Comparative analysis of length of stay, hospitalization costs, opioid use, and discharge status among spine surgery patients with postoperative pain management including intravenous versus oral acetaminophen.

dc.contributor.author

Hansen, Ryan N

dc.contributor.author

Pham, An T

dc.contributor.author

Böing, Elaine A

dc.contributor.author

Lovelace, Belinda

dc.contributor.author

Wan, George J

dc.contributor.author

Miller, Timothy E

dc.coverage.spatial

England

dc.date.accessioned

2017-04-06T15:48:26Z

dc.date.available

2017-04-06T15:48:26Z

dc.date.issued

2017-03-09

dc.description.abstract

BACKGROUND: Recovery from spine surgery is oriented toward restoring functional health outcomes while reducing resource use. Optimal pain management is a key to reaching these objectives. We compared outcomes of spine surgery patients who received standard pain management including intravenous (IV) acetaminophen (APAP) vs. oral APAP. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of the Premier database (January 2012 to September 2015) comparing spine surgery patients who received pain management with IV APAP to those who received oral APAP, with no exclusions based on additional pain management. We performed multivariable logistic regression for the discharge and all cause 30-day readmission to the same hospital outcomes and instrumental variable regressions using the quarterly rate of IV APAP use for all hospitalizations by hospital as the instrument in two-stage least squares regressions for length of stay (LOS), hospitalization costs, and average daily morphine equivalent dose (MED) outcomes. Models adjusted for age, gender, race, admission type, 3M All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Group severity of illness and risk of mortality, hospital size, and indicators for whether the hospital was an academic center and whether it was urban or rural. RESULTS: We identified 112,586 spine surgery patients with 51,835 (46%) having received IV APAP. Subjects averaged 57 and 59 years of age respectively in the IV APAP and oral APAP cohorts and were predominantly non-Hispanic Caucasians and female. In our adjusted models, IV APAP was associated with 0.68 days shorter LOS (95% CI: -0.76 to -0.59, p < .0001), $1175 lower hospitalization costs (95% CI: -$1611 to -$739, p < .0001), 13 mg lower average daily MED (95% CI: -14 mg to -12 mg, p < .0001), 34% lower risk of discharge to a skilled nursing facility (95% CI: 0.63 to 0.69, p < .0001), and 13% less risk of 30-day readmission (95% CI: 0.73 to 1.03). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to oral APAP, managing post-spine-surgery pain with IV APAP is associated with less resource use, lower costs, lower doses of opioids, and improved discharge status.

dc.identifier

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28276273

dc.identifier.eissn

1473-4877

dc.identifier.uri

https://hdl.handle.net/10161/13943

dc.language

eng

dc.publisher

Informa UK Limited

dc.relation.ispartof

Curr Med Res Opin

dc.relation.isversionof

10.1080/03007995.2017.1297702

dc.subject

Acetaminophen

dc.subject

comparative effectiveness

dc.subject

pain management

dc.subject

spine surgery

dc.title

Comparative analysis of length of stay, hospitalization costs, opioid use, and discharge status among spine surgery patients with postoperative pain management including intravenous versus oral acetaminophen.

dc.type

Journal article

duke.contributor.orcid

Miller, Timothy E|0000-0001-8567-6680

pubs.author-url

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28276273

pubs.begin-page

1

pubs.end-page

6

pubs.organisational-group

Anesthesiology

pubs.organisational-group

Anesthesiology, General, Vascular, High Risk Transplant & Critical Care

pubs.organisational-group

Clinical Science Departments

pubs.organisational-group

Duke

pubs.organisational-group

School of Medicine

pubs.publication-status

Published online

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Hansen IV vs PO acetaminophen. CMRO 2017.pdf
Size:
904.89 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format