-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Even though the prevalence of thoracic pain has been reported to be 13% of the general population and up to 22% of the population in interventional pain management settings, the role of thoracic discs as a cause of chronic thoracic and extrathoracic pain has not been well studied. The intervertebral discs, zygapophysial or facet joints, and other structures including the costovertebral and costotransverse joints have been identified as a source of thoracic pain.
A systematic review of provocation thoracic discography.
To systematically assess and update the quality of clinical studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of provocation thoracic discography.
A systematic review of the literature was performed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of thoracic discography with respect to chronic, function limiting, thoracic or extrathoracic pain. The available literature on thoracic discography was reviewed. A methodological quality assessment of included studies was performed using Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies (QAREL). The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, and limited (or poor) based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to June 2012, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles.
The evidence and clinical value of thoracic provocation discography is limited (poor) with a paucity of evidence, with only 2 studies meeting inclusion criteria.
The limitation of this study continues to be the paucity of literature.
Based on the available evidence for this systematic review, due to limited evidence, thoracic provocation discography is rarely recommended for the diagnosis of discogenic pain in the thoracic spine, if conservative management has failed and facet joint pain has been excluded.
Pain physician 11/2012; 15(6):E757-76. · 10.72 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Reports from the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Institute of Medicine (IOM), the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG) continue to express significant concern with the overall fiscal sustainability of Medicare and the exponential increase in costs for chronic pain management.
The study is an analysis of the growth of interventional techniques in managing chronic pain in Medicare beneficiaries from 2000 to 2011.
To evaluate the use of all interventional techniques in chronic pain management.
The study was performed utilizing the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician Supplier Procedure Summary Master Data from 2000 to 2011.
Interventional techniques for chronic pain have increased dramatically from 2000 to 2011. Overall, the increase of interventional pain management (IPM) procedures from 2000 to 2011 went up 228%, with 177% per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries. The increases were highest for facet joint interventions and sacroiliac joint blocks with a total increase of 386% and 310% per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries, followed by 168% and 127% for epidural and adhesiolysis procedures, 150% and 111% for other types of nerve blocks and finally, 28% and 8% increases for percutaneous disc procedures. The geometric average of annual increases was 9.7% overall with 13.7% for facet joint interventions and sacroiliac joint blocks and 7.7% for epidural and adhesiolysis procedures.
The limitations of this study included a lack of inclusion of Medicare participants in Medicare Advantage plans, as well as potential documentation, coding, and billing errors.
Interventional techniques increased significantly in Medicare beneficiaries from 2000 to 2011. Overall, there was an increase of 177% in the utilization of IPM services per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries, with an annual geometric average increase of 9.7%. The study also showed an exponential increase in facet joint interventions and sacroiliac joint blocks.
Pain physician 11/2012; 15(6):E969-82. · 10.72 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The role of antithrombotic therapy is well known for its primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease by decreasing the incidence of acute cerebral, cardiovascular, peripheral vascular, and other thrombotic events. The overwhelming data show that the risk of thrombotic events is significantly higher than that of bleeding during surgery after antiplatelet drug discontinuation. It has been assumed that discontinuing antiplatelet therapy prior to performing interventional pain management techniques is a common practice, even though doing so may potentially increase the risk of acute cerebral and cardiovascular events. There are no data available concerning these events, specifically in relation to the occurrence of thromboembolic events, even though some data are available concerning bleeding complications. Even then, interventionalists seem to routinely discontinue all antithrombotic therapy prior to all interventional pain management techniques.
To assess the perioperative antiplatelet and anticoagulant practice patterns of US interventional pain management physicians as well as adverse events in patients on antithrombotic therapy who undergo interventional pain management techniques when that therapy is continued or stopped.
An online survey of interventional pain management physicians.
Interventional pain management practices in the United States.
An online survey was commissioned among 2,300 members of the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians. The survey was designed to assess practice patterns and complications encountered.
Of the 2,300 members surveyed, 325 responded. These results showed that all physicians discontinued warfarin therapy; whereas, 97% discontinued clopidogrel; 96% ticlopidine; 95% Aggrastat (tirofiban); 93% cilostazol, 85% dipyridamole, 60% aspirin 350 mg; 39% aspirin 81 mg; and 39% other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) prior to performing interventional pain management techniques. The majority of physicians accepted an international normalized ratio of 1.5 or less as a safe level. An assessment of serious complications showed thromboembolic events were 3 times more frequent than bleeding complications: 162 thromboembolic events and 55 serious bleeding complications from epidural hematomas. Thromboembolic complications were severe and higher when antiplatelet therapy was discontinued. Bleeding complications from epidural hematomas were similar whether antiplatelet therapy was continued or discontinued (26 versus 29).
This study was limited by its being an online survey of the membership of one organization in one country and that there was a 14% response rate. Underreporting in surveys is common. Further, the incidence of thromboembolic events or epidural hematomas may be misrepresented as a percentage since these drugs were continued in a very small percentage of patients. Consequently, the incidences described in this manuscript may not show appropriate percentages.
