Perioperative use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors for diabetes mellitus.

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is an increasingly common long-term condition, and suboptimal perioperative glycaemic control can lead to postoperative harms. The advent of new antidiabetic drugs, in particular glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, has enabled perioperative continuation of these medicines, thus avoiding the harms of variable rate i.v. insulin infusions whilst providing glycaemic control. There are differences between medicines regulatory agencies and organisations on how these classes that are most often used to treat diabetes mellitus, (but also in the case of SGLT2 inhibitors chronic kidney disease and heart failure in those without diabetes) should be managed in the perioperative period. In this commentary, we argue that GLP-1 receptor agonists should continue during the perioperative period and that SGLT2 inhibitors should only be omitted the day prior to a planned procedure . The reasons for the differing advice advocated between regulatory agencies and what anaesthetic practitioners should do in the face of continuing uncertainty are discussed.

Can process mapping and a multisite Delphi of perioperative professionals inform our understanding of system-wide factors that may impact operative risk?

OBJECTIVES: To examine whether the use of process mapping and a multidisciplinary Delphi can identify potential contributors to perioperative risk. We hypothesised that this approach may identify factors not represented in common perioperative risk tools and give insights of use to future research in this area. DESIGN: Multidisciplinary, modified Delphi study. SETTING: Two centres (one tertiary, one secondary) in the UK during 2020 amidst coronavirus pressures. PARTICIPANTS: 91 stakeholders from 23 professional groups involved in the perioperative care of older patients. Key stakeholder groups were identified via process mapping of local perioperative care pathways. RESULTS: Response rate ranged from 51% in round 1 to 19% in round 3. After round 1, free text suggestions from the panel were combined with variables identified from perioperative risk scores. This yielded a total of 410 variables that were voted on in subsequent rounds. Including new suggestions from round two, 468/519 (90%) of the statements presented to the panel reached a consensus decision by the end of round 3. Identified risk factors included patient-level factors (such as ethnicity and socioeconomic status), and organisational or process factors related to the individual hospital (such as policies, staffing and organisational culture). 66/160 (41%) of the new suggestions did not feature in systematic reviews of perioperative risk scores or key process indicators. No factor categorised as 'organisational' is currently present in any perioperative risk score. CONCLUSIONS: Through process mapping and a modified Delphi we gained insights into additional factors that may contribute to perioperative risk. Many were absent from currently used risk stratification scores. These results enable an appreciation of the contextual limitations of currently used risk tools and could support future research into the generation of more holistic data sets for the development of perioperative risk assessment tools.

No place for routine use of modified-release opioids in postoperative pain management.

Modified-release opioid tablets were introduced into surgical practice in the belief that they provided superior pain relief and reduced nursing workload, and they rapidly became embedded into many perioperative pathways. Although national and international guidelines for the management of postoperative pain now advise against the use of modified-release opioids, they continue to be prescribed in many centres. Recognition that modified-release opioids show lack of benefit and increased risk of harm compared with immediate-release opioids in the acute, postoperative setting has become clear. Their slow onset and offset make rapid and safe titration of these opioids impossible, including down-titration as the patient recovers; pain relief may be less effective; they have been associated with an increased incidence of opioid-related adverse drug events, increased length of hospital stay, and higher readmission rates; and they lead to higher rates of opioid-induced ventilatory impairment and persistent postoperative opioid use. Evidence indicates that modified-release opioids should not be used routinely in the postoperative period.

Misappropriation of the 1986 WHO analgesic ladder: the pitfalls of labelling opioids as weak or strong.

Opioids have a vital role in alleviating pain from cancer and surgery. Despite good intentions, it is now recognised that the original WHO Cancer Pain Relief guidance from 1986, in which opioids were classified as either weak or strong, has been both inadvertently and purposefully misused, thereby contributing to harm from opioid use and misuse. However, the recommendation in the 2018 update of the WHO analgesic ladder that a combination of a high-potency opioid with simple analgesics is better than alternative analgesics for the maintenance of pain relief is also applicable to patients who require short-term opioids. Furthermore, because potential harm through opioid use and misuse is intrinsic to all opioids, whether weak or strong, we argue that the arbitrary classification of opioids either as weak or strong should be discontinued, as this description is not helpful to either prescribers or consumers.

System-level policies on appropriate opioid use, a multi-stakeholder consensus.

BACKGROUND: This consensus statement was developed because there are concerns about the appropriate use of opioids for acute pain management, with opposing views in the literature. Consensus statement on policies for system-level interventions may help inform organisations such as management structures, government agencies and funding bodies. METHODS: We conducted a multi-stakeholder survey using a modified Delphi methodology focusing on policies, at the system level, rather than at the prescriber or patient level. We aimed to provide consensus statements for current developments and priorities for future developments. RESULTS: Twenty-five experts from a variety of fields with experience in acute pain management were invited to join a review panel, of whom 23 completed a modified Delphi survey of policies designed to improve the safety and quality of opioids prescribing for acute pain in the secondary care setting. Strong agreement, defined as consistent among> 75% of panellists, was observed for ten statements. CONCLUSIONS: Using a modified Delphi study, we found agreement among a multidisciplinary panel, including patient representation, on prioritisation of policies for system-level interventions, to improve governance, pain management, patient/consumers care, safety and engagement.

