Economic Outcomes and Incidence of Postsurgical Hypotension With Liposomal Bupivacaine vs Epidural Analgesia in Abdominal Surgeries

Abstract

Background: Epidural analgesia can be associated with high costs and postsurgical risks such as hypotension, despite its widespread use and value in providing opioid-sparing pain management. We tested the hypothesis that liposomal bupivacaine (LB) might be a reliable alternative to epidural analgesia in this real-world study. Objectives: To compare economic outcomes and hypotension incidence associated with use of LB and epidural analgesia for abdominal surgery. Methods: This retrospective analysis identified records of adults who underwent abdominal surgeries between January 2016 and September 2019 with either LB administration or traditional epidural analgesia using the Premier Healthcare Database. Economic outcomes included length of stay, hospital costs, rates of discharge to home, and 30-day hospital readmissions. Secondary outcomes included incidence of postsurgical hypotension and vasopressor use. Subgroup analyses were stratified by surgical procedure (colorectal, abdominal) and approach (endoscopic, open). A generalized linear model adjusted for patient and hospital characteristics was used for all comparisons. Results: A total of 5799 surgical records (LB, n=4820; epidural analgesia, n=979) were included. Compared with cases where LB was administered, cases of epidural analgesia use were associated with a 1.6-day increase in length of stay (adjusted rate ratio [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.2 [1.2-1.3]]; P<.0001) and $6304 greater hospital costs (adjusted rate ratio [95% CI], 1.2 [1.2-1.3]]; P<.0001). Cost differences were largely driven by room-and-board fees. Epidural analgesia was associated with reduced rates of discharge to home (P<.0001) and increased 30-day readmission rates (P=.0073) compared with LB. Epidural analgesia was also associated with increased rates of postsurgical hypotension (30% vs 11%; adjusted odds ratio [95% CI], 2.8 [2.3-3.4]; P<.0001) and vasopressor use (22% vs 7%; adjusted odds ratio [95% CI], 3.1 [2.5-4.0]; P<.0001) compared with LB. Subgroup analyses by surgical procedure and approach were generally consistent with overall comparisons. Discussion: Our results are consistent with previous studies that demonstrated epidural analgesia can be associated with higher utilization of healthcare resources and complications compared with LB. Conclusions: Compared with epidural analgesia, LB was associated with economic benefits and reduced incidence of postsurgical hypotension and vasopressor use.