Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 13, 2026

Evaluation of Capnography Sampling Line Compatibility and Accuracy when Used with a Portable Capnography Monitor
Published on: September 29, 2020
North American and European practices for opioid-sparing and opioid-free anaesthesia: a cross-sectional survey
Yann Gricourt1,2,3, Nancy M Boulos2, Yann Daoulas4
1Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Nimes University Hospital, Nimes, France.
Background:
Opioids remain central to perioperative analgesia but concerns about the growing opioid crisis and adverse effects have prompted revaluation of their role. Opioid-sparing anaesthesia and opioid-free anaesthesia (OFA) have emerged as alternatives, yet their clinical adoption remains uncertain. This survey assessed adoption and perceptions among anaesthesiologists in North America and Europe.
Methods:
A 26-question cross-sectional, web-based survey was distributed via email to members of the American, European, and French Societies of anaesthesiologists. The survey assessed routine use of opioid-sparing techniques, defined as the regular use of non-opioid analgesics and adjuncts to minimise intraoperative opioid use in the past month. We hypothesised that fewer than 50% of anaesthesiologists routinely used these techniques during this period.
Results:
The overall response rate was 2% among ASA members (614/31 000) and 12% among European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) members (414/3500). Concern about opioid use was reported as high in ESAIC and ASA members (90% vs 83%, P<0.001). Daily use of opioid sparing techniques was reported by 37% (95% confidence interval [CI] 32-42%) of ESAIC and 40% (95% CI 36-45%) of ASA members. OFA use was less common overall but reported to be higher by ASA repondents (21%, 95% CI 18-25%) vs 12% (95% CI 9-15%), P<0.001) for EASIC respondents. Perceived risks differed: EASIC respondents more often cited haemodynamic instability (43% vs 16%, P<0.001), whereas ASA respondents more often cited patient dissatisfaction (55% vs 30%) and uncontrolled pain (72% vs 53%, both P<0.001). Key barriers to OFA adoption included limited training, low confidence, and lack of evidence-based guidelines.
Conclusions:
Interest in opioid-sparing anaesthesia and OFA is widespread, but routine use remains modest and varies by region. Regional perceptions, institutional protocols, and confidence in evidence appear to influence implementation.
More Related Videos
06:04Objective Nociceptive Assessment in Ventilated ICU Patients: A Feasibility Study Using Pupillometry and the Nociceptive Flexion Reflex
Published on: July 4, 2018
03:14Author Spotlight: Enhancing Success of Ultrasound-Guided Neuraxial Anesthesia in Cases with Difficult Anatomy
Published on: January 31, 2025
Related Concept Videos
Opioid Analgesics: Synthetic and Semisynthetic Opioids
General Anesthesia: Overview
General anesthesia induces unconsciousness in the whole body, while the others target specific areas or sensations. It is administered to minimize adverse effects, maintain...
Local Anesthetics: Clinical Application as Epidural Anesthesia
Since epidural anesthetics can be infused through an epidural catheter, all types of drugs, including short-acting ones, can be administered. Chloroprocaine and lidocaine are examples of short and long-duration anesthetics, respectively. Bupivacaine...
Analgesia and Pain Management
Parenteral Anesthetics: Overview
Local Anesthetics: Clinical Application as Spinal Anesthesia