肺叶切除术中肋间神经冷冻消融治疗手术后疼痛:一种安全且经济有效的干预措施

IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Pain and Therapy Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-17 DOI:10.1007/s40122-024-00694-3
Daniel L Miller, Jacob Hutchins, Michael A Ferguson, Yazid Barhoush, Emily Achter, John P Kuckelman
{"title":"肺叶切除术中肋间神经冷冻消融治疗手术后疼痛:一种安全且经济有效的干预措施","authors":"Daniel L Miller, Jacob Hutchins, Michael A Ferguson, Yazid Barhoush, Emily Achter, John P Kuckelman","doi":"10.1007/s40122-024-00694-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The cost benefit of intercostal nerve cryoablation during surgical lobectomy for postoperative pain management is unknown. The current study compared hospital economics, resource use, and clinical outcomes during the index stay and accompanying short-term follow-up. Patients who underwent lobectomy with standard of care treatment for postsurgical pain management and cryoablation were compared to those with standard of care treatment only. We hypothesized that cryoablation would reduce narcotic use and index hospital and short-term costs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective, propensity matched cohort of surgical patients treated between 2016 and 2022 from a US National All-Payer Database were used. Cost and outcome comparisons were made between groups using chi-square and t tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From a cohort of 23,138 patients, 266 pairs with a mean age of 69 years were included. Matching variables included age, gender, lobe resected, and prior opioid use. Both groups had significant comorbidity history and prior opioid use; 66% (n = 175 both groups) underwent open lobectomy and 53% (n = 142 vs. 143) had the upper lobe resected. Cryoablation intervention was associated with 1.3 days reduced hospital stay (8.8 vs. 10.1 days, p = 0.31) and no difference in perioperative safety. After 90 days, postsurgery cryoablation patients had lower opioid prescription refills (27.3 vs. 36.9 morphine milligram equivalents, p = 0.03). Cryoablation patient costs trended less than non-cryoablation patients during index ($38,753 vs. $43,974, p = 0.10) and lower through 6 months (total costs, $65,703 vs. $74,304, p = 0.10). There was no difference in postsurgery resource use, but a smaller proportion of cryoablation patients had outpatient hospital visits (83.1%, N = 221 vs. 92.9%, n = 247, p < 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Cryoablation during lobectomy is safe and does not add incremental hospital costs. Clinical meaningful reductions in length of stay and postsurgery opioid use were observed with cryoablation intervention. The addition of cryoablation during surgery to reduce postoperative pain appears to be a cost-effective therapy.</p>","PeriodicalId":19908,"journal":{"name":"Pain and Therapy","volume":" ","pages":"317-328"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11751353/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intercostal Nerve Cryoablation During Lobectomy for Postsurgical Pain: A Safe and Cost-Effective Intervention.\",\"authors\":\"Daniel L Miller, Jacob Hutchins, Michael A Ferguson, Yazid Barhoush, Emily Achter, John P Kuckelman\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40122-024-00694-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The cost benefit of intercostal nerve cryoablation during surgical lobectomy for postoperative pain management is unknown. The current study compared hospital economics, resource use, and clinical outcomes during the index stay and accompanying short-term follow-up. Patients who underwent lobectomy with standard of care treatment for postsurgical pain management and cryoablation were compared to those with standard of care treatment only. We hypothesized that cryoablation would reduce narcotic use and index hospital and short-term costs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective, propensity matched cohort of surgical patients treated between 2016 and 2022 from a US National All-Payer Database were used. Cost and outcome comparisons were made between groups using chi-square and t tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From a cohort of 23,138 patients, 266 pairs with a mean age of 69 years were included. Matching variables included age, gender, lobe resected, and prior opioid use. Both groups had significant comorbidity history and prior opioid use; 66% (n = 175 both groups) underwent open lobectomy and 53% (n = 142 vs. 143) had the upper lobe resected. Cryoablation intervention was associated with 1.3 days reduced hospital stay (8.8 vs. 10.1 days, p = 0.31) and no difference in perioperative safety. After 90 days, postsurgery cryoablation patients had lower opioid prescription refills (27.3 vs. 36.9 morphine milligram equivalents, p = 0.03). Cryoablation patient costs trended less than non-cryoablation patients during index ($38,753 vs. $43,974, p = 0.10) and lower through 6 months (total costs, $65,703 vs. $74,304, p = 0.10). There was no difference in postsurgery resource use, but a smaller proportion of cryoablation patients had outpatient hospital visits (83.1%, N = 221 vs. 92.9%, n = 247, p < 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Cryoablation during lobectomy is safe and does not add incremental hospital costs. Clinical meaningful reductions in length of stay and postsurgery opioid use were observed with cryoablation intervention. The addition of cryoablation during surgery to reduce postoperative pain appears to be a cost-effective therapy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19908,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pain and Therapy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"317-328\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11751353/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pain and Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40122-024-00694-3\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pain and Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40122-024-00694-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

