Use of opioids and opioid alternatives during general anesthesia: a pan-Canadian survey among anesthesiologists.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY Canadian Journal of Anesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie Pub Date : 2024-10-24 DOI:10.1007/s12630-024-02847-6
Michael Verret, Manoj M Lalu, Alexandre Assi, Stuart G Nicholls, Alexis F Turgeon, Francois M Carrier, Daniel I McIsaac, Ian Gilron, Fiona Zikovic, Megan Graham, Maxime Lê, Allison Geist, Guillaume Martel, Jason A McVicar, Husein Moloo, Dean Fergusson
{"title":"Use of opioids and opioid alternatives during general anesthesia: a pan-Canadian survey among anesthesiologists.","authors":"Michael Verret, Manoj M Lalu, Alexandre Assi, Stuart G Nicholls, Alexis F Turgeon, Francois M Carrier, Daniel I McIsaac, Ian Gilron, Fiona Zikovic, Megan Graham, Maxime Lê, Allison Geist, Guillaume Martel, Jason A McVicar, Husein Moloo, Dean Fergusson","doi":"10.1007/s12630-024-02847-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>While there is limited patient-centred evidence (i.e., evidence that is important for patients and end-users) to inform the use of pharmacologic opioid minimization strategies (i.e., the use of opioid alternatives) for adult surgical patients requiring general anesthesia, such strategies are increasingly being adopted into practice. Our objectives were to describe anesthesiologists' beliefs regarding intraoperative opioid minimizing strategies use and utility, and to explore important clinical decision-making factors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a pan-Canadian web-based survey of anesthesiologists that was distributed using a modified Dillman technique. Our multidisciplinary team, including a patient partners panel, participated in the process of domains and items generation, items reduction, formatting, and composition. Our sampling frames were members of the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society and members of the Association des Anesthésiologistes du Québec. We used the newsletters of each organization to distribute our survey, which was available in English and French and housed on the LimeSurvey (LimeSurvey GmbH, Hamburg, Germany) platform.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From our eligible sampling frame, 18% completed the survey (356 respondents out of 2,008 eligible participants). Most of the respondents believed that using opioid minimization strategies during general anesthesia could improve postoperative clinical outcomes, including pain control (84% agree or strongly agree, n = 344/409). Reported use of pharmacologic opioid minimization strategies was variable; however, most respondents believed that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonists (ketamine), α<sub>2</sub>-adrenoceptor agonists (dexmedetomidine), corticosteroids, and intravenous lidocaine improve prostoperative clinical outcomes. The primary factors guiding decision-making regarding the use of opioid minimization strategies were postoperative acute pain intensity, the impact of acute pain on functioning, patient well-being (i.e., quality of recovery) and patient satisfaction with care. A lack of evidence was the most important barrier limiting the use of opioid minimization strategies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In our survey of Canadian anesthesiologists, several opioid minimization strategies were believed to be effective complements to general anesthesia, although there was substantial variation in their reported use. Future randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews evaluating the effectiveness of opioid minimization strategies should prioritize patient-centred outcome measures assessment such as the quality of recovery or the impact of acute pain on functioning.</p>","PeriodicalId":56145,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Anesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Anesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-024-02847-6","RegionNum":3,"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

Purpose: While there is limited patient-centred evidence (i.e., evidence that is important for patients and end-users) to inform the use of pharmacologic opioid minimization strategies (i.e., the use of opioid alternatives) for adult surgical patients requiring general anesthesia, such strategies are increasingly being adopted into practice. Our objectives were to describe anesthesiologists' beliefs regarding intraoperative opioid minimizing strategies use and utility, and to explore important clinical decision-making factors.

Methods: We conducted a pan-Canadian web-based survey of anesthesiologists that was distributed using a modified Dillman technique. Our multidisciplinary team, including a patient partners panel, participated in the process of domains and items generation, items reduction, formatting, and composition. Our sampling frames were members of the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society and members of the Association des Anesthésiologistes du Québec. We used the newsletters of each organization to distribute our survey, which was available in English and French and housed on the LimeSurvey (LimeSurvey GmbH, Hamburg, Germany) platform.

