Opioid-Sparing Multimodal Analgesia Use After Cesarean Delivery Under General Anesthesia: A Retrospective Cohort Study in 729 US Hospitals

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Optimizing analgesia after cesarean delivery is essential to quality of patient recovery. The American Society of Anesthesiologists and the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology recommend multimodal analgesia (MMA). However, little is known about clinical implementation of these guidelines after cesarean delivery under general anesthesia (GA). We performed this study to describe the use of MMA after cesarean delivery under GA in the United States and determine factors associated with use of MMA, variation in analgesia practice across hospitals, and trends in MMA use over time. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of women over 18 years who had a cesarean delivery under GA between 2008 and 2018 was conducted using the Premier Healthcare database (Premier Inc). The primary outcome was utilization of opioid-sparing MMA (osMMA), defined as receipt of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and acetaminophen with or without opioids and without the use of an opioid-combination drug. Any use of either agent within a combination preparation was not considered osMMA. The secondary outcome was use of optimal opioid-sparing MMA (OosMMA), defined as use of a local anesthetic technique such as truncal block or local anesthetic infiltration in addition to osMMA. Mixed-effects logistic regression models were used to examine factors associated with use of osMMA, as well as variation across hospitals. RESULTS: A total of 130,946 patients were included in analysis. osMMA regimens were used in 11,133 patients (8.5%). Use of osMMA increased from 2.0% in 2008 to 18.8% in 2018. Black race (7.9% vs 9.3%; odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval {CI}] 0.87 [0.81–0.94]) and Hispanic ethnicity (8.6% vs 10.0%; OR, 0.86 [0.79–0.950]) were associated with less receipt of osMMA compared to White and non-Hispanic counterparts. Medical comorbidities were generally not associated with receipt of osMMA, although patients with preeclampsia were less likely to receive osMMA (9.0%; OR, 0.91 [0.85–0.98]), while those with a history of drug abuse (12.5%; OR, 1.42 [1.27–1.58]) were more likely to receive osMMA. There was moderate interhospital variability in the use of osMMA (intraclass correlation coefficient = 38%). OosMMA was used in 2122 (1.6%) patients, and utilization increased from 0.8% in 2008 to 4.1% in 2018. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in osMMA utilization was observed after cesarean delivery under GA in this cohort of US hospitals. While increasing trends in utilization of osMMA and OosMMA are encouraging, there is need for increased attention to postoperative analgesia practices after GA for cesarean delivery given low percentage of patients receiving osMMA and OosMMA.