Trajectories of pain and opioid use up to one year after surgery: analysis of a European registry.

BACKGROUND: Long-term opioid use after surgery is a crucial healthcare problem in North America. Data from European hospitals are scarce and differentiation of chronic pain has rarely been considered. METHODS: In a mixed surgical cohort of the PAIN OUT registry, opioid use and chronic pain were evaluated before surgery, and 6 and 12 months after surgery (M6/M12). Subgroups with or without opioid medication and pre-existing chronic pain were analysed. M12-chronic pain was categorised as chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) meeting the ICD-11 definition, chronic pain related to surgery not meeting the ICD-11 definition, and chronic pain unrelated to surgery. Primary endpoint was the rate of M12 opioid users. Variables associated with M12 opioid use and patient-reported outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 2326 patients, 5.5% were preoperative opioid users; 4.4% and 3.5% took opioids at M6 and M12 (P<0.001). Chronic pain before operation and at M6/M12 was reported by 41.2%, 41.8%, and 34.7% of patients, respectively (P<0.001). The rate of M12 opioid users was highest in group unrelated (22.3%; related 8.3%, CPSP 1.5%; P<0.001). New opioid users were 1.1% (unrelated 7.1%, related 2.3%, CPSP 0.7%; P<0.001). M12 opioid users reported more pain, pain-related physical and affective interference, and needed more opioids than non-users. The predominant variable associated with M12 opioids was preoperative opioid use (estimated odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 28.3 [14.1-56.7], P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Opioid use was low in patients with CPSP, and more problematic in patients with chronic pain unrelated to surgery. A detailed assessment of chronic pain unrelated or related to surgery or CPSP is necessary. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02083835.

Responsiveness of multiple patient-reported outcome measures for acute postsurgical pain: primary results from the international multi-centre PROMPT NIT-1 study.

BACKGROUND: Postsurgical outcome measures are crucial to define the efficacy of perioperative pain management; however, it is unclear which are most appropriate. We conducted a prospective study aiming to assess sensitivity-to-change of patient-reported outcome measures assessing the core outcome set of domains pain intensity (at rest/during activity), physical function, adverse events, and self-efficacy. METHODS: Patient-reported outcome measures were assessed preoperatively, on day 1 (d1), d3, and d7 after four surgical procedures (total knee replacement, breast surgery, endometriosis-related surgery, and sternotomy). Primary outcomes were sensitivity-to-change of patient-reported outcome measures analysed by correlating their changes (d1-d3) with patients' global impression of change and patients' specific impression of change items as anchor criteria. Secondary outcomes included identification of baseline and patient characteristic variables explaining variance in change for each of the scales and descriptive analysis of various patient-reported outcome measures from different domains and after different surgeries. RESULTS: Of 3322 patients included (18 hospitals, 10 countries), data from 2661 patients were analysed. All patient-reported outcome measures improved on average over time; the median calculated sensitivity-to-change for all patient-reported outcome measures (overall surgeries) was 0.22 (range: 0.07-0.31, scale: 0-10); all changes were independent of baseline data or patient characteristics and similar between different procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Pain-related patient-reported outcome measures have low to moderate sensitivity-to-change; those showing higher sensitivity-to-change from the same domain should be considered for inclusion in a core outcome set of patient-reported outcome measures to assess the effectiveness and efficacy of perioperative pain management.

Chronic postsurgical pain: A European survey.

BACKGROUND: Chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) is a clinical problem, and large prospective studies are needed to determine its incidence, characteristics, and risk factors. OBJECTIVE: To find predictive factors for CPSP in an international survey. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Multicentre European prospective observational trial. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing breast cancer surgery, sternotomy, endometriosis surgery, or total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHOD: Standardised questionnaires were completed by the patients at 1, 3, and 7 days, and at 1, 3, and 6 months after surgery, with follow-up via E-mail, telephone, or interview. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary goal of NIT-1 was to propose a scoring system to predict those patient likely to have CPSP at 6 months after surgery. RESULTS: A total of 3297 patients were included from 18 hospitals across Europe and 2494 patients were followed-up for 6 months. The mean incidence of CPSP at 6 months was 10.5%, with variations depending on the type of surgery: sternotomy 6.9%, breast surgery 7.4%, TKA 12.9%, endometriosis 16.2%. At 6 months, neuropathic characteristics were frequent for all types of surgery: sternotomy 33.3%, breast surgery 67.6%, TKA 42.4%, endometriosis 41.4%. One-third of patients experienced CPSP at both 3 and 6 months. Pre-operative pain was frequent for TKA (leg pain) and endometriosis (abdomen) and its frequency and intensity were reduced after surgery. Severe CPSP and a neuropathic pain component decreased psychological and functional wellbeing as well as quality of life. No overarching CPSP risk factors were identified. CONCLUSION: Unfortunately, our findings do not offer a new CPSP predictive score. However, we present reliable new data on the incidence, characteristics, and consequences of CPSP from a large European survey. Interesting new data on the time course of CPSP, its neuropathic pain component, and CPSP after endometriosis surgery generate new hypotheses but need to be confirmed by further research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT03834922.

