Perioperative Management of Antiplatelet and Anticoagulant Therapy in Patients Undergoing Interventional Techniques: 2024 Updated Guidelines from the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP).

BACKGROUND: The frequency of performance of interventional techniques in chronic pain patients receiving anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy continues to increase. Understanding the importance of continuing chronic anticoagulant therapy, the need for interventional techniques, and determining the duration and discontinuation or temporary suspension of anticoagulation is crucial to avoiding devastating complications, primarily when neuraxial procedures are performed. Anticoagulants and antiplatelets target the clotting system, increasing the bleeding risk. However, discontinuation of anticoagulant or antiplatelet drugs exposes patients to thrombosis risk, which can lead to significant morbidity and mortality, especially in those with coronary artery or cerebrovascular disease. These guidelines summarize the current peer reviewed literature and develop consensus-based guidelines based on the best evidence synthesis for patients receiving anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy during interventional procedures. STUDY DESIGN: Review of the literature and development of guidelines based on best evidence synthesis. OBJECTIVES: To provide a current and concise appraisal of the literature regarding the assessment of bleeding and thrombosis risk during interventional techniques for patients taking anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet medications. METHODS: Development of consensus guidelines based on best evidence synthesis included review of the literature on bleeding risks during interventional pain procedures, practice patterns, and perioperative management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy. A multidisciplinary panel of experts developed methodology, risk stratification based on best evidence synthesis, and management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy. It also included risk of cessation of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy based on a multitude of factors. Multiple data sources on bleeding risk, practice patterns, risk of thrombosis, and perioperative management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy were identified. The relevant literature was identified through searches of multiple databases from 1966 through 2023. In the development of consensus statements and guidelines, we used a modified Delphi technique, which has been described to minimize bias related to group interactions. Panelists without a primary conflict of interest voted on approving specific guideline statements. Each panelist could suggest edits to the guideline statement wording and could suggest additional qualifying remarks or comments as to the implementation of the guideline in clinical practice to achieve consensus and for inclusion in the final guidelines, each guideline statement required at least 80% agreement among eligible panel members without primary conflict of interest. RESULTS: A total of 34 authors participated in the development of these guidelines. Of these, 29 participated in the voting process. A total of 20 recommendations were developed. Overall, 100% acceptance was obtained for 16 of 20 items. Total items were reduced to 18 with second and third round voting. The final results were 100% acceptance for 16 items (89%). There was disagreement for 2 statements (statements 6 and 7) and recommendations by 3 authors. These remaining 2 items had an acceptance of 94% and 89%. The disagreement and dissent were by Byron J. Schneider, MD, with recommendation that all transforaminals be classified into low risk, whereas Sanjeeva Gupta, MD, desired all transforaminals to be in intermediate risk. The second disagreement was related to Vivekanand A. Manocha, MD, recommending that cervical and thoracic transforaminal to be high risk procedures.Thus, with appropriate literature review, consensus-based statements were developed for the perioperative management of patients receiving anticoagulants and antiplatelets These included the following: estimation of the thromboembolic risk, estimation of bleeding risk, and determination of the timing of restarting of anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy.Risk stratification was provided classifying the interventional techniques into three categories of low risk, moderate or intermediate risk, and high risk. Further, on multiple occasions in low risk and moderate or intermediate risk categories, recommendations were provided against cessation of anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy. LIMITATIONS: The continued paucity of literature with discordant recommendations. CONCLUSION: Based on the review of available literature, published clinical guidelines, and recommendations, a multidisciplinary panel of experts presented guidelines in managing interventional techniques in patients on anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy in the perioperative period. These guidelines provide a comprehensive assessment of classification of risk, appropriate recommendations, and recommendations based on the best available evidence.

