Continuation versus Interruption of Buprenorphine/Naloxone in Adult Veterans Undergoing Surgery: Examination of Postoperative Pain and Opioid Utilization in a National Retrospective Cohort Study.

IF 9.1 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
James M Hitt, Peter L Elkin, Oscar A de Leon-Casasola
{"title":"Continuation versus Interruption of Buprenorphine/Naloxone in Adult Veterans Undergoing Surgery: Examination of Postoperative Pain and Opioid Utilization in a National Retrospective Cohort Study.","authors":"James M Hitt, Peter L Elkin, Oscar A de Leon-Casasola","doi":"10.1097/ALN.0000000000005291","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Prescription rates for buprenorphine in opioid use disorder are increasing, and recent guidelines recommend its continuation during and after surgery; however, evidence from clinical outcome studies is limited. We tested the hypotheses that 1) perioperative continuation of buprenorphine does not result in higher pain scores and 2) that this approach does not result in higher supplemental postoperative opioid requirements.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Veterans Affairs Corporate Data Warehouse was queried for patients who underwent surgery while being prescribed buprenorphine/naloxone for opioid use disorder between 2010 and 2020. Analysis of the prescription record was used to infer buprenorphine management, and a 3:1 matched control set of patients without buprenorphine prescriptions was generated. We examined patients who continued buprenorphine, patients who had buprenorphine interrupted, and control patients. The primary outcome was time-weighted average postoperative pain scores from inpatient and outpatient sources within 72 hours of surgery. The secondary outcome was postoperative average daily morphine equivalent opioid requirements within two weeks of surgery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 1,881 surgical procedures in 1,673 patients taking buprenorphine for opioid use disorder were included; these procedures were matched to 5,748 control patients (5,775 procedures) without a buprenorphine prescription. Among the 1,881 procedures, 1,186 (63%) continued buprenorphine through the perioperative period while 695 (37%) interrupted buprenorphine. Pain scores were clinically similar for all three groups (4.1 ± 1.9 control [n = 3284], 4.9 ± 2.0 continued buprenorphine [n = 662], and 5.5 ± 1.7 interrupted buprenorphine [n = 419]; P < 0.001).Patients who continued buprenorphine did not require significantly more supplemental opioids as compared to controls (39.7 mg morphine equivalents/day ± 1.9 versus 36.5 ± 0.7, P = 0.23), and patients who interrupted buprenorphine received more supplemental opioids than those who continued it (74.2 ± 4.5 mg morphine equivalents/day versus 39.7 ± 1.9,respectively; P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Continuation of buprenorphine is not associated with higher average pain scores or postoperative opioid requirements, supporting recently published guidelines.</p>","PeriodicalId":7970,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000005291","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Prescription rates for buprenorphine in opioid use disorder are increasing, and recent guidelines recommend its continuation during and after surgery; however, evidence from clinical outcome studies is limited. We tested the hypotheses that 1) perioperative continuation of buprenorphine does not result in higher pain scores and 2) that this approach does not result in higher supplemental postoperative opioid requirements.

Methods: The Veterans Affairs Corporate Data Warehouse was queried for patients who underwent surgery while being prescribed buprenorphine/naloxone for opioid use disorder between 2010 and 2020. Analysis of the prescription record was used to infer buprenorphine management, and a 3:1 matched control set of patients without buprenorphine prescriptions was generated. We examined patients who continued buprenorphine, patients who had buprenorphine interrupted, and control patients. The primary outcome was time-weighted average postoperative pain scores from inpatient and outpatient sources within 72 hours of surgery. The secondary outcome was postoperative average daily morphine equivalent opioid requirements within two weeks of surgery.

