orthopedic surgery. Rigorously designed RCTs are needed to determine the ideal interventions or combination of interventions for reducing opioid use, for the good of patients, medicine and society.

Perioperative Opioid Administration.

Opioids form an important component of general anesthesia and perioperative analgesia. Discharge opioid prescriptions are identified as a contributor for persistent opioid use and diversion. In parallel, there is increased enthusiasm to advocate opioid-free strategies, which include a combination of known analgesics and adjuvants, many of which are in the form of continuous infusions. This article critically reviews perioperative opioid use, especially in view of opioid-sparing versus opioid-free strategies. The data indicate that opioid-free strategies, however noble in their cause, do not fully acknowledge the limitations and gaps within the existing evidence and clinical practice considerations. Moreover, they do not allow analgesic titration based on patient needs; are unclear about optimal components and their role in different surgical settings and perioperative phases; and do not serve to decrease the risk of persistent opioid use, thereby distracting us from optimizing pain and minimizing realistic long-term harms.

Persistent Incisional Pain after Noncardiac Surgery: An International Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence, characteristics, impact, and risk factors associated with persistent incisional pain. The hypothesis was that patient demographics and perioperative interventions are associated with persistent pain. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of an international prospective cohort study from 2012 to 2014. This study included patients who were 45 yr of age or older who underwent major inpatient noncardiac surgery. Data were collected perioperatively and at 1 yr after surgery to assess for the development of persistent incisional pain (pain present around incision at 1 yr after surgery). RESULTS: Among 14,831 patients, 495 (3.3%; 95% CI, 3.1 to 3.6) reported persistent incisional pain at 1 yr, with an average pain intensity of 3.6 ± 2.5 (0 to 10 numeric rating scale), with 35% and 14% reporting moderate and severe pain intensities, respectively. More than half of patients with persistent pain reported needing analgesic medications, and 85% reported interference with daily activities (denominator = 495 in the above proportions). Risk factors for persistent pain included female sex (P = 0.007), Asian ethnicity (P < 0.001), surgery for fracture (P < 0.001), history of chronic pain (P < 0.001), coronary artery disease (P < 0.001), history of tobacco use (P = 0.048), postoperative patient-controlled analgesia (P < 0.001), postoperative continuous nerve block (P = 0.010), insulin initiation within 24 h of surgery (P < 0.001), and withholding nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication or cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors on the day of surgery (P = 0.029 and P < 0.001, respectively). Older age (P < 0.001), endoscopic surgery (P = 0.005), and South Asian (P < 0.001), Native American/Australian (P = 0.004), and Latin/Hispanic ethnicities (P < 0.001) were associated with a lower risk of persistent pain. CONCLUSIONS: Persistent incisional pain is a common complication of inpatient noncardiac surgery, occurring in approximately 1 in 30 adults. It results in significant morbidity, interferes with daily living, and is associated with persistent analgesic consumption. Certain demographics, ethnicities, and perioperative practices are associated with increased risk of persistent pain.

Perioperative Pain and Addiction Interdisciplinary Network (PAIN): consensus recommendations for perioperative management of cannabis and cannabinoid-based medicine users by a modified Delphi process.

In many countries, liberalisation of the legislation regulating the use of cannabis has outpaced rigorous scientific studies, and a growing number of patients presenting for surgery consume cannabis regularly. Research to date suggests that cannabis can impact perioperative outcomes. We present recommendations obtained using a modified Delphi method for the perioperative care of cannabis-using patients. A steering committee was formed and a review of medical literature with respect to perioperative cannabis use was conducted. This was followed by the recruitment of a panel of 17 experts on the care of cannabis-consuming patients. Panellists were blinded to each other's participation and were provided with rater forms exploring the appropriateness of specific perioperative care elements. The completed rater forms were analysed for consensus. The expert panel was then unblinded and met to discuss the rater form analyses. Draft recommendations were then created and returned to the expert panel for further comment. The draft recommendations were also sent to four independent reviewers (a surgeon, a nurse practitioner, and two patients). The collected feedback was used to finalise the recommendations. The major recommendations obtained included emphasising the importance of eliciting a history of cannabis use, quantifying it, and ensuring contact with a cannabis authoriser (if one exists). Recommendations also included the consideration of perioperative cannabis weaning, additional postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis, and additional attention to monitoring and maintaining anaesthetic depth. Postoperative recommendations included anticipating increased postoperative analgesic requirements and maintaining vigilance for cannabis withdrawal syndrome.