Utility of unidimensional and functional pain assessment tools in adult postoperative patients: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to appraise the evidence relating to the measurement properties of unidimensional tools to quantify pain after surgery. Furthermore, we wished to identify the tools used to assess interference of pain with functional recovery. METHODS: Four electronic sources (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO) were searched in August 2020. Two reviewers independently screened articles and assessed risk of bias using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies with a total of 12 498 participants were included. Most of the studies failed to meet the methodological quality standards required by COSMIN. Studies of unidimensional assessment tools were underpinned by low-quality evidence for reliability (five studies), and responsiveness (seven studies). Convergent validity was the most studied property (13 studies) with moderate to high correlation ranging from 0.5 to 0.9 between unidimensional tools. Interpretability results were available only for the visual analogue scale (seven studies) and numerical rating scale (four studies). Studies on functional assessment tools were scarce; only one study included an 'Objective Pain Score,' a tool assessing pain interference with respiratory function, and it had low-quality for convergent validity. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review challenges the validity and reliability of unidimensional tools in adult patients after surgery. We found no evidence that any one unidimensional tool has superior measurement properties in assessing postoperative pain. In addition, because promoting function is a crucial perioperative goal, psychometric validation studies of functional pain assessment tools are needed to improve pain assessment and management. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020213495.

Managing hyperglycaemia during antenatal steroid administration, labour and birth in pregnant women with diabetes - an updated guideline from the Joint British Diabetes Society for Inpatient Care.

This article summarises the Joint British Diabetes Societies for Inpatient Care guidelines on the management of glycaemia in pregnant women with diabetes on obstetric wards and delivery units, Joint British Diabetes Societies (JBDS) for Inpatient Care Group, ABCD (Diabetes Care) Ltd. The updated guideline offers two approaches - the traditional approach with tight glycaemic targets (4.0-7.0 mmol/L) and an updated pragmatic approach (5.0-8.0 mmol/L) to reduce the risk of maternal hypoglycaemia whilst maintaining safe glycaemia. This is particularly relevant for women with type 1 diabetes who are increasingly using Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) and Continuous Subcutaneous Insulin Infusion (CSII) during pregnancy. All women with diabetes should have a documented delivery plan agreed during antenatal clinic appointments. Hyperglycaemia following steroid administration can be managed either by increasing basal and prandial insulin doses, typically by 50% to 80%, or by adding a variable rate of intravenous insulin infusion (VRIII). Glucose levels, either capillary blood glucose or CGM glucose levels, should be measured at least hourly from the onset of established labour, artificial rupture of membranes or admission for elective caesarean section. If intrapartum glucose levels are higher than 7.0 or 8.0 mmol/L on two consecutive occasions, VRIII is recommended. Hourly capillary blood glucose rather than CGM glucose measurements should be used to adjust VRIII. The recommended substrate fluid to be administered alongside a VRIII is 0.9% sodium chloride solution with 5% glucose and 0.15% potassium chloride (KCl) (20 mmol/L) or 0.3% KCl (40 mmol/L) at 50 ml/hr. Both the VRIII and CSII rates should be reduced by at least 50% after delivery.

Current Issues in the Use of Opioids for the Management of Postoperative Pain: A Review.

Importance: Uncontrolled and indiscriminate prescribing of opioids has led to an opioid crisis that started in North America and spread throughout high-income countries. The aim of this narrative review was to explore some of the current issues surrounding the use of opioids in the perioperative period, focusing on drivers that led to escalation of use, patient harms, the move away from using self-reported pain scores alone to assess adequacy of analgesia, concerns about the routine use of controlled-release opioids for the management of acute pain, opioid-free anesthesia and analgesia, and prescription of opioids on discharge from hospital. Observations: The origins of the opioid crisis are multifactorial and may include good intentions to keep patients pain free in the postoperative period. Assessment of patient function may be better than unidimensional numerical pain scores to help guide postoperative analgesia. Immediate-release opioids can be titrated more easily to match analgesic requirements. There is currently no good evidence to show that opioid-free anesthesia and analgesia affects opioid prescribing practices or the risk of persistent postoperative opioid use. Attention should be paid to discharge opioid prescribing as repeat and refill prescriptions are risk-factors for persistent postoperative opioid use. Opioid stewardship is paramount, and many governments are passing legislation, while statutory bodies and professional societies are providing advice and guidance to help mitigate the harm caused by opioids. Conclusions and Relevance: Opioids remain a crucial part of many patients' journey from surgery to full recovery. The last few decades have shown that unfettered opioid use puts patients and societies at risk, so caution is needed to mitigate those dangers. Opioid stewardship provides a multilayered structure to allow continued safe use of opioids as part of broad pain management strategies for those patients who benefit from them most.

Surgery and opioids: evidence-based expert consensus guidelines on the perioperative use of opioids in the United Kingdom.

There are significant concerns regarding prescription and misuse of prescription opioids in the perioperative period. The Faculty of Pain Medicine at the Royal College of Anaesthetists have produced this evidence-based expert consensus guideline on surgery and opioids along with the Royal College of Surgery, Royal College of Psychiatry, Royal College of Nursing, and the British Pain Society. This expert consensus practice advisory reproduces the Faculty of Pain Medicine guidance. Perioperative stewardship of opioids starts with judicious opioid prescribing in primary and secondary care. Before surgery, it is important to assess risk factors for continued opioid use after surgery and identify those with chronic pain before surgery, some of whom may be taking opioids. A multidisciplinary perioperative care plan that includes a prehabilitation strategy and intraoperative and postoperative care needs to be formulated. This may need the input of a pain specialist. Emphasis is placed on optimum management of pain pre-, intra-, and postoperatively. The use of immediate-release opioids is preferred in the immediate postoperative period. Attention to ensuring a smooth care transition and communication from secondary to primary care for those taking opioids is highlighted. For opioid-naive patients (patients not taking opioids before surgery), no more than 7 days of opioid prescription is recommended. Persistent use of opioid needs a medical evaluation and exclusion of chronic post-surgical pain. The lack of grading of the evidence of each individual recommendation remains a major weakness of this guidance; however, evidence supporting each recommendation has been rigorously reviewed by experts in perioperative pain management.