Two-year follow-up results of fluoroscopic cervical epidural injections in chronic axial or discogenic neck pain: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial.

STUDY DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trial. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of cervical interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids for the management of axial or discogenic pain in patients without disc herniation, radiculitis, or facet joint pain. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cervical discogenic pain without disc herniation is a common cause of suffering and disability in the adult population. Once conservative management has failed and facet joint pain has been excluded, cervical epidural injections may be considered as a management tool. Despite a paucity of evidence, cervical epidural injections are one of the most commonly performed nonsurgical interventions in the management of chronic axial or disc-related neck pain. METHODS: One hundred and twenty patients without disc herniation or radiculitis and negative for facet joint pain as determined by means of controlled diagnostic medial branch blocks were randomly assigned to one of the 2 treatment groups. Group I patients received cervical interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic (lidocaine 0.5%, 5 mL), whereas Group II patients received 0.5% lidocaine, 4 mL, mixed with 1 mL or 6 mg of nonparticulate betamethasone. The primary outcome measure was ≥ 50% improvement in pain and function. Outcome assessments included numeric rating scale (NRS), Neck Disability Index (NDI), opioid intake, employment, and changes in weight. RESULTS: Significant pain relief and functional improvement (≥ 50%) was present at the end of 2 years in 73% of patients receiving local anesthetic only and 70% receiving local anesthetic with steroids. In the successful group of patients, however, defined as consistent relief with 2 initial injections of at least 3 weeks, significant improvement was illustrated in 78% in the local anesthetic group and 75% in the local anesthetic with steroid group at the end of 2 years. The results reported at the one-year follow-up were sustained at the 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Cervical interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids may provide significant improvement in pain and functioning in patients with chronic discogenic or axial pain that is function-limiting and not related to facet joint pain.

Management of chronic pain of cervical disc herniation and radiculitis with fluoroscopic cervical interlaminar epidural injections.

STUDY DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind, active controlled trial. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of cervical interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids in the management of chronic neck pain and upper extremity pain in patients with disc herniation and radiculitis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Epidural injections in managing chronic neck and upper extremity pain are commonly employed interventions. However, their long-term effectiveness, indications, and medical necessity, of their use and their role in various pathologies responsible for persistent neck and upper extremity pain continue to be debated, even though, neck and upper extremity pain secondary to disc herniation and radiculitis, is described as the common indication. There is also paucity of high quality literature. METHODS: One-hundred twenty patients were randomly assigned to one of 2 groups: Group I patients received cervical interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic (lidocaine 0.5%, 5 mL); Group II patients received 0.5% lidocaine, 4 mL, mixed with 1 mL of nonparticulate betamethasone. Primary outcome measure was ≥ 50 improvement in pain and function. Outcome assessments included Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), opioid intake, employment, and changes in weight. RESULTS: Significant pain relief and functional status improvement (≥ 50%) was demonstrated in 72% of patients who received local anesthetic only and 68% who received local anesthetic and steroids. In the successful group of participants, significant improvement was illustrated in 77% in local anesthetic group and 82% in local anesthetic with steroid group. CONCLUSIONS: Cervical interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids may provide significant improvement in pain and function for patients with cervical disc herniation and radiculitis.

Comparison of effectiveness for fluoroscopic cervical interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroid in cervical post-surgery syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Neck and back pain are leading sources of disability placing substantial burden on health care systems. Surgical interventions in managing chronic neck pain secondary to various disorders continue to increase. Even though surgical interventions are effective, a significant proportion of patients continue to have symptomatology and develop cervical post-surgery syndrome. This study was performed to know the effectiveness of cervical interlaminar epidural injections with or without steroids. METHODS: The effectiveness of fluoroscopic cervical interlaminar epidural injections in post-surgery syndrome was evaluated in a randomized, active controlled trial. The study population included 116 patients assigned to 2 groups. Group 1 received cervical interlaminar epidural injections with local anesthetic alone and Group 2 received injection with local anesthetic and steroids. The main outcomes were defined as significant improvement (greater than 50%) of pain relief using the numeric rating scale and/or functional status improvement using the Neck Disability Index (NDI). RESULTS: Both groups had similar results with significant improvement (≥ 50% pain relief and functional status improvement) in 69% of the patients in Group I, whereas, in Group II, 71% of the patients showed significant improvement at the end of 2 years. During a 2-year period, the average number of procedures was 5 to 6, with an average of approximately 12 weeks of significant improvement per procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Fluoroscopic cervical interlaminar epidural injections administered in cervical post-surgery syndrome using local anesthetic, regardless of the use of steroids, may be effective in approximately 70% of the patients at 2-year follow-up.

