Feasibility of Prospectively Comparing Opioid Analgesia With Opioid-Free Analgesia After Outpatient General Surgery: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial.
Journal
JAMA network open
ISSN: 2574-3805
Titre abrégé: JAMA Netw Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101729235
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 07 2022
01 07 2022
Historique:
entrez:
18
7
2022
pubmed:
19
7
2022
medline:
22
7
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The overprescription of opioids to surgical patients is recognized as an important factor contributing to the opioid crisis. However, the value of prescribing opioid analgesia (OA) vs opioid-free analgesia (OFA) after postoperative discharge remains uncertain. To investigate the feasibility of conducting a full-scale randomized clinical trial (RCT) to assess the comparative effectiveness of OA vs OFA after outpatient general surgery. This parallel, 2-group, assessor-blind, pragmatic pilot RCT was conducted from January 29 to September 3, 2020 (last follow-up on October 2, 2020). at 2 university-affiliated hospitals in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Participants were adult patients (aged ≥18 years) undergoing outpatient abdominal (ie, cholecystectomy, appendectomy, or hernia repair) or breast (ie, partial or total mastectomy) general surgical procedures. Exclusion criteria were contraindications to drugs used in the trial, preoperative opioid use, conditions that could affect assessment of outcomes, and intraoperative or early complications requiring hospitalization. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive OA (around-the-clock nonopioids and opioids for breakthrough pain) or OFA (around-the-clock nonopioids with increasing doses and/or addition of nonopioid medications for breakthrough pain) after postoperative discharge. Main outcomes were a priori RCT feasibility criteria (ie, rates of surgeon agreement, patient eligibility, patient consent, treatment adherence, loss to follow-up, and missing follow-up data). Secondary outcomes included pain intensity and interference, analgesic intake, 30-day unplanned health care use, and adverse events. Between-group comparison of outcomes followed the intention-to-treat principle. A total of 15 surgeons were approached; all (100%; 95% CI, 78%-100%) agreed to have patients recruited and adhered to the study procedures. Rates of patient eligibility and consent were 73% (95% CI, 66%-78%) and 57% (95% CI, 49%-65%), respectively. Seventy-six patients were randomized (39 [51%] to OA and 37 [49%] to OFA) and included in the intention-to-treat analysis (mean [SD] age, 55.5 [14.5] years; 50 [66%] female); 40 (53%) underwent abdominal surgery, and 36 (47%) underwent breast surgery. Seventy-five patients (99%; 95% CI, 93%-100%) adhered to the allocated treatment; 1 patient randomly assigned to OFA received an opioid prescription. Seventeen patients (44%) randomly assigned to OA consumed opioids after discharge. Seventy-three patients (96%; 95% CI, 89%-99%) completed the 30-day follow-up. The rate of missing questionnaires was 37 of 3724 (1%; 95% CI, 0.7%-1.4%). All the a priori RCT feasibility criteria were fulfilled. The findings of this pilot RCT support the feasibility of conducting a robust, full-scale RCT to inform evidence-based prescribing of analgesia after outpatient general surgery. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04254679.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35849399
pii: 2794301
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.21430
pmc: PMC9294998
doi:
Substances chimiques
Analgesics, Non-Narcotic
0
Analgesics, Opioid
0
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT04254679']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e2221430Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Trials. 2014 Jul 03;15:264
pubmed: 24993581
J Clin Med. 2021 Apr 02;10(7):
pubmed: 33918296
Qual Life Res. 2009 Dec;18(10):1331-40
pubmed: 19876768
BMJ. 2013 May 03;346:f2690
pubmed: 23645858
BMJ. 2016 Oct 24;355:i5239
pubmed: 27777223
Ann Surg. 2013 Jul;258(1):1-7
pubmed: 23728278
JAMA Surg. 2017 Jun 21;152(6):e170504
pubmed: 28403427
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Sep 28;(9):CD008659
pubmed: 26414123
JAMA Surg. 2017 Nov 01;152(11):1066-1071
pubmed: 28768328
J Am Coll Surg. 2020 Jun;230(6):975-982
pubmed: 32451057
Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205-13
pubmed: 15273542
J Am Coll Surg. 2008 Mar;206(3):472-9
pubmed: 18308218
Ann Surg. 2020 Jan;271(1):37-38
pubmed: 31188218
Clin J Pain. 2004 Sep-Oct;20(5):309-18
pubmed: 15322437
JAMA Surg. 2018 Apr 1;153(4):303-311
pubmed: 29238824
Ann Surg Oncol. 2012 Nov;19(12):3792-800
pubmed: 22713999
Qual Life Res. 2018 Jul;27(7):1885-1891
pubmed: 29569016
Br J Anaesth. 2019 Jun;122(6):e198-e208
pubmed: 30915988
J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Nov;68(11):1375-9
pubmed: 26146089
JAMA. 2015 Oct 20;314(15):1561-2
pubmed: 26501530
Oncologist. 2020 Oct;25(10):e1574-e1582
pubmed: 32390251
JAMA Netw Open. 2019 Sep 4;2(9):e1910734
pubmed: 31483475
Ann Surg. 2020 Dec;272(6):879-886
pubmed: 32657939
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 Jul;95(28):e4256
pubmed: 27428236
J Pain. 2008 Feb;9(2):105-21
pubmed: 18055266
Anesth Analg. 2001 Jun;92(6):1470-2
pubmed: 11375827
J Subst Abuse Treat. 2008 Dec;35(4):380-6
pubmed: 18657935
Ann Surg. 2018 Jul;268(1):32-34
pubmed: 29462008
Br J Anaesth. 2017 Mar 1;118(3):424-429
pubmed: 28186223
Br J Anaesth. 2019 Nov;123(5):627-636
pubmed: 31563269
JAMA Netw Open. 2018 Dec 7;1(8):e185452
pubmed: 30646274
Ann Surg. 2020 Oct 15;:
pubmed: 33065653
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2006 Sep;32(3):287-93
pubmed: 16939853