The Use of Contrast Agents in Interventional Pain Procedures: A Multispecialty and Multisociety Practice Advisory on Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis, Gadolinium Deposition in the Brain, Encephalopathy After Unintentional Intrathecal Gadolinium Injection, and Hypersensitivity Reactions.

This Practice Advisory presents a comprehensive and evidence-based set of position statements and recommendations for the use of contrast media in interventional pain procedures. The advisory was established by an international panel of experts under the auspices of 11 multinational and multispecialty organizations based on a comprehensive review of the literature up to December 31, 2019. The advisory discusses the risks of using gadolinium-based contrast agents. These include nephrogenic systemic fibrosis, gadolinium brain deposition/retention, and encephalopathy and death after an unintentional intrathecal gadolinium injection. The advisory provides recommendations on the selection of a specific gadolinium-based contrast agent in patients with renal insufficiency, those who had multiple gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging examinations, and in cases of paraspinal injections. Additionally, recommendations are made for patients who have a history of mild, moderate, or severe hypersensitivity reactions to contrast medium.

Hydromorphone versus morphine: a historical cohort study to evaluate the quality of postoperative analgesia.

PURPOSE: Opioids are the most widely used therapy for pain during the postoperative period. It has been suggested by some that hydromorphone is clinically superior. Our primary objective was to determine if there is a difference in postoperative pain score ratings between adult patients receiving intravenous hydromorphone vs intravenous morphine on discharge from the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU). METHODS: For this historical cohort study, convenience sampling was used to identify the first 605 patients ≥ 18 yr undergoing elective, non-cardiac surgery. Patients were categorized based on treatment in the PACU with hydromorphone (n = 326) or morphine (n = 279). Pain scores (scale of 0-10), nausea/vomiting (scale of 0-3), pruritis (scale of 0-3), and sedation (scale of 0-4), as well as total opioid dose administered from arrival in the PACU until readiness to discharge were evaluated. RESULTS: For the primary outcome of pain reported at discharge from the PACU, there was no significant difference between the mean (standard deviation) hydromorphone numeric rating scale (NRS) [2.8 (1.6)] and the morphine NRS [2.5 (1.5)] after adjusting for potential confounders (adjusted mean difference, 0.10; 95% confidence interval, -0.21 to 0.42; P = 0.53). Similarly, there were no significant between-group differences in length of stay in the PACU, satisfactory analgesia, nausea/vomiting, and sedation. CONCLUSION: This study serves to help guide the decision-making process for selecting either morphine or hydromorphone for acute postoperative analgesia. Overall, we found no significant difference for analgesia or for common opioid-related adverse effects between these two opioids in the postoperative period at the time of discharge from the PACU. Furthermore, according to this data, the equipotency ratio of hydromorphone to morphine is closer to 1:6.5 rather than the commonly employed 1:5 ratio.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les opioïdes sont le traitement le plus fréquemment utilisé pour prendre en charge la douleur postopératoire. Certains auteurs suggèrent que l'hydromorphone est supérieure d'un point de vue clinique. Notre objectif principal était de déterminer s'il existait une différence dans les scores de douleur postopératoire entre des patients adultes ayant reçu de l'hydromorphone intraveineuse comparativement à de la morphine intraveineuse lors de leur congé de la salle de réveil. MéTHODE: Pour cette étude de cohorte historique, un échantillonnage de commodité a été utilisé pour identifier les premiers 605 patients ≥ 18 ans subissant une chirurgie non cardiaque non urgente. Les patients ont été catégorisés en fonction du traitement reçu à la salle de réveil, soit hydromorphone (n = 326) ou morphine (n = 279). Les scores de douleur (échelle de 0-10), les nausées et vomissements (échelle de 0-3), le prurit (échelle de 0-3) et la sédation (échelle de 0-4), ainsi que la dose totale d'opioïdes administrés entre l'arrivée en salle de réveil et le moment de recevoir le congé ont été évalués. RéSULTATS: En ce qui touche à notre critère d'évaluation principal de douleur rapportée au moment du congé de la salle de réveil, aucune différence significative n'a été observée entre le score moyen (écart type) de l'hydromorphone sur l'échelle d'évaluation numérique (EEN) [2,8 (1,6)] et celui de la morphine [2,5 (1,5)] après avoir ajusté les valeurs pour tenir compte des facteurs de confusion potentiels (différence moyenne ajustée, 0,10; intervalle de confiance 95 %, -0,21 à 0,42; P = 0,53). De la même manière, aucune différence intergroupe significative n'a été observée en matière de durée de séjour à la salle de réveil, d'analgésie satisfaisante, de nausées et vomissements, et de sédation. CONCLUSION: Cette étude sert à guider le processus de prise de décision lors du choix de la morphine ou de l'hydromorphone pour l'analgésie postopératoire aiguë. Globalement, nous n'avons observé aucune différence significative dans l'analgésie procurée ou les effets secondaires néfastes liés aux opioïdes entre ces deux molécules en période postopératoire au moment du congé de la salle de réveil. En outre, selon ces données, le ratio d'efficacité équivalente de l'hydromorphone par rapport à la morphine est plus proche de 1:6,5 que du ratio fréquemment utilisé de 1:5.