Analgesic use and favourable patient-reported outcome measures after paediatric surgery: an analysis of registry data.

BACKGROUND: Pain after paediatric appendectomy and tonsillectomy is often undertreated. Benchmarking of hospitals could reveal which measures are associated with improved patient- or parent-reported pain-related outcomes. METHODS: A total of 898 anonymised cases from 11 European hospitals participating in PAIN OUT infant were analysed. The children completed a questionnaire on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) 24 h after surgery. According to a composite PRO measure, including pain intensity and pain-related interference, hospitals were allocated to Group I (favourable results), II (average results), and III (unfavourable results). Benchmarking of hospital groups was performed investigating process variables (dosing of non-opioid analgesics, opioids, and dexamethasone) associated with PROs, side-effects, and children's perception of care. Variables associated with PROs were analysed using multinomial regression analysis with the PRO score-related hospital group as a dependent variable (estimated odds ratios [OR], 95% confidence interval [CI]). RESULTS: During the first 24 h after surgery, 1.2 (1.1-1.3) full daily doses of non-opioid analgesics (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug [NSAID], paracetamol, metamizole) were administered in group I and 0.7 (0.6-0.8) in group III (P<0.001). Intraoperative dexamethasone was administered to 70.1 and 52.6% of the children in Group I and Group III, respectively (P<0.001). A lower number of full daily doses of non-opioid analgesics: 0.22 [0.15-0.31]), less dexamethasone (0.49 [0.33-0.71]), fewer non-opioid analgesics before the end of surgery (0.37 [0.22-0.62]) and higher opioid doses were associated with hospital allocation to group III vs group I (Nagelkerke's R2=0.433). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicated substantial deficits in the concept, application, and dosing of analgesics in paediatric patients after surgery. Timely administration of adequate analgesic doses can easily be introduced into daily clinical practice. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT02083835.

Structural characteristics and contractual terms of specialist palliative homecare in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Multi-professional specialist palliative homecare (SPHC) teams care for palliative patients with complex symptoms. In Germany, the SPHC directive regulates care provision, but model contracts for each federal state are heterogeneous regarding staff requirements, cooperation with other healthcare providers, and financial reimbursement. The structural characteristics of SPHC teams also vary. AIM: We provide a structured overview of the existing model contracts, as well as a nationwide assessment of SPHC teams and their structural characteristics. Furthermore, we explore whether these characteristics serve to find specifc patterns of SPHC team models, based on empirical data. METHODS: This study is part of the multi-methods research project "SAVOIR", funded by the German Innovations Fund. Most model contracts are publicly available. Structural characteristics (e.g. number, professions, and affiliations of team members, and external cooperation) were assessed via an online database ("Wegweiser Hospiz- und Palliativversorgung") based on voluntary information obtained from SPHC teams. All the data were updated by phone during the assessment process. Data were descriptively analysed regarding staff, cooperation requirements, and reimbursement schemes, while latent class analysis (LCA) was used to identify structural team models. RESULTS: Model contracts have heterogeneous contract partners and terms related to staff requirements (number and qualifications) and cooperation with other services. Fourteen reimbursement schemes were available, all combining different payment models. Of the 283 SPHC teams, 196 provided structural characteristics. Teams reported between one and 298 members (mean: 30.3, median: 18), mainly nurses and physicians, while 37.8% had a psychosocial professional as a team member. Most teams were composed of nurses and physicians employed in different settings; for example, staff was employed by the team, in private practices/nursing services, or in hospitals. Latent class analysis identified four structural team models, based on the team size, team members' affiliation, and care organisation. CONCLUSION: Both the contractual terms and teams' structural characteristics vary substantially, and this must be considered when analysing patient data from SPHC. The identified patterns of team models can form a starting point from which to analyse different forms of care provision and their impact on care quality.

