A Case of COVID-19 Induced Descending Aortic Thrombus and Splenic Infarctions.

Thromboembolic manifestations like pulmonary embolism and deep venous thrombosis are often reported and contribute to a significant mortality from acute and chronic COVID-19 infections. These phenomena are a result of the activation of the coagulation cascade by the COVID-19 induced inflammatory state. Majority of the thrombotic incidences are reported as a venous thrombosis but extremely rarely, arterial thrombi can be a manifestation of acute COVID-19 infection. The patient in our case report was an unvaccinated 47-year-old female who presented with fever, nausea, abdominal pain and vomiting. The imaging confirmed the presence of a non-occlusive thrombus in the descending aorta, multiple splenic infarctions and paralytic ileus. She was treated with systemic anti-coagulation. A hyper-coagulable workup was performed on the patient and no other risk factors that could contribute to a thrombus was identified.

Acute COVID-19 Cerebellitis: A Rare Neurological Manifestation of COVID-19 Infection.

The COVID-19 virus is well known to cause respiratory tract infections but several non-respiratory presentations and post-infectious complications have been well reported since its origin. With this case report, we present a rare manifestation of COVID-19 infection that presented as acute cerebellitis. This is a case of a 63-year-old Caucasian male patient who presented with altered mental status and ataxia. He was diagnosed with COVID-19 infection about five days prior to presenting to the hospital. Neurological exam was consistent with cerebellar symptoms like broad bases gait, truncal ataxia and subsequent imaging revealed white matter degeneration and edema of the cerebellar hemispheres. The symptoms completely resolved following treatment of ongoing COVID-19 infection with corticosteroids and intravenous remdesivir. With this case report, we intend to discuss the available literature regarding the clinical manifestations, management, and prognosis of COVID-19-induced cerebellitis.

COVID-19 in Immunocompromised Cancer Patients: A Case Series and Review of the Literature.

The global pandemic of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has presented newfound challenges to the oncology community regarding management of disease progression in immunocompromised and cancer patients. Further, the large influx of COVID-19 patients has overwhelmed healthcare facilities, limited access to intensive care unit beds and ventilators, and canceled elective surgeries causing disruptions to the cancer care continuum and re-organization of oncological care. While it is known that the potential threat of infection is greatest in elderly patients (>60 years of age) and patients with underlying comorbidities, there is still insufficient data to determine the risk of COVID-19 in cancer patients. Given the immunosuppressive status in cancer patients arising from chemotherapy and other comorbidities, management of COVID-19 in this patient population carries a unique set of challenges. We report three cases of COVID-19 in immunocompromised cancer patients and discuss the challenges in preventing, diagnosing, and treating this vulnerable group.

Correction to: Gender-Based Differences in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Rupture: A Retrospective Study; Review of COVID-19 Vaccines Approved in the United States of America for Emergency Use; Review of COVID-19 Variants and COVID-19 Vaccine Efficacy: What the Clinician Should Know?

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.14740/jocmr4376.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.14740/jocmr4490.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.14740/jocmr4518.].

Review of COVID-19 Variants and COVID-19 Vaccine Efficacy: What the Clinician Should Know?

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a beta coronavirus that belongs to the Coronaviridae family. SARS-CoV-2 is an enveloped spherical-shaped virus. The ribonucleic acid (RNA) is oriented in a 5'-3'direction which makes it a positive sense RNA virus, and the RNA can be read directly as a messenger RNA. The nonstructural protein 14 (nsp14) has proofreading activity which allows the rate of mutations to stay low. A change in the genetic sequence is called a mutation. Genomes that differ from each other in genetic sequence are called variants. Variants are the result of mutations but differ from each other by one or more mutations. When a phenotypic difference is demonstrated among the variants, they are called strains. Viruses constantly change in two different ways, antigenic drift and antigenic shift. SARS-CoV-2 genome is also prone to various mutations that led to antigenic drift resulting in escape from immune recognition. The Center of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updates the variant strains in the different classes. The classes are variant of interest, variant of concern and variant of high consequence. The current variants included in the variant of interest by the USA are: B.1.526, B.1.525, and P.2; and those included in the variant of concern by the USA are B.1.1.7, P.1, B.1.351, B.1.427, and B.1.429. The double and triple mutant variants first reported in India have resulted in a massive increase in the number of cases. Emerging variants not only result in increased transmissibility, morbidity and mortality, but also have the ability to evade detection by existing or currently available diagnostic tests, which can potentially delay the diagnosis and treatment, exhibit decreased susceptibility to treatment including antivirals, monoclonal antibodies and convalescent plasma, possess the ability to cause reinfection in previously infected and recovered individuals, and vaccine breakthrough cases in fully vaccinated individuals. Hence, continuation of precautionary measures, genomic surveillance and vaccination plays an important role in the prevention of spread, early identification of variants, prevention of mutations and viral replication, respectively.

