Improvement in Protective Sensation: Clinical Evidence From a Randomized Controlled Trial for Treatment of Painful Diabetic Neuropathy With 10 kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation.

BACKGROUND: Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) can result in the loss of protective sensation, in which people are at twice the likelihood of foot ulceration and three times the risk of lower extremity amputation. Here, we evaluated the long-term effects of high-frequency (10 kHz) paresthesia-independent spinal cord stimulation (SCS) on protective sensation in the feet and the associated risk of foot ulceration for individuals with PDN. METHODS: The SENZA-PDN clinical study was a randomized, controlled trial in which 216 participants with PDN were randomized to receive either conventional medical management (CMM) alone or 10 kHz SCS plus CMM, with optional treatment crossover after 6 months. At study visits (baseline through 24 months), 10-g monofilament sensory assessments were conducted at 10 locations per foot. Two published methods were used to evaluate protective sensation via classifying risk of foot ulceration. RESULTS: Participants in the 10 kHz SCS group reported increased numbers of sensate locations as compared to CMM alone (P < .001) and to preimplantation (P < .01) and were significantly more likely to be at low risk of foot ulceration using both classification methods. The proportion of low-risk participants approximately doubled from preimplantation to 3 months postimplantation and remained stable through 24 months (P ≤ .01). CONCLUSIONS: Significant improvements were observed in protective sensation from preimplantation to 24 months postimplantation for the 10 kHz SCS group. With this unique, disease-modifying improvement in sensory function, 10 kHz SCS provides the potential to reduce ulceration, amputation, and other severe sequelae of PDN. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The SENZA-PDN study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with identifier NCT03228420.

Health care resource utilization and costs in patients with painful diabetic neuropathy treated with 10 kHz spinal cord stimulation therapy.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic peripheral neuropathy, a common comorbidity of diabetes, is a neurodegenerative disorder that targets sensory, autonomic, and motor nerves frequently associated with painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN). PDN carries an economic burden as the result of reduced work and productivity. A recent multicenter randomized controlled trial, SENZA-PDN (NCT03228420), assessed the impact of high-frequency (10 kHz) spinal cord stimulation (SCS) on pain relief. The effects of high-frequency SCS on health care resource utilization and medical costs are not known. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of high-frequency (10 kHz) SCS on health care resource utilization (HRU) and medical costs in patients with PDN using data from the SENZA-PDN trial. METHODS: Participants with PDN were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either 10 kHz SCS plus conventional medical management (CMM) (SCS treatment group) or CMM alone (CMM treatment group). Patient outcomes and HRU up to the 6-month follow-up are reported here. Costs (2020 USD) for each service was estimated based on publicly available Medicare fee schedules, Medicare claims data, and literature. HRU metrics of inpatient and outpatient contacts and costs are reported as means and SDs. Univariate and bivariate analyses were used to compare SCS and CMM treatment groups at 6 months. RESULTS: At 6-month follow up, the SCS arm experienced approximately half the mean rate of hospitalizations per patient compared with the CMM treatment group (0.08 vs 0.15; P = 0.066). The CMM treatment group's total health care costs per patient were approximately 51% higher compared with the SCS treatment group (equivalent to mean annual cost per patient of $9,532 vs $6,300). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis of the SENZA-PDN trial indicates that the addition of 10 kHz SCS therapy results in lower rates of hospitalization and consequently lower health care costs among patients with PDN compared with those receiving conventional management alone.

Long-term efficacy of high-frequency (10 kHz) spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy: 24-Month results of a randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: To evaluate the long-term efficacy of high-frequency (10 kHz) spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for treating refractory painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN). METHODS: The SENZA-PDN study was a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial that compared conventional medical management (CMM) alone with 10 kHz SCS plus CMM (10 kHz SCS+CMM) in 216 patients with refractory PDN. After 6 months, participants with insufficient pain relief could cross over to the other treatment. In total, 142 patients with a 10 kHz SCS system were followed for 24 months, including 84 initial 10 kHz SCS+CMM recipients and 58 crossovers from CMM alone. Assessments included pain intensity, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), sleep, and neurological function. Investigators assessed neurological function via sensory, reflex, and motor tests. They identified a clinically meaningful improvement relative to the baseline assessment if there was a significant persistent improvement in neurological function that impacted the participant's well-being and was attributable to a neurological finding. RESULTS: At 24 months, 10 kHz SCS reduced pain by a mean of 79.9% compared to baseline, with 90.1% of participants experiencing ≥50% pain relief. Participants had significantly improved HRQoL and sleep, and 65.7% demonstrated clinically meaningful neurological improvement. Five (3.2%) SCS systems were explanted due to infection. CONCLUSIONS: Over 24 months, 10 kHz SCS provided durable pain relief and significant improvements in HRQoL and sleep. Furthermore, the majority of participants demonstrated neurological improvement. These long-term data support 10 kHz SCS as a safe and highly effective therapy for PDN. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClincalTrials.gov Identifier, NCT03228420.