前言:在外科肺叶切除术中肋间神经冷冻消融治疗术后疼痛的成本效益尚不清楚。目前的研究比较了医院的经济效益、资源利用和指标住院期间的临床结果以及伴随的短期随访。将接受肺叶切除术并进行标准护理治疗的患者与仅接受标准护理治疗的患者进行比较。我们假设冷冻消融术可以减少麻醉药物的使用,降低医院和短期成本。方法:从美国国家全付款人数据库中选取2016年至2022年接受手术治疗的回顾性倾向匹配队列。使用卡方检验和t检验进行组间成本和结果比较。结果:从23138例患者的队列中,包括266对平均年龄为69岁的患者。匹配变量包括年龄、性别、肺叶切除和既往阿片类药物使用。两组均有明显的合并症史和阿片类药物使用史;66%(两组n = 175)的患者接受了开放式肺叶切除术,53% (n = 142对143)的患者接受了上肺叶切除术。冷冻消融干预与缩短住院时间1.3天相关(8.8天对10.1天,p = 0.31),围手术期安全性无差异。90天后,术后冷冻消融患者的阿片类药物处方再用量较低(27.3对36.9吗啡毫克当量,p = 0.03)。在指数期间,冷冻消融患者的费用趋势低于非冷冻消融患者(38,753美元对43,974美元,p = 0.10),并且在6个月内更低(总费用,65,703美元对74,304美元,p = 0.10)。术后资源使用差异无统计学意义,但冷冻消融患者门诊就诊比例较小(83.1%,N = 221 vs. 92.9%, N = 247, p)。结论:肺叶切除术期间冷冻消融是安全的,不会增加住院费用。观察到冷冻消融干预在住院时间和术后阿片类药物使用方面有临床意义的减少。在手术中加入冷冻消融术以减少术后疼痛似乎是一种经济有效的治疗方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Intercostal Nerve Cryoablation During Lobectomy for Postsurgical Pain: A Safe and Cost-Effective Intervention.

Introduction: The cost benefit of intercostal nerve cryoablation during surgical lobectomy for postoperative pain management is unknown. The current study compared hospital economics, resource use, and clinical outcomes during the index stay and accompanying short-term follow-up. Patients who underwent lobectomy with standard of care treatment for postsurgical pain management and cryoablation were compared to those with standard of care treatment only. We hypothesized that cryoablation would reduce narcotic use and index hospital and short-term costs.

Methods: A retrospective, propensity matched cohort of surgical patients treated between 2016 and 2022 from a US National All-Payer Database were used. Cost and outcome comparisons were made between groups using chi-square and t tests.

Results: From a cohort of 23,138 patients, 266 pairs with a mean age of 69 years were included. Matching variables included age, gender, lobe resected, and prior opioid use. Both groups had significant comorbidity history and prior opioid use; 66% (n = 175 both groups) underwent open lobectomy and 53% (n = 142 vs. 143) had the upper lobe resected. Cryoablation intervention was associated with 1.3 days reduced hospital stay (8.8 vs. 10.1 days, p = 0.31) and no difference in perioperative safety. After 90 days, postsurgery cryoablation patients had lower opioid prescription refills (27.3 vs. 36.9 morphine milligram equivalents, p = 0.03). Cryoablation patient costs trended less than non-cryoablation patients during index ($38,753 vs. $43,974, p = 0.10) and lower through 6 months (total costs, $65,703 vs. $74,304, p = 0.10). There was no difference in postsurgery resource use, but a smaller proportion of cryoablation patients had outpatient hospital visits (83.1%, N = 221 vs. 92.9%, n = 247, p < 0.01).

Conclusion: Cryoablation during lobectomy is safe and does not add incremental hospital costs. Clinical meaningful reductions in length of stay and postsurgery opioid use were observed with cryoablation intervention. The addition of cryoablation during surgery to reduce postoperative pain appears to be a cost-effective therapy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pain and Therapy
Pain and Therapy CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
5.00%
发文量
110
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Pain and Therapy is an international, open access, peer-reviewed, rapid publication journal dedicated to the publication of high-quality clinical (all phases), observational, real-world, and health outcomes research around the discovery, development, and use of pain therapies and pain-related devices. Studies relating to diagnosis, pharmacoeconomics, public health, quality of life, and patient care, management, and education are also encouraged. Areas of focus include, but are not limited to, acute pain, cancer pain, chronic pain, headache and migraine, neuropathic pain, opioids, palliative care and pain ethics, peri- and post-operative pain as well as rheumatic pain and fibromyalgia. The journal is of interest to a broad audience of pharmaceutical and healthcare professionals and publishes original research, reviews, case reports, trial protocols, short communications such as commentaries and editorials, and letters. The journal is read by a global audience and receives submissions from around the world. Pain and Therapy will consider all scientifically sound research be it positive, confirmatory or negative data. Submissions are welcomed whether they relate to an international and/or a country-specific audience, something that is crucially important when researchers are trying to target more specific patient populations. This inclusive approach allows the journal to assist in the dissemination of all scientifically and ethically sound research.
期刊最新文献
Correction to: Real‑World Evidence of the Safety and Effectiveness of Atogepant Added to OnabotulinumtoxinA for the Preventive Treatment of Chronic Migraine: A Retrospective Chart Review. Current and Novel Therapies for Cluster Headache: A Narrative Review. Transforaminal Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy versus Coblation Nucleoplasty Combined with Collagenase Chemonucleolysis for Lumbar Disc Herniation with Grade I Degenerative Spondylolisthesis. Mechanisms and Therapeutic Potential of GPX4 in Pain Modulation. The Impact of ERAS and Multidisciplinary Teams on Perioperative Management in Colorectal Cancer.
×
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