Responsible, Safe, and Effective Prescription of Opioids for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Opioid use, abuse, and adverse consequences, including death, have escalated at an alarming rate since the 1990s. In an attempt to control opioid abuse, numerous regulations and guidelines for responsible opioid prescribing have been developed by various organizations. However, the US opioid epidemic is continuing and drug dose deaths tripled during 1999 to 2015. Recent data show a continuing increase in deaths due to natural and semisynthetic opioids, a decline in methadone deaths, and an explosive increase in the rates of deaths involving other opioids, specifically heroin and illicit synthetic fentanyl. Contrary to scientific evidence of efficacy and negative recommendations, a significant proportion of physicians and patients (92%) believe that opioids reduce pain and a smaller proportion (57%) report better quality of life. In preparation of the current guidelines, we have focused on the means to reduce the abuse and diversion of opioids without jeopardizing access for those patients suffering from non-cancer pain who have an appropriate medical indication for opioid use. OBJECTIVES: To provide guidance for the prescription of opioids for the management of chronic non-cancer pain, to develop a consistent philosophy among the many diverse groups with an interest in opioid use as to how appropriately prescribe opioids, to improve the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain and to reduce the likelihood of drug abuse and diversion. These guidelines are intended to provide a systematic and standardized approach to this complex and difficult arena of practice, while recognizing that every clinical situation is unique. METHODS: The methodology utilized included the development of objectives and key questions. The methodology also utilized trustworthy standards, appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest, as well as a panel of experts from various specialties and groups. The literature pertaining to opioid use, abuse, effectiveness, and adverse consequences was reviewed, with a best evidence synthesis of the available literature, and utilized grading for recommendation as described by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).Summary of Recommendations:i. Initial Steps of Opioid Therapy 1. Comprehensive assessment and documentation. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 2. Screening for opioid abuse to identify opioid abusers. (Evidence: Level II-III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 3. Utilization of prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs). (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate to strong) 4. Utilization of urine drug testing (UDT). (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 5. Establish appropriate physical diagnosis and psychological diagnosis if available. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 6. Consider appropriate imaging, physical diagnosis, and psychological status to collaborate with subjective complaints. (Evidence: Level III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 7. Establish medical necessity based on average moderate to severe (≥ 4 on a scale of 0 - 10) pain and/or disability. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 8. Stratify patients based on risk. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 9. Establish treatment goals of opioid therapy with regard to pain relief and improvement in function. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 10. Obtain a robust opioid agreement, which is followed by all parties. (Evidence: Level III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate)ii. Assessment of Effectiveness of Long-Term Opioid Therapy 11. Initiate opioid therapy with low dose, short-acting drugs, with appropriate monitoring. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 12. Consider up to 40 morphine milligram equivalent (MME) as low dose, 41 to 90 MME as a moderate dose, and greater than 91 MME as high dose. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 13. Avoid long-acting opioids for the initiation of opioid therapy. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 14. Recommend methadone only for use after failure of other opioid therapy and only by clinicians with specific training in its risks and uses, within FDA recommended doses. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 15. Understand and educate the patients of the effectiveness and adverse consequences. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 16. Similar effectiveness for long-acting and short-acting opioids with increased adverse consequences of long-acting opioids. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of recommendation: Moderate to strong) 17. Periodically assess pain relief and/or functional status improvement of ≥ 30% without adverse consequences. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of recommendation: Moderate) 18. Recommend long-acting or high dose opioids only in specific circumstances with severe intractable pain. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong)iii. Monitoring for Adherence and Side Effects 19. Monitor for adherence, abuse, and noncompliance by UDT and PDMPs. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate to strong) 20. Monitor patients on methadone with an electrocardiogram periodically. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong). 21. Monitor for side effects including constipation and manage them appropriately, including discontinuation of opioids when indicated. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong)iv. Final Phase 22. May continue with monitoring with continued medical necessity, with appropriate outcomes. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 23. Discontinue opioid therapy for lack of response, adverse consequences, and abuse with rehabilitation. (Evidence: Level III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines were developed based on comprehensive review of the literature, consensus among the panelists, in consonance with patient preferences, shared decision-making, and practice patterns with limited evidence, based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to improve pain and function in chronic non-cancer pain on a long-term basis. Consequently, chronic opioid therapy should be provided only to patients with proven medical necessity and stability with improvement in pain and function, independently or in conjunction with other modalities of treatments in low doses with appropriate adherence monitoring and understanding of adverse events.Key words: Chronic pain, persistent pain, non-cancer pain, controlled substances, substance abuse, prescription drug abuse, dependency, opioids, prescription monitoring, drug testing, adherence monitoring, diversionDisclaimer: 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."

Do the gaps in the ligamentum flavum in the cervical spine translate into dural punctures? An analysis of 4,396 fluoroscopic interlaminar epidural injections.