High-Frequency 10-kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation Improves Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Refractory Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: 12-Month Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Objective: To evaluate high-frequency (10-kHz) spinal cord stimulation (SCS) treatment in refractory painful diabetic neuropathy. Patients and Methods: A prospective, multicenter randomized controlled trial was conducted between Aug 28, 2017 and March 16, 2021, comparing conventional medical management (CMM) with 10-kHz SCS+CMM. The participants had hemoglobin A1c level of less than or equal to 10% and pain greater than or equal to 5 of 10 cm on visual analog scale, with painful diabetic neuropathy symptoms 12 months or more refractory to gabapentinoids and at least 1 other analgesic class. Assessments included measures of pain, neurologic function, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) over 12 months with optional crossover at 6 months. Results: The participants were randomized 1:1 to CMM (n=103) or 10-kHz SCS+CMM (n=113). At 6 months, 77 of 95 (81%) CMM group participants opted for crossover, whereas none of the 10-kHz SCS group participants did so. At 12 months, the mean pain relief from baseline among participants implanted with 10-kHz SCS was 74.3% (95% CI, 70.1-78.5), and 121 of 142 (85%) participants were treatment responders (≥50% pain relief). Treatment with 10-kHz SCS improved HRQoL, including a mean improvement in the EuroQol 5-dimensional questionnaire index score of 0.136 (95% CI, 0.104-0.169). The participants also reported significantly less pain interference with sleep, mood, and daily activities. At 12 months, 131 of 142 (92%) participants were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the 10-kHz SCS treatment. Conclusion: The 10-kHz SCS treatment resulted in substantial pain relief and improvement in overall HRQoL 2.5- to 4.5-fold higher than the minimal clinically important difference. The outcomes were durable over 12 months and support 10-kHz SCS treatment in patients with refractory painful diabetic neuropathy. Trial registration: clincaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03228420.

A Real-World Analysis of High-Frequency 10 kHz Spinal Cord Stimulation for the Treatment of Painful Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is one of the most prevalent chronic health conditions and diabetic neuropathy one of its most prevalent and debilitating complications. While there are treatments available for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN), their effectiveness is limited. METHOD: This retrospective, multi-center, real-world review assessed pain relief and functional improvements for consecutive patients with diabetic neuropathy aged ≥18 years of age who were permanently implanted with a high-frequency (10 kHz) spinal cord stimulation (SCS) device. Available data were extracted from a commercial database. RESULTS: In total 89 patients consented to being included in the analysis. Sixty-one percent (54/89) of participants were male and the average age was 64.4 years (SD = 9.1). Most patients (78.7%, 70/89) identified pain primarily in their feet or legs bilaterally. At the last assessment, 79.5% (58/73) of patients were treatment responders, defined as having at least 50% patient-reported pain relief from baseline. The average time of follow-up was 21.8 months (range: 4.3 to 46.3 months). A majority of patients reported improvements in sleep and overall function relative to their baseline. CONCLUSIONS: This real-world study in typical clinical practices found 10 kHz SCS provided meaningful pain relief for a substantial proportion of patients refractory to current pDPN management, similar to published literature. This patient population has tremendous unmet needs and this study helps demonstrate the potential for 10 kHz SCS to provide an alternative pain management approach.