A phase 3, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial of SI-6603 (condoliase) in patients with radicular leg pain associated with lumbar disc herniation.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: SI-6603 (condoliase) is a chemonucleolytic agent approved in Japan in 2018 for the treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH) associated with radicular leg pain. Condoliase, a mucopolysaccharidase with high substrate specificity for glycosaminoglycans (GAGs), offers a unique mechanism of action through the degradation of GAGs in the nucleus pulposus. As LDH management is currently limited to conservative approaches and surgical intervention, condoliase could offer a less invasive treatment option than surgery for patients with LDH. PURPOSE: The Discover 6603 study (NCT03607838) evaluated the efficacy and safety of a single-dose injection of SI-6603 (condoliase) vs sham for the treatment of radicular leg pain associated with LDH. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled, phase 3 study conducted across 41 sites in the United States. PATIENT SAMPLE: Male and female participants (N=352; aged 30-70 years) with contained posterolateral LDH and unilateral radiculopathy/radicular leg pain for greater than 6 weeks. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was the change from baseline (CFB) in average worst leg pain score at 13 weeks, assessed using the 100-mm visual analogue scale. Key secondary endpoints were CFB in average worst leg pain score at 52 weeks, herniation volume at 13 weeks, and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score at 13 weeks. Safety evaluations included adverse events (AEs) and imaging findings. METHODS: Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive a single intradiscal injection of condoliase (1.25 units) or sham injection followed by 52 weeks of observation. The primary and key secondary endpoints were assessed using a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) analysis and a protocol-specified multiple imputation (MI) sensitivity analysis on the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population. A prespecified serial gatekeeping algorithm was used for multiple comparisons. Safety endpoints included AEs, laboratory tests, vital signs, imaging (by X-ray and magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]), and occurrence of posttreatment lumbar surgery. RESULTS: Of the 352 randomized participants, 341 constituted the mITT population (condoliase n=169; sham n=172) and the safety population (condoliase n=167; sham n=174). For the primary endpoint, the condoliase group showed significantly greater improvement in CFB in worst leg pain at Week 13 (least squares mean [LSM] CFB: -41.7) compared with sham injection (-34.2; LSM difference: -7.5; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -14.1, -0.9; p=.0263) based on the MMRM analysis. CFB in worst leg pain at Week 52 favored condoliase vs sham, but the difference was not statistically significant (p=.0558), which halted the serial gatekeeping testing algorithm and dictated that the CFB in herniation volume and ODI scores at Week 13 would be considered nonsignificant, regardless of their p-values. Treatment group differences in CFB in herniation volume and ODI score favored the condoliase group vs sham at all timepoints. The MI sensitivity analysis showed differences in CFB in worst leg pain at Week 13 (p=.0223) and Week 52 (p=.0433) in favor of the condoliase group. Treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs) were more common in the condoliase group (≥1 TEAE: 71.9%; ≥1 treatment-related TEAE: 28.1%) compared with the sham group (≥1 TEAE: 60.3%; ≥1 treatment-related TEAE: 10.3%). Of the TEAEs, spinal MRI abnormalities and back pain occurred most frequently. No treatment-related serious AEs occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Condoliase met its primary endpoint of significantly improving radicular leg pain at Week 13 and was generally well tolerated in patients with LDH. Chemonucleolysis with condoliase has the potential to provide a less invasive treatment option than surgery for those unresponsive to conservative treatment strategies.

Surgical treatment of refractory low back pain using implanted BurstDR spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in a cohort of patients without options for corrective surgery: Findings and results from the DISTINCT study, a prospective randomized multi-center-controlled trial.