Review of COVID-19 Vaccines Approved in the United States of America for Emergency Use.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a novel coronavirus causing a global pandemic. Coronaviruses are a large family of single-stranded ribonucleic acid (RNA) viruses. The virus has four essential structural proteins which include the spike (S) glycoprotein, matrix (M) protein, nucleocapsid (N) protein and small envelope (E) protein. Different technologies are being used for vaccine development to battle the pandemic. There are messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA)-based vaccines, deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) vaccines, inactivated viral vaccines, live attenuated vaccines, protein subunit-based vaccines, viral vector-based vaccines and virus-like particle-based vaccines. Vaccine development has five stages. In the clinical developmental stage, vaccine development can be sped up by combining phase 1 and 2. The vaccines can also be approved more swiftly on an emergent basis and released sooner for usage. The United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA) has approved Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and Janssen coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines for emergency use. There are other vaccines that have been approved around the world. The mRNA vaccines have been created using a novel technology and they contain a synthetically created RNA sequence of virus fragments encoding the S-protein which is injected. These vaccines have a relatively low cost of production and faster manufacturing time but can have comparatively lower immunogenicity and more than one dose of vaccine may be required. In the case of viral vector-based vaccines, genes encoding the SARS-CoV-2 S protein are isolated and following gene sequencings are introduced into the adenovirus vector. These vaccines have a relatively fast manufacturing time but the efficacy of the vaccine is variable based on the host's immune response to the viral vector. At the time of this paper, there were 81 vaccines in clinical development stage and 182 vaccines in preclinical development stage. Vaccines are an essential tool in our battle against COVID-19. Some of the COVID-19 vaccines have completed their phase III trials while many other potential vaccines are still in developmental stages. It used to take close to a decade for a vaccine to be developed and undergo rigorous testing until its production and availability to the public, but over the past year, we have seen multiple vaccines in different phases of testing against SARS-CoV-2 virus.

COVID-19 and the Opioid Epidemic: Two Public Health Emergencies That Intersect With Chronic Pain.

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the entire world and catapulted the United States into one of the deepest recessions in history. While this pandemic rages, the opioid crisis worsens. During this period, the pandemic has resulted in the decimation of most conventional medical services, including those of chronic pain management, with the exception of virtual care and telehealth. Many chronic pain patients have been impacted in numerous ways, with increases in cardiovascular disease, mental health problems, cognitive dysfunction, and early death. The epidemic has also resulted in severe economic and physiological consequences for providers. Drug deaths in America, which fell for the first time in 25 years in 2018, rose to record numbers in 2019 and are continuing to climb, worsened by the coronavirus pandemic. The opioid epidemic was already resurfacing with a 5% increase in overall deaths from 2018; however, the preliminary data show that prescription opioid deaths continued to decline, while at the same time deaths due to fentanyl, methamphetamine, and cocaine climbed, with some reductions in heroin deaths. The health tracker data also showed that along with an almost 88% decline in elective surgeries, pain-related prescriptions declined 15.1%. Despite increases in telehealth, outpatient services declined and only began returning towards normal at an extremely slow pace, accompanied by reduced productivity and increased practice costs. This review, therefore, emphasizes the devastating consequences of concurrent epidemics on chronic pain management and the need to develop best practice efforts to preserve access to treatment for chronic pain.

Antidepressant in the Treatment of Chronic Pain: A Case Report of Adult-Onset Still's Disease.

Adult-onset Still's disease (AOSD) is a rare multisystemic autoinflammatory disease with symptoms, including spiking fever, evanescent rash, arthralgia or arthritis, sore throat, lymphadenopathy, hepatosplenomegaly, and myalgia. The prevalence of anxiety and depressive symptoms in rheumatological diseases is quite high, which impacts social as well as occupational functioning. Depression and anxiety are known to be the most common psychiatric comorbidities in patients with arthritis and other rheumatological disorders. Here, we report the case of an adult white female with AOSD who showed improvement in symptoms of AOSD with monoclonal antibodies and steroids; however, significant worsening of pain along with depression & anxiety were noted. With the use of antidepressant serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), specifically duloxetine, our patient was able to experience improvement in depression, anxiety, and pain.