BACKGROUND: Cervical interlaminar epidural injections are performed frequently in managing chronic neck and upper extremity pain, although less commonly than lumbar interlaminar epidural injections. Recently, the US Food and Drug Administration warnings and safeguards to prevent neurologic complications. These were developed by the Multi-Society Pain Workgroup have taken center stage for all types of epidural injections, including cervical interlaminar epidural injections. The recommendations of safeguards to prevent neurologic complications after epidural steroid injections include that cervical interlaminar epidural injections must be performed utilizing fluoroscopy with anteroposterior, lateral, or oblique views with injection of contrast medium and that entry be limited to the C7-T1 epidural space or occasionally the C6-C7 with requirements for magnetic resonance imaging assessment of the epidural space. OBJECTIVES: To assess the incidence of dural puncture associated with fluoroscopically directed cervical interlaminar epidural injections. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective assessment of patients undergoing cervical interlaminar epidural injections from January 2013 through February 2015. SETTING: A private interventional pain management practice; a specialty referral center in the United States. METHODS: The data were collected for 4,396 consecutive cervical interlaminar epidural injections performed from January 2013 through February 2015. The procedures were all performed under fluoroscopic visualization under posteroanterior view with contrast medium injection with lateral view confirmation when indicated. The procedures were performed by one of 2 physicians; the dural puncture and subsequent postoperative complications with level of epidural entry were determined. OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT: The outcome was assessment of dural puncture. RESULTS: A review of multiple manuscripts showed that defects in the ligamentum flavum may extend to as much as 100% of the population. However, it also has been shown that among the levels with a gap, the location of a gap in the caudal third of the ligamentum flavum was more frequent than in the middle or cephalic portion of the ligamentum flavum. Among the 4,396 epidural injections performed at C7-T1, C6-C7, and C5-C6, 1,227 were performed at C7-T1; 1,835 were performed at C6-C7; and 1,334 were performed at C5-C6. Dural punctures were observed in 1.8% (24 procedures) at the C5-C6 level entry; 0.87% (16 procedures) at the C6-C7 level entry; and 1.71% (21 procedures) at the C7-T1 level. There was no significant difference among the entry levels. No complications or spinal cord damage or postdural puncture headache were observed. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of this report include that it is an assessment by only 2 well experienced physicians, even though it included a relatively large number of patients. CONCLUSION: This study illustrates that dural puncture is equally prevalent, though very rare, irrespective of the needle entry level into the epidural space, with an overall dural puncture rate of 1.4%, with 1.8% at the C5-C6 level, 0.87% at the C6-C7 level, and 1.71% at the C7-T1 level. Based on the present literature, it appears that performing the procedure by inserting the needle into the cephalic portion of the intervertebral space rather than the caudal portion may be safer.

Efficacy of Epidural Injections in Managing Chronic Spinal Pain: A Best Evidence Synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Epidural injections have been used since 1901 in managing low back pain and sciatica. Spinal pain, disability, health, and economic impact continue to increase, despite numerous modalities of interventions available in managing chronic spinal pain. Thus far, systematic reviews performed to assess the efficacy of epidural injections in managing chronic spinal pain have yielded conflicting results. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and update the clinical utility of the efficacy of epidural injections in managing chronic spinal pain. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of epidural injections in managing chronic spinal pain. METHODS: In this systematic review, randomized trials with a placebo control or an active-control design were included. The outcome measures were pain relief and functional status improvement. The quality of each individual article was assessed by Cochrane review criteria, as well as the Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB). Best evidence synthesis was conducted based on the qualitative level of evidence (Level I to V). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed for a period starting in 1966 through August 2015; Cochrane reviews; and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. RESULTS: A total of 52 trials met inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was not feasible. The evidence in managing lumbar disc herniation or radiculitis is Level II for long-term improvement either with caudal, interlaminar, or transforaminal epidural injections with no significant difference among the approaches. The evidence is Level II for long-term management of cervical disc herniation with interlaminar epidural injections. The evidence is Level II to III in managing thoracic disc herniation with an interlaminar approach. The evidence is Level II for caudal and lumbar interlaminar epidural injections with Level III evidence for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections for lumbar spinal stenosis. The evidence is Level III for cervical spinal stenosis management with an interlaminar approach. The evidence is Level II for axial or discogenic pain without facet arthropathy or disc herniation treated with caudal or lumbar interlaminar injections in the lumbar region; whereas it is Level III in the cervical region treated with cervical interlaminar epidural injections. The evidence for post lumbar surgery syndrome is Level II with caudal epidural injections and for post cervical surgery syndrome it is Level III with cervical interlaminar epidural injections. LIMITATIONS: Even though this is a large systematic review with inclusion of a large number of randomized controlled trials, the paucity of high quality randomized trials literature continues to confound the evidence. CONCLUSION: This systematic review, with an assessment of the quality of manuscripts and outcome parameters, shows the efficacy of epidural injections in managing a multitude of chronic spinal conditions.

A prospective evaluation of psychotherapeutic and illicit drug use in patients presenting with chronic pain at the time of initial evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Reports of chronic pain and associated opioid use, abuse, and fatalities continue to increase at an alarming rate, not only in the United States but also across the globe. In light of the many resultant fatalities, multiple authors and authorities have cautioned against the excessive use of opioids. Consequently, the Food and Drug Administration, Drug Enforcement Administration, and multiple state authorities have been proposing and implementing a plethora of regulations to curb opioid overuse and abuse. In the majority of cases, pain physicians have been portrayed as the perpetrators responsible for escalating use and abuse and resultant fatalities. OBJECTIVES: To assess the patterns of psychotherapeutic drug use and illicit drug use at the time of initial evaluation. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective evaluation. SETTING: A private, specialty referral interventional pain management clinic in the United States. METHODS: Participants were all new patients presenting to interventional pain management evaluated by one physician. Inclusion criteria was patients over 18 years of age with chronic spinal pain of at least one year duration. RESULTS: The results of this evaluation indicate that 94% of patients were on long-term opioids prior to presenting to interventional pain management. Illicit drug use is also common, although it has declined significantly. While a large proportion of individuals (45.7%) have used illicit drugs at some point in the past, current illicit drug use is present in only 7.9% of patients, both past and current use are similar to that of the general population. More importantly, a significant proportion of patients have been on opioids (high doses of more than 40 mg equivalents of morphine 48.8%) on a long-term basis, initiated and maintained by primary care physicians, prior to presenting to interventional pain management. Further, 35% were on benzodiazepines, and 9.2% on carisoprodol prior to presenting to interventional pain management. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of this evaluation include that it is a prospective, single center evaluation by one physician that is partially dependent on subjective recall of the patient. CONCLUSION: This study shows an overwhelming majority of patients were initiated and maintained with opioids in managing chronic noncancer pain. They were frequently on high doses over a long period of time with multiple drug combinations prescribed by primary care physicians.

