Opioid free anesthesia: feasible?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The present review aims to address the feasibility of opioid free anesthesia (OFA). The use of opioids to provide adequate perioperative pain management has been a central practice of anesthesia, and only recently has been challenged. Understanding the goals and challenges of OFA is essential as the approach to intraoperative analgesia and postsurgical management of pain has shifted in response to the opioid epidemic in the United States. RECENT FINDINGS: OFA is an opioid sparing technique, which focuses on multimodal or balanced analgesia, relying on nonopioid adjuncts and regional anesthesia. Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols, often under the auspices of a perioperative pain service, can help guide and promote opioid reduced and OFA, without negatively impacting perioperative pain management or recovery. SUMMARY: The feasibility of OFA is evident. However, there are limitations of this approach that warrant discussion including the potential for adverse drug interactions with multimodal analgesics, the need for providers trained in regional anesthesia, and the management of pain expectations. Additionally, minimizing opioid use perioperatively also requires a change in current prescribing practices. Monitors that can reliably quantify nociception would be helpful in the titration of these analgesics and enable anesthesiologists to achieve the goal in providing personalized perioperative medicine.

Hydromorphone Unit Dose Affects Intraoperative Dosing: An Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Although clinical factors related to intraoperative opioid administration have been described, there is little research evaluating whether administration is influenced by drug formulation and, specifically, the unit dose of the drug. The authors hypothesized that the unit dose of hydromorphone is an independent determinant of the quantity of hydromorphone administered to patients intraoperatively. METHODS: This observational cohort study included 15,010 patients who received intraoperative hydromorphone as part of an anesthetic at the University of California, Los Angeles hospitals from February 2016 to March 2018. Before July 2017, hydromorphone was available as a 2-mg unit dose. From July 1, 2017 to November 20, 2017, hydromorphone was only available in a 1-mg unit dose. On November 21, 2017, hydromorphone was reintroduced in the 2-mg unit dose. An interrupted time series analysis was performed using segmented Poisson regression with two change-points, the first representing the switch from a 2-mg to 1-mg unit dose, and the second representing the reintroduction of the 2-mg dose. RESULTS: The 2-mg to 1-mg unit dose change was associated with a 49% relative decrease in the probability of receiving a hydromorphone dose greater than 1 mg (risk ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.40-0.66; P < 0.0001). The reintroduction of a 2-mg unit dose was associated with a 48% relative increase in the probability of administering a dose greater than 1 mg (risk ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.11-1.98; P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: This observational study using an interrupted time series analysis demonstrates that unit dose of hydromorphone (2 mg vs. 1 mg) is an independent determinant of the quantity of hydromorphone administered to patients in the intraoperative period.