Review of COVID-19 viral vector-based vaccines and COVID-19 variants.

The concept of viral vector-based vaccine was introduced in 1972 by Jackson et al and in 1982 Moss et al introduced the use of vaccinia virus as a transient gene expression vector. The technology has been used to make Ebola vaccines and now COVID-19 vaccines. There are two types of viral vector-based vaccines i.e. replicating and non-replicating. Non-replicating viral vector-based vaccines use replication-deficient viral vectors to deliver genetic material of a particular antigen to the host cell to induce immunity against the desired antigen. Replicating vector vaccines produce new viral particles in the cells they enter, which then go on to enter more new cells which will also make the vaccine antigen. Non-replicating vector-based vaccines are more commonly utilized. Adenovirus, vesicular stomatitis virus, vaccinia virus, adenovirus associated virus, retrovirus, lentivirus, cytomegalovirus, and sendai virus have been used as vectors. Current adenovirus vector-based vaccines being administered against SARS-CoV-2 infection are JNJ-78435735 by Johnson and Johnson (Janssen) along with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, AZD1222 by Oxford-AstraZeneca, Sputnik V and Sputnik Light by Gamaleya Research Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology, and Convidecia vaccine by CanSino Biologics. Of the five vaccines, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved Janssen vaccine for emergency use. Efficacy against COVID-19 variants has been found in all but the Convidecia vaccine so far. Heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccination regimen may be the new face and more efficient immunization approach for enhanced immunity against COVID-19.

Utilization Patterns of Sacroiliac Joint Injections from 2000 to 2018 in Fee-for-Service Medicare Population.

BACKGROUND: Sacroiliac joint is one of the proven causes of low back and lower extremity pain. Prevalence estimates of sacroiliac joint pain range from 10% to 25% in patients with persistent axial low back pain without disc herniation, discogenic pain, or radiculitis based on multiple diagnostic studies and systematic reviews. Over the years, utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint injections have been increasing in comparison to other interventional techniques. Further, the development of new current procedural terminology (CPT) codes and coverage policies for sacroiliac joint nerve blocks, sacroiliac joint radiofrequency neurotomy, and evolving evidence for sacroiliac joint fusion will further increase the utilization patterns. STUDY DESIGN: Analysis of growth patterns of sacroiliac joint injections from 2000 to 2018 with comparative analysis of 2000 to 2009 and 2009 to 2018. OBJECTIVES: To assess utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint injections from 2000 to 2018. METHODS: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary (PSPS) Master dataset was utilized in this analysis. RESULTS: The results of the evaluation from 2009 to 2018 showed an increase of 11.3% and an annual increase of 1.2% per 100,000 Medicare population. However, from 2000 to 2009, an increase of 299.8% from 2000 to 2009 with an annual increase of 16.6% per 100,000 Medicare population. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of this study included a lack of data on the new sacroiliac joint nerve block and radiofrequency neurotomy codes. Further, this data did not include utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint fusions. In addition, Medicare Advantage patients were not included, which constitute approximately 30% of overall Medicare population. Further, there is also a possibility that state claims data may include claims from other states. As with all claims-based data analyses, this study is retrospective and thus potentially limited by bias. Finally, patients who are self or commercially insured are not part of the dataset. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows increases in utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint injections; however, at a significantly lower rate with an annual increase of 16.6% prior to 2009 and only 1.2% from 2009 to 2018 per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries.