Background: Low back pain (LBP) is a highly prevalent, disabling condition affecting millions of people. Patients with an identifiable anatomic pain generator and resulting neuropathic lower extremity symptoms often undergo spine surgery, but many patients lack identifiable and/or surgically corrective pathology. Nonoperative treatment options often fail to provide sustained relief. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is sometimes used to treat these patients, but the lack of level 1 evidence limits its widespread use and insurance coverage. The DISTINCT RCT study evaluates the efficacy of passive recharge burst SCS compared to conventional medical treatment (CMM) in alleviating chronic, refractory axial low back pain. Methods: This prospective, multicenter, randomized, study with an optional 6-month crossover involved patients who were not candidates for lumbar spine surgery. The primary and secondary endpoints evaluated improvements in low back pain intensity (NRS), back pain-related disability (ODI), pain catastrophizing (PCS), and healthcare utilization. Patients were randomized to SCS therapy or CMM at 30 US study sites. Results: The SCS arm reported an 85.3% NRS responder rate (≥ 50% reduction) compared to 6.2% (5/81) in the CMM arm. After the 6M primary endpoint, SCS patients elected to remain on assigned therapy and 66.2% (49/74) of CMM patients chose to trial SCS (crossover). At the 12M follow-up, SCS and crossover patients reported 78.6% and 71.4% NRS responder rates. Secondary outcomes indicated significant improvements in ODI, PCS, and reduced healthcare utilization. Six serious adverse events were reported and resolved without sequelae. Conclusion: DISTINCT chronic low back pain patients with no indication for corrective surgery experienced a significant and sustained response to burst SCS therapy for up to 12 months. CMM patients who crossed over to the SCS arm reported profound improvements after 6 months. This data advocates for a timely consideration of SCS therapy in patients unresponsive to conservative therapy.

Assessing suicide risk in chronic pain management: a narrative review across drug classes.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic pain presents a multifaceted challenge in clinical practice, necessitating a nuanced understanding of pharmacological interventions to optimize treatment outcomes. This review provides an outline of various pharmacological agents commonly used in chronic pain management and highlights their safety considerations, particularly regarding suicide risk. AREAS COVERED: This review discusses the role of antidepressants, anticonvulsants, GABA receptor agonists, NMDA receptor antagonists, corticosteroids, cannabis and cannabinoids, bisphosphonates, calcitonin, and alpha-2 adrenergic receptor agonists in chronic pain management. It assesses their therapeutic benefits, potential for misuse, and psychiatric adverse effects, including the risk of suicide. Each pharmacological class is evaluated in terms of its efficacy, safety profile, and considerations for clinical practice. We searched peer-reviewed English literature on the topic using the MEDLINE database without time restrictions. EXPERT OPINION: While pharmacological interventions offer promise in alleviating chronic pain, healthcare providers must carefully weigh their benefits against potential risks, including the risk of exacerbating psychiatric symptoms and increasing suicide risk. Individualized treatment approaches, close monitoring, and multidisciplinary collaboration are essential for optimizing pain management strategies while mitigating adverse effects. Ongoing research efforts are crucial for advancing our understanding of these pharmacological interventions and refining pain management practices.

A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of long-acting dexamethasone viscous gel delivered by transforaminal injection for lumbosacral radicular pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03372161.

Treatment of Refractory Low Back Pain Using Passive Recharge Burst in Patients Without Options for Corrective Surgery: Findings and Results From the DISTINCT Study, a Prospective Randomized Multicenter Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is effective for relieving chronic intractable pain conditions. The Dorsal spInal cord STImulatioN vs mediCal management for the Treatment of low back pain study evaluates the effectiveness of SCS compared with conventional medical management (CMM) in the treatment of chronic low back pain in patients who had not undergone and were not candidates for lumbar spine surgery. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients were randomized to passive recharge burst therapy (n = 162) or CMM (n = 107). They reported severe pain and disability for more than a decade and had failed a multitude of therapies. Common diagnoses included degenerative disc disease, spondylosis, stenosis, and scoliosis-yet not to a degree amenable to surgery. The six-month primary end point compared responder rates, defined by a 50% reduction in pain. Hierarchical analyses of seven secondary end points were performed in the following order: composite responder rate (numerical rating scale [NRS] or Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]), NRS, ODI, Pain Catastrophizing Scale responder rate, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC) responder rate, and Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Information System-29 in pain interference and physical function. RESULTS: Intention-to-treat analysis showed a significant difference in pain responders on NRS between SCS (72.6%) and CMM (7.1%) arms (p < 0.0001). Of note, 85.2% of those who received six months of therapy responded on NRS compared with 6.2% of those with CMM (p < 0.0001). All secondary end points indicated the superiority of burst therapy over CMM. A composite measure on function or pain relief showed 91% of subjects with SCS improved, compared with 16% of subjects with CMM. A substantial improvement of 30 points was observed on ODI compared with a

