Predictors and outcomes following naloxone administration during Phase I anesthesia recovery
- 425 Downloads
To identify characteristics associated with postoperative respiratory depression that required naloxone intervention during Phase I recovery following general anesthesia. A secondary aim is to compare postoperative outcomes between patients who received naloxone and those who did not.
Patients who received naloxone to reverse opioid-induced respiratory depression or sedation during Phase I postanesthesia recovery from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2013 were identified and matched to 2 controls based on age, sex, and surgical procedure during the same year. A chart review was performed to identify factors associated with risk for intervention requiring naloxone as well as to note the occurrence of adverse postoperative outcomes. Analyses to assess characteristics potentially associated with naloxone use were performed using conditional logistic regression taking into account the 1:2 matched set case–control study design.
Naloxone was administered to 413 patients, with an incidence of 2.5 per 1000 anesthetics [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.7–6.5]. Presence of obstructive sleep apnea [odds ratio (OR) = 1.74, 95 % CI 1.22–2.48, P = 0.002], ASA Physical Status (PS) ≥III (OR 1.44, 95 % CI 1.08–1.92, P = 0.013), and greater opioid administration (OR 1.22, 95 % CI 1.12–1.33, per 10 intravenous morphine equivalents mg, P < 0.001) were associated with naloxone administration. Naloxone administration was associated with increased adverse events (OR 3.39, 95 % CI 2.22–5.23, P < 0.001).
Obstructive sleep apnea, higher ASA-PS scores and greater doses of intraoperative opioids were associated with naloxone administration during Phase I recovery. Patients administered naloxone had increased adverse events after discharge from the recovery room and may benefit from a higher level of postoperative care.
KeywordsNaloxone Postoperative complications
- 3.Medication Safety Alert Pain scales don’t weight every risk. Huntington Valley: Institute of Safe Medications Practices; 2002.Google Scholar
- 4.Vila H Jr, Smith RA, Augustyniak MJ, Nagi PA, Soto RG, Ross TW, Cantor AB, Strickland JM, Miguel RV. The efficacy and safety of pain management before and after implementation of hospital-wide pain management standards: is patient safety compromised by treatment based solely on numerical pain ratings? Anesth Analg. 2005;101:474–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 8.Weingarten TN, Herasevich V, McGlinch MC, Beatty NC, Christensen ED, Hannifan SK, Koenig AE, Klanke J, Zhu X, Gali B, Schroeder DR, Sprung J. Predictors of delayed postoperative respiratory depression assessed from naloxone administration. Anesth Analg. 2015;121:422–9.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 15.Management of Cancer Pain; Clinical Practice Guideline Number 9. In: AHCPR publication no. 94-0592. US Dept. of Health and Human Services; 1994.Google Scholar
- 16.Principles of Analgesic Use in the Treatment of Acute Pain and Cancer Pain, 4th ed. Skokie: American Pain Society; 1999.Google Scholar