4.5 Article

Optimizing Multimodal Analgesia with Intravenous Acetaminophen and Opioids in Postoperative Bariatric Patients

Journal

PHARMACOTHERAPY
Volume 34, Issue -, Pages 14S-21S

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/phar.1517

Keywords

intravenous acetaminophen; multimodal; opioids; laparoscopic; bariatric; respiratory depression; obstructive sleep apnea

Ask authors/readers for more resources

STUDY OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect of therapeutic doses of intravenous acetaminophen (IV APAP) on postoperative opioid use following bariatric surgery. DESIGN Retrospective review of medical records. SETTING A 654-bed academic hospital. PATIENTS Records for 104 patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG; 44 patients) or laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB; 60 patients) were reviewed. Patients received IV APAP 1 g every 6 hours postoperatively (22 LSG patients and 30 LRYGB patients) or no IV APAP (22 LSG patients and 30 LRYGB patients). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Baseline demographic features were similar for both groups. Patients receiving IV APAP required fewer intravenous morphine equivalents than patients treated with opioids alone. Reductions in morphine equivalents with IV APAP were 21 mg (LSG), 33 mg (LRYGB), and 28 mg (all patients) (p<0.001 for all comparisons). IV APAP was associated with a shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) for the LRYGB (mean difference 1.47 days; p=0.039) and combined groups (mean difference 0.95 days; p=0.025). Patients who received IV APAP had earlier return of bowel sounds and flatus. IV APAP did not reduce mean pain scores in any group. CONCLUSION Patients undergoing bariatric surgery who received IV APAP during the 24-hour postoperative period consumed fewer intravenous morphine equivalents and had similar pain scores as patients who were treated with opioids alone. Use of IV APAP reduced the hospital LOS and resulted in earlier return of bowel sounds and passage of flatus.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available