Effect of High-frequency (10-kHz) Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients With Painful Diabetic Neuropathy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Many patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy experience chronic pain and inadequate relief despite best available medical treatments. Objective: To determine whether 10-kHz spinal cord stimulation (SCS) improves outcomes for patients with refractory painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN). Design, Setting, and Participants: The prospective, multicenter, open-label SENZA-PDN randomized clinical trial compared conventional medical management (CMM) with 10-kHz SCS plus CMM. Participants with PDN for 1 year or more refractory to gabapentinoids and at least 1 other analgesic class, lower limb pain intensity of 5 cm or more on a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS), body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) of 45 or less, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of 10% or less, daily morphine equivalents of 120 mg or less, and medically appropriate for the procedure were recruited from clinic patient populations and digital advertising. Participants were enrolled from multiple sites across the US, including academic centers and community pain clinics, between August 2017 and August 2019 with 6-month follow-up and optional crossover at 6 months. Screening 430 patients resulted in 214 who were excluded or declined participation and 216 who were randomized. At 6-month follow-up, 187 patients were evaluated. Interventions: Implanted medical device delivering 10-kHz SCS. Main Outcomes and Measures: The prespecified primary end point was percentage of participants with 50% pain relief or more on VAS without worsening of baseline neurological deficits at 3 months. Secondary end points were tested hierarchically, as prespecified in the analysis plan. Measures included pain VAS, neurological examination, health-related quality of life (EuroQol Five-Dimension questionnaire), and HbA1c over 6 months. Results: Of 216 randomized patients, 136 (63.0%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 60.8 (10.7) years. Additionally, the median (interquartile range) duration of diabetes and peripheral neuropathy were 10.9 (6.3-16.4) years and 5.6 (3.0-10.1) years, respectively. The primary end point assessed in the intention-to-treat population was met by 5 of 94 patients in the CMM group (5%) and 75 of 95 patients in the 10-kHz SCS plus CMM group (79%; difference, 73.6%; 95% CI, 64.2-83.0; P < .001). Infections requiring device explant occurred in 2 patients in the 10-kHz SCS plus CMM group (2%). For the CMM group, the mean pain VAS score was 7.0 cm (95% CI, 6.7-7.3) at baseline and 6.9 cm (95% CI, 6.5-7.3) at 6 months. For the 10-kHz SCS plus CMM group, the mean pain VAS score was 7.6 cm (95% CI, 7.3-7.9) at baseline and 1.7 cm (95% CI, 1.3-2.1) at 6 months. Investigators observed neurological examination improvements for 3 of 92 patients in the CMM group (3%) and 52 of 84 in the 10-kHz SCS plus CMM group (62%) at 6 months (difference, 58.6%; 95% CI, 47.6-69.6; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Substantial pain relief and improved health-related quality of life sustained over 6 months demonstrates 10-kHz SCS can safely and effectively treat patients with refractory PDN. Trial Registration: ClincalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03228420.

High-frequency spinal cord stimulation at 10 kHz for the treatment of painful diabetic neuropathy: design of a multicenter, randomized controlled trial (SENZA-PDN).

BACKGROUND: Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN), a debilitating and progressive chronic pain condition that significantly impacts quality of life, is one of the common complications seen with long-standing diabetes mellitus. Neither pharmacological treatments nor low-frequency spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has provided significant and long-term pain relief for patients with PDN. This study aims to document the value of 10-kHz SCS in addition to conventional medical management (CMM) compared with CMM alone in patients with refractory PDN. METHODS: In a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial (SENZA-PDN), 216 subjects with PDN will be assigned 1:1 to receive 10-kHz SCS combined with CMM or CMM alone after appropriate institutional review board approvals and followed for 24 months. Key inclusion criteria include (1) symptoms of PDN for at least 12 months, (2) average pain intensity of at least 5 cm-on a 0- to 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS)-in the lower limbs, and (3) an appropriate candidate for SCS. Key exclusion criteria include (1) large or gangrenous ulcers or (2) average pain intensity of at least 3 cm on VAS in the upper limbs or both. Along with pain VAS, neurological assessments, health-related quality of life, sleep quality, and patient satisfaction will be captured. The primary endpoint comparing responder rates (≥50% pain relief) and safety rates between the treatment groups will be assessed at 3 months. Several secondary endpoints will also be reported on. DISCUSSION: Enrollment commenced in 2017 and was completed in 2019. This study will help to determine whether 10-kHz SCS improves clinical outcomes and health-related quality of life and is a cost-effective treatment for PDN that is refractory to CMM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClincalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03228420 (registered 24 July 2017).

