TY - JOUR
T1 - A prospective randomized trial comparing liposomal bupivacaine vs standard bupivacaine wound infiltration in open gynecologic surgery on an enhanced recovery pathway
AU - Meyer, Larissa A.
AU - Corzo, Camila
AU - Iniesta, Maria D.
AU - Munsell, Mark
AU - Shi, Qiuling
AU - Pitcher, Brandelyn
AU - Lasala, Javier
AU - Cain, Katherine E.
AU - Wang, Xin Shelly
AU - Mena, Gabriel
AU - Ramirez, Pedro T.
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was funded by Pacira BioSciences, Inc. Pacira BioSciences, Inc. provided intellectual input to investigators who ultimately developed the final study design. However, Pacira BioSciences, Inc did not have a role in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data or any role in the writing or editing of the manuscript. In addition, there were no restrictions regarding submission of the report for publication. L.A.M. received a grant (K07-CA201013) from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Cancer Institute (NCI). This work was supported, in part, by a core grant (P30 CA016672) from the NIH and NCI (Biostatistics Resource Group and Clinical Trials Support Resource).L.A.M. receives research funding for unrelated research from AstraZeneca. C.C.C., M.D.I., M.M., and Q.S. received partial salary support for their work on this study from Pacira BioSciences, Inc. G.M. is a consultant for Pacira BioSciences, Inc. The remaining authors reported no conflict of interest.
Funding Information:
This study was funded by Pacira BioSciences, Inc. Pacira BioSciences, Inc. provided intellectual input to investigators who ultimately developed the final study design. However, Pacira BioSciences, Inc did not have a role in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data or any role in the writing or editing of the manuscript. In addition, there were no restrictions regarding submission of the report for publication. L.A.M. received a grant (K07-CA201013) from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Cancer Institute (NCI). This work was supported, in part, by a core grant (P30 CA016672) from the NIH and NCI (Biostatistics Resource Group and Clinical Trials Support Resource).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2021/1
Y1 - 2021/1
N2 - Background: Value in healthcare is reflected by patient-centered outcomes of care per health dollar expended. Although liposomal bupivacaine is more expensive, it has been shown to provide prolonged analgesia (up to 72 hours). Objective: This study aimed to evaluate whether the addition of liposomal bupivacaine to standard bupivacaine could decrease opioid intake and improve pain control after laparotomy for gynecologic surgery compared with standard bupivacaine alone in an enhanced recovery after surgery pathway. Study Design: A prospective randomized controlled single-blinded trial of wound infiltration with liposomal bupivacaine plus 0.25% bupivacaine (study arm) vs 0.25% bupivacaine (control arm) was performed at a National Cancer Institute–designated tertiary referral cancer center. Participants were patients aged ≥18 years undergoing exploratory laparotomy for a gynecologic indication. All patients were treated on an enhanced recovery pathway including local wound infiltration before closure. In this study, 266 mg of liposomal bupivacaine (free base; equal to 300 mg bupivacaine HCL)+150 mg of bupivacaine mixed in the same syringe was used in the study arm, and 150 mg of bupivacaine was used in the control arm. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who were opioid-free within 48 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes included number of opioid-free days from postoperative day 0 to postoperative day 3, days to first opioid administration, morphine equivalent daily dose, and patient-reported outcomes collected with the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory. The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory was administered as a preoperative baseline, daily while hospitalized, and at least weekly for 8 weeks after discharge. All outcomes were prespecified before data collection. Results: In this study, 102 patients were evaluated. Among them, 16.7% of patients in the study arm received no opioids up to 48 hours compared with 14.8% in the control arm (P=.99). There were no significant differences in the amount of intraoperative opioids administered or days to first opioid use. There was no significant difference between the 2 arms in median cumulative morphine equivalent daily dose (21.3 [study arm] vs 33.8 [control arm]; P=.36) or between the groups in morphine equivalent daily dose per individual day. There were no significant differences in patient-reported pain or interference with walking between the 2 arms or other patient-reported outcomes. Conclusion: Within an enhanced recovery after surgery pathway, adding liposomal bupivacaine to 0.25% bupivacaine wound infiltration did not decrease the proportion of patients who were opioid-free within 48 hours after surgery, did not decrease opioid intake, or did not improve patient's self-reported pain and functional recovery compared with standard bupivacaine.
AB - Background: Value in healthcare is reflected by patient-centered outcomes of care per health dollar expended. Although liposomal bupivacaine is more expensive, it has been shown to provide prolonged analgesia (up to 72 hours). Objective: This study aimed to evaluate whether the addition of liposomal bupivacaine to standard bupivacaine could decrease opioid intake and improve pain control after laparotomy for gynecologic surgery compared with standard bupivacaine alone in an enhanced recovery after surgery pathway. Study Design: A prospective randomized controlled single-blinded trial of wound infiltration with liposomal bupivacaine plus 0.25% bupivacaine (study arm) vs 0.25% bupivacaine (control arm) was performed at a National Cancer Institute–designated tertiary referral cancer center. Participants were patients aged ≥18 years undergoing exploratory laparotomy for a gynecologic indication. All patients were treated on an enhanced recovery pathway including local wound infiltration before closure. In this study, 266 mg of liposomal bupivacaine (free base; equal to 300 mg bupivacaine HCL)+150 mg of bupivacaine mixed in the same syringe was used in the study arm, and 150 mg of bupivacaine was used in the control arm. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who were opioid-free within 48 hours after surgery. Secondary outcomes included number of opioid-free days from postoperative day 0 to postoperative day 3, days to first opioid administration, morphine equivalent daily dose, and patient-reported outcomes collected with the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory. The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory was administered as a preoperative baseline, daily while hospitalized, and at least weekly for 8 weeks after discharge. All outcomes were prespecified before data collection. Results: In this study, 102 patients were evaluated. Among them, 16.7% of patients in the study arm received no opioids up to 48 hours compared with 14.8% in the control arm (P=.99). There were no significant differences in the amount of intraoperative opioids administered or days to first opioid use. There was no significant difference between the 2 arms in median cumulative morphine equivalent daily dose (21.3 [study arm] vs 33.8 [control arm]; P=.36) or between the groups in morphine equivalent daily dose per individual day. There were no significant differences in patient-reported pain or interference with walking between the 2 arms or other patient-reported outcomes. Conclusion: Within an enhanced recovery after surgery pathway, adding liposomal bupivacaine to 0.25% bupivacaine wound infiltration did not decrease the proportion of patients who were opioid-free within 48 hours after surgery, did not decrease opioid intake, or did not improve patient's self-reported pain and functional recovery compared with standard bupivacaine.
KW - enhanced recovery after surgery
KW - liposomal bupivacaine
KW - morphine equivalent daily dose
KW - opioid reduction
KW - opioid-free
KW - patient-reported outcomes
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85091520328&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85091520328&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.07.017
DO - 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.07.017
M3 - Article
C2 - 32682856
AN - SCOPUS:85091520328
VL - 224
SP - 70.e1-70.e11
JO - American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
JF - American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
SN - 0002-9378
IS - 1
ER -