Addition of corticosteroids to local anaesthetics for chronic non-cancer pain injections: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Despite common use, the benefit of adding steroids to local anaesthetics (SLA) for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) injections is uncertain. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of English-language RCTs to assess the benefit and safety of adding steroids to local anaesthetics (LA) for CNCP. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases from inception to May 2019. Trial selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Outcomes were guided by the Initiative in Methods, Measurements, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) statement with pain improvement as the primary outcome and pooled using random effects model and reported as relative risks (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Among 5097 abstracts, 73 trials were eligible. Although SLA increased the rate of success (42 trials, 3592 patients; RR=1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.25; number needed to treat [NNT], 13), the effect size decreased by nearly 50% (NNT, 22) with the removal of two intrathecal injection studies. The differences in pain scores with SLA were not clinically meaningful (54 trials, 4416 patients, MD=0.44 units; 95% CI, 0.24-0.65). No differences were observed in other outcomes or adverse events. No subgroup effects were detected based on clinical categories. Meta-regression showed no significant association with steroid dose or length of follow-up and pain relief. CONCLUSIONS: Addition of cortico steroids to local anaesthetic has only small benefits and a potential for harm. Injection of local anaesthetic alone could be therapeutic, beyond being diagnostic. A shared decision based on patient preferences should be considered. If used, one must avoid high doses and series of steroid injections. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO #: CRD42015020614.

Interventional pain management for chronic pain: a survey of physicians in Canada.

PURPOSE: The use of interventional pain management (IPM) modalities to alleviate chronic pain is increasing despite the lack of high-quality evidence. We undertook this survey to explore patterns, training, and attributes of IPM practice. METHODS: We administered a 32-item survey via seven Canadian physician member organizations, whose members were engaged in the management of chronic pain. RESULTS: Of 777 physicians contacted, 256 (33%) responded: 45 (6%) declined to participate and 211 (27%) agreed to participate; the number of participants answering any given question varied. One hundred and sixty-nine of 194 (87%) practiced IPM and 103 of 194 (53%) managed only non-cancer pain. Pain management training of ≥ six months was associated with higher odds of IPM training (odds ratio [OR], 2.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32 to 6.7), but not necessarily ongoing IPM practice (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 0.74 to 5.3). A substantial percentage of physicians (108 of 168 [64%]) practiced IPM based only on training received during either their base residency program or courses. Only 48 of 186 (26%) felt that there were adequate opportunities for IPM training, and 69 of 186 (37%) believed that their colleagues practiced IPM in accordance with the best current evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey indicates that IPM practice and training were not uniform, and that interventional therapies for chronic pain may not be performed in accordance with the best available evidence. Our survey highlights a lack of IPM training opportunities, which may result in substandard training. Concerted efforts involving physician organizations and regulators are needed to standardize IPM training and develop clinical guidelines to optimize evidence-based practice.