A randomized, double-blind, active control trial of fluoroscopic cervical interlaminar epidural injections in chronic pain of cervical disc herniation: results of a 2-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: A recent evaluation of the state of U.S. health from 1990 to 2010 placed neck pain as the fourth condition leading to disability, with low back pain being the number one. Multiple treatment modalities have been described in managing neck and upper extremity pain secondary to cervical disc herniation after the failure of conservative management. The treatment modalities for chronic persistent pain of cervical disc herniation include surgery and epidural injections. The growth of interventional techniques in managing chronic spinal pain in recent years has been enormous. Evidence for the efficacy of cervical interlaminar epidural injections, however, continues to be debated, despite positive evidence derived from controlled randomized trials and systematic reviews. STUDY DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind, active control trial. SETTING: A private, specialty referral, interventional pain management practice in the United States. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of epidural injections in managing chronic pain related to cervical disc herniation. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to one of 2 groups of 60, with a total of 120 patients. Group I patients received cervical epidural injections with lidocaine 0.5% preservative-free, 5 mL, whereas Group II patients received 0.5% preservative-free lidocaine mixed with 1 mL or 6 mg of non-particulate betamethasone. OUTCOME ASSESSMENT: Multiple outcome measures included the numeric rating pain scale (NRS), the Neck Disability Index (NDI), employment status, opioid intake with assessment at 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post treatment. Significant improvement was described as pain relief with a 50% improvement in functional status. RESULTS: This evaluation showed significant improvement as 50% pain relief and improvement in functional status in 72% of the patients at 2 year follow-up in the local anesthetic group and 68% in those patients receiving local anesthetic and steroid. In the successful group of participants however, significant improvement was seen in 77% in Group I and 80% in Group II. Overall, the average number of procedures was 5 to 6 in both groups. The average total relief for 2 years was 75.9 ± 29.9 weeks in Group I and 72.7 ± 31.1 in Group II, the successful group of participants. Taking into consideration all of the participants, the average total relief for 2 years was 69.6 ± 35 weeks in Group I and 62.1 ± 38.4 weeks in Group II. LIMITATIONS: The results of the study are limited by the lack of a placebo group. CONCLUSION: Cervical epidural injections with local anesthetic with or without steroids. [corrected].

Assessment of bleeding risk of interventional techniques: a best evidence synthesis of practice patterns and perioperative management of anticoagulant and antithrombotic therapy.

BACKGROUND: Interventional pain management is a specialty that utilizes invasive procedures to diagnose and treat chronic pain. Patients undergoing these treatments may be receiving exogenous anticoagulants and antithrombotics. Even though the risk of major bleeding is very small, the consequences can be catastrophic. However, the role of antithrombotic therapy for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease to decrease the incidence of acute cerebral and cardiovascular events is also crucial. Overall, there is a paucity of literature on the subject of bleeding risk in interventional pain management along with practice patterns and perioperative management of anticoagulant and anti-thrombotic therapy. STUDY DESIGN: Best evidence synthesis. OBJECTIVE: To critically appraise and synthesize the literature with assessment of the bleeding risk of interventional techniques including practice patterns and perioperative management of anticoagulant and antithrombotic therapy. METHODS: The available literature on the bleeding risk of interventional techniques and practice patterns and perioperative management of anticoagulant and antithrombotic therapy was reviewed. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 through December 2012 and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. RESULTS: There is good evidence for the risk of thromboembolic phenomenon in patients who discontinue antithrombotic therapy, spontaneous epidural hematomas occur with or without traumatic injury in patients with or without anticoagulant therapy associated with stressors such as chiropractic manipulation, diving, and anatomic abnormalities such as ankylosing spondylitis, and the lack of necessity of discontinuation of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including low dose aspirin prior to performing interventional techniques. There is fair evidence that excessive bleeding, including epidural hematoma formation may occur with interventional techniques when antithrombotic therapy is continued, the risk of thromboembolic phenomenon is higher than the risk of epidural hematomas with discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy prior to interventional techniques, to continue phosphodiesterase inhibitors (dipyridamole [Persantine], cilostazol [Pletal], and Aggrenox [aspirin and dipyridamole]), and that anatomic conditions such as spondylosis, ankylosing spondylitis and spinal stenosis, and procedures involving the cervical spine; multiple attempts; and large bore needles increase the risk of epidural hematoma; and rapid assessment and surgical or nonsurgical intervention to manage patients with epidural hematoma can avoid permanent neurological complications. There is limited evidence to discontinue antiplatelet therapy with platelet aggregation inhibitors to avoid bleeding and epidural hematomas and/or to continue antiplatelet therapy clopidogrel (Plavix), ticlopidine (Ticlid), or prasugrel (Effient) during interventional techniques to avoid cerebrovascular and cardiovascular thromboembolic fatalities. There is limited evidence in reference to newer antithrombotic agents dabigatran (Pradaxa) and rivaroxaban (Xarelto) to discontinue to avoid bleeding and epidural hematomas during interventional techniques and to continue to avoid cerebrovascular and cardiovascular thromboembolic events. RECOMMENDATIONS: The recommendations derived from the comprehensive assessment of the literature and guidelines are to continue NSAIDs and low dose aspirin, and phosphodiesterase inhibitors (dipyridamole, cilostazol, Aggrenox) during interventional techniques. However, the recommendations for discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy with platelet aggregation inhibitors (clopidogrel, ticlopidine, prasugrel) is variable with clinical judgment to continue or discontinue based on the patient's condition, the planned procedure, risk factors, and desires, and the cardiologist's opinion. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin may be discontinued 12 hours prior to performing interventional techniques. Warfarin should be discontinued or international normalized ratio (INR) be normalized to 1.4 or less for high risk procedures and 2 or less for low risk procedures based on risk factors. It is also recommended to discontinue Pradaxa for 24 hours for paravertebral interventional techniques in 2 to 4 days for epidural interventions in patients with normal renal function and for longer periods of time in patients with renal impairment, and to discontinue rivaroxaban for 24 hours prior to performing interventional techniques. LIMITATIONS:   The paucity of the literature. CONCLUSION: Based on the available literature including guidelines, the recommendations in patients with antithrombotic therapy for therapy prior to interventional techniques are provided.

Fluoroscopic cervical epidural injections in chronic axial or disc-related neck pain without disc herniation, facet joint pain, or radiculitis.

BACKGROUND: While chronic neck pain is a common problem in the adult population, with a typical 12-month prevalence of 30%-50%, there is a lack of consensus regarding its causes and treatment. Despite limited evidence, cervical epidural injections are one of the commonly performed nonsurgical interventions in the management of chronic neck pain. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, active, controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of cervical interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids for the management of chronic neck pain with or without upper extremity pain in patients without disc herniation, radiculitis, or facet joint pain. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty patients without disc herniation or radiculitis and negative for facet joint pain by means of controlled diagnostic medial branch blocks were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups, ie, injection of local anesthetic only (group 1) or local anesthetic mixed with nonparticulate betamethasone (group 2). The primary outcome of significant pain relief and improvement in functional status (≥50%) was demonstrated in 72% of group 1 and 68% of group 2. The overall average number of procedures per year was 3.6 in both groups with an average total relief per year of 37-39 weeks in the successful group over a period of 52 weeks. CONCLUSION: Cervical interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids may be effective in patients with chronic function-limiting discogenic or axial pain.

A prospective evaluation of complications of 10,000 fluoroscopically directed epidural injections.

BACKGROUND: Among the multiple modalities of treatments available in managing chronic spinal pain, including surgery and multiple interventional techniques, epidural injections by various routes, such as interlaminar epidural injections, caudal epidural injections, transforaminal epidural injections, and percutaneous adhesiolysis are common. Even though the complications of fluoroscopically directed epidural injections are fewer than blind epidural injections, and have better effectiveness, multiple complications have been reported in scattered case reports, with only minor complications in randomized or non-randomized studies and systematic reviews. Thus, prospective studies with large patient series are essential to determine the types and incidences of complications. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, non-randomized study of patients undergoing interventional techniques from May 2008 to December 2009. SETTING: A private interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center in the United States. OBJECTIVES: To assess the complication rate of fluoroscopically directed epidural injections. METHODS: This study was carried out over a period of 20 months and included over 10,000 procedures: 39% caudal epidurals, 23% cervical interlaminar epidurals, 14% lumbar interlaminar epidurals, 13% lumbar transforaminal epidurals, 8% percutaneous adhesiolysis, and 3% thoracic interlaminar epidural procedures. All of the interventions were performed under fluoroscopic guidance in an ambulatory surgery center by one of 3 physicians. The complications encountered during the procedure and postoperatively were prospectively evaluated. OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT: Measurable outcomes employed were intravascular entry of the needle, profuse bleeding, local hematoma, bruising, dural puncture and headache, nerve root or spinal cord irritation with resultant injury, infectious complications, vasovagal reactions, and facial flushing. RESULTS: Intravascular entry was higher for adhesiolysis (11.6%) and lumbar transforaminal (7.9%) procedures compared to other epidurals which ranged from 0.5% for lumbar, 3.1% for caudal, 4% for thoracic, and 4.1% for cervical epidurals. Dural puncture was observed in a total of 0.5% of the procedures with 1% in the cervical region, 1.3% in the thoracic region, 0.8% with lumbar interlaminar epidurals, and 1.8% with adhesiolysis. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of this study include a single-center study even though it included a large number of patients. CONCLUSION: This study illustrates that major complications are rare and minor side effects are common.