The results illustrate an overwhelming pattern of discontinuing antiplatelet and warfarin therapy as well as aspirin and other NSAIDs prior to performing interventional pain management techniques. However, thromboembolism complications may be 3 times more prevalent than epidural hematomas (162 versus 55 events). It is concluded that clinicians must balance the risks of thromboembolism and bleeding in each patient prior to the routine discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy.
Pain physician 11/2012; 15(6):E955-68. · 10.72 Impact Factor
-
Frank J E Falco,
Laxmaiah Manchikanti,
Sukdeb Datta,
Bradley W Wargo,
Stephanie Geffert,
David A Bryce,
Sairam Atluri,
Vijay Singh, Ramsin M Benyamin,
Nalini Sehgal,
Stephen P Ward,
Standiford Helm Ii,
Sanjeeva Gupta,
Mark V Boswell
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The prevalence of chronic, recurrent neck pain is approximately 15% of the adult general population. Controlled studies have supported the existence of cervical facet or zygapophysial joint pain in 36% to 67% of these patients, when disc herniation, radiculitis, and discogenic are not pathognomic. However, these studies also have shown false-positive results in 27% to 63% of the patients with a single diagnostic block. There is also a paucity of literature investigating therapeutic interventions of cervical facet joint pain.
Systematic review of therapeutic cervical facet joint interventions.
To determine and update the clinical utility of therapeutic cervical facet joint interventions in the management of chronic neck pain.
The available literature for utility of facet joint interventions in therapeutic management of cervical facet joint pain was reviewed. The quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials and the criteria developed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, and limited or poor based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to June 2012, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles.
The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief = up to 6 months and long-term > 6 months). Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake.
In this systematic review, 32 manuscripts were considered for inclusion. For final analysis, 4 randomized trials and 6 observational studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the evidence synthesis. Based on one randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind trial and 5 observational studies, the indicated evidence for cervical radiofrequency neurotomy is fair. Based on one randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trial and one prospective evaluation, the indicated evidence for cervical medial branch blocks is fair. Based on 2 randomized controlled trials, the evidence for cervical intraarticular injections is limited.
Paucity of the overall published literature and specifically lack of literature for intraarticular cervical facet joint injections.
The indicated evidence for cervical radiofrequency neurotomy is fair. The indicated evidence for cervical medial branch blocks is fair. The indicated evidence for cervical intraarticular injections with local anesthetic and steroids is limited.
Pain physician 11/2012; 15(6):E839-68. · 10.72 Impact Factor
-
Frank J E Falco,
Laxmaiah Manchikanti,
Sukdeb Datta,
Nalini Sehgal,
Stephanie Geffert,
Obi Onyewu,
Vijay Singh,
David A Bryce, Ramsin M Benyamin,
Thomas T Simopoulos,
Ricardo Vallejo,
Sanjeeva Gupta,
Stephen P Ward,
Joshua A Hirsch
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Lumbar facet joints are a well recognized source of low back pain and referred pain in the lower extremity in patients with chronic low back pain. Conventional clinical features and other non-invasive diagnostic modalities are unreliable in diagnosing lumbar zygapophysial joint pain. Controlled diagnostic studies with at least 80% pain relief as the criterion standard have shown the prevalence of lumbar facet joint pain to be 16% to 41% of patients with chronic low back pain without disc displacement or radiculitis, with a false-positive rate of 17% to 49% with a single diagnostic block.
A systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of lumbar facet joint nerve blocks.
To determine and update the diagnostic accuracy of lumbar facet joint nerve blocks in the assessment of chronic low back pain.
A methodological quality assessment of included studies was performed using Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies (QAREL). Only diagnostic accuracy studies meeting at least 50% of the designated inclusion criteria were utilized for analysis. Studies scoring less than 50% are presented descriptively and analyzed critically. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, and limited or poor based on the quality of evidence developed by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to June 2012, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles.
Studies must have been performed utilizing controlled local anesthetic blocks. Pain relief was categorized as at least 50% pain relief from baseline pain and the ability to perform previously painful movements.
A total of 25 diagnostic accuracy studies were included. Of these, one study evaluated 50% to 74% relief as criterion standard with a single block with prevalence of 48%, 4 studies evaluated 75% to 100% relief as the criterion standard with a single block with a prevalence of 31% to 61%, 5 studies evaluated 50% to 74% relief as the criterion standard with controlled blocks with a prevalence of 15% to 61%, and 13 studies evaluated 75% to 100% relief as the criterion standard with controlled blocks with a prevalence of 25% to 45% in heterogenous populations. False-positive rates ranged from 17% to 66% relief and 27% to 49% with at least 75% relief as the criterion standard. Based on this evaluation, the evidence showed that there is good evidence for diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks with 75% to 100% pain relief as the criterion standard with dual blocks and fair evidence with 50% to 74% pain relief as the criterion standard with controlled diagnostic blocks; however, the evidence is poor with single diagnostic blocks of 50% to 74%, and limited for 75% or more pain relief as the criterion standard.
The shortcomings of this systematic review of the accuracy of diagnostic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks include a paucity of literature and continued debate on an appropriate gold standard.
