Clinical and Economic Outcomes Associated With Use of Liposomal Bupivacaine Versus Standard of Care for Management of Postsurgical Pain in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Spine Surgery

• Main Authors: Robert Tracy Ballock, John Seif, Ryan Goodwin, Jennifer H. Lin, Jessica Cirillo
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Columbia Data Analytics, LLC 2021-04-01
• Series: Journal of Health Economics and Outcomes Research
• Online Access: https://jheor.scholasticahq.com/article/21967-clinical-and-economic-outcomes-associated-with-use-of-liposomal-bupivacaine-versus-standard-of-care-for-management-of-postsurgical-pain-in-pediatric-p.pdf

**Background:** Approximately 60% of hospitalized children undergoing surgery experience at least 1 day of moderate-to-severe pain after surgery. Pain following spine surgery may affect opioid exposure, length of stay (LOS), and costs in hospitalized pediatric patients. This is a retrospective cohort analysis of pediatric patients undergoing inpatient primary spine surgery. **Objectives:** To examine the association of opioid-related and economic outcomes with postsurgical liposomal bupivacaine (LB) or non-LB analgesia in pediatric patients who received spine surgery. **Methods:** Premier Healthcare Database records (January 2015–September 2019) for patients aged 1–17 years undergoing inpatient primary spine surgery were retrospectively analyzed. Outcomes included in-hospital postsurgical opioid consumption (morphine milligram equivalents [MMEs]), opioid-related adverse events (ORAEs), LOS (days), and total hospital costs. A generalized linear model adjusting for baseline characteristics was used. **Results:** Among 10 189 pediatric patients, the LB cohort (n=373) consumed significantly fewer postsurgical opioids than the non-LB cohort (n=9816; adjusted MME ratio, 0.53 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.45–0.61]; P<0.0001). LOS was significantly shorter in the LB versus non-LB cohort (adjusted rate ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.80–0.94]; P=0.0003). Hospital costs were significantly lower in the LB versus non-LB cohort overall (adjusted rate ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.86–0.99]; P=0.0227) mostly because of decreased LOS and central supply costs. ORAEs were not significantly different between groups (adjusted rate ratio, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.65–1.08]; P=0.1791). **Discussion:** LB analgesia was associated with shorter LOS and lower hospital costs compared with non-LB analgesia in pediatric patients undergoing spine surgery. The LB cohort had lower adjusted room and board and central supply costs than the non-LB cohort. These data suggest that treatment with LB might reduce hospital LOS and subsequently health-care costs, and additional cost savings outside the hospital room may factor into overall health-care cost savings. LB may reduce pain and the need for supplemental postsurgical opioids, thus reducing pain and opioid-associated expenses while improving patient satisfaction with postsurgical care. **Conclusions:** Pediatric patients undergoing spine surgery who received LB had significantly reduced in-hospital postsurgical opioid consumption, LOS, and hospital costs compared with those who did not.