Perioperative Pain and Addiction Interdisciplinary Network (PAIN) clinical practice advisory for perioperative management of buprenorphine: results of a modified Delphi process.

Until recently, the belief that adequate pain management was not achievable while patients remained on buprenorphine was the impetus for the perioperative discontinuation of buprenorphine. We aimed to use an expert consensus Delphi-based survey technique to 1) specify the need for perioperative guidelines in this context and 2) offer a set of recommendations for the perioperative management of these patients. The major recommendation of this practice advisory is to continue buprenorphine therapy in the perioperative period. It is rarely appropriate to reduce the buprenorphine dose irrespective of indication or formulation. If analgesia is inadequate after optimisation of adjunct analgesic therapies, we recommend initiating a full mu agonist while continuing buprenorphine at some dose. The panel believes that before operation, physicians must distinguish between buprenorphine use for chronic pain (weaning/conversion from long-term high-dose opioids) and opioid use disorder (OUD) as the primary indication for buprenorphine therapy. Patients should ideally be discharged on buprenorphine, although not necessarily at their preoperative dose. Depending on analgesic requirements, they may be discharged on a full mu agonist. Overall, long-term buprenorphine treatment retention and harm reduction must be considered during the perioperative period when OUD is a primary diagnosis. The authors recognise that inter-patient variability will require some individualisation of clinical practice advisories. Clinical practice advisories are largely based on lower classes of evidence (level 4, level 5). Further research is required in order to implement meaningful changes in practitioner behaviour for this patient group.

Opioid-Free Analgesia for Supratentorial Craniotomies: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Post-craniotomy pain can be severe and is often undermanaged. Opioids can interfere with neurological monitoring and are associated with adverse effects. This systematic review aimed to identify measures of opioid-free analgesia and compare their effectiveness with opioid analgesia for post-craniotomy pain in patients with supratentorial tumors. METHODS: EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases were searched from their inception to February 14, 2017, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating opioid versus non-opioid analgesia post-supratentorial craniotomy. Two reviewers independently carried out study selection and data extraction. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Outcomes were pain control (changes to pain scores or use of rescue analgesia) and adverse effects. Considering the number of studies and heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis was done without pooling and results were summarized using tables. Non-opioids were assessed for the potential to be equivalent to opioid-based analgesics for pain relief and adverse effects. RESULTS: Of 467 RCTs, 4 met our inclusion criteria (n = 186 patients). Patients with scalp blocks (2 RCTs) had less post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV), but scalp block was not superior to morphine for analgesia. Acetaminophen (1 RCT) was less likely to induce PONV but provided inadequate pain relief compared to morphine and sufentanil. Dexmedetomidine (1 RCT) was not superior to remifentanil for analgesia although it delayed time to rescue analgesia. CONCLUSIONS: Limited evidence suggests that scalp blocks and dexmedetomidine have the potential to eliminate the need for opioid analgesia. Multimodal analgesia should be considered as significant opioid-sparing effects have been shown.

