National trends in perioperative epidural analgesia use for surgical patients

IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY Journal of Clinical Anesthesia Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111642
Dale N. Bongbong , Waseem Abdou , Engy T. Said , Rodney A. Gabriel
{"title":"National trends in perioperative epidural analgesia use for surgical patients","authors":"Dale N. Bongbong ,&nbsp;Waseem Abdou ,&nbsp;Engy T. Said ,&nbsp;Rodney A. Gabriel","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinane.2024.111642","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Study objective</h3><div>Newer regional anesthesia techniques and minimally invasive surgeries have yielded decreased postoperative pain scores, potentially leading to decreased need for perioperative epidural analgesia. Limited literature is available on trends in usage rates of epidurals. The objective of this study was to identify trends in perioperative epidural analgesia rates among multiple fields of surgery.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>All patients undergoing general, thoracic, urologic, plastic, vascular, orthopedic, or gynecological surgery in 2014–2020 were included from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database of over 700 hospitals in the U.S. and 11 different countries. Annual trends in epidural analgesia for all surgeries and each surgical specialty were assessed by mixed effects multivariable logistic regression. The odds ratios (OR) and 99 % confidence intervals (CI) were reported.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>There were 3,111,435 patients from 2014 to 2020 that were included in the final analysis, in which 107,209 (3.4 %) received perioperative epidural analgesia. Among all surgeries combined, epidural use throughout the study period decreased (OR 0.98 per year, 99 % CI 0.97–0.98, <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001). When only analyzing the surgeries with the top 5 most frequent epidural use per specialty, there was no statistically significant trend in epidural utilization (OR 0.99 per year, 99 % CI 0.99–1.00, <em>P</em> = 0.09). However, there was an increasing trend in epidural utilization in general surgery (OR 1.05 per year, 99 % CI 1.03–1.07, <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001) and vascular surgery (OR 1.08 per year, 99 % CI 1.05–1.10, <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Rates of perioperative epidural analgesia use has decreased in recent years overall, however, among surgeries within the general surgery and vascular surgery specialty, utilization has increased for procedures that have the highest rates of usage.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15506,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Anesthesia","volume":"99 ","pages":"Article 111642"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Anesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095281802400271X","RegionNum":2,"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

Study objective

Newer regional anesthesia techniques and minimally invasive surgeries have yielded decreased postoperative pain scores, potentially leading to decreased need for perioperative epidural analgesia. Limited literature is available on trends in usage rates of epidurals. The objective of this study was to identify trends in perioperative epidural analgesia rates among multiple fields of surgery.

Methods

All patients undergoing general, thoracic, urologic, plastic, vascular, orthopedic, or gynecological surgery in 2014–2020 were included from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database of over 700 hospitals in the U.S. and 11 different countries. Annual trends in epidural analgesia for all surgeries and each surgical specialty were assessed by mixed effects multivariable logistic regression. The odds ratios (OR) and 99 % confidence intervals (CI) were reported.

Results

There were 3,111,435 patients from 2014 to 2020 that were included in the final analysis, in which 107,209 (3.4 %) received perioperative epidural analgesia. Among all surgeries combined, epidural use throughout the study period decreased (OR 0.98 per year, 99 % CI 0.97–0.98, P < 0.001). When only analyzing the surgeries with the top 5 most frequent epidural use per specialty, there was no statistically significant trend in epidural utilization (OR 0.99 per year, 99 % CI 0.99–1.00, P = 0.09). However, there was an increasing trend in epidural utilization in general surgery (OR 1.05 per year, 99 % CI 1.03–1.07, P < 0.001) and vascular surgery (OR 1.08 per year, 99 % CI 1.05–1.10, P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Rates of perioperative epidural analgesia use has decreased in recent years overall, however, among surgeries within the general surgery and vascular surgery specialty, utilization has increased for procedures that have the highest rates of usage.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
全国外科手术患者围手术期硬膜外镇痛的使用趋势
研究目的更新的区域麻醉技术和微创手术降低了术后疼痛评分,从而有可能减少围术期硬膜外镇痛的需求。有关硬膜外镇痛使用率趋势的文献有限。本研究的目的是确定多个外科领域围术期硬膜外镇痛率的趋势。方法从美国和 11 个不同国家的 700 多家医院的国家外科质量改进计划数据库中纳入 2014-2020 年接受普外科、胸外科、泌尿外科、整形外科、血管外科、骨科或妇科手术的所有患者。通过混合效应多变量逻辑回归评估了所有手术和各外科专科硬膜外镇痛的年度趋势。结果从2014年到2020年,共有3,111,435名患者被纳入最终分析,其中107,209人(3.4%)接受了围手术期硬膜外镇痛。在所有手术中,硬膜外镇痛的使用在整个研究期间都有所减少(OR 每年 0.98,99 % CI 0.97-0.98,P <0.001)。如果只分析每个专科硬膜外麻醉使用最频繁的前五位手术,硬膜外麻醉使用率没有统计学意义上的显著趋势(OR 每年 0.99,99 % CI 0.99-1.00,P = 0.09)。结论近年来,围术期硬膜外镇痛的使用率总体上有所下降,但在普外科和血管外科的手术中,使用率最高的手术的硬膜外镇痛使用率有所上升。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
4.50%
发文量
346
审稿时长
23 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Anesthesia (JCA) addresses all aspects of anesthesia practice, including anesthetic administration, pharmacokinetics, preoperative and postoperative considerations, coexisting disease and other complicating factors, cost issues, and similar concerns anesthesiologists contend with daily. Exceptionally high standards of presentation and accuracy are maintained. The core of the journal is original contributions on subjects relevant to clinical practice, and rigorously peer-reviewed. Highly respected international experts have joined together to form the Editorial Board, sharing their years of experience and clinical expertise. Specialized section editors cover the various subspecialties within the field. To keep your practical clinical skills current, the journal bridges the gap between the laboratory and the clinical practice of anesthesiology and critical care to clarify how new insights can improve daily practice.
期刊最新文献
Defining standards of care for AI and clinicians alike: Regarding ChatGPT in labor analgesia management Continuation versus discontinuation of renin-angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitors before non-cardiac surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis Continuous vital sign monitoring on surgical wards: The COSMOS pilot Evaluating prevalence and trajectory of functional disability in older surgical patients: An observational cohort study Effects of Desflurane versus sevoflurane on graft outcome of patients with cirrhosis receiving steatotic liver graft in deceased donor liver transplantation
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1