Association between preoperative serum C-reactive protein level and leukocyte count and postoperative pain after otolaryngological surgery.

PURPOSE: To determine whether the preoperative inflammatory serum C-reactive protein (CRP) and leukocyte count (LEUK) are associated with postoperative pain and complaints after otolaryngological surgery. METHODS: Retrospective evaluation of 680 patients (33% female, median age 50 years) receiving otolaryngological surgery between November 2008 and March 2017 in a tertiary university hospital. Postoperative pain on the first postoperative day was assessed using the validated questionnaire of the German-wide project Quality Improvement in Postoperative Pain Treatment (QUIPS) including a numeric rating scale for assessment of postoperative pain (NRS, 0-10). The influence of preoperative parameters including CRP and LEUK on patients' postoperative pain was estimated. RESULTS: Mean CRP value was 15.6 ± 34.6 mg/l and mean LEUK value 7.8 ± 3.2 Gpt/l. Patients with pharyngeal surgery had the highest CRP values (34.6 ± 52.9 mg/l), highest LEUK values (9.2 ± 4.2 Gpt/l) and the highest pain levels (3.1 ± 2.4 NRS) compared to all other surgical procedures (all p < 0.05). Higher postoperative pain was associated with LEUK values > 11.3 Gpt/l (r = 0.093, p = 0.016) and higher preoperative chronic pain (r = 0.127, p = 0.001). Multivariate analysis confirmed younger age, female gender, duration of surgery, preoperative chronic pain, type of surgery, and higher LEUK values > 11.3 as independent factors for postoperative pain. Perioperative antibiotics had no effect on the postoperative pain. CONCLUSION: Beyond known factors, preoperative LEUK as inflammation marker is an independent predictor for pain on the first postoperative day.

[Updated S1 guideline on long/post-COVID: relevant aspects for pain medicine]. / Aktualisierte S1-Leitlinie Long/Post-COVID: Relevante Aspekte für die Schmerzmedizin.

BACKGROUND: The S1 guideline on long/post-COVID of the AWMF [German Association of the Medical Scientific Societies] registration number 020-027) was updated in August 2022. METHODS: Under the coordination of the German Society of Pneumology, the guideline was updated by 21 scientific associations, two professional associations and clinical centers each and one institute and statutory accident insurance each. Each scientific association was responsible for its own chapter. The German Pain Society prepared the chapter "Pain". The coordinators of each chapter performed a selective literature search and also received approval for the chapter within their scientific association. During an internal period of comments, all representatives of the participating institutions could comment on all chapters. The AWMF task force commented on the draft of the guideline, which was then finally approved by the boards of all participating institutions. RESULTS: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) increases the risk of persistent headache and musculoskeletal pain. Long/Post-COVID pain is frequently associated with fatigue and cognitive problems. A specialist assessment might be considered if symptoms with limitations of daily activities persist 3 months after the infection. The diagnostic workup of long/post-COVID-associated pain should be performed according to the standards of pain medicine. Management should follow the pain guidelines of the AWMF. CONCLUSIONS: The updated S1 guideline on long/post-COVID is a clinical manual which offers orientation for diagnostics and treatment despite limited data.

[Utilization of palliative care at the end of life in Germany: temporal trend (2016-2019) and regional variability]. / Inanspruchnahme von Palliativversorgung am Lebensende in Deutschland: zeitlicher Verlauf (2016­2019) und regionale Variabilität.

