Continuation of Buprenorphine to FacilitatePostoperative Pain Management for Patients onBuprenorphine Opioid Agonist Therapy
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Acute pain management in patients on buprenorphine opioid agonist therapy (BOAT) can be challenging. It is unclear whether BOAT should be continued or interrupted for optimization of postoperative pain control. Objectives: To determine an evidence-based approach for pain management in patients on BOAT in the perioperative setting, particularly whether BOAT should be continued or interrupted with or without bridging to another mu opioid agonist and to identify benefits and harms of either perioperative strategy. Study Design: Systematic literature review with qualitative data synthesis. Setting: Hospital, perioperative. Methods: The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (Registration number 9030276355). Medline via OVID, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane CENTRAL register of trials were searched for prospective or retrospective observational or controlled studies, case series, and case reports that described perioperative or acute pain care for patients on BOAT. References of narrative and systematic reviews addressing acute pain management in patients on BOAT and references of included articles were hand-searched to identify additional original articles for inclusion. The full text of publications were reviewed for final inclusion, and data were extracted using a standardized data extraction form. Results were summarized qualitatively. Primary outcomes were postoperative pain intensity and total opioid use and identification of benefits and harms of perioperative strategies. Results: Eighteen publications presenting data on the perioperative management of patients on BOAT were identified: 10 case reports, 5 case series, and 3 retrospective cohort studies. Eleven articles reported continuation of BOAT, 2 concerned bridging BOAT, and 4 articles described stopping BOAT without planned bridging. In one retrospective cohort study, BOAT was continued in half and interrupted in half of patients. Patients on BOAT may have pain that is more difficult to treat than those who are not on OAT. There is no clear evidence that one particular strategy provides superior postoperative pain control, but interruption of BOAT may result in harm, including failure to return to baseline BOAT doses, continuing non-BOAT opioid use, or relapse of opioid use disorder. Limitations: There were a limited number of articles relevant to the study question consisting of case reports and retrospective observational studies. Some omitted relevant details. No prospective studies were found. Conclusions: There is no clear benefit to bridging or stopping BOAT but failure to restart it may pose concerns for relapse. We recommend continuing BOAT in the perioperative period when possible and incorporating an interdisciplinary approach with multimodal analgesia. Key words: Opioid use disorder, opiate substitution treatment, buprenorphine, buprenorphinenaloxone, buprenorphine opioid agonist therapy, postoperative pain, acute pain, multimodal analgesia
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle