ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Adverse effects of opioid analgesics and potential for chronic use are limitations in the cesarean setting. Regional anesthesia using transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block post-cesarean delivery may improve analgesia and reduce opioid consumption. Effectiveness of TAP block using liposomal bupivacaine (LB) to reduce post-cesarean pain is unknown. METHODS: We performed a single-center retrospective chart review of patients aged ≥18 years who underwent cesarean delivery with a multimodal pain management protocol with or without TAP block with LB 266 mg. Assessments included postsurgical opioid consumption; area under the curve (AUC) of numeric rating scale pain scores from 0 to 3 days; proportion of opioid-free patients; discharge- and post-anesthesia care unit (PACU)-ready time; times to ambulation, solid food, and bowel movement; hospital length of stay (LOS); and adverse events (AEs). Data were analyzed in the total population and in first- and repeat-cesarean subgroups using Wilcoxon, chi-squared, and Student's t-tests. RESULTS: Of 201 patients, 101 were treated with LB TAP block (LB-TAPB) and 100 without LB-TAPB. Treatment with LB-TAPB vs without LB-TAPB significantly reduced mean post-surgical opioid consumption (total, 47%; first-cesarean, 54%; repeat-cesarean, 42%; P<0.001 each) and mean AUC of pain scores (total, 46%; first-cesarean, 57%; repeat-cesarean, 40%; P<0.001 each). Patients treated with LB-TAPB had significantly shorter mean discharge-ready times (2.9 vs 3.6 days; P=0.006), PACU-ready times (138 vs 163 minutes; P=0.028), and LOS (2.9 vs 3.9 days; P<0.001). LB-TAPB significantly decreased mean times to ambulation and solid food by 39% and 31% (P<0.01 each), respectively, and numerically reduced mean time to bowel movement (26%; P=0.05). Fewer patients treated with LB-TAPB vs without LB-TAPB reported an AE (34% vs 50%; P=0.026). CONCLUSION: These results suggest multimodal pain management incorporating TAP block with LB 266 mg is an effective approach to reducing opioid requirements and improving analgesia post-cesarean delivery.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Palliative care consultation services are now available in the majority of cancer centers, yet most referrals to palliative care occur late. We previously found that the term "palliative care" was perceived by oncology professionals as a barrier to early patient referral. We aimed to determine whether a service name change to supportive care was associated with earlier referrals. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Records of 4,701 consecutive patients with a first palliative care consultation before (January 2006 to August 2007) and after (January 2008 to August 2009) the name change were analyzed, including demographics and dates of first registration to hospital, advanced cancer diagnosis, palliative care consultation, and death. One-sample proportions tests, median tests, χ(2) tests, and log-rank tests were used to identify group differences. RESULTS: The median age was 59 years, 50% were male, and 90% had solid tumors. After the name change, we found: (a) a 41% greater number of palliative care consultations (1,950 versus 2,751 patients; p < .001), mainly as a result of a rise in inpatient referrals (733 versus 1,451 patients; p < .001), and (b) in the outpatient setting, a shorter duration from hospital registration to palliative care consultation (median, 9.2 months versus 13.2 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; p < .001) and from advanced cancer diagnosis to palliative care consultation (5.2 months versus 6.9 months; HR, 0.82; p < .001), and a longer overall survival duration from palliative care consultation (median 6.2 months versus 4.7 months; HR, 1.21; p < .001). CONCLUSION: The name change to supportive care was associated with more inpatient referrals and earlier referrals in the outpatient setting. The outpatient setting facilitates earlier access to supportive/palliative care and should be established in more centers.