MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2983885247 · doi:10.1097/eja.0000000000001044

Effects of pre-operative recreational smoked cannabis use on opioid consumption following inflammatory bowel disease surgery

2019· letter· en· W2983885247 on OpenAlexaff
Noreen Jamal, Jennifer Korman, May Musing, Archana Malavade, Brenda L. Coleman, Naveed Siddiqui, Zeev Friedman

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Anaesthesiology · 2019
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPediatric Pain Management Techniques
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCannabisOpioidRetrospective cohort studyPopulationInstitutional review boardGeneral surgerySurgeryEmergency medicineInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This Short Report is accompanied by the following Invited Commentary: Touil N, Lavand’homme P. Cannabis hyperalgesia. A phenomenon underestimated in the peri-operative period? Eur J Anaesthesiol 2019; 36:623–624. Editor, Cannabis use has become prevalent in our society and is a factor that healthcare professionals should take into consideration when managing their patients. Anecdotally, members of the Acute Pain Service at our institution have observed that general patients who required unexpected increases in opioid postoperatively are often cannabis users. A previous study also found that reported cannabis use may be associated with an increase in postsurgical opioid requirements.1 We investigated whether elective inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) surgery patients who used cannabis pre-operatively required higher amounts of opioid in the first 24 h after surgery as compared to cannabis nonusers. It was hypothesised that patients who used cannabis pre-operatively required higher amounts of opioids postoperatively. Using a historical cohort study design, we conducted a retrospective chart review among patients undergoing elective IBD surgery with the primary objective of comparing opioid consumption in the first 24 h postoperatively between individuals who reported pre-operative cannabis use (group C) and those who reported no use (cannabis nonusers). The study (ID 15-0328-C) was reviewed and approved by the Sinai Health System Research Ethics Board. As this was a retrospective chart review deemed to expose patients to minimal risk, the requirement to obtain written patient consent was waived. The study population included patients from a tertiary care, university affiliated hospital that is a high-volume IBD surgical centre. Patients who underwent elective IBD surgery between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2015 were identified to produce a sample size of convenience for this exploratory, hypothesis-generating study. Only patients who received intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with morphine or hydromorphone were included. Patients were excluded if they received neuraxial analgesia, if they used methadone pre-operatively, if they used cannabis extracts pre-operatively or if they used synthetic forms of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) (e.g. nabilone, dronabinol). Included patients who reported cannabis use were assigned to the C group. All other patients were classified into the cannabis nonusers group. Cannabis use was classified as yes/no according to patient response during the pre-operative medication/social history with a nurse or pharmacist, and the amount of cannabis use reported was documented when provided. One cannabis ‘joint’ was estimated to be 0.75 g, which contains approximately 0.075 g THC, with daily use based on reported frequency and dose.2 The primary endpoint of the study was the amount of opioid used in the first 24 h postoperatively. Of the 592 charts reviewed, 354 individuals were included in the analysis and 238 were excluded. Of the patients included in the analysis, 312 (88.1%) were in the cannabis nonusers group while 42 (11.9%) were in the C group. All the patients in the C group had an approximate amount of cannabis consumed noted in their chart. The median estimated amount of cannabis used by patients in the C group was 0.24 g (IQR 0.05 to 0.75) per day. Referring to Table 1, the median postoperative morphine equivalent use in the cannabis nonusers group was lower (53.4; IQR 30.7 to 88.0) than for the C group (68.1; IQR 41.9 to 114.8) P = 0.043. Although the C group required a 14.7 (IQR 11 to 26) morphine equivalent higher dose of postoperative opioid than the cannabis nonusers group (P = 0.043), the difference was no longer significant once age, pre-operative opioid use and other variables (see Table 2) were included in the model (P = 0.06). The model estimates a 23% (95% CI −3 to 46) increase (about 12 morphine equivalent) in the amount of postoperative opioid use for the C group compared with the cannabis nonusers group, after adjusting for other model variables.Table 1: Summary of cohort groupsTable 2: Regression analysis results to determine the impact of variables on the amount of postoperative opioid use within 24 h postclosureIn conclusion, this study found that individuals consuming cannabis pre-operatively may have higher opioid requirements in the postoperative stage. These results suggest that individuals who report smoking cannabis may have more difficulty with pain management postoperatively and that their cannabis use could be considered when determining postoperative pain regimens. Future directions of research should include prospective studies that are appropriately powered, document cannabis dose, frequency and last use in a systematic manner, which expand beyond the IBD population and extend the opioid monitoring period beyond the first 24 h postoperatively. Acknowledgements relating to this article Assistance with the study: we would like to thank Peter Ramnath for his assistance with this project. Financial support and sponsorship: none Conflicts of interest: none

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.746
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of AnaesthesiologySame topicPediatric Pain Management TechniquesFrench-language works237,207