4.6 Article

Postoperative opioid prescribing patients with diabetes: Opportunities for personalized pain management

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 18, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287697

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Surgical patients with diabetes are at increased risk for prolonged opioid use (POU) even after controlling for likely covariates. Therefore, a more tailored approach to postoperative pain management for diabetic patients is warranted.
Background Opioids are commonly prescribed for postoperative pain, but may lead to prolonged use and addiction. Diabetes impairs nerve function, complicates pain management, and makes opioid prescribing particularly challenging.Methods This retrospective observational study included a cohort of postoperative patients from a multisite academic health system to assess the relationship between diabetes, pain, and prolonged opioid use (POU), 2008-2019. POU was defined as a new opioid prescription 3-6 months after discharge. The odds that a patient had POU was assessed using multivariate logistic regression controlling for patient factors (e.g., demographic and clinical factors, as well as prior pain and opiate use).Findings A total of 43,654 patients were included, 12.4% with diabetes. Patients with diabetes had higher preoperative pain scores (2.1 vs 1.9, p<0.001) and lower opioid naive rates (58.7% vs 68.6%, p<0.001). Following surgery, patients with diabetes had higher rates of POU (17.7% vs 12.7%, p<0.001) despite receiving similar opioid prescriptions at discharge. Patients with Type I diabetes were more likely to have POU compared to other patients (Odds Ratio [OR]: 2.22; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]:1.69-2.90 and OR:1.44, CI: 1.33-1.56, respectively).Interpretation In conclusion, surgical patients with diabetes are at increased risk for POU even after controlling for likely covariates, yet they receive similar postoperative opiate therapy. The results suggest a more tailored approach to diabetic postoperative pain management is warranted.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据