Current challenges in spinal cord stimulation.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to review the current state of spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain associated with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) and complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) and to describe intraspinal targets and stimulation parameters, patient selection, therapy cost-effectiveness, and strategies to improve outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We drew on professional literature spanning four decades, our work with national and international professional societies, and our own extensive clinical experience to summarize contemporary knowledge of the safety, efficacy, cost-efficiency, and challenges associated with spinal cord stimulation in treating chronic pain. RESULTS: The safety, efficacy, and cost-efficiency of spinal cord stimulation in treating chronic pain associated with FBSS and CRPS are well established through randomized controlled trials and long-term observational studies. Challenges include reducing wait-times before implant, which are associated with lower success rates; increasing awareness of this therapy among referring physicians, patients, and payers; decreasing device-related complications by incorporating advanced technology, improved operative and trialing techniques, and appropriate patient selection; and capturing functional and quality-of-life outcomes. Spinal cord stimulation must be part of an overall treatment plan to manage chronic pain, and must engage physicians, patients, their families, pharmacists, nursing staff, and mental health experts in supporting a return to employment, if possible, and to a full domestic and social life. CONCLUSIONS: Innovation in spinal cord stimulation therapy has intensified with numerous new technical capabilities, safety advances, and novel stimulation targets. This progress holds hope for the many sufferers of chronic pain.

An update of comprehensive evidence-based guidelines for interventional techniques in chronic spinal pain. Part I: introduction and general considerations.

In 2011, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) re-engineered its definition of clinical guidelines as follows: "clinical practice guidelines are statements that include recommendations intended to optimize patient care that are informed by a systematic review of evidence and an assessment of the benefit and harms of alternative care options." This new definition departs from a 2-decade old definition from a 1990 IOM report that defined guidelines as "systematically developed statements to assist practitioner and patient decisions about appropriate health care for specific clinical circumstances." The revised definition clearly distinguishes between the term "clinical practice guideline" and other forms of clinical guidance derived from widely disparate development processes, such as consensus statements, expert advice, and appropriate use criteria. The IOM committee acknowledged that for many clinical domains, high quality evidence was lacking or even nonexistent. Even though the guidelines are important decision-making tools, along with expert clinical judgment and patient preference, their value and impact remains variable due to numerous factors. Some of the many factors that impede the development of clinical practice guidelines include bias due to a variety of conflicts of interest, inappropriate and poor methodological quality, poor writing and ambiguous presentation, projecting a view that these are not applicable to individual patients or too restrictive with elimination of clinician autonomy, and overzealous and inappropriate recommendations, either positive, negative, or non-committal. Consequently, a knowledgeable, multidisciplinary panel of experts must develop guidelines based on a systematic review of the existing evidence, as recently recommended by the IOM. Chronic pain is a complex and multifactorial phenomenon associated with significant economic, social, and health outcomes. Interventional pain management is an emerging specialty facing a disproportionate number of challenges compared to established medical specialties, including the inappropriate utilization of ineffective and unsafe techniques. In 2000, the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) created treatment guidelines to help practitioners. There have been 5 subsequent updates. These guidelines address the issues of systematic evaluation and ongoing care of chronic or persistent pain, and provide information about the scientific basis of recommended procedures. These guidelines are expected to increase patient compliance; dispel misconceptions among providers and patients, manage patient expectations reasonably; and form the basis of a therapeutic partnership between the patient, the provider, and payers.