BACKGROUND: In Germany, palliative care (PC) is provided on a homecare, inpatient, general, and specialized basis. Since little is currently known about the temporal course and regional differences in the forms of care, the present study was aimed to investigate this. METHOD: In a retrospective routine data study with 417,405 BARMER-insured persons who died between 2016 and 2019, we determined the utilization rates of primary PC (PPC), specially qualified and coordinated palliative homecare (PPC+), specialized palliative homecare (SPHC), inpatient PC, and hospice care on the basis of services billed at least once in the last year of life. We calculated time trends and regional variability and controlled for needs-related patient characteristics and access-related county of community characteristics. RESULTS: From 2016 to 2019, total PC increased from 33.8 to 36.2%, SPHC from 13.3 to 16.0% (max: Rhineland-Palatinate), and inpatient PC from 8.9 to 9.9% (max: Thuringia). PPC decreased from 25.8 to 23.9% (min: Brandenburg) and PPC+ came in at 4.4% (max: Saarland) in 2019. Hospice care remained constant at 3.4%. Regional variability in utilization rates remained high, increased for PPC and inpatient PC from 2016 to 2019, and decreased for SPHC and hospice care. The regional differences were also evident after adjustment. CONCLUSION: Increasingly more SPHC, less PPC, and high regional variability, which cannot be explained by demand- or access-related characteristics, indicate that the use of PC forms is oriented less to demand than to regionally available care capacities. In view of the growing need for palliative care due to demographic factors and decreasing personnel resources, this development must be viewed critically.

Development and validation of a multivariable prediction model for early prediction of chronic postsurgical pain in adults: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Early identification of patients at risk of developing chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) is an essential step in reducing pain chronification in postsurgical patients. We aimed to develop and validate a prognostic model for the early prediction of CPSP including pain characteristics indicating altered pain processing within 2 weeks after surgery. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted in adult patients undergoing orthopaedic, vascular, trauma, or general surgery between 2018 and 2019. Multivariable logistic regression models for CPSP were developed using data from the University Medical Centre (UMC) Utrecht and validated in data from the Erasmus UMC Rotterdam, The Netherlands. RESULTS: In the development (n=344) and the validation (n=150) cohorts, 28.8% and 21.3% of patients reported CPSP. The best performing model (area under the curve=0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-0.87) included preoperative treatment with opioids (odds ratio [OR]=4.04; 95% CI, 2.13-7.70), bone surgery (OR=2.01; 95% CI, 1.10-3.67), numerical rating scale pain score on postoperative day 14 (OR=1.57; 95% CI, 1.34-1.83), and the presence of painful cold within the painful area 2 weeks after surgery (OR=4.85; 95% CI, 1.85-12.68). Predictive performance was confirmed by external validation. CONCLUSIONS: As only four easily obtainable predictors are necessary for reliable CPSP prediction, the models are useful for the clinician to be alerted to further assess and treat individual patients at risk. Identification of the presence of painful cold within 2 weeks after surgery as a strong predictor supports altered pain processing as an important contributor to CPSP development.

[Applicability of QUIKS in conservatively treated tumor inpatients]. / Anwendbarkeit von QUIKS bei stationär konservativ behandelten Tumorpatienten.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement in conservative pain management (QUIKS), a module for nonoperative patients in the QUIPS project was tested on a cohort of tumor patients regarding its applicability. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Conservatively treated inpatients at the University Hospital of Würzburg (UKW) were prospectively surveyed on the quality of pain management using the QUIKS outcome questionnaire (AZ 129/17, Ethics Committee at UKW). Information on therapy and demographics was taken from the hospital's internal documentation system. RESULTS: During the data collection period 100 conservatively treated inhouse tumor patients from different hospitals were included. Of the patients 74% required assistance in answering the questionnaire. Functional limitations or pain treatment-related side effects were present in 77% of the patients; the average pain level was 6 on the numerical rating scale. The most commonly reported type of pain was back pain and headache. Of the patients 18% received pain therapy with opioids and 26% with nonopioids, adjustment was made in 5% with opioids and in 44% with nonopioids and pain medicine specialists were consulted in 9% of cases. CONCLUSION: The application of the questionnaire was well accepted by the patients but required a high level of assistance in completing it. A high level of pain was observed during the hospital stay and the adjustment of pain therapy or the involvement of pain medicine specialists was rare. The interpretation of statements regarding the quality of tumor pain may be limited as other (pre-existing) pain entities, such as nontumor-associated pain or chronic tumor pain could not be clearly delineated.

'Desire for more analgesic treatment': pain and patient-reported outcome after paediatric tonsillectomy and appendectomy.