There is good evidence for diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks with 75% to 100% pain relief as the criterion standard with dual blocks, with fair evidence with 50% to 74% pain relief.
Pain physician 11/2012; 15(6):E869-907. · 10.72 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: It is universally accepted that transmission of bloodborne pathogens during health care procedures continues to occur because of the use of unsafe and improper injection, infusion, and medication administration practices by health care professionals in various clinical settings. This resulted in development of multiple guidelines based on case reports; however, these case reports are confounded by multiple factors without causal relationship to a single factor. Even then, single-dose vials used for multiple patients have been singled out and became the focus of infection control policies resulting in inordinate expenses for practices without improving patient safety. The cost of implementation of single dose vial policy in Interventional Pain Management for drugs alone may cost $750 million, whereas with single use radional gloves may exceed $1 billion per year.
Best evidence synthesis.
To critically appraise and synthesize the literature on infection control practices for interventional techniques, including safe injection and medication vial utilization.
The available literature on infection control practices was reviewed. Due to the nature of the studies involved, with the majority being case reports, and a few prospective evaluations, quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria were not applied. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 through June 2012, literature from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles.
The primary outcome measure was correlating infection to a breach of standards in infection control practices. The secondary objective was to assess the contribution of single-dose vials independently for infection.
A total of 60 reports met inclusion criteria, with 16 reports related to pain management and other procedures, of which 9 reports were attributed to issues related to interventional techniques. Based on an estimated 37 infections occurring during 200 million interventional techniques from 1997 through 2011, the rate of infection is speculated to be one infection for every 5 million interventional pain management procedures. However, if 10 times more infections are estimated, the infection rate appears to be one infection for every 500,000 interventional pain management procedures. The evidence is good for infection related to a breach of infection control practices. There is good evidence that contamination of multi-dose or single-dose vials can contribute to infection. There was poor evidence that the use of single-dose vials on multiple patients with appropriate infection control practices cause infection in interventional pain management.
The limitations of this comprehensive best evidence synthesis include the paucity of literature and dependence of governmental agencies on their literature without applying Institute of Medicine (IOM) criteria for guideline synthesis.
There is good evidence that any breach of sterile practice may result in serious and life threatening infections. There is poor evidence for single-dose vials as a sole factor causing infections when used in multiple patients in interventional pain management settings.
Pain physician 09/2012; 15(5):E573-614. · 10.72 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: As happens every year, on July 1, 2012, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued a proposed policy and payment rate for services furnished under the Medicare physician fee schedule for 2013. The proposed rule would provide certified registered nurse anesthetists to practice independent interventional pain management. Other issues, though no less important, include a 27% sustainable growth rate formula cut in reimbursement, along with a 2% sequester, which could lead to a potential cut of 29%. Since the inception of Medicare programs in 1965, several methods have been used to determine the amounts paid to physicians for each covered service. The sustainable growth rate was enacted in 1997 to determine physician payment updates under Medicare Part B. Its intent was to reduce Medicare physician payment updates to offset the growth and utilization of physician services that exceed gross domestic product growth. This is achieved by setting an overall target amount of spending for physicians' services and adjusting payment rates annually to reflect differences between actual spending and the spending target. Since 2002, the sustainable growth rate has annually been used to recommend reductions in Medicare reimbursements. Payments were cut in 2002 by 4.8%. Since then, Congress has intervened on multiple occasions to prevent additional cuts from being imposed. In this manuscript, we will describe important proposed changes to the physician fee schedule. Additionally, the impact of multiple changes on interventional pain management will be briefly described.
Pain physician 09/2012; 15(5):E615-27. · 10.72 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The Office of Inspector General (OIG), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in a 2009 report, showed that unqualified nonphysicians performed 21% of the services. These nonphysicians did not possess the necessary licenses, certifications, credentials, or training to perform the services. Since the time the medical profession was founded, advances in treatments and technology, as well as educational and training standards, have promoted a desire to go beyond the basic scope of practice. Many have sought to broaden the scope of practice through legislative efforts and proclamation rather than education and training. In 2001, President Clinton signed into law a rule that permitted states to "opt out" of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) requirement for nurse anesthetists to be supervised by any physician. Since then, 17 states have adopted this rule. While it was originally intended to help rural areas improve access to care, the opt out rule essentially supports any hospital or organization that seeks to make a profit or cut costs by allowing nurse anesthetists to function as physicians. With the implementation of sweeping health care regulations under the Affordable Care Act (ACA, also popularly known as Obamacare), the future of nurses and other professionals has been empowered. In fact, it has been proposed that medical training may be reduced by 30%, which will in their minds equalize training between nonphysicians and physicians. In 2010, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued an opinion exerting their power to empower CRNAs with unlimited practice, with threats to opposing parties. In the 2013 proposed physician payment rule, CMS is proposing that CRNAs may perform interventional pain management services. Interventional pain management is a medical discipline with defined interventional techniques to be performed by professionals who are well trained and qualified. Without considering the consequences of the lack of education and training qualifications for CRNAs to offer interventional techniques, the FTC issued their opinion and CMS proposed to expand these practice patterns with a policy of improved access and reduced cost. However, in reality, the opposite will happen and will increase fraud, reduce access due to inappropriate procedures, and increase complications, all as a result of privileges by legislation without education. The CMS proposal for interventional pain management by nurse anesthetists is a proclamation with a poor prognosis.
