Optimizing pain management following kidney stone surgery: can we avoid narcotics?

INTRODUCTION: Opioids are often used to manage postoperative pain. Non-narcotic alternatives have increasingly been used to reduce opioid usage. We conducted an open-label randomized non-inferiority clinical trial to compare non-opioid to opioid therapy for pain management after nephrolithiasis surgery. METHODS: Patients undergoing elective ureteroscopy or percutaneous nephrolithotomy between July 2018 and May 2021 were randomized to receive ketorolac (non-opioid) or oxycodone-acetaminophen (opioid). Each patient was surveyed one week postoperatively to assess pain outcomes. Patient demographics, surgical variables, number of pills used, constipation, and adverse events were also assessed. We evaluated whether non-opioid analgesia was non-inferior to opioid analgesia for postoperative pain, assuming a non-inferiority margin of 1.3 in pain score between groups. RESULTS: Analyses were based on 90 patients with postoperative pain data: 44 in the ketorolac group and 46 in the oxycodone-acetaminophen group. The groups were similar regarding demographics, type of surgery, ureteral stent placement, and stone burden. Non-inferiority of non-opioids compared to opioids was demonstrated for all outcomes. At follow-up, the average pain scores were 3.20 ± 1.94 (SD) in the non-opioid group and 4.17 ± 1.84 in the opioid group (difference = - 0.96; 95% CI: - 1.76, - 0.17, p = 0.018). The mean proportions of unused pills were similar between groups (p = 0.47) as were rates of constipation (p = 0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Non-opioid analgesia was non-inferior to opioid analgesia in pain management after kidney stone surgery. This trial contributes to the evidence that non-opioid analgesics should be considered an effective option for pain management following non-invasive urologic procedures.

Modeling Outcomes Using Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) Score-Based Ventilator Triage Guidelines During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To model performance of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score-based ventilator allocation guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study design was used. Study sites included 3 New York City hospitals in a single academic medical center. We included a random sample (205) of adult patients who were intubated (1002) from March 25, 2020, till April 29, 2020. Protocol criteria adapted from the New York State's 2015 guidelines were applied to determine which patients would have had mechanical ventilation withheld or withdrawn. RESULTS: 117 (57%) patients would have been identified for ventilator withdrawal or withholding based on the triage guidelines. Of those 117 patients, 28 (24%) survived hospitalization. Overall, 65 (32%) patients survived to discharge. CONCLUSION: Triage protocols aim to maximize survival by redirecting ventilators to those most likely to survive. Over 50% of this sample would have been identified as candidates for ventilator exclusion. Clinical judgment would therefore still be needed in ventilator reallocation, thus re-introducing bias and moral distress. This data suggests limited utility for SOFA score-based ventilator rationing. It raises the question of whether there is sufficient ethical justification to impose a life-ending decision based on a SOFA scoring method on some patients in order to offer potential benefit to a modest number of others.

"We're Not Ready, But I Don't Think You're Ever Ready." Clinician Perspectives on Implementation of Crisis Standards of Care.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted health care systems' vulnerabilities. Hospitals face increasing risk of periods of scarcity of life-sustaining resources such as ventilators for mechanical respiratory support, as has been the case in Italy as of March, 2020. The National Academy of Medicine has provided guidance on crisis standards of care, which call for the reallocation of scarce medical resources to those who will benefit most during extreme situations. Given that this will require a departure from the usual fiduciary duty of the bedside clinician, we determined and mapped potential barriers to the implementation of the guidelines from stakeholders using an implementation science framework. Methods: A protocol was created to operationalize national and state guidelines for triaging ventilators during crisis conditions. Focus groups and key informant interviews were conducted from July-September 2018 with clinicians at three acute care hospitals of an urban academic medical center. Respiratory therapists, intensivists, nursing leadership and the palliative care interdisciplinary team participated in focus groups. Key informant interviews were conducted with emergency management, respiratory therapy and emergency medicine. Subjects were presented the protocol and their reflections were elicited using a semi-structured interview guide. Data from transcripts and notes were categorized using a coding strategy based on the Theoretical Domains Framework. Results: Participants anticipated that implementing this protocol would challenge their roles and identities as clinicians including both their fiduciary duty to the patient and their decision-making autonomy. Despite this, many participants acknowledged the need for such a protocol to standardize care and minimize bias as well as to mitigate potential consequences for individual clinicians. Participants identified the question of considering patient quality of life in triage decisions as an important and unresolved ethical issue in disaster triage. Conclusion: Clinicians' discomfort with shifting roles and obligations could pose implementation barriers for crisis standards of care.