Results: From our eligible sampling frame, 18% completed the survey (356 respondents out of 2,008 eligible participants). Most of the respondents believed that using opioid minimization strategies during general anesthesia could improve postoperative clinical outcomes, including pain control (84% agree or strongly agree, n = 344/409). Reported use of pharmacologic opioid minimization strategies was variable; however, most respondents believed that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonists (ketamine), α2-adrenoceptor agonists (dexmedetomidine), corticosteroids, and intravenous lidocaine improve prostoperative clinical outcomes. The primary factors guiding decision-making regarding the use of opioid minimization strategies were postoperative acute pain intensity, the impact of acute pain on functioning, patient well-being (i.e., quality of recovery) and patient satisfaction with care. A lack of evidence was the most important barrier limiting the use of opioid minimization strategies.

Conclusion: In our survey of Canadian anesthesiologists, several opioid minimization strategies were believed to be effective complements to general anesthesia, although there was substantial variation in their reported use. Future randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews evaluating the effectiveness of opioid minimization strategies should prioritize patient-centred outcome measures assessment such as the quality of recovery or the impact of acute pain on functioning.

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
全身麻醉期间阿片类药物和阿片类药物替代品的使用情况:一项针对全加拿大麻醉师的调查。
目的:虽然以患者为中心的证据(即对患者和最终用户重要的证据)有限,无法为需要全身麻醉的成人手术患者使用阿片类药物最小化策略(即使用阿片类药物替代品)提供依据,但此类策略正被越来越多地应用于实践中。我们的目标是描述麻醉医师对术中阿片类药物最小化策略的使用和效用的看法,并探讨重要的临床决策因素:我们采用改良的 Dillman 技术对麻醉医师进行了一次泛加拿大网络调查。我们的多学科团队(包括患者合作伙伴小组)参与了领域和项目的生成、项目缩减、格式化和组成过程。我们的抽样框架是加拿大麻醉医师协会会员和魁北克麻醉医师协会会员。我们利用这两个组织的新闻简报发布调查问卷,问卷有英语和法语两种版本,并放置在 LimeSurvey(LimeSurvey GmbH,德国汉堡)平台上:在我们的合格抽样框架中,有 18% 的人完成了调查(2,008 名合格参与者中的 356 名受访者)。大多数受访者认为,在全身麻醉期间使用阿片类药物最小化策略可以改善术后临床效果,包括疼痛控制(84%同意或非常同意,n = 344/409)。阿片类药物最小化策略的报告使用情况各不相同;但大多数受访者认为,非甾体类抗炎药、对乙酰氨基酚、N-甲基-D-天冬氨酸受体拮抗剂(氯胺酮)、α2-肾上腺素受体激动剂(右美托咪定)、皮质类固醇和静脉注射利多卡因可改善术后临床效果。指导使用阿片类药物最小化策略决策的主要因素是术后急性疼痛强度、急性疼痛对功能的影响、患者的福祉(即恢复质量)以及患者对护理的满意度。缺乏证据是限制使用阿片类药物最小化策略的最主要障碍:在我们对加拿大麻醉医师进行的调查中,有几种阿片类药物最小化策略被认为是对全身麻醉的有效补充,尽管在报告的使用情况中存在很大差异。未来评估阿片类药物最小化策略有效性的随机对照试验和系统性综述应优先考虑以患者为中心的结果测量评估,如恢复质量或急性疼痛对功能的影响。
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
8.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
161
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Canadian Journal of Anesthesia (the Journal) is owned by the Canadian Anesthesiologists’ Society and is published by Springer Science + Business Media, LLM (New York). From the first year of publication in 1954, the international exposure of the Journal has broadened considerably, with articles now received from over 50 countries. The Journal is published monthly, and has an impact Factor (mean journal citation frequency) of 2.127 (in 2012). Article types consist of invited editorials, reports of original investigations (clinical and basic sciences articles), case reports/case series, review articles, systematic reviews, accredited continuing professional development (CPD) modules, and Letters to the Editor. The editorial content, according to the mission statement, spans the fields of anesthesia, acute and chronic pain, perioperative medicine and critical care. In addition, the Journal publishes practice guidelines and standards articles relevant to clinicians. Articles are published either in English or in French, according to the language of submission.
期刊最新文献
Methods for determining optimal positive end-expiratory pressure in patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation: a scoping review. Dexmedetomidine versus propofol for postoperative recovery after cardiac surgery: a historical cohort study. Important features of hospitals, intensive care unit waiting rooms, and patient care rooms: perspectives of intensive care unit visitors. Squats, spinach, and soul: considering disparities in prehabilitation medicine before programmatic implementation. The implementation of preoperative optimization in British Columbia: a quality improvement initiative.
×
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