BACKGROUND: Insufficiently treated pain after paediatric appendectomy and tonsillectomy is frequent. We aimed to identify variables associated with poor patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: This analysis derives from the European PAIN OUT infant registry providing information on perioperative pharmacological data and patient-reported outcomes 24 h after surgery. Variables associated with the endpoint 'desire for more pain treatment' were evaluated by elastic net regularisation (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]). RESULTS: Data from children undergoing appendectomy (n=472) and tonsillectomy (n=466) between 2015 and 2019 were analysed. Some 24.8% (appendectomy) and 20.2% (tonsillectomy) wished they had received more pain treatment in the 24 h after surgery. They reported higher composite pain scores (5.2 [4.8-5.5] vs 3.6 [3.5-3.8]), more pain-related interference, and more adverse events than children not desiring more pain treatment, and they received more opioids after surgery (morphine equivalents (81 [60-102] vs 50 [43-56] µg kg-1). Regression analysis revealed that pain-related sleep disturbance (appendectomy odds ratio: 2.8 [1.7-4.6], tonsillectomy 3.7 [2.1-6.5]; P<0.001) and higher pain intensities (1.5-fold increase) increased the probability of desiring more pain treatment. There was an inverse association between the number of different classes of non-opioids administered preventively, and the desire for more analgesics postoperatively. Children not receiving any non-opioid analgesics before the end of a tonsillectomy had a 3.5-fold (2.1-6.5-fold) increase in the probability of desiring more pain treatment, compared with children receiving at least two classes of different non-opioid analgesics. CONCLUSIONS: Preventive administration of at least two classes of non-opioid analgesics is a simple strategy and may improve patient-reported outcomes.

Effectiveness of two types of palliative home care in cancer and non-cancer patients: A retrospective population-based study using claims data.

BACKGROUND: Comparative effectiveness of different types of palliative homecare is sparsely researched internationally-despite its potential to inform necessary decisions in palliative care infrastructure development. In Germany, specialized palliative homecare delivered by multi-professional teams has increased in recent years and factors beyond medical need seem to drive its involvement and affect the application of primary palliative care, delivered by general practitioners who are supported by nursing services. AIM: To compare effectiveness of primary palliative care and specialized palliative homecare in reducing potentially aggressive interventions at the end-of-life in cancer and non-cancer. DESIGN: Retrospective population-based study with claims data from 95,962 deceased adults in Germany in 2016 using multivariable regression analyses. SETTINGS/PARTICIPANTS: Patients having received primary palliative care or specialized palliative homecare (alone or in addition to primary palliative care), for at least 14 days before death, differentiating between cancer and non-cancer patients. RESULTS: Rates of potentially aggressive interventions in most indicators were higher in primary palliative care than in specialized palliative homecare (p < 0.01), in both cancer and non-cancer patients: death in hospital (odds ratio (OR) 4.541), hospital care (OR 2.720), intensive care treatment (OR 6.749), chemotherapy (OR 2.173), and application of a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (OR 4.476), but not for parenteral nutrition (OR 0.477). CONCLUSION: Specialized palliative homecare is more strongly associated with reduction of potentially aggressive interventions than primary palliative care in the last days of life. Future research should identify elements of specialized palliative homecare applicable for more effective primary palliative care, too. German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00014730).

