Comparison of PACU length of stay and opioid requirements of patients maintained on buprenorphine or methadone for opioid use disorder.

OBJECTIVES: Literature supporting best practice of perioperative buprenorphine management for opioid use disorder is evolving with more recent studies trending toward maintenance of home dose. To guide treatment protocols at our institution, we evaluated patients taking medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) undergoing similar surgeries. Patients were maintained on either their outpatient buprenorphine or methadone. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: Data were collected on 46 patients maintained on buprenorphine MOUD who underwent surgery. A subset of these patients (n = 24) was compared with 24 patients maintained on methadone MOUD, matched on surgical procedure, admission date, age, and sex. DESIGN: This is a retrospective matched control study. SETTING: An academic, tertiary, Level 1 trauma center. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were post-operative opioid use and post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) length of stay. RESULTS: No significant differences in demographic characteristics, physical status, comorbid psychiatric diagnoses, or illicit substance use history were observed between patient groups. A higher proportion of patients taking methadone was admitted due to infection (41.7 percent vs 16.7 percent, p = 0.031) and underwent nonelective surgery (75.0 percent vs 45.8 percent, p = 0.039). No significant differences were observed between patients taking buprenorphine versus methadone with respect to PACU length of stay, post-operative opioid consumption, time-to-transition to oral opioids, or discharge opioid prescriptions. Patients taking buprenorphine were more likely to receive intravenous lidocaine (25.0 percent vs 0.0 percent, p = 0.031) and ketamine (83.3 percent vs 54.2 percent, p = 0.039). CONCLUSION: Findings from this study support accumulating evidence that patients should be maintained on buprenorphine MOUD throughout the perioperative period.

Comparison Between Preoperative Methadone and Buprenorphine Use on Postoperative Opioid Requirement: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: Buprenorphine is a partial agonist at mu-opioid receptors and competes for these receptors with other opioids in vitro. Whether patients on buprenorphine maintenance require high doses of opioid analgesics to attain adequate postoperative pain control has not been determined. We evaluated differences in acute postoperative opioid consumption and pain burden between patients taking buprenorphine and those taking methadone preoperatively. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of medical records of 928 patients, of whom 195 were on buprenorphine and 733 were on methadone preoperatively, was performed. Among methadone and buprenorphine patients, 615 and 89, respectively, continued to receive the medications postoperatively. Buprenorphine patients were compared with methadone patients for the first 48 hours postoperatively with regard to acute opioid dose requirements (morphine milligram equivalents [MME] above their baseline buprenorphine and methadone doses) and time-weighted average (TWA) pain scores (using targeted maximum likelihood estimation). RESULTS: Opioid dose requirements for 48 hours postoperatively were 150 (22 to 297) (median [interquartile range]) and 220 [90 to 360] MME for buprenorphine and methadone patients, respectively. Preoperative buprenorphine was associated with a 59.9% lower postoperative MME (95% confidence interval: 46.6%-69.8%, P<0.0001) compared with methadone. Postoperative TWA pain scores for the first 48 hours were 5.0±2.7 (mean±SD), and 5.4±2.3 for buprenorphine and methadone patients, respectively. Preoperative buprenorphine was associated with a 0.37-point lower TWA pain score (95% confidence interval: 0.14-0.61, P=0.002) compared with methadone. DISCUSSION: Preoperative buprenorphine use was associated with >50% reduction in postoperative opioid dose requirement and a statistically significant, though clinically unimportant, reduction in acute pain burden in comparison to methadone. The study is limited by several important factors such as the exclusion of patients requiring intravenous patient-controlled analgesia, small number of patients were on higher dose of buprenorphine, and a large percentage of methadone patients were not on a stable dose of methadone yet.

An Acute Pain Service experience initiating methadone for opioid use disorder in hospitalized patients with acute pain.

OBJECTIVE: Inform readers of the use of a clinical pathway that includes initiation of methadone in hospitalized patients with acute pain who have untreated opioid use disorder (OUD). DESIGN: A retrospective chart review with frequency distributions and descriptive statistics calculated to describe demo-graphic and clinical characteristics of the sample. SETTING: Urban academic hospital. PATIENTS: One hundred twenty consecutive patients with untreated OUD cared for by the Acute Pain Service (APS). INTERVENTIONS: APS leadership spearheaded development of a clinical pathway to standardize pain management and optimize outcomes. The authors outline pathway development and describe 120 patients managed using this pathway, initiated on methadone for OUD. RESULTS: The sample included patients, average age 40 years, predominantly non-Hispanic white (74.2 percent), male (61.7 percent), unemployed (88.2 percent), and on Medicaid (84.2 percent). 96.7 percent had a history of heroin use, and 52.1 percent had engaged in previous medication-assisted treatment (MAT). Methadone or other opioids were held for signs of intoxication/sedation in 10.9 percent or for prolonged corrected QT interval in 1.7 percent. The majority received at least one other analgesic agent. For those prescribed opioids upon discharge, the average maximum morphine equivalent dose was 68.2 mg/day for approximately 3 days. 68.3 percent agreed to schedule post-discharge MAT, and of these, 68 percent attended their intake appointment. A small percentage (4.7 percent) left the hospital against medical advice. CONCLUSION: This pathway provides an example of an effective and safe response to address the opioid epidemic and pro-vide quality care to patients with OUD and pain.