Postoperative opioid prescription patterns and new opioid refills following cardiac implantable electronic device procedures

9Citations
Citations of this article
37Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Background: Prescription opioids are a major cause of the opioid epidemic. Despite the invasive nature of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) procedures, data on opioid prescription patterns after CIED procedures are lacking. Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess opioid prescribing patterns and the rates of new opioid refills (refills in previously opioid naïve patients) among patients undergoing CIED procedures. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients undergoing CIED procedures from January 1, 2010, to March 30, 2018, at the Mayo Clinic (Minnesota, Arizona, and Florida). Procedures were categorized into new implant, generator change, device upgrade, lead revision or replacement, and subcutaneous implantable cardiac defibrillator (S-ICD) procedures. The rates of postoperative opioid prescription and new opioid refills were analyzed. Wilcoxon rank sum and χ2 tests assessed variations. Results: A total of 16,517 patients (mean age 70 ± 15; 36% female) underwent CIED procedures. Opioids were prescribed to 20.2% of the patients, among whom 80% were opioid naïve. Among opioid naïve patients who received opioids, 9.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.3%–10.5%) had subsequent opioid refills. The percentage of patients who received more than 200 oral morphine equivalents of prescription was 38.8% (95% CI 37.2%–40.5%). Temporal trends revealed increasing rates of any opioid prescription, peaking in 2015 at 25.9%, with subsequent downtrend to 14.6% in 2018 (P

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Lee, J. Z., Pasha, A. K., Glasgow, A. E., Habermann, E. B., Kusumoto, F. M., McLeod, C. J., … Mulpuru, S. K. (2019). Postoperative opioid prescription patterns and new opioid refills following cardiac implantable electronic device procedures. Heart Rhythm, 16(12), 1841–1848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2019.08.011

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free