Interventions for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: Individuals dying of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may experience distressing symptoms such as breathlessness or delirium. Palliative symptom management can alleviate symptoms and improve the quality of life of patients. Various treatment options such as opioids or breathing techniques have been discussed for use in COVID-19 patients. However, guidance on symptom management of COVID-19 patients in palliative care has often been derived from clinical experiences and guidelines for the treatment of patients with other illnesses. An understanding of the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological palliative interventions to manage specific symptoms of COVID-19 patients is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in individuals with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP), medRxiv); Web of Science Core Collection (Science Citation Index Expanded, Emerging Sources); CINAHL; WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease; and COAP Living Evidence on COVID-19 to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions until 23 March 2021. We screened the reference lists of relevant review articles and current treatment guidelines for further literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology as outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We included studies evaluating palliative symptom management for individuals with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 receiving interventions for palliative symptom control, with no restrictions regarding comorbidities, age, gender, or ethnicity. Interventions comprised pharmacological as well as non-pharmacological treatment (e.g. acupressure, physical therapy, relaxation, or breathing techniques). We searched for the following types of studies: randomized controlled trials (RCT), quasi-RCTs, controlled clinical trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series (with comparison group), prospective cohort studies, retrospective cohort studies, (nested) case-control studies, and cross-sectional studies. We searched for studies comparing pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control with standard care. We excluded studies evaluating palliative interventions for symptoms caused by other terminal illnesses. If studies enrolled populations with or exposed to multiple diseases, we would only include these if the authors provided subgroup data for individuals with COVID-19. We excluded studies investigating interventions for symptom control in a curative setting, for example patients receiving life-prolonging therapies such as invasive ventilation.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used a modified version of the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) to assess bias in the included studies. We included the following outcomes: symptom relief (primary outcome); quality of life; symptom burden; satisfaction of patients, caregivers, and relatives; serious adverse events; and grade 3 to 4 adverse events. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.  As meta-analysis was not possible, we used tabulation to synthesize the studies and histograms to display the outcomes.  MAIN RESULTS: Overall, we identified four uncontrolled retrospective cohort studies investigating pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in hospitalized patients and patients in nursing homes. None of the studies included a comparator. We rated the risk of bias high across all studies. We rated the certainty of the evidence as very low for the primary outcome symptom relief, downgrading mainly for high risk of bias due to confounding and unblinded outcome assessors. Pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control We identified four uncontrolled retrospective cohort studies (five references) investigating pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control. Two references used the same register to form their cohorts, and study investigators confirmed a partial overlap of participants. We therefore do not know the exact number of participants, but individual reports included 61 to 2105 participants. Participants received multimodal pharmacological interventions: opioids, neuroleptics, anticholinergics, and benzodiazepines for relieving dyspnea (breathlessness), delirium, anxiety, pain, audible upper airway secretions, respiratory secretions, nausea, cough, and unspecified symptoms.  Primary outcome: symptom relief All identified studies reported this outcome. For all symptoms (dyspnea, delirium, anxiety, pain, audible upper airway secretions, respiratory secretions, nausea, cough, and unspecified symptoms), a majority of interventions were rated as completely or partially effective by outcome assessors (treating clinicians or nursing staff). Interventions used in the studies were opioids, neuroleptics, anticholinergics, and benzodiazepines.  We are very uncertain about the effect of pharmacological interventions on symptom relief (very low-certainty evidence). The initial rating of the certainty of evidence was low since we only identified uncontrolled NRSIs. Our main reason for downgrading the certainty of evidence was high risk of bias due to confounding and unblinded outcome assessors. We therefore did not find evidence to confidently support or refute whether pharmacological interventions may be effective for palliative symptom relief in COVID-19 patients. Secondary outcomes We planned to include the following outcomes: quality of life; symptom burden; satisfaction of patients, caregivers, and relatives; serious adverse events; and grade 3 to 4 adverse events. We did not find any data for these outcomes, or any other information on the efficacy and safety of used interventions. Non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control None of the identified studies used non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low certainty evidence for the efficacy of pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom relief in COVID-19 patients. We found no evidence on the safety of pharmacological interventions or efficacy and safety of non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients. The evidence presented here has no specific implications for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients because we cannot draw any conclusions about the effectiveness or safety based on the identified evidence. More evidence is needed to guide clinicians, nursing staff, and caregivers when treating symptoms of COVID-19 patients at the end of life. Specifically, future studies ought to investigate palliative symptom control in prospectively registered studies, using an active-controlled setting, assess patient-reported outcomes, and clearly define interventions. The publication of the results of ongoing studies will necessitate an update of this review. The conclusions of an updated review could differ from those of the present review and may allow for a better judgement regarding pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for palliative symptom control in COVID-19 patients.

Quality Indicators (QI) of Acute Pain after Surgery in European Countries.

OBJECTIVES: It is common practice to use pain quality indicators (QI) to accurately assess the medical care situation of patients. This literature review identifies the status quo of acute pain QI among adult inpatients. DATA SOURCES: Studies published in English or German were identified using a systematic search on CINAHL, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar from 01/2007 to 02/2018. Additional pain management journals, conference proceedings, and websites of health organizations and pain societies were manually screened. Studies about postoperative pain in adults (≥18 years) during inpatient stay after all types of surgery in Europe were included in this review. REVIEW/ANALYSIS METHODS: The identified study results were categorized into structural, process, and outcome indicators based on Donabedian's framework of evaluating care quality. RESULTS: The search identified 319 citations, of which 20 studies used structure, process, and outcome data including 180,988 patients and 1,970 health care professionals to gain insight into the quality of acute pain management. Overall, 80% used patient surveys to collect data. National data on pain management are reported in five European studies (France [2], the Netherlands, Spain, and Austria). CONCLUSIONS: European studies comprehensively comparing acute pain management results are currently missing. Thus, this report highlights the need to develop consensus-based quality indicators in management of acute pain, which take into account both the methodologic quality and the relevance to clinical practice.