Pain physician 09/2012; 15(5):E641-64. · 10.72 Impact Factor
-
Pain Practice 07/2012; 12(6):498. · 2.21 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Intervertebral disc herniation, spinal stenosis, intervertebral disc degeneration without disc herniation, and post lumbar surgery syndrome are the most common diagnoses of chronic persistent low back and lower extremity symptoms, resulting in significant economic, societal, and health care impact. Epidural injections are one of the most commonly performed interventions in the United States in managing chronic low back pain. However the evidence is highly variable among different techniques utilized - namely interlaminar, caudal, and transforaminal - and for various conditions, namely - intervertebral disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and discogenic pain without disc herniation or radiculitis. Multiple systematic reviews conducted in the evaluation of the effectiveness of interlaminar epidural injections have been marred with controversy. Consequently, the debate continues with regards to the effectiveness, indications, and medical necessity of interlaminar epidural injections.
A systematic review of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids.
To evaluate the effect of lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids in managing various types of chronic low back and lower extremity pain emanating as a result of disc herniation or radiculitis, spinal stenosis, and chronic discogenic pain.
The available literature on lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids in managing various types of chronic low back pain with or without lower extremity pain was reviewed. The quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials and the criteria developed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, or limited based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to December 2011, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles.
The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief = up to 6 months and long-term > 6 months). Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake.
Overall, 82 lumbar interlaminar trials were identified. All non-randomized studies without fluoroscopy and randomized trials not meeting the inclusion criteria were excluded. Overall, 15 randomized trials and 11 non-randomized studies were included in the analysis. Analysis was derived mainly from fluoroscopically-guided randomized trials and non-randomized studies. The evidence is good for radiculitis secondary to disc herniation with local anesthetics and steroids, fair with local anesthetic only; whereas it is fair for radiculitis secondary to spinal stenosis with local anesthetic and steroids, and fair for axial pain without disc herniation with local anesthetic with or without steroids, with fluoroscopically-guided epidural injections.
The limitations of this study include that we were unable to perform meta-analysis for disc herniation, and the paucity of evidence for discogenic pain and spinal stenosis. Further, methodological criteria have been highly variable along with sample sizes. The studies were heterogenous.
The evidence based on this systematic review is good for lumbar epidural injections under fluoroscopy for radiculitis secondary to disc herniation with local anesthetic and steroids, fair with local anesthetic only; whereas it is fair for radiculitis secondary to spinal stenosis with local anesthetic and steroids, and fair for axial pain without disc herniation with local anesthetic with or without steroids.
Pain physician 07/2012; 15(4):E363-404. · 10.72 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Chronic persistent neck pain with or without upper extremity pain is common in the general adult population with prevalence of 48% for women and 38% for men, with persistent complaints in 22% of women and 16% of men. Multiple modalities of treatments are exploding in managing chronic neck pain along with increasing prevalence. However, there is a paucity of evidence for all modalities of treatments in managing chronic neck pain. Cervical epidural injections for managing chronic neck pain are one of the commonly performed interventions in the United States. However, the literature supporting cervical epidural steroids in managing chronic pain problems has been scant.
A systematic review of cervical interlaminar epidural injections for cervical disc herniation, cervical axial discogenic pain, cervical central stenosis, and cervical postsurgery syndrome.
To evaluate the effect of cervical interlaminar epidural injections in managing various types of chronic neck and upper extremity pain emanating as a result of cervical spine pathology.
The available literature on cervical interlaminar epidural injections in managing chronic neck and upper extremity pain were reviewed. The quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials and the criteria developed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, and limited based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to December 2011, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles.
The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief = up to 6 months and long-term > 6 months). Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake.
For this systematic review, 34 studies were identified. Of these, 24 studies were excluded and a total of 9 randomized trials, with 2 duplicate studies, met inclusion criteria for methodological quality assessment. For cervical disc herniation, the evidence is good for cervical epidural with local anesthetic and steroids; whereas, it was fair with local anesthetic only. For axial or discogenic pain, the evidence is fair for local anesthetic, with or without steroids. For spinal stenosis, the evidence is fair for local anesthetic, with or without steroids. For postsurgery syndrome, the evidence is fair for local anesthetic, with or without steroids.
The limitations of this systematic review continue to be the paucity of literature.
The evidence is good for radiculitis secondary to disc herniation with local anesthetics and steroids, fair with local anesthetic only; whereas, it is fair for local anesthetics with or without steroids, for axial or discogenic pain, pain of central spinal stenosis, and pain of post surgery syndrome.
Pain physician 07/2012; 15(4):E405-34. · 10.72 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: There is a paucity of literature on the use of epidural injections for the treatment of chronic mid and upper back pain due to disc herniation and radiculitis, axial or discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, post surgery syndrome, and post thoracotomy pain syndrome.
