Hyaluronate carboxymethylcellulose sheets for the prevention of adhesive complications: a model-based cost-utility analysis.

AIM: Clinical trials suggest that hyaluronate carboxymethylcellulose (HA/CMC) prevents adhesion-related complications after intra-abdominal surgery, but at a high upfront cost. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of HA/CMC for patients undergoing curative-intent open colorectal cancer surgery. METHODS: Using a Markov Monte Carlo microsimulation model, we conducted a cost-utility analysis comparing the cost-effectiveness of HA/CMC at curative-intent open colorectal cancer surgery versus standard management. We considered a scenario where HA/CMC was used at the index operation only, as well as where it was used at the index operation and any subsequent operations. The perspective was that of the third-party payer. Costs and utilities were discounted 1.5% annually, with a 1-month cycle length and 5-year time horizon. Model input data were obtained from a literature review. Outcomes included cost, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), small bowel obstructions (SBOs) and operations for SBO. RESULTS: Using HA/CMC at the index operation results in an incremental cost increase of CA$316 and provides 0.001 additional QALYs, for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CA$310,000 per QALY compared to standard management. In our simulated cohort of 10,000 patients, HA/CMC prevented 460 SBOs and 293 surgeries for SBO. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis found that HA/CMC was cost-effective in 18.5% of iterations, at a cost-effectiveness threshold of CA$50,000 per QALY. Results of the scenario analysis where HA/CMC was used at the index operation and any subsequent operations were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Hyaluronate carboxymethylcellulose prevents adhesive bowel obstruction after open colorectal cancer surgery but is unlikely to be cost-effective given minimal long-term impact on healthcare costs and QALYs.

Sedation practices for routine gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review of recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Sedation is commonly used in gastrointestinal endoscopy; however, considerable variability in sedation practices has been reported. The objective of this review was to identify and synthesize existing recommendations on sedation practices for routine gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures. METHODS: We systematically reviewed guidelines and position statements identified through a search of PubMed, guidelines databases, and websites of relevant professional associations from January 1, 2005 to May 10, 2019. We included English-language guidelines/position statements with recommendations relating to sedation for adults undergoing routine gastrointestinal endoscopy. Documents with guidance only for complex endoscopic procedures were excluded. We extracted and synthesized recommendations relating to: 1) choice of sedatives, 2) sedation administration, 3) personnel responsible for monitoring sedated patients, 4) skills and training of individuals involved in sedation, and 5) equipment required for monitoring sedated patients. We assessed the quality of included documents using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II tool. RESULTS: We identified 19 guidelines and 7 position statements meeting inclusion criteria. Documents generally agreed that a single, trained registered nurse can administer moderate sedation, monitor the patient, and assist with brief, interruptible tasks. Documents also agreed on the routine use of pulse oximetry and blood pressure monitoring during endoscopy. However, recommendations relating to the drugs to be used for sedation, the healthcare personnel capable of administering propofol and monitoring patients sedated with propofol, and the need for capnography when monitoring sedated patients varied. Only 9 documents provided a grade or level of evidence in support of their recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations for sedation practices in routine gastrointestinal endoscopy differ across guidelines/position statements and often lack supporting evidence with potential implications for patient safety and procedural efficiency.

Recommendations for the Prescription of Opioids at Discharge After Abdominopelvic Surgery: A Systematic Review.

Importance: The prescription of opioids at discharge after abdominopelvic surgery is variable and often excessive. A lack of guidance for abdominopelvic surgeons may explain the suboptimal nature of current prescribing practices. Objective: To systematically review existing recommendations on the prescription of opioids at discharge, the appropriate disposal of opioids, and the prevention of chronic postsurgical opioid use after abdominopelvic surgery. Evidence Review: This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. From January 2010 to December 2018, a search of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, HealthSTAR, Embase, and the difficult to locate and unpublished (ie, gray) literature was performed using a peer-reviewed strategy with variations of the terms opioid, surgery, and guideline to identify English-language documents that contained recommendations published by professional societies or health care institutions. The quality of clinical practice guidelines was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool. A descriptive synthesis of results was performed. Findings: Of 5530 citations screened, 41 full-text documents were included in the systematic review. Fifteen clinical practice guidelines were identified. AGREE II domain scores varied substantially. Identified among the 41 included documents were 98 recommended interventions for the prescription of opioids at discharge, 8 interventions for the disposal of opioids, and 8 interventions for the prevention of chronic postsurgical opioid use. Only 13 of 114 interventions (11.4%) were supported by an assessment of strength or level of evidence, and the amount of opioid recommended after specific abdominopelvic surgical procedures varied widely between guidance documents, even for the same procedure. Conclusions and Relevance: Current guidance for the prescription of opioids at discharge after abdominopelvic surgery is heterogeneous and rarely supported by evidence. More research is needed on this topic to guide the development of future recommendations.

A Systematic Review of Behavioral Interventions to Decrease Opioid Prescribing After Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to summarize strategies to reduce postsurgical opioid prescribing at discharge. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Current practices for the prescription of opioids at discharge after surgery are highly variable and often excessive. We conducted a systematic review to identify behavioral interventions designed to improve these practices. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO until December 14, 2018 to identify studies of behavioral interventions designed to decrease opioid prescribing at discharge among adults undergoing surgery. Behavioral interventions were defined according to the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) taxonomy. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies using criteria suggested by Cochrane EPOC and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: Of 8048 citations that were screened, 24 studies were included in our review. Six types of behavioral interventions were identified: local consensus-based processes (18 studies), patient-mediated interventions (2 studies), clinical practice guidelines (1 study), educational meetings (1 study), interprofessional education (1 study), and clinician reminder (1 study). All but one study reported a statistically significant decrease in the amount of opioid prescribed at discharge after surgery, and only 2 studies reported evidence of increased pain intensity. Reductions in prescribed opioids ranged from 34.4 to 212.3 mg morphine equivalents. All studies were found to have medium-to-high risks of bias. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 6 types of behavioral strategies to decrease opioid prescription at discharge after surgery. Despite the risk of bias, almost all types of intervention seemed effective in reducing opioid prescriptions at discharge after surgery without negatively impacting pain control.