Lack of Superiority of Epidural Injections with Lidocaine with Steroids Compared to Without Steroids in Spinal Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews have been conducted to summarize the evidence for administration of local anesthetic (lidocaine) alone or with steroids, with discordant opinions, more in favor of equal effect with local anesthetic alone or with steroids. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of lidocaine alone and lidocaine with steroids in managing spinal pain to assess superiority or equivalency. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of RCTs assessing the effectiveness of lidocaine alone compared with addition of steroids to lidocaine in managing spinal pain secondary to multiple causes (disc herniation, radiculitis, discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, and post-surgery syndrome). METHODS: This systematic review was performed utilizing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) for literature search, Cochrane review criteria, and Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) to assess the methodologic quality assessment and qualitative analysis utilizing best evidence synthesis principles, and quantitative analysis utilizing conventional and single-arm meta-analysis. PubMed, Cochrane Library, US National Guideline Clearinghouse, Google Scholar, and prior systematic reviews and reference lists were utilized in the literature search from 1966 through December 2019. The evidence was summarized utilizing principles of best evidence synthesis on a scale of 1 to 5. OUTCOME MEASURES: A hard endpoint for the primary outcome was defined as the proportion of patients with 50% pain relief and improvement in function. Secondary outcome measures, or soft endpoints, were pain relief and/or improvement in function. Effectiveness was determined as short-term if it was less than 6 months. Improvement that lasted longer than 6 months, was defined as long-term. RESULTS: Based on search criteria, 15 manuscripts were identified and considered for inclusion for qualitative analysis, quantitative analysis with conventional meta-analysis, and single-arm meta-analysis. The results showed Level II, moderate evidence, for short-term and long-term improvement in pain and function with the application of epidural injections with local anesthetic with or without steroid in managing spinal pain of multiple origins. LIMITATIONS: Despite 15 RCTs, evidence may still be considered as less than optimal and further studies are recommended. CONCLUSION: Overall, the present meta-analysis shows moderate (Level II) evidence for epidural injections with lidocaine with or without steroids in managing spinal pain secondary to disc herniation, spinal stenosis, discogenic pain, and post-surgery syndrome based on relevant, high-quality RCTs. Results were similar for lidocaine, with or without steroids.

Steroid Distancing in Interventional Pain Management During COVID-19 and Beyond: Safe, Effective and Practical Approach.

BACKGROUND: Since the late 1940s, corticosteroids have been a mainstay class of agents in multiple interventional techniques and intra-articular injections. Exogenous glucocorticoids are structurally and pharmacologically similar to the endogenous hormones. As such, multiple actions of corticosteroids are exhibited, including those of anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive effects. Epidural injections, with or without steroids, have been extensively used throughout the world. There are reports of epidural injections starting in 1901, with steroids being added to the local anesthetic since 1952, when steroids were administered into the sacral foramen. PURPOSE: Due to the extensive side effects of steroids in various injections, some have proposed limiting their use in epidurals and intraarticular injections. With the COVID-19 pandemic, the multiple side effects of the steroids have elevated the level of concern and recommendations have been made to utilize local anesthetic alone or the lowest dose of steroids. Fashioned from common expressions of the day, the term "steroid distancing" began to be used and proposed for intraarticular injections of the knee. Consequently, we sought to evaluate the evidence and feasibility of steroid distancing in interventional pain management. METHODS: This focused review of local anesthetics and steroids utilized in interventional pain management for epidural injections, peripheral nerve blocks, and intraarticular injections by multiple database searches. This is a focused narrative review and not a systematic review. Consequently, evidence synthesis was not performed traditionally, but was based on an overview of the available evidence. RESULTS: No significant difference was identified based on whether steroids are added to local anesthetic or not for epidural as well as facet joint injections. However, there was not enough evidence to compare these two groups for peripheral intraarticular injections. LIMITATIONS: The present review is limited by the paucity of literature with bupivacaine alone or bupivacaine with steroids local anesthetic alone or with steroids of intraarticular injections of knee, hip, shoulder and other joints, and intraarticular facet joint injections. CONCLUSION: This review shows an overall lack of significant difference between lidocaine alone and lidocaine with steroids in epidural injections. However, available evidence is limited for bupivacaine alone or with steroids. Evidence is also not available comparing local anesthetic alone with steroids for facet joint or peripheral joint intraarticular injections. Thus, it is concluded that local anesthetic with lidocaine may be utilized for epidural injections, with appropriate patient selection and steroids reserved for non-responsive patients with local anesthetic and with significant radiculitis.

Trends of Expenditures and Utilization of Facet Joint Interventions in Fee-For-Service (FFS) Medicare Population from 2009-2018.