A systematic review of therapeutic thoracic epidural injection therapy for chronic mid and upper back pain.
The objective of this systematic review is to determine the effects of thoracic interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids, with or without fluoroscopy, and for various conditions including disc herniation and radiculitis, axial or discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, post thoracic surgery syndrome, and post thoracotomy pain syndrome.
The available literature on thoracic interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids in managing various types of chronic mid and upper back pain was reviewed. The quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials and the criteria developed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, or limited (or poor) based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to March 2012, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles.
The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief = up to 6 months and long-term > 6 months). Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake.
For this review, 17 studies were identified, including studies examining adverse reactions. Only 2 studies were included: one randomized trial and one non-randomized or observational study. The results of this systematic review evaluating the effectiveness of thoracic epidural injections with or without steroids in managing chronic thoracic pain shows fair evidence with one randomized trial in patients with various causes; whereas the evidence is limited based on one non-randomized study evaluating chronic pain in post thoracotomy syndrome.
The limitations of this study include paucity of evidence.
The evidence based on this systematic review for thoracic epidural injection in treating chronic thoracic pain is considered fair and limited for post thoracotomy pain.
Pain physician 07/2012; 15(4):E497-514. · 10.72 Impact Factor
-
Laxmaiah Manchikanti,
Salahadin Abdi,
Sairam Atluri,
Carl C Balog, Ramsin M Benyamin,
Mark V Boswell,
Keith R Brown,
Brian M Bruel,
David A Bryce,
Patricia A Burks, [......],
Vikram B Patel,
Nalini Sehgal,
Sanford M Silverman,
Vijay Singh,
Howard S Smith,
Lee T Snook,
Daneshvari R Solanki,
Deborah H Tracy,
Ricardo Vallejo,
Bradley W Wargo
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: RESULTS: Part 2 of the guidelines on responsible opioid prescribing provides the following recommendations for initiating and maintaining chronic opioid therapy of 90 days or longer. 1. A) Comprehensive assessment and documentation is recommended before initiating opioid therapy, including documentation of comprehensive history, general medical condition, psychosocial history, psychiatric status, and substance use history. (Evidence: good) B) Despite limited evidence for reliability and accuracy, screening for opioid use is recommended, as it will identify opioid abusers and reduce opioid abuse. (Evidence: limited) C) Prescription monitoring programs must be implemented, as they provide data on patterns of prescription usage, reduce prescription drug abuse or doctor shopping. (Evidence: good to fair) D) Urine drug testing (UDT) must be implemented from initiation along with subsequent adherence monitoring to decrease prescription drug abuse or illicit drug use when patients are in chronic pain management therapy. (Evidence: good) 2. A) Establish appropriate physical diagnosis and psychological diagnosis if available prior to initiating opioid therapy. (Evidence: good) B) Caution must be exercised in ordering various imaging and other evaluations, interpretation and communication with the patient, to avoid increased fear, activity restriction, requests for increased opioids, and maladaptive behaviors. (Evidence: good) C) Stratify patients into one of the 3 risk categories - low, medium, or high risk. D) A pain management consultation, may assist non-pain physicians, if high-dose opioid therapy is utilized. (Evidence: fair) 3. Essential to establish medical necessity prior to initiation or maintenance of opioid therapy. (Evidence: good) 4. Establish treatment goals of opioid therapy with regard to pain relief and improvement in function. (Evidence: good) 5. A) Long-acting opioids in high doses are recommended only in specific circumstances with severe intractable pain that is not amenable to short-acting or moderate doses of long-acting opioids, as there is no significant difference between long-acting and short-acting opioids for their effectiveness or adverse effects. (Evidence: fair) B) The relative and absolute contraindications to opioid use in chronic non-cancer pain must be evaluated including respiratory instability, acute psychiatric instability, uncontrolled suicide risk, active or history of alcohol or substance abuse, confirmed allergy to opioid agents, coadministration of drugs capable of inducing life-limiting drug interaction, concomitant use of benzodiazepines, active diversion of controlled substances, and concomitant use of heavy doses of central nervous system depressants. (Evidence: fair to limited) 6. A robust agreement which is followed by all parties is essential in initiating and maintaining opioid therapy as such agreements reduce overuse, misuse, abuse, and diversion. (Evidence: fair) 7. A) Once medical necessity is established, opioid therapy may be initiated with low doses and short-acting drugs with appropriate monitoring to provide effective relief and avoid side effects. (Evidence: fair for short-term effectiveness, limited for long-term effectiveness) B) Up to 40 mg of morphine equivalent is considered as low dose, 41 to 90 mg of morphine equivalent as a moderate dose, and greater than 91 mg of morphine equivalence as high dose. (Evidence: fair) C) In reference to long-acting opioids, titration must be carried out with caution and overdose and misuse must be avoided. (Evidence: good) 8. A) Methadone is recommended for use in late stages after failure of other opioid therapy and only by clinicians with specific training in the risks and uses. (Evidence: limited) B) Monitoring recommendation for methadone prescription is that an electrocardiogram should be obtained prior to initiation, at 30 days and yearly thereafter. (Evidence: fair) 9. In order to reduce prescription drug abuse and doctor shopping, adherence monitoring by UDT and PMDPs provide evidence that is essential to the identification of those patients who are non-compliant or abusing prescription drugs or illicit drugs. (Evidence: fair) 10. Constipation must be closely monitored and a bowel regimen be initiated as soon as deemed necessary. (Evidence: good) 11. Chronic opioid therapy may be continued, with continuous adherence monitoring, in well-selected populations, in conjunction with or after failure of other modalities of treatments with improvement in physical and functional status and minimal adverse effects. (Evidence: fair). DISCLAIMER: The guidelines are based on the best available evidence and do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. Due to the changing body of evidence, this document is not intended to be a "standard of care."