[Postoperative pain therapy after total knee arthroplasty : Is the local infiltration anesthesia the best therapy?] / Schmerz nach Knietotalendoprothese : Ist die lokale Infiltrationsanästhesie die beste Therapieoption?

BACKGROUND: Optimal perioperative pain management after total knee arthroplasty is necessary to promote mobilization and achieve early rehabilitation. The aim of this study was to determine whether local infiltration anesthesia (LIA) is the better postoperative pain therapy compared to a femoral nerve block (FNB) or a sciatic nerve block (SNB) using routine data. METHODS: Data from the acute pain registry "Qualitätsverbesserung in der postoperativen Schmerztherapie" (QUIPS) were analyzed. The endpoints included postoperative maximal pain, frequency of pain-related movement impairment, nausea, and number of patients requesting opioids postoperatively. The influence of regional anesthesia in addition to general anesthesia was analyzed in 5 groups. RESULTS: In total, the data of 8754 patients could be examined. It was found that the addition of LIA (ß = -0.087 p = 0.000) or FNB (ß = -0.137 p = 0.000) to general anesthesia is associated with a small but significant reduction of postoperative maximum pain. Between LIA, FNB, and SNB no relevant differences could be detected. DISCUSSION: The pain reduction achieved by adding LIA or FNB in patients after total knee arthroplasty is relatively small. Comparison of techniques is hindered as there exists no widely accepted standard for performing LIAs yet.

[Quality improvement in conservative pain management (QUIKS) : A module of the QUIPS project for benchmarking of pain treatment in patients with nonoperative care]. / Qualitätsverbesserung im konservativen Schmerzmanagement (QUIKS) : Ein Modul des QUIPS-Projekts zum Benchmarking der Schmerztherapie bei Patienten der nichtoperativen Versorgung.

BACKGROUND: National and international surveys have shown that the quality of pain therapy in hospitals shows deficits, especially in the nonoperative disciplines. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to develop and clinically validate a module for the outcome and process parameters for pain management in patients in the context of a conservative/nonoperative hospital treatment analogous to the QUIPS questionnaire (quality improvement in postoperative pain therapy), which focuses on postoperative pain management. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In a 4-step procedure the QUIPS outcome questionnaire and the process assessment sheet of the QUIPS module were adapted to the conditions of conservative/nonoperative treatment. Patients from internal medicine, neurology and dermatology took part in the systematic testing and the clinical validation. RESULTS: A total of 973 patients were enrolled (inclusion rate 74%, n = 403 internal medicine, n = 401 neurology, n = 169 dermatology). The majority completed the questionnaire independently while 33% of the patients needed support, which was given in the form of an interview. Apart from a few deficits, most questions about pain intensity and function were fully recorded. The evaluation of the outcome was difficult as regardless of the pain therapy, a relevant proportion of the patients reported no pain. Due to the lack of conclusive diagnoses at the time of the assessment, organ-related disease groups were developed using word diagnoses instead of the OPS coding used in QUIPS. CONCLUSION: In addition to the perioperative modules of QUIPS, QUIKS (quality improvement in conservative pain management), an instrument for quality assurance of pain treatment in patients in nonoperative disciplines, is now available.