Results: A total of 1,881 surgical procedures in 1,673 patients taking buprenorphine for opioid use disorder were included; these procedures were matched to 5,748 control patients (5,775 procedures) without a buprenorphine prescription. Among the 1,881 procedures, 1,186 (63%) continued buprenorphine through the perioperative period while 695 (37%) interrupted buprenorphine. Pain scores were clinically similar for all three groups (4.1 ± 1.9 control [n = 3284], 4.9 ± 2.0 continued buprenorphine [n = 662], and 5.5 ± 1.7 interrupted buprenorphine [n = 419]; P < 0.001).Patients who continued buprenorphine did not require significantly more supplemental opioids as compared to controls (39.7 mg morphine equivalents/day ± 1.9 versus 36.5 ± 0.7, P = 0.23), and patients who interrupted buprenorphine received more supplemental opioids than those who continued it (74.2 ± 4.5 mg morphine equivalents/day versus 39.7 ± 1.9,respectively; P < 0.001).

Conclusions: Continuation of buprenorphine is not associated with higher average pain scores or postoperative opioid requirements, supporting recently published guidelines.

在接受手术的成年退伍军人中继续使用丁丙诺啡/纳洛酮与中断使用丁丙诺啡/纳洛酮:在一项全国性回顾性队列研究中对术后疼痛和阿片类药物使用情况的调查。
背景:阿片类药物使用障碍患者的丁丙诺啡处方率正在上升,最近的指南建议在手术期间和手术后继续使用丁丙诺啡;然而,临床结果研究的证据却很有限。我们对以下假设进行了测试:1)围手术期继续使用丁丙诺啡不会导致疼痛评分升高;2)这种方法不会导致术后阿片类药物补充需求升高:方法: 在退伍军人事务企业数据仓库中查询了 2010 年至 2020 年期间因阿片类药物使用障碍而接受手术并同时服用丁丙诺啡/纳洛酮的患者。我们通过分析处方记录来推断丁丙诺啡的管理情况,并生成了一个 3:1 的匹配对照组,即没有丁丙诺啡处方的患者。我们对继续服用丁丙诺啡的患者、中断服用丁丙诺啡的患者以及对照组患者进行了研究。主要结果是手术后 72 小时内住院病人和门诊病人的时间加权平均术后疼痛评分。次要结果是术后两周内平均每日吗啡当量阿片类药物需求量:共纳入了 1673 名因阿片类药物使用障碍而服用丁丙诺啡的患者的 1881 例手术;这些手术与 5748 名未服用丁丙诺啡的对照组患者(5775 例手术)进行了比对。在 1,881 例手术中,1,186 例(63%)在围手术期继续服用丁丙诺啡,695 例(37%)中断服用丁丙诺啡。三组患者的疼痛评分临床上相似(对照组 4.1 ± 1.9 [n = 3284],继续服用丁丙诺啡的患者 4.9 ± 2.0 [n = 662],中断服用丁丙诺啡的患者 5.5 ± 1.7 [n = 419];P < 0.001)。与对照组相比(39.7 毫克吗啡当量/天 ± 1.9 对 36.5 ± 0.7,P = 0.23),中断服用丁丙诺啡的患者比继续服用的患者需要补充更多的阿片类药物(分别为 74.2 ± 4.5 毫克吗啡当量/天对 39.7 ± 1.9,P < 0.001):继续使用丁丙诺啡与较高的平均疼痛评分或术后阿片类药物需求量无关,这支持了近期发布的指南。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Anesthesiology
Anesthesiology 医学-麻醉学
CiteScore
10.40
自引率
5.70%
发文量
542
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: With its establishment in 1940, Anesthesiology has emerged as a prominent leader in the field of anesthesiology, encompassing perioperative, critical care, and pain medicine. As the esteemed journal of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, Anesthesiology operates independently with full editorial freedom. Its distinguished Editorial Board, comprising renowned professionals from across the globe, drives the advancement of the specialty by presenting innovative research through immediate open access to select articles and granting free access to all published articles after a six-month period. Furthermore, Anesthesiology actively promotes groundbreaking studies through an influential press release program. The journal's unwavering commitment lies in the dissemination of exemplary work that enhances clinical practice and revolutionizes the practice of medicine within our discipline.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信