Circadian pain patterns in human pain conditions - A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Chronobiology is the science of how physiological processes in the body follow a pattern of time. Pain has been shown to follow a circadian rhythm, with different types of pain having variable expression along this rhythm. OBJECTIVE: This article reviews the nature of diurnal variations in pain along with a discussion of the mechanisms of circadian rhythm of pain. EVIDENCE REVIEW: We conducted a literature search on the PubMed and Google Scholar electronic databases, through April 2022. Publications were screened for English language, full-text availability, and human subjects. Randomized controlled trials and observational trials were included. Data were extracted from studies on patients with acute or chronic pain phenotypes, which provide pain severity data and corresponding diurnal time points. FINDINGS: The literature search led to the inclusion of 39 studies. A circadian pattern of pain was found to be present in nociceptive, neuropathic, central, and mixed pain states. Postoperative pain, fibromyalgia, trigeminal neuralgia, and migraines were associated with higher pain scores in the morning. Temporomandibular joint pain, neuropathic pain, labor pain, biliary colic, and cluster headaches increased throughout the day to reach a peak in the evening or night. Arthritis and cancer pain were not associated with any circadian rhythmicity. Furthermore, the circadian rhythm of pain was not found to be altered in patients on analgesics. CONCLUSION: The results of this review suggest that an understanding of diurnal variation may help improve therapeutic strategies in pain management, for instance through analgesic titration.

First Human Report of Relief of Lumbar and Cervical Discogenic and Arthritic Back Pain after Epidural and Facet Joint Mesenchymal Stem Cell Injection: A Case Report.

INTRODUCTION: Back pain causes tremendous patient suffering and high financial cost to the healthcare system. Mesenchymal Stem Cells (MSCs) have demonstrated the ability to enhance healing and reduce inflammation and pain without the deleterious side effects of corticosteroids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in numerous clinical series for peripheral joint arthritis. We hypothesized that translaminar MSC injection into the epidural space would effectively treat disc arthritis without the burden of sedation and the risks of disc space injection. We further hypothesized that MSC injection into the facet joints would effectively and safely treat facet joint-induced back pain. The combination of epidural and facet joint injection would potentially treat the most recognized low back pain generators with virtually complete safety. OBJECTIVE: We present the initial results for the first patient enrolled in phase 1 clinical trial of the efficacy and safety of allogeneic MSCs when injected translaminarly and into the facet joints for the treatment of recalcitrant discogenic and arthritic back pain. CASE REPORT: A 47-year-old male presented with complaints of 13-year-long chronic lower back pain resistant to conservative treatment. The decision was made to treat the patient with umbilical cord-derived MSCs. 87 million MSCs were infused intravenously. Simultaneously, 1 million cells were injected into each of the 8 lumbar epidural facet joints and 5 million cells into the lumbar epidural space. The patient had no adverse events or complications related to the treatment. Five days after treatment, most of his lumbar pain was gone, and his back spasms stopped. He no longer needed to take acetaminophen or ibuprofen and had no difficulty sleeping without medications. The patient also reported his residual cervical radicular pain to be 98% resolved due to the injection. CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated for the first time that MSC injection into the lumbar facet joints and epidural space results in significant improvement of lower back pain and can improve symptoms in other spinal regions without engendering the risks associated with intradiscal injections or epidural use of corticosteroids.

Identifying molecular mechanisms of acute to chronic pain transition and potential drug targets.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic pain is pain that lasts more than the normal physiologic healing time at the time of initial insult. The transition from acute to chronic pain has been studied thoroughly. Understanding the mechanisms underlying chronic pain formation is essential for the development of novel treatments and therapeutics for chronic pain prevention. AREA COVERED: The transition from acute to chronic pain has been associated with the intracellular changes caused by repeated stimulus application, or neuronal priming, allowing for the chronicity of pain. Ongoing research studies have shown this priming to occur at various sites along the pathway for the neural transmission of pain. The purpose of this review is to not only elucidate the transition from acute to chronic pain and discuss current studies/trials related to this transition but also to highlight mechanisms involved in the process that could serve as potential targets for chronic pain prevention. EXPERT OPINION: We are providing an overview of novel treatment strategies for preventing the transition from acute to chronic pain. A multifaceted and multimodal approach that invokes multiple targets, at least one from each section (the periphery, the spinal cord, and the brain), would be the best option for tackling this problem.

Dehiscence and Deep Wound Infection After Spinal Cord Stimulator Implant Managed Without Explantation: A Case Report.

Deep infections of spinal cord stimulator devices usually result in explantation, as recommended by some professional societies. However, alternative options should be explored to avoid potential complications that are associated with explantation, and possibly additional procedures required in consideration of reimplantation. In this case, the patient presented with wound dehiscence after implantation. There was suspicion for deep wound infection based on a wound culture that was positive for Staphylococcus aureus, but no purulent material was noted on further inspection. The patient was treated with standard wound-care management and oral antibiotics without removing the device, and recovered while preserving the original system.

Overcoming clinical challenges of refractory neuropathic pain.

INTRODUCTION: Refractory neuropathic pain (ReNP), and its definition, is widely disputed among clinicians due in part to unclear diagnosing guidelines, overall duration of neuropathic pain, and the exhaustiveness of treatment options. Usually, ReNP is defined as chronic, intractable, and unresponsive neuropathic pain that has otherwise been untreatable. AREAS COVERED: In this narrative review, we discuss and summarize the effectiveness of prospective ReNP research conducted over the past 10 years. This research looks at pharmacological and interventional therapies in clinical trial settings. The pharmacological therapies discussed include the use of adjuvant treatments to improve the safety and efficacy of conventional approaches. Different modalities of administration, such as injection therapy and intrathecal drug delivery systems, provide targeted drug delivery. Interventional therapies such as neuromodulation, pulse radiofrequency, and nerve lesioning are more invasive; however, they are increasingly utilized in the field, as reflected in ongoing clinical trials. EXPERT OPINION: Based on the current data from RCTs and systematic reviews, it is clear that single drug therapy cannot be effective and has significant limitations. Transitioning to interventional modalities that showed more promising results sooner rather than later may be even more cost efficient than attempting different conservative treatments with a high failure rate.

Utility of Cervical Sympathetic Block in Treating Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in Multiple Cohorts: A Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a prevalent and debilitating condition in the United States. Success rates for evidence-based therapies are inconsistent, and many suffer in silence due to the stigmata associated with seeking traditional mental health care. This has led clinicians to explore new therapeutic options, with cervical sympathetic blockade (CSB), performed at the stellate and/or superior cervical ganglion levels, recently emerging as a promising treatment option. Rapid therapeutic onset, improved compliance, and high clinical efficacy rates have made this an attractive approach for both providers and patients. However, to date, CSB as a treatment of PTSD has primarily been used in male patients with military-related trauma. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of CSB as a treatment option for PTSD in both genders and multiple etiologies of psychological trauma. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: An established anesthesia pain clinic in Chicago, IL, USA. METHODS: Following retroactive IRB approval, 484 consecutive cases of patients diagnosed with PTSD and treated with CSB, performed by a single provider (December 2016 - February 2020) were analyzed. The primary outcome measurement was the PTSD Checklist Score version DSM IV (PCL-4). Patient demographic and clinical information collected included age, gender, type of trauma leading to PTSD, history of suicidal attempts, and psychiatric medication use. RESULTS: After exclusion of cases due to missing data points, 327 patients were included in the final statistical analysis, having completed both PCL-4 pre and post CSB, between 7- and 30-days post-intervention. The patient population included military men (n = 97), civilian men (n = 85), military women (n = 13) and civilian women (n = 132). We identified 21 types of self-reported trauma leading to PTSD. Average decrease in PCL score for men and women was 28.59 and 29.2, respectively. Statistical analysis of the male population with a military background showed a significantly greater change in corresponding PCL scores than civilians (PCL-M change = -31.83 vs PCL-C change = -24.89). Likewise, women who had a military background had a significantly greater reduction in PCL score than civilians (39.15 vs 28.23). Statistically significant improvements in PTSD symptoms were noted independent of the causative trauma type, gender, age greater than 20, previous suicide attempts, or use of prescription medications for PTSD. Among the 21 types of reported trauma, 19 types reached statistical significance. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include the limited scope of observation giving exclusive focus on pre- and post-PCL data, the limited duration of observation, the self-reported nature of the patient-provided data, and the provision of treatment by a single physician. CONCLUSION: CSB seems to be an effective treatment for PTSD symptoms irrespective of gender, trauma type, PTSD-related drug use, suicide attempt, or age.

No Differences in Pain Scores and Treatment Response in Patients from Different Socioeconomic Areas Within the City of Chicago.

BACKGROUND: It is well established that the experience of chronic pain significantly differs among ethnic-racial groups. There is mixed evidence to suggest that societal influences may contribute to pain prevalence among cultural groups and their treatment response. One possible explanation for differences in pain experience are the differences in socioeconomic status among patients with chronic pain. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is any difference in pain scores or treatment responses among patients with different socioeconomic status. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: Outpatient pain clinic. METHODS: After approval from the Advocate Healthcare Institutional Review Board, we included 1,149 patients treated for different chronic pain conditions who were followed for at least 12 months. Patients were stratified into quartiles determined by median income according to ZIP code. RESULTS: Of the sampled patients, 207 patients lived in ZIP codes with median incomes > $51,294; 515 in ZIP codes with median incomes between $40,083 and $51,294; 332 in ZIP  codes with median incomes between $30,625 and $40,083; and 95 in ZIP codes with median incomes < $30,625. Groups differed in age (P = 0.047), race (P < 0.001), body mass index (BMI) (P = 0.019), utilization of opioid medications (P = 0.011), morphine milligram equivalents (MME) on first visit (P = 0.036), and utilization of membrane stabilizers such as gabapentin (P = 0.019). There were no significant differences among groups in terms of gender (P = 0.531), type of pain experienced (P = 0.679), or time since pain onset (P = 0.174). Groups were treated similarly, with no statistically significant differences in the proportions of patients who had taken various nonopioid medications throughout their treatment course other than membrane stabilizers, the number of patients who received interventional pain management procedures, or MME at last visit. Average pretreatment numeric rating scale pain scores were not significantly different among quartiles (P = 0.079), posttreatment pain scores (P = 0.767), and subjective percent improvement (P = 0.434). LIMITATIONS: This is a single center study and may have limitations in extrapolating to the general population. CONCLUSION: The results of our study show that there are no differences in pain perception or treatment responses in patients from different socioeconomic statuses despite differences among groups in age, BMI, race, utilization of opioid medications, and MME at first visit. Patients at this pain practice appear to have been treated with similar modalities regardless of socioeconomic status.

Passive Recharge Burst Spinal Cord Stimulation Provides Sustainable Improvements in Pain and Psychosocial Function: 2-year Results From the TRIUMPH Study.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, international, multicenter, single-arm, post-market study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess long-term safety and effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation using a passive recharge burst stimulation design for chronic intractable pain in the trunk and/or limbs. Herein we present 24-month outcomes from the TRIUMPH study (NCT03082261). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Passive recharge burst spinal cord stimulation (B-SCS) uniquely mimics neuronal burst firing patterns in the nervous system and has been shown to modulate the affective and attentional components of pain processing. METHODS: After a successful trial period, subjects received a permanent SCS implant and returned for follow-up at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. RESULTS: Significant improvements in physical, mental, and emotional functioning observed after 6 months of treatment were maintained at 2 years. Pain catastrophizing scale (PCS) scores dropped below the population norm. Health-related quality of life on EQ-5D improved across all domains and the mean index score was within one standard deviation of norm. Pain reduction (on NRS) was statistically significant (P < 0.001) at all timepoints. Patient reported pain relief, a stated percentage of improvement in pain, was consistent at all timepoints at 60%. Patients reported significant improvements across all measures including activity levels and impact of pain on daily life. At 24 months, 84% of subjects were satisfied and 90% would recommend the procedure. Subjects decreased their chronic pain medication intake for all categories; 38% reduced psychotropic and muscle relaxants, 46% reduced analgesic, anti-convulsant and NSAIDs, and 48% reduced opioid medication. Adverse events occurred at low rates without unanticipated events. CONCLUSION: Early positive results with B-SCS were maintained long term. Evidence across multiple assessment tools show that B-SCS can alleviate pain intensity, psychological distress, and improve physical function and health-related quality of life.Level of Evidence: 3.