Complications of fluoroscopically directed facet joint nerve blocks: a prospective evaluation of 7,500 episodes with 43,000 nerve blocks.

BACKGROUND: Chronic spinal pain is common along with numerous modalities of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions utilized, creating a health care crisis. Facet joint injections and epidural injections are the 2 most commonly utilized interventions in managing chronic spinal pain. While the literature addressing the effectiveness of facet joint nerve blocks is variable and emerging, there is paucity of literature on adverse effects of facet joint nerve blocks. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, non-randomized study of patients undergoing interventional techniques from May 2008 to December 2009. SETTING: A private interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center in the United States. OBJECTIVES: Investigation of the incidence in characteristics of adverse effects and complications of facet joint nerve blocks. The study was carried out over a period of 20 months including almost 7,500 episodes of 43,000 facet joint nerve blocks with 3,370 episodes in the cervical region, 3,162 in the lumbar region, and 950 in the thoracic region. All facet joint nerve blocks were performed under fluoroscopic guidance in an ambulatory surgery center by 3 physicians. The complications encountered during the procedure and postoperatively were evaluated prospectively. METHODS: This study was carried out over a period of 20 months and included over 7,500 episodes or 43,000 facet joint nerve blocks. All of the interventions were performed under fluoroscopic guidance in an ambulatory surgery center by one of 3 physicians. The complications encountered during the procedure and postoperatively were prospectively evaluated. OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT: Measurable outcomes employed were intravascular entry of the needle, profuse bleeding, local hematoma, dural puncture and headache, nerve root or spinal cord irritation with resultant injury, and infectious complications. RESULTS: There were no major complications. Multiple side effects and complications observed included overall intravascular penetration in 11.4% of episodes with 20% in cervical region, 4% in lumbar region, and 6% in thoracic region; local bleeding in 76.3% of episodes with highest in thoracic region and lowest in cervical region; oozing with 19.6% encounters with highest in cervical region and lowest in lumbar region; with local hematoma seen only in 1.2% of the patients with profuse bleeding, bruising, soreness, nerve root irritation, and all other effects such as vasovagal reactions observed in 1% or less of the episodes. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of this study include lack of contrast injection, use of intermittent fluoroscopy and also an observational nature of the study. CONCLUSION: This study illustrate that major complications are extremely rare and minor side effects are common.

Fluoroscopic cervical interlaminar epidural injections in managing chronic pain of cervical postsurgery syndrome: preliminary results of a randomized, double-blind, active control trial.

BACKGROUND: Cervical postsurgery syndrome is common with increasing cervical surgical interventions. Cervical spine surgery may fail in a certain proportion of patients with continued pain secondary to pseudoarthrosis, adjacent segment degeneration, inadequate decompression, iatrogenic instability, facet joint arthritis, deformity, and spinal stenosis. Among the various treatments available for managing cervical postsurgery syndrome, epidural steroid injections are one of the most common nonsurgical interventions. However there have not been any systematic evaluations regarding the effectiveness of cervical epidural injections in cervical postsurgery syndrome. STUDY DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind, active control trial. SETTING: A specialty referral, private interventional pain management practice in the United States. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of cervical interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic with or without steroids in providing effective and long-lasting relief in the management of chronic neck pain and upper extremity pain in patients with cervical postsurgery syndrome, and to evaluate the differences between local anesthetic with or without steroids. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to one of 2 groups: Group I patients received cervical interlaminar epidural injections of local anesthetic (lidocaine 0.5%, 5 mL); Group II patients received cervical interlaminar epidural injections with 0.5% lidocaine, 4 mL, mixed with 1 mL of nonparticulate betamethasone. The study was designed to include 120 patients with 60 patients in each group. This analysis includes 56 patients. Randomization was performed by computer-generated, random allocation sequence by simple randomization. OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT: Outcome measures included the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Neck Disability Index (NDI), employment status, and opioid intake. Assessments at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months posttreatment. Significant pain relief was defined as 50% or more; significant improvement in NDI was defined as a reduction of 50% or more. RESULTS: Significant pain relief (>/= 50%) was demonstrated in 71% of patients in Group I and 68% of patients in Group II. Functional status improvement was demonstrated by a reduction (> 50%) in the NDI scores in 71% of Group I and 64% of Group II at 12 months. The overall average procedures per year were 4.0 ± 0.7 in Group I and 4.1 ± 1.0 in Group II; the average total relief per year was 39.6 ± 11.8 weeks in Group I and 41.2 ± 15.8 weeks in Group II over the 52 week study period in the patients defined as successful. In the successful group, the combined pain relief and neck disability improvement was seen in 87% in Group I and 72% of the patients in Group II. LIMITATIONS: The study results are limited by the lack of a placebo group and a preliminary report of 56 patients, 28 in each group. CONCLUSION: Cervical interlaminar epidural injections with local anesthetic with or without steroids were effective in 67% of patients overall and 87% in Group I and 72% in Group II, in successful group patients with chronic function-limiting neck pain and upper extremity pain secondary to cervical postsurgery syndrome. CLINICAL TRIAL: NCT01071369.

Fluoroscopic epidural injections in cervical spinal stenosis: preliminary results of a randomized, double-blind, active control trial.

