Search

Objective: We aimed to investigate the impact of multimodal analgesia on postoperative complications and opioid prescription on a national level. Methods: This retrospective cross-sectional study included n = 1,307,923 hysterectomies (01/2006–12/2022, Premier Healthcare claims data). Multimodal analgesia was defined as opioid use with the addition of non-opioid analgesic modes, grouped into four categories: opioid-only and 1, 2, or 3 or more additional non-opioid analgesics. Multivariable regression models measured associations between multimodal categories and outcomes (composite/respiratory/cardiac/gastrointestinal/genitourinary, and CNS complications, oral morphine milligram equivalents [MME], and length of hospital stay [LOS]). Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) are reported. Results: Overall, 84.3% (1,102,812/1,307,923) received multimodal analgesia, of which 58.9%, 28.0%, and 13.1% received 1, 2, or 3 or more additional non-opioid analgesics, respectively. The odds of any composite complication (any ≥1 complication) decreased with the addition of 1, 2, 3, or more analgesic modalities (versus opioid-only): OR 0.66 (CI 0.64; 0.68), OR 0.63 (CI 0.61; 0.66), OR 0.65 (CI 0.62; 0.67), respectively. Similar patterns existed for respiratory, cardiac, and genitourinary complications. Opioid prescription decreased incrementally with 1,2, 3, or more non-opioid analgesic modalities by 9.51 mg (CI 11.16; 7.86) and 15.29 mg (CI 17.21; 13.37) and 29.35 mg (CI 31.79; 26.91) cumulative MME. LOS was reduced by 0.52 days (CI 0.54; 0.51), 0.49 days (CI 0.51; 0.47), and 0.40 days (CI 0.43; 0.38), respectively. Costs were reduced by $765 (CI 817; 714) or $479 (CI 539; 419) with 1 or 2 multimodal modes. Conclusions: These findings suggest substantial benefits of multimodal analgesia, including significant decreases in serious complications (especially respiratory, cardiac, and genitourinary), opioid consumption, and hospitalizations. Multimodal analgesia may facilitate safe and efficient pain management with optimized opioid consumption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Methods Results Conclusion Studies have demonstrated beneficial outcomes associated with timely surgical treatment of hip fracture. Subsequently, practice recommendations changed with 24–48 h as the recommended time for surgery from admission; however, recent data on timing of hip fracture surgery and how this impacts outcomes are lacking.This retrospective cohort study included patients who had a primary diagnosis of hip fracture and underwent a subsequent surgical repair within 3 days of admission (Premier Healthcare claims 2006–2021 data). The primary exposure of interest was time from hip fracture diagnosis to surgery (categorized as 0–1 day, 2 days, and 3 days). Outcomes included any major complication, mortality, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Mixed‐effects models measured the association between timing of surgery and outcomes. We report odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals.Among 501,267 surgical hip fracture patients, 26.0%, 56.0%, and 18.1% of patients received surgery on days 0–1, 2, and 3, respectively. The median ages were 83, 84, and 84 years old, and there were 73.3%, 72.2%, and 68.8% female in each group respectively. Compared with repair on day 0–1, hip fracture surgical treatment on day 2 or day 3 was associated with increased odds of major complications (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.03–1.08 and OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.13–1.2), mortality (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02–1.14 and OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.12–1.28), and ICU admission (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.04–1.09 and OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.32–1.4) after adjusting major comorbidities; all p < 0.001.Despite the publication of society guidelines in 2015, most fracture patients still received surgery on day 2 or day 3 of admission and were associated with worse outcomes. Balancing optimization of clinical factors with timing of surgery can be challenging, and further research is needed. Nonetheless, our findings reiterate the importance of timely surgical intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: There is a lack of data on the distribution of women first and senior authorships in pain journals. Using articles published in top North American pain journals over the past two decades, we sought to describe the prevalence and changes in women representation among first and last authors. Methods: We retrieved all published research articles in four pain journals (Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, Clinical Journal of Pain, Pain and The Journal of Pain) from 2002 to 2021 using the easyPubMed package. Subsequently, the 'gender' package in R was used to determine authors' gender by first names. Trends in gender authorship change over time were assessed. Results: The final cohort consisted of 20,981 authors (from an initial total of 11,842 publications and 23,684 authors retrieved). Women authors were more often first compared to senior authors (46.7% vs. 30.5%). The proportion of women first authors (46.2% in 2002 vs. 48.4% in 2021) and women senior authors (22.4% in 2002 vs. 36.3% in 2021) increased over the course of the study period (all p‐value <0.001). The Clinical Journal of Pain having the highest percentage of women authors and Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine had the lowest percentage of women authors. Discussion: Our data demonstrated increasing women authorship in pain journals in the past 20 years, largely driven by an increase in first authorships. There still remains a large gap between first and senior authorship, indicative of disparity in the role that women play in research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]