[Palliative care at the end of life in Germany : Utilization and regional distribution]. / Palliativversorgung am Lebensende in Deutschland : Inanspruchnahme und regionale Verteilung.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care supply increased in Germany in recent years. But how many people use which forms of palliative care and how does this differ between regions? METHOD: Retrospective cohort study with claims data from insured persons who died in 2016: Based on services billed at least once in the last six months of life, we determined the use of primary palliative care (PPC), specialized palliative homecare (SPHC), as well as inpatient palliative and hospice care, using regional billing codes for PPC and SPHC services for the first time. RESULTS: Of the 95,962 deceased in the study population, 32.7% received palliative care nationwide, with variations from 26.4% in Bremen to 40.8% in Bavaria. PPC services were billed at 24.4% (16.9% in Brandenburg to 34.1% in Bavaria). SPHC services received 13.1% (6.3% in Rhineland-Palatinate to 18.9% in Brandenburg and 22.9% in Westphalia-Lippe with different SPHC practices). Inpatient palliative care was received by 8.1% (6.7% in Schleswig-Holstein/Hesse to 13.0% in Thuringia); 3.3% (1.6% in Bremen to 5.6% in Berlin) with hospice services. CONCLUSION: SPHC is used more frequently than previously reported, while PPC is declining. Utilization seems to be based less on objective needs than on region-specific framework conditions. Besides needs criteria, further development of palliative care should be oriented more towards outcomes and relevant framework conditions.

Study protocol for a multi-methods study: SAVOIR - evaluation of specialized outpatient palliative care (SAPV) in Germany: outcomes, interactions, regional differences.

BACKGROUND: Since 2007, the German statutory health insurance covers Specialized Outpatient Palliative Care (SAPV). SAPV offers team-based home care for patients with advanced and progressive disease, complex symptoms and life expectancy limited to days, weeks or months. The introduction of SAPV is ruled by a directive (SAPV directive). Within this regulation, SAPV delivery models can and do differ regarding team structures, financing models, cooperation with other care professionals and processes of care. The research project SAVOIR is funded by G-BA's German Innovations Fund to evaluate the implementation of the SAPV directive. METHODS: The processes, content and quality of SAPV will be evaluated from the perspectives of patients, SAPV teams, general practitioners and other care givers and payers. The influence of different contracts, team and network structures and regional and geographic settings on processes and results including patient-reported outcomes will be analyzed in five subprojects: [1] structural characteristics of SAPV and their impact on patient care, [2] quality of care from the perspective of patients, [3] quality of care from the perspective of SAPV teams, hospices, ambulatory nursing services, nursing homes and other care givers, content and extent of care from [4] the perspective of General Practitioners and [5] from the perspective of payers. The evaluation will be based on different types of data: team and organizational structures, treatment data based on routine documentation with electronic medical record systems, prospective assessment of patient-reported outcomes in a sample of SAPV teams, qualitative interviews with other stakeholders like nursing and hospice services, a survey in general practitioners and a retrospective analysis of claims data of all SAPV patients, covered by the health insurance fund BARMER in 2016. DISCUSSION: Data analysis will allow identification of variables, associated with quality of SAPV. Based on these findings, the SAVOIR study group will develop recommendations for the Federal Joint Committee for a revision of the SAPV directive. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS): DRKS00013949 (retrospectively registered, 14.03.2018), DRKS00014726 (14.05.2018), DRKS00014730 (30.05.2018). Subproject 3 is an interview study with professional caregivers and therefore not registered in DRKS as a clinical study.

Prolonged Catheter Use and Infection in Regional Anesthesia: A Retrospective Registry Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged catheter use is controversial because of the risk of catheter-related infection, but the extent to which the risk increases over time remains unknown. We thus assessed the time-dependence of catheter-related infection risk up to 15 days. METHODS: Our analysis was based on the German Network for Regional Anesthesia, which includes 25 centers. We considered 44,555 patients who had surgery between 2007 and 2014 and had continuous regional anesthesia as well as complete covariable details. Cox regression analysis was performed and adjusted for confounding covariables to examine the relationship between catheter duration and probability of infection-free catheter use. RESULTS: After adjustment for confounding factors, the probability of infection-free catheter use decreases with each day of peripheral and epidural catheter use. In peripheral catheters, it was 99% at day 4 of catheter duration, 96% at day 7, and 73% at day 15. In epidural catheters, it was 99% at day 4 of catheter duration, 95% at day 7, and 73% at day 15. Only 31 patients (0.07%) had severe infections that prompted surgical intervention. Among these were five catheters that initially had only mild or moderate signs of infection and were left in situ; all progressed to severe infections. CONCLUSIONS: Infection risk in catheter use increases over time, especially after four days. Infected catheters should be removed as soon as practical. VISUAL ABSTRACT: An online visual overview is available for this article at http://links.lww.com/ALN/B683.