Article

Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference-2012: Recommendations to Reduce Morbidity and Mortality in Intrathecal Drug Delivery in the Treatment of Chronic Pain.

Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
Neuromodulation (Impact Factor: 1.79). 07/2012; 15(5):467-482. DOI: 10.1111/j.1525-1403.2012.00486.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Introduction:  Targeted intrathecal drug infusion to treat moderate to severe chronic pain has become a standard part of treatment algorithms when more conservative options fail. This therapy is well established in the literature, has shown efficacy, and is an important tool for the treatment of both cancer and noncancer pain; however, it has become clear in recent years that intrathecal drug delivery is associated with risks for serious morbidity and mortality. Methods:  The Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference is a meeting of experienced implanting physicians who strive to improve care in those receiving implantable devices. Employing data generated through an extensive literature search combined with clinical experience, this work group formulated recommendations regarding awareness, education, and mitigation of the morbidity and mortality associated with intrathecal therapy to establish best practices for targeted intrathecal drug delivery systems. Results:  Best practices for improved patient care and outcomes with targeted intrathecal infusion are recommended to minimize the risk of morbidity and mortality. Areas of focus include respiratory depression, infection, granuloma, device-related complications, endocrinopathies, and human error. Specific guidance is given with each of these issues and the general use of the therapy. Conclusions:  Targeted intrathecal drug delivery systems are associated with risks for morbidity and mortality that can be devastating. The panel has given guidance to treating physicians and healthcare providers to reduce the incidence of these problems and to improve outcomes when problems occur.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: B. Todd Sitzman, Jun 24, 2014
6 Followers
 · 
273 Views
  • Neuromodulation 09/2012; 15(5):418-9. DOI:10.1111/j.1525-1403.2012.00507.x · 1.79 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Targeted intrathecal drug delivery systems (IDDS) are an option in algorithms for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe chronic refractory pain. This article is intended to review the literature regarding IDDS published over the last year, with special attention to the Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference 2012. The recommendations made by the Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference 2012 are reviewed. Separate considerations of intrathecal drug therapy for neuropathic and nociceptive pain syndromes and the new concept of 'microdosing' are discussed in this article. This review includes the recommendations for the use of IDDS, trialing, and recent reports of complications (especially, the occurrence of granulomas). In addition, the latest documents on cerebrospinal fluid and potential lines of future development are discussed.
    Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology 06/2013; DOI:10.1097/ACO.0b013e3283625ec7 · 2.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of intrathecal morphine in the long term by hypothesising that a reduction of the intrathecal opioid dose following long-term administration would increase the level of pain intensity. Randomised, double-blind, controlled, parallel group trial. Department of Pain Management, Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley, UK. 24 patients with non-cancer pain implanted with morphine reservoirs were assessed for eligibility. Participants were randomly allocated to one of two parallel groups in which one of the groups had no change in morphine dose and the other group had a small reduction (20%) in dosage every week during a 10-week follow-up. Primary outcomes were visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score change and withdrawal from the study due to lack of efficacy. 9 of the patients assessed for eligibility declined to participate in the study. 15 patients were randomised to control (n=5) or intervention (n=10) and included in an intention-to-treat analysis. Owing to worsening of pain, seven patients withdrew from the study prematurely. None knew prior to withdrawal which arm of the study they were in, but all turned out to be in the dose-reduction arm. The calculation of dropout rates between groups indicated a significant statistical difference (p=0.026) and recruitment was ceased. The VAS change between baseline and the last observation was smaller in the control group (median, Mdn=11) than in the intervention group (Mdn=30.5), although not statistically significant, Z=-1.839, p=0.070; r=-0.47. Within groups, VAS was significantly lower at baseline (Mdn=49.5) than at the last observation (Mdn=77.5) for the reduction group, Z=-2.805, p=0.002; r=-0.627 but not for the control group (p=0.188). This double-blind randomised controlled trial of chronic intrathecal morphine administration suggests the effectiveness of this therapy for the management of chronic non-cancer pain. However, owing to the small number of patients completing the study (n=8), further studies are warranted. International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Centre (ISRCTN 33733462).
    BMJ Open 07/2013; 3(7). DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003061 · 2.06 Impact Factor