An update of comprehensive evidence-based guidelines for interventional techniques in chronic spinal pain. Part II: guidance and recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for interventional techniques in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic spinal pain. METHODOLOGY: Systematic assessment of the literature. EVIDENCE: I. Lumbar Spine • The evidence for accuracy of diagnostic selective nerve root blocks is limited; whereas for lumbar provocation discography, it is fair. • The evidence for diagnostic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks and diagnostic sacroiliac intraarticular injections is good with 75% to 100% pain relief as criterion standard with controlled local anesthetic or placebo blocks. • The evidence is good in managing disc herniation or radiculitis for caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections; fair for axial or discogenic pain without disc herniation, radiculitis or facet joint pain with caudal, and interlaminar epidural injections, and limited for transforaminal epidural injections; fair for spinal stenosis with caudal, interlaminar, and transforaminal epidural injections; and fair for post surgery syndrome with caudal epidural injections and limited with transforaminal epidural injections. • The evidence for therapeutic facet joint interventions is good for conventional radiofrequency, limited for pulsed radiofrequency, fair to good for lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, and limited for intraarticular injections. • For sacroiliac joint interventions, the evidence for cooled radiofrequency neurotomy is fair; limited for intraarticular injections and periarticular injections; and limited for both pulsed radiofrequency and conventional radiofrequency neurotomy. • For lumbar percutaneous adhesiolysis, the evidence is fair in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain secondary to post surgery syndrome and spinal stenosis. • For intradiscal procedures, the evidence for intradiscal electrothermal therapy (IDET) and biaculoplasty is limited to fair and is limited for discTRODE. • For percutaneous disc decompression, the evidence is limited for automated percutaneous lumbar discectomy (APLD), percutaneous lumbar laser disc decompression, and Dekompressor; and limited to fair for nucleoplasty for which the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued a noncoverage decision. II. Cervical Spine • The evidence for cervical provocation discography is limited; whereas the evidence for diagnostic cervical facet joint nerve blocks is good with a criterion standard of 75% or greater relief with controlled diagnostic blocks. • The evidence is good for cervical interlaminar epidural injections for cervical disc herniation or radiculitis; fair for axial or discogenic pain, spinal stenosis, and post cervical surgery syndrome. • The evidence for therapeutic cervical facet joint interventions is fair for conventional cervical radiofrequency neurotomy and cervical medial branch blocks, and limited for cervical intraarticular injections. III. Thoracic Spine • The evidence is limited for thoracic provocation discography and is good for diagnostic accuracy of thoracic facet joint nerve blocks with a criterion standard of at least 75% pain relief with controlled diagnostic blocks. • The evidence is fair for thoracic epidural injections in managing thoracic pain. • The evidence for therapeutic thoracic facet joint nerve blocks is fair, limited for radiofrequency neurotomy, and not available for thoracic intraarticular injections. IV. Implantables • The evidence is fair for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in managing patients with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS) and limited for implantable intrathecal drug administration systems. V. ANTICOAGULATION • There is good evidence for risk of thromboembolic phenomenon in patients with antithrombotic therapy if discontinued, spontaneous epidural hematomas with or without traumatic injury in patients with or without anticoagulant therapy to discontinue or normalize INR with warfarin therapy, 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 with excessive bleeding, including epidural hematoma formation with interventional techniques when antithrombotic therapy is continued, the risk of higher thromboembolic phenomenon than epidural hematomas with discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy prior to interventional techniques and to continue phosphodiesterase inhibitors (dipyridamole, cilostazol, and Aggrenox). • 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, ticlopidine, prasugrel) during interventional techniques to avoid cerebrovascular and cardiovascular thromboembolic fatalities. • There is limited evidence in reference to newer antithrombotic agents dabigatran (Pradaxa) and rivaroxan (Xarelto) to discontinue to avoid bleeding and epidural hematomas and are continued during interventional techniques to avoid cerebrovascular and cardiovascular thromboembolic events. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is fair to good for 62% of diagnostic and 52% of therapeutic interventions assessed. DISCLAIMER: The authors are solely responsible for the content of this article. No statement on this article should be construed as an official position of ASIPP. The guidelines do not represent "standard of care."

Percutaneous lumbar laser disc decompression: an update of current evidence.

BACKGROUND: Since the descriptions by Mixter and Barr of surgical treatment for rupture of the intervertebral disc in 1934, open surgical procedures have become a common practice. Disc herniations are often classified as being contained or non-contained. The results of open surgical discectomy for contained disc herniation have been poor. Consequently, several less invasive techniques have been developed including percutaneous lumbar laser disc decompression. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of the literature of percutaneous lumbar laser disc decompression. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate and update the clinical effectiveness of percutaneous lumbar laser discectomy in managing radicular pain secondary to contained disc herniation. METHODS: The available literature on lumbar laser disc decompression in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain was reviewed. Quality assessment and clinical relevance of randomized trials were graded according to the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria for interventional techniques, and observational studies according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria.The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, and limited or poor based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to September 2012, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain relief was the primary outcome measure. Other outcome measures were functional improvement, improvement of psychological status, opioid intake, and return-to-work. Short-term effectiveness was defined as effectiveness lasting one year or less, whereas, long-term effectiveness was defined as benefit persisting for greater than one year. RESULTS: Based on USPSTF criteria, the indicated level of evidence for percutaneous lumbar laser disc decompression is limited for short- and long-term relief. LIMITATIONS: Although laser discectomy has been utilized for many years, there is a paucity of randomized clinical trials. CONCLUSION: This systematic review shows limited evidence for percutaneous lumbar laser disc decompression.

