4.3 Article

Enhanced recovery after thoracic surgery reduces discharge on highly dependent narcotics

期刊

JOURNAL OF THORACIC DISEASE
卷 10, 期 2, 页码 984-990

出版社

AME PUBL CO
DOI: 10.21037/jtd.2018.01.99

关键词

Enhanced recovery; thoracic surgery; lung resection; narcotics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: There is large prescription drug epidemic in United States. We want to determine if ERATS (enhanced recovery after thoracic surgery) program can reduce discharge on highly dependent narcotics. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on patients who underwent lung resection and foregut procedures on thoracic surgery service over an 8-month time period. Patients underwent preoperative conditioning instructions, multimodal non-narcotic pharmaceutical usage, total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and minimizing highly addictive narcotics during the post-operative period. We gathered information on demographics, indication and type of surgery, morbidity, mortality and length of stay. We also recorded the type of pain medication patients were given as a prescription based on the Drug Enforcement Agency's classification schedule. Results: Fifty-two patients underwent lung resection and 54 patients underwent foregut surgery. There were no mortalities in either group. Ten percent of patients after lung surgery and 6% after foregut surgery had a greater than grade II complication. The median length of stay after lung resection was 2 days and foregut surgery was 1 day. Only 10% of patients went home after lung resection and 2% after foregut surgery with a prescription for schedule II narcotics. We found that patients who were on schedule II narcotics prior to surgery all went home with schedule II narcotics. Conclusions: We found that ERATS program for thoracic surgical cases can reduce the number of patients going home with highly dependent narcotics. This strategy will decrease the availability of highly addictive prescription drugs in the community.

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

4.3
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