Pain physician 07/2012; 15(3 Suppl):S67-116. · 10.72 Impact Factor
-
Laxmaiah Manchikanti,
Salahadin Abdi,
Sairam Atluri,
Carl C Balog, Ramsin M Benyamin,
Mark V Boswell,
Keith R Brown,
Brian M Bruel,
David A Bryce,
Patricia A Burks, [......],
Vikram B Patel,
Nalini Sehgal,
Sanford M Silverman,
Vijay Singh,
Howard S Smith,
Lee T Snook,
Daneshvari R Solanki,
Deborah H Tracy,
Ricardo Vallejo,
Bradley W Wargo
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Opioid abuse has continued to increase at an alarming rate since the 1990 s. As documented by different medical specialties, medical boards, advocacy groups, and the Drug Enforcement Administration, available evidence suggests a wide variance in chronic opioid therapy of 90 days or longer in chronic non-cancer pain. Part 1 describes evidence assessment.
The objectives of opioid guidelines as issued by the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) are to provide guidance for the use of opioids for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain, to produce consistency in the application of an opioid philosophy among the many diverse groups involved, to improve the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain, and to reduce the incidence of abuse and drug diversion. The focus of these guidelines is to curtail the abuse of opioids without jeopardizing non-cancer pain management with opioids.
1) There is good evidence that non-medical use of opioids is extensive; one-third of chronic pain patients may not use prescribed opioids as prescribed or may abuse them, and illicit drug use is significantly higher in these patients. 2) There is good evidence that opioid prescriptions are increasing rapidly, as the majority of prescriptions are from non-pain physicians, many patients are on long-acting opioids, and many patients are provided with combinations of long-acting and short-acting opioids. 3) There is good evidence that the increased supply of opioids, use of high dose opioids, doctor shoppers, and patients with multiple comorbid factors contribute to the majority of the fatalities. 4) There is fair evidence that long-acting opioids and a combination of long-acting and short-acting opioids contribute to increasing fatalities and that even low-doses of 40 mg or 50 mg of daily morphine equivalent doses may be responsible for emergency room admissions with overdoses and deaths. 5) There is good evidence that approximately 60% of fatalities originate from opioids prescribed within the guidelines, with approximately 40% of fatalities occurring in 10% of drug abusers. 6) The short-term effectiveness of opioids is fair, whereas the long-term effectiveness of opioids is limited due to a lack of long-term (> 3 months) high quality studies, with fair evidence with no significant difference between long-acting and short-acting opioids. 7) Among the individual drugs, most opioids have fair evidence for short-term and limited evidence for long-term due to a lack of quality studies. 8) The evidence for the effectiveness and safety of chronic opioid therapy in the elderly for chronic non-cancer pain is fair for short-term and limited for long-term due to lack of high quality studies; limited in children and adolescents and patients with comorbid psychological disorders due to lack of quality studies; and the evidence is poor in pregnant women. 9) There is limited evidence for reliability and accuracy of screening tests for opioid abuse due to lack of high quality studies. 10) There is fair evidence to support the identification of patients who are non-compliant or abusing prescription drugs or illicit drugs through urine drug testing and prescription drug monitoring programs, both of which can reduce prescription drug abuse or doctor shopping. DISCLAIMER: The guidelines are based on the best available evidence and do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. Due to the changing body of evidence, this document is not intended to be a "standard of care."
Pain physician 07/2012; 15(3 Suppl):S1-65. · 10.72 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Epidural injections with local anesthetics and steroids are one of the most commonly used interventions in managing chronic low back pain and lower extremity pain of various causes. However, despite their extensive use, debate continues on their effectiveness due to the lack of well-designed, randomized, controlled studies to determine the effectiveness of epidural injections in general, and caudal epidural injections in particular.
A systematic review of caudal epidural injections with or without steroids in managing chronic pain secondary to lumbar disc herniation or radiculitis, post lumbar laminectomy syndrome, spinal stenosis, and discogenic pain without disc herniation or radiculitis.
To evaluate the effect of caudal epidural injections with or without steroids in managing various types of chronic low back pain with or without lower extremity pain emanating as a result of disc herniation or radiculitis, post lumbar laminectomy syndrome, spinal stenosis, and chronic discogenic pain.
The available literature on caudal epidural injections with or without steroids in managing various types of chronic low back pain with or without lower extremity pain was reviewed. The quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials and the criteria developed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria for fluoroscopic observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, or poor based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to December 2011, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles.