BACKGROUND: Cervical spinal stenosis is a common disease that results in considerable morbidity and disability. There are multiple modalities of treatments, including surgical interventions and multiple interventional techniques including epidural injections. The literature on the effectiveness of cervical epidural steroids is sporadic. Emerging evidence for cervical interlaminar epidurals for various conditions in the cervical spine is positive; however, the effect of fluoroscopic epidural injections in cervical spinal stenosis has not been studied. STUDY DESIGN: A randomized, double-blind, active control trial. SETTING: A private interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center in the United States. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of cervical interlaminar epidural injections with local anesthetic with or without steroids in the management of chronic neck pain with upper extremity pain in patients with cervical central spinal stenosis. METHODS: Patients with cervical central spinal stenosis were randomly assigned to one of 2 groups: injection of local anesthetic only or local anesthetic mixed with non-particulate betamethasone. Sixty patients were included in this analysis. Randomization was performed by computer-generated random allocation sequence by simple randomization. OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT: Multiple outcome measures were utilized including the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), the Neck Disability Index (NDI), employment status, and opioid intake with assessment at 3, 6, and 12 months post-treatment. Significant pain relief or functional status was defined as a 50% or more reduction of NRS or NDI scores. RESULTS: Significant pain relief was seen in 73% in Group I and 70% in Group II, in Group II showing both significat pain releif and functional status improvements. Group I's average relief per procedures was 11.3 ± 5.8 weeks; for Group II it was 8.6 ± 3.6 weeks, whereas after initial 2 procedures, average relief was 13.7 ± 8.7 weeks in Group I, and 13.6 ± 4.7 weeks in Group II. In the successful group, the average total relief in a one-year period was 42.2 ± 14.7 weeks in Group I and 34.3 ± 13.4 weeks in Group II, with 76% in Group I and 77% in Group II. LIMITATIONS: Study limitations include the lack of a placebo group and that this is a preliminary report of only 60 patients, 30 in each group. CONCLUSION: Patients who have chronic function-limiting pain that is secondary to cervical central stenosis might receive relief with cervical interlaminar epidurals of local anesthetic, whether with or without steroids. CLINICAL TRIAL: NCT01071369.

American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) guidelines for responsible opioid prescribing in chronic non-cancer pain: Part I--evidence assessment.

BACKGROUND: 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. OBJECTIVES: 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. RESULTS: 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."

American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) guidelines for responsible opioid prescribing in chronic non-cancer pain: Part 2--guidance.

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."

Comparative evaluation of the accuracy of immunoassay with liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) of urine drug testing (UDT) opioids and illicit drugs in chronic pain patients.

BACKGROUND: The challenge for physicians in treating chronic pain with opioids is to eliminate or significantly curtail abuse of controlled prescription drugs while assuring proper treatment when indicated. Urine drug testing (UDT) has been shown to be a useful approach in identifying patterns of compliance, misuse, and abuse. However, significant controversy surrounds the diagnostic accuracy of UDT performed in the office (immunoassay) and the requirement for laboratory confirmation with liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS). STUDY DESIGN: A diagnostic accuracy study of urine drug testing. STUDY SETTING: The study was performed in an interventional pain management practice, a tertiary referral center, in the United States. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the results of UDT of immunoassay in-office testing (index test) to LC/MS/MS (reference test). METHODS: One-thousand participants were recruited from an interventional pain management program. Urine sample was collected from all the consecutive patients with demographic information. Immunoassay testing was performed by a nurse at the location, laboratory assessment was performed with LC/MS/MS. Results of the index test were compared to the reference test in all patients. The sensitivity, specificity, false-positive, and false-negative rates, and index test efficiency (agreement) were calculated. RESULTS: Overall, results showed that confirmation was required in 32.9% of the specimens. Agreement for prescribed opioids was high with the index test (80.4%). The reference test of opioids improved the accuracy by 8.9% from 80.4% to 89.3%. Non-prescribed opioids were used by 5.3% of patients. The index test provided false-positive results for non-opioid use in 44% or 83 of 120 patients. For illicit drugs, the false-positive rate by index test was 0% for cocaine, whereas it was 2% for marijuana, 0.9% for amphetamines, and 1.2% for methamphetamines. LIMITATIONS: The limitations include a single site study utilizing a single POC kit and a single laboratory, as well as technical sponsorship. CONCLUSION: The UDT with immunoassay in an office setting is appropriate, convenient, and cost-effective. Compared with laboratory testing for opioids and illicit drugs, immunoassay in-office testing had high specificity and agreement, demonstrating the value of immunoassay drug testing. Because of variable sensitivity, clinicians would be well-advised to take a cautious approach when interpreting the results. CLINICAL TRIAL: NCT01052155.

Infection control practices (safe injection and medication vial utilization) for interventional techniques: are they based on relative risk management or evidence?

