Pain, Analgesic Use, and Patient Satisfaction With Spinal Versus General Anesthesia for Hip Fracture Surgery : A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

The REGAIN (Regional versus General Anesthesia for Promoting Independence after Hip Fracture) trial found similar ambulation and survival at 60 days with spinal versus general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery. Trial outcomes evaluating pain, prescription analgesic use, and patient satisfaction have not yet been reported.

OBJECTIVE

To compare pain, analgesic use, and satisfaction after hip fracture surgery with spinal versus general anesthesia.

DESIGN

Preplanned secondary analysis of a pragmatic randomized trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02507505).

SETTING

46 U.S. and Canadian hospitals.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged 50 years or older undergoing hip fracture surgery.

INTERVENTION

Spinal or general anesthesia.

MEASUREMENTS

Pain on postoperative days 1 through 3; 60-, 180-, and 365-day pain and prescription analgesic use; and satisfaction with care.

RESULTS

A total of 1600 patients were enrolled. The average age was 78 years, and 77% were women. A total of 73.5% (1050 of 1428) of patients reported severe pain during the first 24 hours after surgery. Worst pain over the first 24 hours after surgery was greater with spinal anesthesia (rated from 0 [no pain] to 10 [worst pain imaginable]; mean difference, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.12 to 0.68]). Pain did not differ across groups at other time points. Prescription analgesic use at 60 days occurred in 25% (141 of 563) and 18.8% (108 of 574) of patients assigned to spinal and general anesthesia, respectively (relative risk, 1.33 [CI, 1.06 to 1.65]). Satisfaction was similar across groups.

LIMITATION

Missing outcome data and multiple outcomes assessed.

CONCLUSION

Severe pain is common after hip fracture. Spinal anesthesia was associated with more pain in the first 24 hours after surgery and more prescription analgesic use at 60 days compared with general anesthesia.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

Coffee and energy drink use patterns in college freshmen: associations with adverse health behaviors and risk factors

Background

Public health concern over college students mixing caffeine-containing energy drinks (EDs) and alcohol has contributed to an array of ED-focused research studies. One review found consistent associations between ED use and heavy/problem drinking as well as other drug use and risky behaviors (Nutr Rev 72:87–97, 2014). The extent to which similar patterns exist for other sources of caffeine is not known. The present study examined associations between coffee and ED consumption and alcohol, tobacco and other drug use; alcohol use problems; and parental substance abuse and mental health problems in a sample of college freshmen.

Methods

Subjects were N = 1986 freshmen at an urban university who completed an on-line survey about demographics; caffeine; alcohol, tobacco and other drug use; and family history. The sample was 61% female and 53% White. Chi-square analyses and multivariable binary or ordinal logistic regression were used to compare substance use, problem alcohol behavior, and familial risk measures across 3 caffeine use groups: ED (with or without Coffee) (ED + Co; N = 350); Coffee but no ED (Co; N = 761); and neither coffee nor ED (NoCE; N = 875) use.

Results

After adjusting for gender and race, the 3 caffeine use groups differed on 8 of 9 symptoms for alcohol dependence. In all cases, the ED + Co group was most likely to endorse the symptom, followed by the Co group and finally the NoCE group (all p < .002). A similar pattern was found for: use 6+ times of 5 other classes of drugs (all p < .05); extent of personal and peer smoking (all p < .001); and paternal problems with alcohol, drugs and anxiety/depression as well as maternal alcohol problems and depression/anxiety (p < .04).

Conclusions

The response pattern was ubiquitous, with ED + Co most likely, Co intermediate, and NoCE least likely to endorse a broad range of substance use, problem alcohol behaviors, and familial risk factors. The finding that the Co group differed from both the ED + Co and NoCE groups on 8 measures and from the NoCE group on one additional measure underscores the importance of looking at coffee in addition to EDs when considering associations between caffeine and other risky behaviors.

WE-E-213AB-01: Medical Physics Challenges for Implementation of New Technologies in External Beam Radiotherapy

The AAPM has signed two formal Educational Exchange Agreements with the Spanish (SEFM) and the Russian (AMPR) medical physics societies. While the primary purpose of the Agreements is to provide educational opportunities for young medical physicists, the Agreements also contemplate holding joint sessions at scientific congresses. The purpose of this professional AAPM/SEFM/AMPR Joint Symposium is to explore the challenges that medical physicists in the three countries face when new external beam radiotherapy technologies are introduced in their facilities and to suggest potential solutions to limitations in testing equipment and lack of familiarity with protocols. Speakers from the three societies will present reviews of the technical aspects of IMRT, Arc EVIRT (IMAT/VMAT/Rapid Arc), SRS/SRBT, and IGRT/Adaptive radiotherapy, and will describe the status of these technologies in their countries, including the challenges found in tasks such as developing anatomical and biological dose optimization techniques and implementing QA management, risk assessment and patient safety programs. The SEFM will offer AAPM and AMPR members the possibility to participate in collaborative proposals for future research bids in UE and USA based on an ongoing Spanish project for adaptive radiotherapy using functional imaging. A targeted discussion will debate three propositions: the cost/benefit ratio of IGRT, whether IMRT requires IGRT, and the use of non-ionizing radiation technologies for realtime monitoring of prostate IGRT. For these debates, each society has designated one speaker to present and defend either "For" or "Against" the proposition, followed by discussion by all participants. The Symposium presentations and the country-tailored recommendations drawn will be made available to each society for inclusion in their websites. The WGNIMP, the AAPM Work Group charged with executing the AAPM/SEFM and AAPM/AMPR Agreements, will follow up on the commitments made by the AAPM.Di Yan's research on adaptive radiotherapy has been financially supported by: 1) NIH Research Grants, 2) Elekta Research Grants 3) Philips Research GrantConflicts of interest for Cedric X Yu: 1) Board Member of Prowess, Inc., 2) Shareholder of Xcision Medical Systems, LLC, 3) Inventor on patents licensed by Varian Medical Systems, Inc.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

1. Describe fundamental aspects for four advanced radiotherapy techniques: IMRT, IGRT, SBRT, and adaptive radiotherapy. 2. Review technical and professional challenges for implementation of advanced techniques as a function of resources and capabilities available within each scientific society: AAPM, SEFM, and AMPR. 3. Discuss and plan a proposal for an international trial on IMRT/IGRT based on functional imaging. 4. Debate important implementation aspects of IMRT and IGRT according to country-specific resources.