The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief = up to 6 months and long-term > 6 months). Secondary outcome measures of improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake were utilized.
For this systematic review, 73 studies were identified. Of these, 51 were excluded and a total of 16 studies met inclusion criteria for methodological quality assessment with 11 randomized trials and 5 non-randomized studies. For lumbar disc herniation, the evidence is good for short- and long-term relief of chronic pain secondary to disc herniation or radiculitis with local anesthetic and steroids and fair relief with local anesthetic only. In managing chronic axial or discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, and post surgery syndrome, the indicated evidence is fair.
The limitations of this study include the paucity of literature, specifically for chronic pain without disc herniation.
There was good evidence for short- and long-term relief of chronic pain secondary to disc herniation or radiculitis with local anesthetic and steroids and fair relief with local anesthetic only. Further, this systematic review also provided indicated evidence of fair for caudal epidural injections in managing chronic axial or discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, and post surgery syndrome.
Pain physician 05/2012; 15(3):E159-98. · 10.72 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Background: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) generally occurs from a combination of degenerative changes occurring in the lumbar spine. These include hypertrophy of ligamentum flavum, facet joint arthritic changes and bulging of the intervertebral disk. Spinal stenosis leads to compression of the lumbar neural elements (cauda equina), which manifests as low back and leg pain especially on standing and walking known as “neurogenic claudication.” Current treatment options for LSS are varied. Conservative management, including physical therapy with/without epidural steroid injections, may be adequate for mild stenosis. Surgical decompression is reserved for severe cases and results in variable degrees of success. Patients with moderate-to-severe LSS having ligamentum flavum hypertrophy as a key contributor are generally inappropriately treated or undertreated. This is due to ineffectiveness of conservative therapy and possibility that major surgical compression might be too aggressive. Percutaneous decompression offers a possible solution for this patient population.Methods: One-year follow-up study was conducted at 11 U.S. sites. Study cohort included 58 mild® percutaneous decompression patients who underwent 170 procedures, the majority treated bilaterally at one or two lumbar levels. Outcome measures included the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), and SF-12v2® Health Survey.Results: No major mild® device or procedure-related complications were reported. One-year data showed significant reduction of pain as measured by VAS. Improvement in physical functionality, mobility, and disability was significant as measured by ZCQ, SF-12v2, and ODI.Conclusions: At 1 year this 58-patient cohort demonstrated continued excellent safety profile of the mild® procedure and equally important, showed long-term pain relief and improved functionality.
Pain Practice 02/2012; 12(3):184 - 193. · 2.21 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) generally occurs from a combination of degenerative changes occurring in the lumbar spine. These include hypertrophy of ligamentum flavum, facet joint arthritic changes and bulging of the intervertebral disk. Spinal stenosis leads to compression of the lumbar neural elements (cauda equina), which manifests as low back and leg pain especially on standing and walking known as "neurogenic claudication." Current treatment options for LSS are varied. Conservative management, including physical therapy with/without epidural steroid injections, may be adequate for mild stenosis. Surgical decompression is reserved for severe cases and results in variable degrees of success. Patients with moderate-to-severe LSS having ligamentum flavum hypertrophy as a key contributor are generally inappropriately treated or undertreated. This is due to ineffectiveness of conservative therapy and possibility that major surgical compression might be too aggressive. Percutaneous decompression offers a possible solution for this patient population.
One-year follow-up study was conducted at 11 U.S. sites. Study cohort included 58 mild(®) percutaneous decompression patients who underwent 170 procedures, the majority treated bilaterally at one or two lumbar levels. Outcome measures included the visual analog scale (VAS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Zurich Claudication Questionnaire (ZCQ), and SF-12v2(®) Health Survey.
No major mild(®) device or procedure-related complications were reported. One-year data showed significant reduction of pain as measured by VAS. Improvement in physical functionality, mobility, and disability was significant as measured by ZCQ, SF-12v2, and ODI.
At 1 year this 58-patient cohort demonstrated continued excellent safety profile of the mild(®) procedure and equally important, showed long-term pain relief and improved functionality.