BACKGROUND: The trends of the expenditures of facet joint interventions have not been specifically assessed in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population since 2009. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this investigation is to assess trends of expenditures and utilization of facet joint interventions in FFS Medicare population from 2009 to 2018. STUDY DESIGN: The study was designed to analyze trends of expenditures and utilization of facet joint interventions in FFS Medicare population from 2009-2018 in the United States. In this manuscript: • A patient was considered as undergoing facet joint interventions throughout the year. • A visit included all regions treated during the visit. • An episode was considered as one per region utilizing primary codes only. • Services or procedures were considered all procedures (multiple levels). Data for the analysis was obtained from the standard 5% national sample of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) physician outpatient billing claims for those enrolled in the FFS Medicare program from 2009 to 2018. All the expenditures were presented with allowed costs and also were inflation adjusted to 2018 US dollars. RESULTS: This analysis showed expenditures increased by 79% from 2009 to 2018 in the form of total cost for facet joint interventions, at an annual rate of 6.7%. Cervical and lumbar radiofrequency neurotomy procedures increased 185% and 169%. However, inflation-adjusted expenditures with 2018 US dollars showed an overall increase of 53% with an annual increase of 4.9%. In addition, using inflation-adjusted expenditures per procedures increased, the overall 6% with an annual increase of 0.7%. Overall, per patient costs, with inflation adjustment, decreased from $1,925 to $1,785 with a decline of 7% and an annual decline of 0.8%. Allowed charges per visit also declined after inflation adjustment from $951.76 to $849.86 with an overall decline of 11% and an annual decline of 1.3%. Staged episodes of radiofrequency neurotomy were performed in 23.9% of patients and more than 2 episodes for radiofrequency neurotomy in 6.9%, in lumbar spine and 19.6% staged and 5.1% more than 2 episodes in cervical spine of patients in 2018. LIMITATIONS: This analysis is limited by inclusion of only the FFS Medicare population, without adding utilization patterns of Medicare Advantage plans, which constitutes almost 30% of the Medicare population. CONCLUSIONS: Even after adjusting for inflation, there was a significant increase for the expenditures of facet joint interventions with an overall 53% increase. Costs per patient and cost per visit declined. Inflation-adjusted cost per year declined 7% overall and 0.8% annually from $1,925 to $1,785, and inflation-adjusted cost per visit also declined 11% annually and 1.3% per year from $952 in 2009 to $850 in 2018. KEY WORDS: Facet joint interventions, facet joint nerve blocks, facet joint neurolysis, facet joint injections, Medicare expenditures.

Comprehensive Evidence-Based Guidelines for Facet Joint Interventions in the Management of Chronic Spinal Pain: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) Guidelines Facet Joint Interventions 2020 Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Chronic axial spinal pain is one of the major causes of significant disability and health care costs, with facet joints as one of the proven causes of pain. OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based guidance in performing diagnostic and therapeutic facet joint interventions. METHODS: The methodology utilized included the development of objectives and key questions with utilization of trustworthy standards. The literature pertaining to all aspects of facet joint interventions, was reviewed, with a best evidence synthesis of available literature and utilizing grading for recommendations.Summary of Evidence and Recommendations:Non-interventional diagnosis: • The level of evidence is II in selecting patients for facet joint nerve blocks at least 3 months after onset and failure of conservative management, with strong strength of recommendation for physical examination and clinical assessment. • The level of evidence is IV for accurate diagnosis of facet joint pain with physical examination based on symptoms and signs, with weak strength of recommendation. Imaging: • The level of evidence is I with strong strength of recommendation, for mandatory fluoroscopic or computed tomography (CT) guidance for all facet joint interventions. • The level of evidence is III with weak strength of recommendation for single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) . • The level of evidence is V with weak strength of recommendation for scintography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and computed tomography (CT) .Interventional Diagnosis:Lumbar Spine: • The level of evidence is I to II with moderate to strong strength of recommendation for lumbar diagnostic facet joint nerve blocks. • Ten relevant diagnostic accuracy studies with 4 of 10 studies utilizing controlled comparative local anesthetics with concordant pain relief criterion standard of ≥80% were included. • The prevalence rates ranged from 27% to 40% with false-positive rates of 27% to 47%, with ≥80% pain relief.Cervical Spine: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation. • Ten relevant diagnostic accuracy studies, 9 of the 10 studies with either controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks or placebo controls with concordant pain relief with a criterion standard of ≥80% were included. • The prevalence and false-positive rates ranged from 29% to 60% and of 27% to 63%, with high variability. Thoracic Spine: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation. • Three relevant diagnostic accuracy studies, with controlled comparative local anesthetic blocks, with concordant pain relief, with a criterion standard of ≥80% were included. • The prevalence varied from 34% to 48%, whereas false-positive rates varied from 42% to 58%.Therapeutic Facet Joint Interventions: Lumbar Spine: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for lumbar radiofrequency ablation with inclusion of 11 relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 2 negative studies and 4 studies with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for therapeutic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks with inclusion of 3 relevant randomized controlled trials, with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is IV with weak strength of recommendation for lumbar facet joint intraarticular injections with inclusion of 9 relevant randomized controlled trials, with majority of them showing lack of effectiveness without the use of local anesthetic. Cervical Spine: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for cervical radiofrequency ablation with inclusion of one randomized controlled trial with positive results and 2 observational studies with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for therapeutic cervical facet joint nerve blocks with inclusion of one relevant randomized controlled trial and 3 observational studies, with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is V with weak strength of recommendation for cervical intraarticular facet joint injections with inclusion of 3 relevant randomized controlled trials, with 2 observational studies, the majority showing lack of effectiveness, whereas one study with 6-month follow-up, showed lack of long-term improvement. Thoracic Spine: • The level of evidence is III with weak to moderate strength of recommendation with emerging evidence for thoracic radiofrequency ablation with inclusion of one relevant randomized controlled trial and 3 observational studies. • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation for thoracic therapeutic facet joint nerve blocks with inclusion of 2 randomized controlled trials and one observational study with long-term improvement. • The level of evidence is III with weak to moderate strength of recommendation for thoracic intraarticular facet joint injections with inclusion of one randomized controlled trial with 6 month follow-up, with emerging evidence. Antithrombotic Therapy: • Facet joint interventions are considered as moderate to low risk procedures; consequently, antithrombotic therapy may be continued based on overall general status. Sedation: • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation to avoid opioid analgesics during the diagnosis with interventional techniques. • The level of evidence is II with moderate strength of recommendation that moderate sedation may be utilized for patient comfort and to control anxiety for therapeutic facet joint interventions. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of these guidelines include a paucity of high-quality studies in the majority of aspects of diagnosis and therapy. CONCLUSIONS: These facet joint intervention guidelines were prepared with a comprehensive review of the literature with methodologic quality assessment with determination of level of evidence and strength of recommendations. KEY WORDS: Chronic spinal pain, interventional techniques, diagnostic blocks, therapeutic interventions, facet joint nerve blocks, intraarticular injections, radiofrequency neurolysis.