BACKGROUND: Recently, multiple regulations and recommendations for safe infection control practices and safe injection and medication vial utilization have been implemented. These include single dose and multi-dose vials for a single patient and regulations. It is a well known fact 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. Multiple case reports have been published illustrating the occurrence of infections in interventional pain management and other minor techniques because of lack of safe injection practices, and noncompliance with other precautions. However, there are no studies or case reports illustrating the transmission of infection due to the use of single dose vials in multiple patients when appropriate precautions are observed. Similarly, the preparation standards for simple procedures such as medial branch blocks or transforaminal epidurals have not been proven to be essential. Further, the effectiveness or necessity of surgical face masks and hats, etc., for interventional techniques has not been proven. OBJECTIVE: To assess the rates of infection in patients undergoing interventional techniques. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, non-randomized study of patients undergoing interventional techniques from May 2008 to December 2009. STUDY SETTING: An interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center, a private practice setting in the United States. METHODS: All patients presenting for interventional techniques from May 2008 to December 2009 are included with documentation of various complications related to interventional techniques including infection. RESULTS: May 2008 to December 2009 a total of 3,179 patients underwent 12,000 encounters with 18,472 procedures. A total of 12 patients reported suspicion of infection. All of them were evaluated by a physician and only one of them was a superficial infection due to the patient's poor hygienic practices which required no antibiotic therapy. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include the nonrandomized observational nature of the study. CONCLUSION: There were no infections of any significance noted in approximately 3,200 patients with over 18,000 procedures performed during a 20-month period in an ambulatory surgery center utilizing simple precautions for clean procedures with the use of single dose vials for multiple patients and using safe injection practices.

Preoperative fasting before interventional techniques: is it necessary or evidence-based?

BACKGROUND: Interventional pain management is an evolving specialty. Multiple issues including preoperative fasting, sedation, and infection control have not been well investigated and addressed. Based on the necessity for sedation and also the adverse events related to interventional techniques, preoperative fasting is considered practical to avoid postoperative nausea and vomiting. However, there are no guidelines for interventional techniques for sedation or fasting. Most interventional techniques are performed under intravenous or conscious sedation. OBJECTIVE: To assess the need for preoperative fasting and risks without fasting in patients undergoing interventional techniques. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, non-randomized study of patients undergoing interventional techniques from May 2008 to December 2009. STUDY SETTING: An interventional pain management practice, a specialty referral center, a private practice setting in the United States. METHODS: All patients presenting for interventional techniques from May 2008 to December 2009 are included with documentation of various complications related to interventional techniques including nausea and vomiting. RESULTS: From May 2008 to December 2009 a total of 3,179 patients underwent 12,000 encounters with 18,472 procedures, with patients receiving sedation during 11,856 encounters. Only 189, or 1.6% of the patients complained of nausea and 3 of them, or 0.02%, experienced vomiting. There were no aspirations. Of the 189 patients with nausea, 80 of them improved significantly prior to discharge without further complaints. Overall, 109 patients, or 0.9% were minimally nauseated prior to discharge. The postoperative complaints of continued nausea were reported in only 26 patients for 6 to 72 hours. There were only 2 events of respiratory depression, which were managed with brief oxygenation with mask without any adverse consequence of nausea, vomiting, aspiration, or other adverse effects. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include the nonrandomized observational nature of the study. CONCLUSION: This study illustrates that postoperative nausea, vomiting, and respiratory depression are extremely rare and aspiration is almost nonexistent, despite almost all of the patients receiving sedation and without preoperative fasting prior to provision of the interventional techniques.  

Comparative evaluation of the accuracy of benzodiazepine testing in chronic pain patients utilizing immunoassay with liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) of urine drug testing.

BACKGROUND: Eradicating or appreciably limiting controlled prescription drug abuse, such as opioids and benzodiazepines, continues to be a challenge for clinicians, while providing needed, proper treatment. Detection of misuse and abuse is facilitated with urine drug testing (UDT). However, there are those who dispute UDT's diagnostic accuracy when done in the office (immunoassay) and claim that laboratory confirmation using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) is required in each and every examination. STUDY DESIGN: A diagnostic accuracy study of UDT. STUDY SETTING: The study was conducted in a tertiary referral center and interventional pain management practice in the United States. OBJECTIVE: Comparing UDT results of in-office immunoassay testing (the index test) with LC/MS/MS (the reference test). METHODS: A total of 1,000 consecutive patients were recruited to be participants. Along with demographic information, a urine sample was obtained from them. A nurse conducted the immunoassay testing at the interventional pain management practice location; a laboratory conducted the LC/MS/MS. All index test results were compared with the reference test results. The index test's efficiency (agreement) was calculated as were calculations for sensitivity, specificity, false-positive, and false-negative rates. RESULTS: Approximately 36% of the specimens required confirmation. The index test's efficiency for prescribed benzodiazepines was 78.4%. Reference testing improved accuracy to 83.2%, a 19.6% increase, and 8.9% of participants were found to be taking non-prescribed benzodiazepines. The index test's false-positive rate for benzodiazepines use was 10.5% in patients receiving benzodiazepines. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its single-site location, its use of a single type of point of care (POC) kit, and reference testing being conducted by a single laboratory, as well as technical sponsorship. CONCLUSION: Clinicians should feel comfortable conducting in-office UDT immunoassay testing. The present study shows that it is reliable, expedient, and fiscally sound for all involved. In-office immunoassay testing compares favorably with laboratory testing for benzodiazepines, offering both high specificity and agreement. However, clinicians should be vigilant and wary when interpreting results, weighing all factors involved in their decision.