Analgésie sans opioïdes dans les craniotomies supratentorielles: revue systématique. Contexte: La douleur post-craniotomie peut être sévère et n'est souvent pas maintenue. Les opioïdes peuvent interférer avec la surveillance neurologique et sont associés à des effets indésirables. Cette revue systématique visait à identifier les mesures d'analgésie sans opioïdes et à comparer leur efficacité à celle des analgésiques opioïdes pour le traitement de la douleur post-craniotomie chez les patients atteints de tumeurs supratentorielles. Méthodes: Les bases de données EMBASE, MEDLINE et Cochrane ont été explorées depuis leur création jusqu'au 14 février 2017 dans le cadre d'essais contrôlés randomisés (ECR) évaluant l'analgésie opioïde ou non opioïde après la craniotomie supratentorielle. Deux examinateurs ont indépendamment sélectionné les études et extrait les données. L'évaluation du risque de biais a été réalisée à l'aide de l'outil Cochrane Collaboration. Les résultats ont été un contrôle de la douleur (modification des scores de douleur ou l'utilisation d'une analgésie de secours) et des effets indésirables. Compte tenu du nombre d'études et de l'hétérogénéité, une synthèse narrative a été réalisée sans regroupement et les résultats ont été résumés à l'aide de tableaux. Les non-opioïdes ont été évalués pour leur potentiel équivalent aux analgésiques à base d'opioïdes pour le soulagement de la douleur et les effets indésirables. Résultats: Sur 467 ECR, 4 répondaient à nos critères d'inclusion (n = 186 patients). Les patients avec des blocs de cuir chevelu 14 (2 ECR) avaient moins de nausées et de vomissements postopératoires (NVPO), mais le bloc de cuir chevelu n'était pas supérieur à la morphine pour l'analgésie. L'acétaminophène (1 ECR) était moins susceptible d'induire des NVPO, mais ne soulageait pas suffisamment la douleur par rapport à la morphine et au sufentanil. La dexmédétomidine (1 ECR) n'était pas supérieure au rémifentanil pour l'analgésie, bien qu'elle ait retardé le délai de récupération de l'analgésie. Conclusions: Des preuves limitées suggèrent que les blocs du cuir chevelu et la dexmédétomidine pourraient éliminer le besoin d'une analgésie opioïde. Une analgésie multimodale doit être considérée, car des effets importants, qui permettent d'épargner les opioïdes, ont été démontrés.

Comparison of intraoperative fentanyl with dexmedetomidine for perioperative analgesia and opioid consumption during craniotomies: A randomised controlled pilot study with non-inferiority design.

BACKGROUND: Moderate to severe pain is common despite the use of potent opioids during craniotomies. Non-opioid agents such as dexmedetomidine reduce undesirable opioid effects and are successfully used as primary analgesic during bariatric surgeries. This study assessed the feasibility of conducting a large randomised controlled trial comparing fentanyl with dexmedetomidine for perioperative analgesia during craniotomy. METHODS: This was a prospective single-centre randomised controlled feasibility trial. Twenty-four consenting adult patients undergoing supratentorial craniotomy at NIMHANS, Bangalore, India, were recruited after ethical approval in March and April 2018. They received either fentanyl 1 µg kg-1  h-1 (n = 12) or dexmedetomidine 0.5  µg kg-1  h-1 (n = 12) as primary intraoperative analgesic drug. Patient, anaesthesiologist, outcome assessor and data analyst were blinded to the study intervention. Our feasibility outcomes (primary) were recruitment and adherence rates. We also explored the potential efficacy of intervention and adverse events. RESULTS: We recruited 24 out of 30 eligible patients and had 100% protocol adherence, thereby demonstrating the feasibility of a larger randomised controlled trial. All 24 patients completed the study. The demographic and clinical parameters were similar between the groups. Compared between fentanyl and dexmedetomidine, there was no difference in the intraoperative fentanyl (top-up) consumption (µg), expressed as median and interquartile range: 25 (0-50) and 0 (0-50); P = 0.844; and no difference in postoperative pain at 15 and 60 minutes. Adverse events were few and similar with fentanyl and dexmedetomidine. CONCLUSIONS: A large-scale randomised controlled trial of perioperative dexmedetomidine versus fentanyl is feasible. Dexmedetomidine has the potential to be non-inferior to fentanyl for perioperative analgesia during craniotomies.

