Perioperative and anesthetic considerations for the management of neuromodulation systems.

The use of neuromodulation systems is increasing for the treatment of various pathologies ranging from movement disorders to urinary incontinence to chronic pain syndromes. While the type of neuromodulation devices varies, they are largely categorized as intracranial (eg, deep brain stimulation), neuraxial (eg, spinal cord stimulation, dorsal root ganglion stimulation, and intrathecal drug delivery systems), or peripheral (eg, sacral nerve stimulation and peripheral nerve stimulation) systems. Given the increasing prevalence of these systems in the overall population, it is important for anesthesiologists, surgeons, and the perioperative healthcare team to familiarize themselves with these systems and their unique perioperative considerations. In this review, we explore and highlight the various neuromodulation systems, their general perioperative considerations, and notable special circumstances for perioperative management.

Dorsal Root Ganglion Stimulation for the Treatment of Non-Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Related Chronic Pain Syndromes: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: While the majority of indications and approvals for dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGS) are for the refractory management of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), emerging evidence has suggested that DRGS may be favorably used for a plethora of other chronic pain phenomena. Consequently, we aimed to characterize the use and efficacy of DRGS for these non-CRPS-related chronic pain syndromes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of clinical studies demonstrating the use of DRGS for non-CRPS-related chronic pain syndromes. The literature search was performed using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL plus across August and September 2020. RESULTS: A total of 28 reports comprising 354 total patients were included in the analysis. Of the chronic pain syndromes presented, axial low back pain, chronic pelvic and groin pain, other peripheral neuropathies, and studies with multiple concomitant pain syndromes, a majority demonstrated >50% mean pain reduction at the time of last follow-up following DRGS. Physical function, quality of life (QOL), and lesser pain medication usage also were repeatedly reported to be significantly improved. CONCLUSIONS: DRGS continues to lack supportive evidence from well designed, high level studies and recommendations from consensus committee experts. However, we present repeated and consistent evidence from lower level studies showing success with the use of DRGS for various non-CRPS chronic pain syndromes in reducing pain along with increasing function and QOL from one week to three years. Due to such low-level, high bias evidence, we strongly encourage the continuation of high-level studies in order to provide a stronger foundation for the use of DRGS in non-CRPS chronic pain patients. However, it may be reasonable and appropriate to evaluate patients for DRGS candidacy on a case-by-case basis particularly if they manifest focal pain syndromes refractory to noninterventional measures and may not be ideal candidates for other forms of neuromodulation.

Cannabis Use in Hospitalized Patients with Chronic Pain.

INTRODUCTION: To date, no study has reported the prevalence of cannabis use in chronic pain patients. The aim of this study is to investigate the trends in cannabis use among chronic pain in-patients from 2011 to 2015 in the USA. METHODS: Patients were identified from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revision, diagnosis codes for chronic pain and cannabis use. Annual estimates and trends were determined for cannabis use, patient characteristics, cannabis use among subgroups of chronic pain conditions, cost, length of stay, and associated discharge diagnosis. RESULTS: Between 2011 to 2015, a total of 247,949 chronic pain patients were cannabis users, increasing from 33,189 to 72,115 (P < 0.001). There were upward trends of cannabis use in females (38.7-40.7%; P = 0.03), Medicare insured patients (32.7-40.4%; P < 0.01), patients with lowest annual household income (36.1-40.9%; P = 0.02), patients aged 45-64 years (45.9-49.2%; P < 0.001), and patients with tobacco use disorder (63.8-72.4%; P < 0.0001). Concurrently, cannabis use decreased among patients with opioid use disorder (23.8-19.9%; P < 0.001). Cannabis use increased from 2011 to 2015 in patients with chronic regional pain syndrome, trauma, spondylosis, and failed back surgery syndrome. Adjusted total hospitalization cost increased from $31,271 ($1333) in 2011 to $38,684 ($946) in 2015 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Cannabis use increased substantially from 2011 to 2015, while the rates of cannabis use in opioid users down-trended simultaneously. Disparities in cannabis use among subgroups should be explored further.

Supplementation with antithrombin III ex vivo optimizes enoxaparin responses in critically injured patients.

BACKGROUND: The high incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) following trauma persists in spite of aggressive thromboprophylaxis strategies. Approximately half of VTE patients do not achieve the recommended anti-FXa response to enoxaparin anticoagulation (0.1-0.4 IU/mL), however, research to explain or correct this phenomenon is lacking. We hypothesized that antithrombin III (AT) deficiency is associated with poor enoxaparin responsiveness in trauma patients that develop VTE which can be reversed through supplementation with AT. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A retrospective cohort study was performed on plasma collected from trauma patients who did and did not develop pulmonary embolism (PE) as well as healthy volunteers. AT levels, thrombin generation, and anti-FXa levels were measured in the collected plasma at baseline and in response to supplementation with AT concentrate at 120-200% or plasma (30% volume). A total of 54 PE patients and 46 non-PE patients were enrolled in this study for analysis. Compared to healthy volunteers, trauma patients had lower levels of AT, elevated thrombin generation, and lower anti-FXa levels in response to enoxaparin. Moreover, thrombin generation was higher and responses to enoxaparin were lower in patients who developed PE compared to those who did not develop PE. We found that supplementation with AT, but not plasma, increased AT levels and improved enoxaparin-mediated inhibition of thrombin generation. CONCLUSIONS: Supplementation with AT may provide a novel adjunct therapy to increase the effectiveness of enoxaparin thromboprophylaxis and reduce the incidence of VTE in the trauma population.