An update of the systematic assessment of mechanical lumbar disc decompression with nucleoplasty.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar disc prolapse, protrusion, and extrusion account for less than 5% of all low back problems, but are the most common causes of nerve root pain and surgical interventions. The primary rationale for any form of surgery for disc prolapse is to relieve nerve root irritation or compression due to herniated disc material. The primary modality of treatment continues to be either open or microdiscectomy, although several alternative techniques are also utilized, including nucleoplasty, automated percutaneous discectomy and laser discectomy. There is a paucity of evidence for all decompression techniques, specifically alternative techniques including nucleoplasty. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of the literature of mechanical lumbar disc decompression with nucleoplasty. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness and update the effectiveness of mechanical lumbar disc decompression with nucleoplasty. METHODS: The available literature on mechanical lumbar disc decompression with nucleoplasty was reviewed. The quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria as utilized for interventional techniques for randomized trials and the criteria developed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria for observational studies.The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, and limited or poor based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) . Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to September 2012, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. OUTCOME MEASURES: Pain relief and functional improvement were the primary outcome measures. Other outcome measures were improvement of psychological status, reduction in opioid intake, and return to work. Short-term effectiveness was defined as one year or less, whereas long-term effectiveness was defined as greater than one year. RESULTS: For this systematic review, 37 studies were considered for inclusion. Of these, there was one randomized trial and 14 observational studies meeting inclusion criteria for methodological quality assessment.Based on USPSTF criteria, the level of evidence for nucleoplasty is limited to fair in managing radicular pain due to contained disc herniation. LIMITATIONS: A paucity of literature with randomized trials. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review illustrates limited to fair evidence for nucleoplasty in managing radicular pain due to contained disc herniation.

An update of the systematic appraisal of the accuracy and utility of lumbar discography in chronic low back pain.

BACKGROUND: The intervertebral disc has been implicated as a major cause of chronic lumbar spinal pain based on clinical, basic science, and epidemiological research. There is, however, a lack of consensus regarding the diagnosis and treatment of intervertebral disc disorders. Based on controlled evaluations, lumbar intervertebral discs have been shown to be the source of chronic back pain without disc herniation in 26% to 39% of patients. Lumbar provocation discography, which includes disc stimulation and morphological evaluation, is often used to distinguish a painful disc from other potential sources of pain. Despite the extensive literature, intense debate continues about lumbar discography as a diagnostic tool. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy of lumbar provocation and analgesic discography literature. OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess and re-evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of lumbar discography. METHODS: The available literature on lumbar discography was reviewed. A methodological quality assessment of included studies was performed using the Quality Appraisal of Reliability Studies (QAREL) checklist. Only diagnostic accuracy studies meeting at least 50% of the designated inclusion criteria were included in the analysis. However, studies scoring less than 50% are presented descriptively and critically analyzed. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, and limited or poor based on the quality of evidence developed by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 to September 2012, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. RESULTS: Over 160 studies were considered for inclusion. Of these, 33 studies compared discography with other diagnostic tests, 30 studies assessed the diagnostic accuracy of discography, 22 studies assessed surgical outcomes for discogenic pain, and 3 studies assessed the prevalence of lumbar discogenic pain. The quality of the overall evidence supporting provocation discography based on the above studies appears to be fair. The prevalence of internal disc disruption is estimated to be 39% to 42%, whereas the prevalence of discogenic pain without assessing internal disc disruption is 26%. CONCLUSION: This systematic review illustrates that lumbar provocation discography performed according to the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) criteria may be a useful tool for evaluating chronic lumbar discogenic pain.

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.

Proposed physician payment schedule for 2013: guarded prognosis for interventional pain management.

As happens every year, on July 1, 2012, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued a proposed policy and payment rate for services furnished under the Medicare physician fee schedule for 2013. The proposed rule would provide certified registered nurse anesthetists to practice independent interventional pain management. Other issues, though no less important, include a 27% sustainable growth rate formula cut in reimbursement, along with a 2% sequester, which could lead to a potential cut of 29%. Since the inception of Medicare programs in 1965, several methods have been used to determine the amounts paid to physicians for each covered service. The sustainable growth rate was enacted in 1997 to determine physician payment updates under Medicare Part B. Its intent was to reduce Medicare physician payment updates to offset the growth and utilization of physician services that exceed gross domestic product growth. This is achieved by setting an overall target amount of spending for physicians' services and adjusting payment rates annually to reflect differences between actual spending and the spending target. Since 2002, the sustainable growth rate has annually been used to recommend reductions in Medicare reimbursements. Payments were cut in 2002 by 4.8%. Since then, Congress has intervened on multiple occasions to prevent additional cuts from being imposed. In this manuscript, we will describe important proposed changes to the physician fee schedule. Additionally, the impact of multiple changes on interventional pain management will be briefly described.

