Feasibility study of an online modifiable Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocol with specific focus on opioid avoidance.

BACKGROUND: The high and increasing rate of opioid use is a serious issue in the Western world affecting the population's physical and mental health. In most cases, opioid dependency starts with prescriptions by medical professionals, so efforts aimed at reducing in-hospital opioid use should result in less long-term dependency. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the feasibility of implementing an opioid-scarce protocol as part of a new online modifiable Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (mERAS) programme. METHODS: A single-centre retrospective study was conducted comparing a cohort treated under the new opioid-scarce mERAS protocol (n = 96; May 2018-Nov 2018) to those treated under the original ERAS protocol (n = 84; November 2017-April 2018). The primary outcome was the quantity and duration of opioid use. RESULTS: Fewer patients used fentanyl via intravenous patient-controlled analgesia in the mERAS group (54% versus 70%; P = 0.03). The mERAS group was also less likely to use oral oxycodone (80% versus 99%; P < 0.0001) and for a shorter duration (median 3 versus 5 days; P = 0.0002). More local anaesthetic transversus abdominis plane catheters were used in the mERAS group (34% versus 6% in the control group; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Opioid use can be significantly reduced after elective colorectal surgery by employing an opioid-scarce ERAS protocol. Further data is required to confirm the clinical benefits of this approach.

Dexmedetomidine vs propofol as sedation for implantation of neurostimulators: A single-center single-blinded randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: During the lead implantation of most spinal cord neurostimulators, the patient has to be comfortable and without pain. However, the patient is expected to provide feedback during electrical mapping. Titrating sedatives and analgesics for this double goal can be challenging. In comparison with our standard sedative agent propofol, the pharmacological profile of dexmedetomidine is more conducive to produce arousable sedation. The latter, however, is associated with hemodynamic side effects. We investigated whether dexmedetomidine is preferable over propofol during neurostimulator implantation. METHODS: This single-center single-blinded randomized controlled trial included 72 patients with an indication for a neurostimulator, randomized to sedation with either propofol (0.5 mg/kg for 10 minutes, followed by 2.0 mg/kg/h) or dexmedetomidine (1 µg/kg for 10 minutes, followed by 0.6 µg/kg/h). The primary outcome was patient satisfaction with the sedation. The secondary outcomes were patient's and operator's comfort, number of titration adjustments, standard intraoperative hemodynamic and respiratory parameters and side effects. RESULTS: Data of 69 patients (dexmedetomidine n = 35; propofol n = 34) were analyzed. Those receiving dexmedetomidine were more satisfied with the sedation than those receiving propofol; i.e. with sedation delivery (median 100.0 vs 83.3, P < .01), procedural recall (median 95.8 vs 83.3, P = .03), and sedation side effects (median 90.0 vs 83.3, P = .01). Fewer changes in the dexmedetomidine titration were necessary to maintain arousable sedation. Over time, mean arterial pressure and heart rate were significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group. Hemodynamic side effects were comparable across groups. CONCLUSIONS: Dexmedetomidine sedation resulted in higher patient satisfaction and allowed for better arousable sedation than sedation with propofol. Although differences in hemodynamic parameters were found between the groups, these differences were not regarded as clinically relevant.