The perioperative patient on buprenorphine: a systematic review of perioperative management strategies and patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) are treated with opioid agonist-antagonists such as buprenorphine/naloxone. Perioperative management of patients on buprenorphine/naloxone is inconsistent and remains a controversial topic with mismanagement posing a significant risk to the long-term health of these patients. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search involving Medline, Medline In-Process, Embase, Cochrane Central, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, Web of Science (Clarivate), Scopus (Elsevier), CINAHL (EbscoHosst), and PubMed (NLM). RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included in the final sample, including one controlled study and four observational studies . Neither the controlled study nor the observational studies assessed addiction treatment retention, harm reduction, or long-term mortality rates as primary or secondary outcomes. Of the observational studies, authors showed equivalent peri- and postoperative pain control among buprenorphine continued patients. All but one authors described adequate analgesia among the case reports in which buprenorphine ≤ 16 mg sublingually (SL) daily was continued during the perioperative period. Long-term harm reduction was not reported with only three case reports including any long-term abstinence or relapse rates. CONCLUSIONS: The current understanding of the risks and benefits of continuing or stopping buprenorphine perioperatively is limited by a lack of high-quality evidence. Observational studies and case reports indicate no evidence against continuing buprenorphine perioperatively, especially when the dose is < 16 mg SL daily. In patients with significant potential for relapse, such as those with a recent history of OUD, the discontinuation of buprenorphine should have a strong rationale supported by patient and surgical preferences. Future studies require standardized reporting of median doses, details on the route of delivery, dosing schedules and any dosing changes, and rates of addiction relapse, including long-term morbidity and mortality where possible.

RéSUMé: CONTEXTE: Un nombre croissant de patients présentant un trouble d'utilisation des opioïdes (TUO) sont traités avec des agonistes/antagonistes des opioïdes, tels que la buprénorphine et la naloxone. La gestion périopératoire des patients sous buprénorphine/naloxone n'est pas constante et reste un sujet de controverses; de plus une mauvaise gestion pose un risque significatif pour la santé à long terme de ces patients. MéTHODES: Nous avons effectué une recherche systématique de la littérature dans les bases de données suivantes : Medline, Medline In-Process, Embase, Cochrane Central, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, Web of Science (Clarivate), Scopus (Elsevier), CINAHL (EbscoHosst) et PubMed (NLM). RéSULTATS: Dix-huit études ont été incluses dans l'échantillon final, y compris une étude contrôlée et quatre études observationnelles. Ni l'étude contrôlée ni les études observationnelles n'ont évalué la continuation du traitement de l'addiction, la réduction des préjudices infligés ou les taux de mortalité à long terme parmi les critères d'évaluation principaux ou secondaires. Dans les études observationnelles, les auteurs ont montré qu'il y avait un contrôle équivalent de la douleur en péri- et postopératoire chez les patients continuant à recevoir de la buprénorphine. Tous les auteurs sauf un ont décrit une analgésie satisfaisante dans les rapports de cas où la buprénorphine sublinguale avec une dose ≤ 16 mg par jour était maintenue pendant la période périopératoire. La réduction des préjudices à long terme n'était pas décrite; seulement trois rapports de cas indiquaient le taux d'abstinence à long terme ou les taux de rechute. CONCLUSIONS: Les connaissances actuelles des risques et avantages de la poursuite ou de l'arrêt de la buprénorphine en période périopératoire sont limitées par le manque de données probantes de grande qualité. Les études observationnelles et les rapports de cas ne fournissent pas de données probantes à l'encontre de la poursuite de la buprénorphine dans la période périopératoire, en particulier quand la dose journalière par voie sublinguale est < 16 mg. Chez les patients présentant un risque significatif de rechute, comme ceux ayant des antécédents récents de TUO, l'arrêt de la buprénorphine devrait être solidement justifié avec le soutien des préférences des patients et des équipes chirurgicales. Les futures études nécessitent une normalisation du rapport des doses médianes, des détails sur les voies d'administration, de la posologie et de sa modification et des taux de rechute, en incluant aussi, chaque fois que possible, les taux de morbidité et mortalité à long terme.