Impact of opioid-free analgesia on pain severity and patient satisfaction after discharge from surgery: multispecialty, prospective cohort study in 25 countries

Background: Balancing opioid stewardship and the need for adequate analgesia following discharge after surgery is challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes for patients discharged with opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after common surgical procedures.Methods: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study collected data from patients undergoing common acute and elective general surgical, urological, gynaecological, and orthopaedic procedures. The primary outcomes were patient-reported time in severe pain measured on a numerical analogue scale from 0 to 100% and patient-reported satisfaction with pain relief during the first week following discharge. Data were collected by in-hospital chart review and patient telephone interview 1 week after discharge.Results: The study recruited 4273 patients from 144 centres in 25 countries; 1311 patients (30.7%) were prescribed opioid analgesia at discharge. Patients reported being in severe pain for 10 (i.q.r. 1-30)% of the first week after discharge and rated satisfaction with analgesia as 90 (i.q.r. 80-100) of 100. After adjustment for confounders, opioid analgesia on discharge was independently associated with increased pain severity (risk ratio 1.52, 95% c.i. 1.31 to 1.76; P < 0.001) and re-presentation to healthcare providers owing to side-effects of medication (OR 2.38, 95% c.i. 1.36 to 4.17; P = 0.004), but not with satisfaction with analgesia (beta coefficient 0.92, 95% c.i. -1.52 to 3.36; P = 0.468) compared with opioid-free analgesia. Although opioid prescribing varied greatly between high-income and low- and middle-income countries, patient-reported outcomes did not.Conclusion: Opioid analgesia prescription on surgical discharge is associated with a higher risk of re-presentation owing to side-effects of medication and increased patient-reported pain, but not with changes in patient-reported satisfaction. Opioid-free discharge analgesia should be adopted routinely

Surgical site infections after emergency hernia repair: substudy from the Management of Acutely Symptomatic Hernia (MASH) study

Introduction Acutely symptomatic abdominal wall and groin hernias (ASH) are a common acute surgical presentation. There are limited data to guide decisions related to surgical repair technique and use of antibiotics, which can be driven by increased risk of surgical site infection (SSI) in this group. This study aims to report rates of SSI following ASH repair and explore the use of patient-reported outcome measure reporting in this setting. Methods An 18-week, UK-based, multicentre prospective cohort study (NCT04197271) recruited adults with ASH. This study reports operatively managed patients. Data on patient characteristics, inpatient management, quality of life, complications, and wound healing (Bluebelle score) were collected. Descriptive analyses were performed to estimate event rates of SSI and regression analysis explored the relationship between Bluebelle scores and SSI. The 30 and 90-day follow-up visits assessed complications and quality of life. Results The MASH study recruited 273 patients, of whom 218 were eligible for this study, 87.2 per cent who underwent open repair. Mesh was used in 123 patients (50.8 per cent). Pre- and postoperative antibiotics were given in 163 (67.4 per cent) and 28 (11.5 per cent) patients respectively. There were 26 reported SSIs (11.9 per cent). Increased BMI, incisional, femoral, and umbilical hernia were associated with higher rates of SSI (P = 0.006). In 238 patients, there was a difference in healthy utility values at 90 days between patients with and without SSI (P = 0.025). Also, when analysing 191 patients with Bluebelle scores, those who developed an SSI had higher Bluebelle values (P < 0.001). Conclusion SSI is frequent in repair of acutely symptomatic hernia and correlates with BMI and site of hernia

Infective Endocarditis in Adults: Diagnosis, Antimicrobial Therapy, and Management of Complications

Background— Infective endocarditis is a potentially lethal disease that has undergone major changes in both host and pathogen. The epidemiology of infective endocarditis has become more complex with today’s myriad healthcare-associated factors that predispose to infection. Moreover, changes in pathogen prevalence, in particular a more common staphylococcal origin, have affected outcomes, which have not improved despite medical and surgical advances. Methods and Results— This statement updates the 2005 iteration, both of which were developed by the American Heart Association under the auspices of the Committee on Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis, and Kawasaki Disease, Council on Cardiovascular Disease of the Young. It includes an evidence-based system for diagnostic and treatment recommendations used by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association for treatment recommendations. Conclusions— Infective endocarditis is a complex disease, and patients with this disease generally require management by a team of physicians and allied health providers with a variety of areas of expertise. The recommendations provided in this document are intended to assist in the management of this uncommon but potentially deadly infection. The clinical variability and complexity in infective endocarditis, however, dictate that these recommendations be used to support and not supplant decisions in individual patient management. </jats:sec