Comprehensive evidence-based guidelines for facet joint interventions in the management of Chronic Spinal Pain: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) guidelines

Chronic axial spinal pain is one of the major causes of significant disability and health care costs, with facet joints as one of the proven causes of pain. To provide evidence-based guidance in performing diagnostic and therapeutic facet joint interventions. The methodology utilized included the development of objectives and key questions with utilization of trustworthy standards. The literature pertaining to all aspects of facet joint interventions, was reviewed, with a best evidence synthesis of available literature and utilizing grading for recommendations.

Gender-Based Differences in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Rupture: A Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Annually, 5% of sudden deaths are due to abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) rupture. There is evidence suggesting that AAA ruptures have worse outcomes in females than males and the aneurysms rupture at a smaller size in females than in males. The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends a one-time ultrasound screening for males aged 65 - 75 years who ever smoked. There is insufficient evidence to screen females aged 65 - 75 years who ever smoked though there is evidence suggesting that AAAs rupture at a smaller size and have worse outcomes in females. The objective of this study is to compare the characteristics, mortality and morbidity of ruptured AAAs in females and males. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of 117 patients from two teaching institutions over a period of 6 years. A total of 39 parameters were compared between males and females including demographic variables, comorbidities like hypertension, dyslipidemia, cardiovascular diseases; previous history of AAA; medications, characteristics of aneurysm, type of surgery and its outcome; postoperative complications and long-term survival. RESULTS: The overall incidence of AAA rupture was higher in males (68%) than in females (32%). Females die from AAA rupture at a later age. There was a significant difference in the size of AAA rupture between females (mean = 7.4 cm, standard deviation (SD) = 2.0) and males (mean = 8.2 cm, SD = 1.8; P = 0.04). The probability to undergo surgery for ruptured AAA was significantly lower for females as compared to males (P = 0.03). Females had higher overall mortality (P = 0.001), postoperative mortality (P = 0.02), higher length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, incidence of postoperative complications, use of vasopressors and use of ventilator. CONCLUSIONS: Using a similar threshold of size of AAA for elective surgery for both males and females might not be appropriate. Further population-based studies are needed to warrant AAA screening for high-risk females owing to the higher morbidity and mortality.

COVID-19-Induced Vestibular Neuritis, Hemi-Facial Spasms and Raynaud's Phenomenon: A Case Report.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has created a global health crisis. Though respiratory symptoms have been the usual manifestations, the presentation in some cases may be atypical with various neurological and cutaneous manifestations. We present a case of a 63-year-old female diagnosed with COVID-19 and associated rare manifestations during her visit to Europe.