Left Ventricular Strain Rate for Intraoperative Evaluation of Cardiac Diastolic Function by Transesophageal Echocardiography: The Correlation Between Late Diastolic Peak Longitudinal Strain Rate and the Severity of Diastolic Dysfunction.

OBJECTIVES: Speckle-tracking echocardiography is a promising tool for evaluating cardiac diastolic dysfunction. A correlation between left atrial strain rate during atrial contraction and the severity of diastolic dysfunction previously has been demonstrated. Because visualization of the left atrial walls is difficult with transesophageal echocardiography, the authors evaluated the use of left ventricular strain rate during atrial contraction as a substitute for left atrial strain rate to intraoperatively measure the extent of cardiac diastolic dysfunction. DESIGN: Retrospective clinical study. SETTING: Single institutional study. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-six patients who underwent cardiac surgery between January 2018 and January 2021. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Preoperative echocardiographic reports and intraoperative echocardiographic images of the participants were studied. The correlation of cardiac diastolic dysfunction stage with the peak longitudinal strain rate during late diastole and the time to peak value were evaluated. The late diastolic peak longitudinal strain rate was correlated significantly with the stage of diastolic dysfunction (r = -0.64, p < 0.0001). There was no significant correlation between the stage of diastolic dysfunction and the time to peak value (r = -0.17, p = 0.18). A late diastolic peak longitudinal strain rate <0.68 1/s had a sensitivity of 80% and specificity of 81% for predicting grade 2 or 3 diastolic dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: The late diastolic peak longitudinal strain rate correlates with the severity of diastolic dysfunction in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

A novel checklist for anesthesia in neurosurgical cases.

Throughout their training, anesthesiology residents are exposed to a variety of surgical subspecialties, many of which have specific anesthetic considerations. According to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requirements, each anesthesiology resident must provide anesthesia for at least twenty intracerebral cases. There are several studies that demonstrate that checklists may reduce deficiencies in pre-induction room setup. We are introducing a novel checklist for neuroanesthesia, which we believe to be helpful for residents during their neuroanesthesiology rotations. Our checklist provides a quick and succinct review of neuroanesthetic challenges prior to case setup by junior residents, covering noteworthy aspects of equipment setup, airway management, induction period, intraoperative concerns, and postoperative considerations. We recommend displaying this checklist on the operating room wall for quick reference.

Low back pain.

