Bruns, Danette L.

BACKGROUND: Intrathecal drug delivery systems (IDDS) have been utilized for over 3 decades for management of chronic pain and spasticity. Patients with IDDS may present for surgical procedures unrelated to the IDDS device, although data are limited regarding perioperative outcomes. METHODS: This is a historical matched cohort study conducted between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2016 of patients with an opioid-based IDDS versus matched control patients undergoing surgery excluding interventional pain procedures. Patients in the IDDS group were matched with up to 2 patients without an IDDS. Multivariable regression analyses were utilized to assess differences in the primary outcome of cumulative perioperative opioid consumption (ie, intraoperative and postanesthesia care unit [PACU] opioid consumption), and opioid consumption during the first 24 and 72 postoperative hours. Postoperative clinical outcomes were also assessed including escalating oxygen requirements, naloxone administration, pain-sedation mismatch, and perioperative pain service consultation. RESULTS: A total of 321 surgeries were included, 112 with IDDS and 209 controls, with median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 57 (49–64) years. Compared to matched controls, patients with an IDDS had greater perioperative opioid consumption (median [IQR] oral morphine milligram equivalents [OME] of 110 [60–163] vs 93 [IQR, 53–142]; adjusted multiplicative increase 1.28 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.03–1.59]; P = .026). IDDS patients also had greater opioid consumption in the first 24 and 72 postoperative hours (multiplicative increases of 2.23 [95% CI, 1.36–3.63], P = .001, and 2.46 [95% CI, 1.41–4.32], P = .002, respectively). There were no significant differences in postoperative oxygen requirements, naloxone administration, or pain-sedation mismatch. Inpatient pain medicine consultation was more frequent in IDDS patients compared to controls (51.8% vs 6.2%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with opioid-based IDDS received more perioperative opioids and were more likely to receive postoperative pain service consultation compared to matched controls. There were no significant differences in clinical safety outcomes, suggesting tolerance for higher opioid doses. Further research is warranted to optimize perioperative outcomes in those with IDDS.

AbstractBackground and ObjectivesOptimizing perioperative analgesia for patients undergoing major lower‐extremity amputation remains a considerable challenge. The utility of liposomal bupivacaine as a component of peripheral nerve blockade for lower‐extremity amputation is unknown.MethodsWe conducted an observational study comparing three different perioperative analgesic techniques for adults undergoing major lower‐extremity amputation under general anesthesia between 2012 and 2017 at an academic medical center: (1) no regional anesthesia, (2) peripheral nerve blockade with standard bupivacaine, and (3) peripheral nerve blockade with a mixture of standard and liposomal bupivacaine. The primary outcome of cumulative opioid oral morphine milligram equivalent utilization in the first 72 hours postoperatively was compared across groups utilizing multivariable linear regression.ResultsA total of 631 unique anesthetics were included for 578 unique patients, including 416 (66%) without regional anesthesia, 131 (21%) with peripheral nerve blockade with a mixture of standard and liposomal bupivacaine, and 84 (13%) with peripheral nerve blockade with standard bupivacaine alone. Cumulative morphine equivalents were lower in those receiving peripheral nerve blockade with combined standard and liposomal bupivacaine compared with those not receiving regional anesthesia (multiplicative increase 0.67; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90; P = 0.007). There were no significant differences in opioid utilization between peripheral nerve blockade groups (P = 0.59).ConclusionsPeripheral nerve blockade is associated with reduced opioid requirements after lower‐extremity amputation compared with general anesthesia alone. However, the incorporation of liposomal bupivacaine is not significantly different to blockade employing only standard bupivacaine.