Increasing the use of multimodal analgesia during adult surgery in a tertiary academic anaesthesia department.

OBJECTIVE: Multimodal analgesia pathways have been shown to reduce opioid use and side effects in surgical patients. A quality improvement initiative was implemented to increase the use of multimodal analgesia in adult patients presenting for general anaesthesia at an academic tertiary care centre. The aim of this study was to increase adoption of a perioperative multimodal analgesia protocol across a broad population of surgical patients. The use of multimodal analgesia was tracked as a process metric. Our primary outcome was opioid use normalised to oral morphine equivalents (OME) intraoperatively, in the postanaesthesia care unit (PACU), and 48 hours postoperatively. Pain scores and use of antiemetics were measured as balancing metrics. METHODS: We conducted a quality improvement study of a multimodal analgesia protocol implemented for adult (≥18 and≤70) non-transplant patients undergoing general anaesthesia (≥180 min). Components of multimodal analgesia were defined as (1) preoperative analgesic medication (acetaminophen, celecoxib, diclofenac, gabapentin), (2) regional anaesthesia (peripheral nerve block or catheter, epidural catheter or spinal) or (3) intraoperative analgesic medication (ketamine, ketorolac, lidocaine infusion, magnesium, acetaminophen, dexamethasone ≥8 mg, dexmedetomidine). We compared opioid use, pain scores and antiemetic use for patients 1 year before (baseline group-1 July 2018 to 30 June 2019) and 1 year after (implementation group-1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020) project implementation. RESULTS: Use of multimodal analgesia improved from 53.9% in the baseline group to 67.5% in the implementation group (p<0.001). There was no significant difference in intraoperative OME use before and after implementation (ß0=44.0, ß2=0.52, p=0.875). OME decreased after the project implementation in the PACU (ß0=34.4, ß2=-3.88, p<0.001) and 48 hours postoperatively (ß0=184.9, ß2=-22.59, p<0.001), while pain scores during those time points were similar. CONCLUSION: A perioperative pragmatic multimodal analgesic intervention was associated with reduced OME use in the PACU and 48 hours postoperatively.

The Comparison of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy and Intensity-Modulated Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer by NCCN Risk Groups.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study is to compare freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) between stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for patients with organ confined prostate cancer treated between 2007 through 2012 utilizing the 2015 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk stratification guidelines. A secondary objective is to compare our updated toxicity at last follow-up compared with pretreatment with respect to bowel, bladder, sexual functioning, and need for invasive procedures between the two groups. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 270 consecutive men treated with either SBRT (n = 150) or IMRT (n = 120) at a community hospital with two distinct radiation departments and referral patterns. Charts were reviewed for pretreatment and treatment factors including race, age, clinical T stage, initial PSA, Gleason score, use of androgen deprivation therapy, treatment with SBRT vs. IMRT, as well as stratification by 2015 NCCN guidelines. Kaplan-Meier (KM) methodology was used to estimate FFBF, with statistical comparisons accomplished using log rank tests. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard modeling was used to establish independent factors prognostic of biochemical failure. Descriptive statistics were used to describe toxicity graded by a modified Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) late radiation morbidity scoring system. RESULTS: Significant prognostic factors in univariate analysis for FFBF included NCCN risk groups (p = 0.0032), grade (p = 0.019), and PSA (p = 0.008). There was no significant difference in FFBF between SBRT vs. IMRT (p = 0.46) with 6-year actuarial FFBF of 91.9% for SBRT and 88.9% for IMRT. Multivariable analysis revealed only the NCCN risk stratification to be significant predictor for FFBF (p = 0.04). Four-year actuarial FFBF by NCCN risk stratification was 100% very low risk, 100% low risk, 96.5% intermediate risk, 94.5% high risk, and 72.7% very high risk. There were no grade 3 gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicities for either SBRT or IMRT at last follow-up. CONCLUSION: No significant difference in FFBF was found between SBRT and IMRT for organ confined prostate cancer in multivariable analysis within this retrospective data set. Overall toxicity was low. The 2015 NCCN risk stratification was validated in this population and was the only significant factor for FFBF in multivariable analysis.