Assessment of infection control practices for interventional techniques: a best evidence synthesis of safe injection practices and use of single-dose medication vials.

BACKGROUND: It is universally accepted that transmission of bloodborne pathogens during health care procedures continues to occur because of the use of unsafe and improper injection, infusion, and medication administration practices by health care professionals in various clinical settings. This resulted in development of multiple guidelines based on case reports; however, these case reports are confounded by multiple factors without causal relationship to a single factor. Even then, single-dose vials used for multiple patients have been singled out and became the focus of infection control policies resulting in inordinate expenses for practices without improving patient safety. The cost of implementation of single dose vial policy in interventional pain management for drugs alone may cost $750 million, whereas with single use radional gloves may exceed $1 billion per year. STUDY DESIGN: Best evidence synthesis. OBJECTIVE: To critically appraise and synthesize the literature on infection control practices for interventional techniques, including safe injection and medication vial utilization. METHODS: The available literature on infection control practices was reviewed. Due to the nature of the studies involved, with the majority being case reports, and a few prospective evaluations, quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria were not applied. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 through June 2012, literature from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was correlating infection to a breach of standards in infection control practices. The secondary objective was to assess the contribution of single-dose vials independently for infection. RESULTS: A total of 60 reports met inclusion criteria, with 16 reports related to pain management and other procedures, of which 9 reports were attributed to issues related to interventional techniques. Based on an estimated 37 infections occurring during 200 million interventional techniques from 1997 through 2011, the rate of infection is speculated to be one infection for every 5 million interventional pain management procedures. However, if 10 times more infections are estimated, the infection rate appears to be one infection for every 500,000 interventional pain management procedures. The evidence is good for infection related to a breach of infection control practices. There is good evidence that contamination of multi-dose or single-dose vials can contribute to infection. There was poor evidence that the use of single-dose vials on multiple patients with appropriate infection control practices cause infection in interventional pain management. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of this comprehensive best evidence synthesis include the paucity of literature and dependence of governmental agencies on their literature without applying Institute of Medicine (IOM) criteria for guideline synthesis. CONCLUSION: There is good evidence that any breach of sterile practice may result in serious and life threatening infections. There is poor evidence for single-dose vials as a sole factor causing infections when used in multiple patients in interventional pain management settings.

CMS proposal for interventional pain management by nurse anesthetists: evidence by proclamation with poor prognosis.

The Office of Inspector General (OIG), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in a 2009 report, showed that unqualified nonphysicians performed 21% of the services. These nonphysicians did not possess the necessary licenses, certifications, credentials, or training to perform the services. Since the time the medical profession was founded, advances in treatments and technology, as well as educational and training standards, have promoted a desire to go beyond the basic scope of practice. Many have sought to broaden the scope of practice through legislative efforts and proclamation rather than education and training. In 2001, President Clinton signed into law a rule that permitted states to "opt out" of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) requirement for nurse anesthetists to be supervised by any physician. Since then, 17 states have adopted this rule. While it was originally intended to help rural areas improve access to care, the opt out rule essentially supports any hospital or organization that seeks to make a profit or cut costs by allowing nurse anesthetists to function as physicians. With the implementation of sweeping health care regulations under the Affordable Care Act (ACA, also popularly known as Obamacare), the future of nurses and other professionals has been empowered. In fact, it has been proposed that medical training may be reduced by 30%, which will in their minds equalize training between nonphysicians and physicians. In 2010, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued an opinion exerting their power to empower CRNAs with unlimited practice, with threats to opposing parties. In the 2013 proposed physician payment rule, CMS is proposing that CRNAs may perform interventional pain management services. Interventional pain management is a medical discipline with defined interventional techniques to be performed by professionals who are well trained and qualified. Without considering the consequences of the lack of education and training qualifications for CRNAs to offer interventional techniques, the FTC issued their opinion and CMS proposed to expand these practice patterns with a policy of improved access and reduced cost. However, in reality, the opposite will happen and will increase fraud, reduce access due to inappropriate procedures, and increase complications, all as a result of privileges by legislation without education. The CMS proposal for interventional pain management by nurse anesthetists is a proclamation with a poor prognosis.