Pain Practice 06/2011; 12(3):184-93. · 2.21 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) was established by the Affordable Care Act of 2010 to promote comparative effectiveness research (CER) to assist patients, clinicians, purchasers, and policy-makers in making informed health decisions by advancing the quality and relevance of evidence concerning the manner in which diseases, disorders, and other health conditions can effectively and appropriately be prevented, diagnosed, treated, monitored, and managed through research and evidence synthesis. The development of PCORI is vested in the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The framework of CER and PCORI describes multiple elements which are vested in all 3 regulations including stakeholder involvement, public participation, and open transparent decision-making process. Overall, PCORI is much more elaborate with significant involvement of stakeholders, transparency, public participation, and open decision-making. However, there are multiple issues concerning the operation of such agencies in the United States including the predecessor of Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), the Agency for Healthcare Policy and Research (AHCPR), AHRQ Effectiveness Health Care programs, and others. The CER in the United States may be described at cross-roads or at the beginnings of a scientific era of CER and evidence-based medicine (EBM). However the United States suffers as other countries, including the United Kingdom with its National Health Services (NHS) and National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), with major misunderstandings of methodology, an inordinate focus on methodological assessment, lack of understanding of the study design (placebo versus active control), lack of involvement of clinicians, and misinterpretation of the evidence which continues to be disseminated. Consequently, PCORI and CER have been described as government-driven solutions without following the principles of EBM with an extensive focus on costs rather than quality. It also has been stated that the central planning which has been described for PCORI and CER, a term devised to be acceptable, will be used by third party payors to override the physician's best medical judgement and patient's best interest. Further, stakeholders in PCORI are not scientists, are not balanced, and will set an agenda with an ultimate problem of comparative effectiveness and PCORI that it is not based on medical science, but rather on political science and not even under congressional authority, leading to unprecedented negative changes to health care. Thus, PCORI is operating in an ad hoc manner that is incompatible with the principles of evidence-based practice.This manuscript describes the framework of PCORI, and the role of CER and its impact on interventional pain management.
Pain physician 05/2011; 14(3):E249-82. · 10.72 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Physicians in the United States have been affected by significant changes in the patterns of medical practice evolving over the last several decades. The recently passed affordable health care law, termed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (the ACA, for short) affects physicians more than any other law. Physician services are an integral part of health care. Physicians are paid in the United States for their personal services. This payment also includes the overhead expenses for maintaining an office and providing services. The payment system is highly variable in the private insurance market; however, governmental systems have a formula-based payment, mostly based on the Medicare payment system. Physician services are billed under Part B. Since the inception of the Medicare program in 1965, several methods have been used to determine the amounts paid to physicians for each covered service. Initially, the payment systems compensated physicians on the basis of their charges. In 1975, just over 10 years after the inception of the Medicare program, payments changed so as not to exceed the increase in the Medical Economic Index (MEI). Nevertheless, the policy failed to curb increases in costs, leading to the determination of a yearly change in fees by legislation from 1984 to 1991. In 1992, the fee schedule essentially replaced the prior payment system that was based on the physician's charges, which also failed to live up to expectations for operational success. Then, in 1998, the sustainable growth rate (SGR) system was introduced. In 2009, multiple attempts were made by Congress to repeal the formula - rather unsuccessfully. Consequently, the SGR formula continues to hamper physician payments. The mechanism of the SGR includes 3 components that are incorporated into a statutory formula: expenditure targets, growth rate period, and annual adjustments of payment rates for physician services. Further, the relative value of a physician fee schedule is based on 3 components: physician work, practice expense (PE), and malpractice expense that are used to determine a value ranking for each service to which it is applied. On average, the work component represents 53.5% of a service's relative value, the fee component represents 43.6%, and the malpractice component represents 3.9%. The final schedule for physician payment was issued on November 24, 2010. This was based on a total cut of 30.8% with 24.9% of the cut attributed to SGR. However, as usual, with patchwork efficiency, Congress passed a one-year extension of the 0% update, effective through December 2011. Consequently, CMS issued an emergency update of the 2011 Medicare fee schedule, with multiple revisions, resulting in a reduction of the conversion factor of $36.8729 from December 2010 to $33.9764 for 2011.
Pain physician 01/2011; 14(1):E5-33. · 10.72 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The proportion of patients suffering from thoracic pain secondary to thoracic disorders is relatively small compared to low back and neck pain. Furthermore, thoracic interventions are not performed as often as in cervical and lumbar regions. In addition, there is a paucity of literature regarding thoracic intervertebral discs and thoracic disc herniation as causative structures of thoracic pain.
A randomized, double-blind, active controlled trial.
A private practice, interventional pain management and specialty referral center in the United States.
To evaluate the effectiveness of thoracic interlaminar epidural injections in providing effective pain relief in managing chronic mid and upper back pain secondary to disc herniation or radiculitis and discogenic pain with local anesthetic alone or with steroids.
Inclusion criteria consisted of patients who either had disc herniation or radiculitis, or patients with discogenic pain proven by controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks not to be caused by facet joint pain. Patients were assigned to one of 2 groups. One group received injections containing local anesthetic only; the other group, local anesthetic mixed with non-particulate betamethasone. Randomization was performed by computer-generated random allocations sequence by simple randomization.
Participant outcomes were measured at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months post-treatment with the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Oswestry Disability Index 2.0 (ODI), employment status, and opioid intake. Decrease of >/= 50% of NRS scores and Oswestry scores were considered significant.
A total of 40 participants are included in this preliminary report with 20 participants in each group. Significant pain relief (>/= 50%) and reduction (by at least 50%) in ODI from baseline was seen at 12 months in 80% of patients in Group I and 85% in Group II.
This is a preliminary report and there was no placebo group. Overall, 80% of participants in Group I (who received injections without steroids) and 85% in Group II (who received injections with steroids) with thoracic pain secondary to disc herniation or radiculitis and discogenic pain might benefit from thoracic interlaminar epidural injections.
NCT01071369.
Pain physician 12/2010; 13(6):E357-69. · 10.72 Impact Factor