Low back pain covers a spectrum of different types of pain (eg, nociceptive, neuropathic and nociplastic, or non-specific) that frequently overlap. The elements comprising the lumbar spine (eg, soft tissue, vertebrae, zygapophyseal and sacroiliac joints, intervertebral discs, and neurovascular structures) are prone to different stressors, and each of these, alone or in combination, can contribute to low back pain. Due to numerous factors related to low back pain, and the low specificity of imaging and diagnostic injections, diagnostic methods for this condition continue to be a subject of controversy. The biopsychosocial model posits low back pain to be a dynamic interaction between social, psychological, and biological factors that can both predispose to and result from injury, and should be considered when devising interdisciplinary treatment plans. Prevention of low back pain is recognised as a pivotal challenge in high-risk populations to help tackle high health-care costs related to therapy and rehabilitation. To a large extent, therapy depends on pain classification, and usually starts with self-care and pharmacotherapy in combination with non-pharmacological methods, such as physical therapies and psychological treatments in appropriate patients. For refractory low back pain, a wide range of non-surgical (eg, epidural steroid injections and spinal cord stimulation for neuropathic pain, and radiofrequency ablation and intra-articular steroid injections for mechanical pain) and surgical (eg, decompression for neuropathic pain, disc replacement, and fusion for mechanical causes) treatment options are available in carefully selected patients. Most treatment options address only single, solitary causes and given the complex nature of low back pain, a multimodal interdisciplinary approach is necessary. Although globally recognised as an important health and socioeconomic challenge with an expected increase in prevalence, low back pain continues to have tremendous potential for improvement in both diagnostic and therapeutic aspects. Future research on low back pain should focus on improving the accuracy and objectivity of diagnostic assessments, and devising treatment algorithms that consider unique biological, psychological, and social factors. High-quality comparative-effectiveness and randomised controlled trials with longer follow-up periods that aim to establish the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of low back pain management are warranted.

Combination of the T7 Unilateral Erector Spinae Plane Block and T10 Bilateral Retrolaminar Blocks in a Patient with Multiple Rib Fractures on the Right and T10-12 Vertebral Compression Fractures: A Case Report.

Multiple vertebral compression and rib fractures in elderly patients with pre-existing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is a common scenario associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Severe pain prevents normal ventilation and leads to atelectasis, consolidation, and pneumonia. Subsequently, these patients frequently develop respiratory failure and require intubation and critical care. Therefore, adequate analgesia is often a life-saving intervention. Anesthetic management of a 78-year-old kyphotic patient with T6, T7, and T9 rib fractures on the right and T10-12 vertebral compression fractures sustained in an accidental fall is presented. She had inadequate pain control and was unable to take a deep breath or cough. Her respiratory status was deteriorating, with tachypnea and worsening hypoxia, necessitating bi-level positive airway pressure (BiPAP) support. Since thoracic epidural analgesia was contraindicated owing to compressive vertebral fractures and to the pending respiratory failure, we opted for a unilateral erector spinae plane (ESP) block at the T7 level and bilateral retrolaminar (RL) blocks at the T10 level. Following the procedure, the pain was immediately relieved and the patient was able to take deep breaths. Shortly thereafter, her respiratory status improved, with the respiratory rate coming back close to the baseline. The patient was subsequently weaned from BiPAP support and discharged from the intensive care unit. While the combination of ESP and RL blocks is not routinely used in patients with multiple rib and vertebral compression fractures, our report indicates that it may be an excellent alternative for analgesia in situations where thoracic epidural and/or paravertebral blocks are contraindicated and when timely intervention could be potentially life-saving.

Comparative safety review of current treatment options for chronic low back pain and unmet needs: a narrative review.

Introduction: The healthcare expenditures in the United States are substantial for the management of refractory, chronic low back pain (CLBP). The objective of this review is to summarize and evaluate the safety profiles of different pharmacological treatment options used in the management of CLBP.Areas covered: The authors conducted a search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the safety profiles of different pharmacological agents used in the management of CLBP. This narrative review covered corticosteroids, opioids, antidepressants, gabapentinoids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, muscle relaxants, anti-nerve growth factor antibodies and topical agents, as monotherapy or in combination.Expert opinion: The risk-benefit ratio of a particular treatment is a subject driving the ongoing development of pharmaceuticals. The most commonly reported AEs across all drug classes are of gastrointestinal nature, followed by neurological and skin-related. These AEs include nausea, dizziness, constipation, arthralgia, headache, dry mouth, pruritus, etc. The majority of the AEs reported are not life-threatening, although they may lower patients' quality of life, thus, affecting their compliance. One of the biggest limitations of our review stems from the paucity of safety assessments in published RCTs. Advances in our understanding of the neurobiology of pain will promote development of new therapeutic strategies.