Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Utilization Patterns of Facet Joint Interventions in Managing Spinal Pain in a Medicare Population.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in major disruptions in all aspects of human life including a decline of medical services utilized during 2020. An analysis of the impact of COVID-19 pandemic showed an 18.7% reduction in utilization patterns of interventional techniques in managing chronic pain in the Medicare population from 2019 to 2020. However, specific changes in utilization patterns of facet joint interventions have not been studied. Thus, we sought to assess the utilization patterns including an update of facet joint interventions from 2018 to 2020, with analysis of the impact of COVID-19 pandemic in managing chronic spinal pain utilizing facet joint interventions in the fee-for-service Medicare population of the United States. METHODS: The present investigation was designed to assess utilization patterns and variables of facet joint interventions, in managing chronic spinal pain from 2010 to 2020 in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population in the United States (US), and how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted these utilization patterns. Data for the analysis were obtained from the master database from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) physician/supplier procedure summary from 2000 to 2020. RESULTS: Results of this analysis showed significant impact of COVID-19 with overall decrease of 18.5% of all facet joint interventions per 100,000 Medicare population compared to 20.2 and 20.5% decrease for lumbar and cervical facet joint injections, 15 and 13.1% decrease per 100,000 Medicare population of lumbosacral and cervicothoracic facet joint neurolysis procedures. The results are significant in that comparative analysis from 2000 to 2010 and 2010 to 2019 showing an annual increase of 14.4 vs. 2.2%, illustrating a decelerating pattern. There were also significant growth patterns noted with decreases in facet joint injections and nerve blocks compared to facet joint neurolytic procedures. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis shows a significant effect of COVID-19 producing an overall decrease in utilization of facet joint interventions relative to pre-COVID data. Further, the analysis demonstrates continued deceleration of utilization patterns of facet joint interventions compared to the periods of 2000-2010 and 2010-2019.

Comparative Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Cochrane Review of Epidural Injections for Lumbar Radiculopathy or Sciatica.

BACKGROUND: Epidural injections are among the most commonly performed procedures for managing low back and lower extremity pain. Pinto et al and Chou et al previously performed systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which, along with a recent update from Oliveira et al showing the lack of effectiveness of epidural steroid injections in managing lumbar disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and radiculopathy. In contrast to these papers, multiple other systematic reviews and meta-analyses have supported the effectiveness and use of epidural injections utilizing fluoroscopically guided techniques. A major flaw in the review can be related to attributing active-controlled trials to placebo-controlled trials. The assumption that local anesthetics do not provide sustained benefit, despite extensive evidence that local anesthetics provide long-term relief, similar to a combination of local anesthetic with steroids is flawed. STUDY DESIGN: The Cochrane Review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain with sciatica or lumbar radiculopathy were reanalyzed using systematic methodology and meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES: To re-evaluate Cochrane data on RCTs of epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain with sciatica or lumbar radiculopathy utilizing qualitative and quantitative techniques with dual-arm and single-arm analysis. METHODS: In this systematic review, we have used the same RCTs from the Cochrane Review of a minimum of 20% change in pain scale or significant pain relief of >= 50%. The outcome measures were pain relief and functional status improvement. Significant improvement was defined as 50% or greater pain relief and functional status improvement. Our review was performed utilizing the Cochrane Review methodologic quality assessment and the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB). Evidence was summarized utilizing the principles of best evidence synthesis and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system. Clinical relevance of the pragmatic nature of each study was assessed. RESULTS: In evaluating the RCTs in the Cochrane Review, 10 trials were performed with fluoroscopic guidance. Utilizing conventional dual-arm and single-arm meta-analysis, the evidence is vastly different from the interpretation of the data within the Cochrane Review. The overall combined evidence is Level I, or strong evidence, at one and 3 months, and Level II, or moderate evidence, at 6 and 12 months. LIMITATIONS: The limitation of this study is that only data contained in the Cochrane Review were analyzed. CONCLUSION: A comparative systematic review and meta-analysis of the Cochrane Review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of epidural injections in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain with sciatica or lumbar radiculopathy yielded different results. This review, based on the evidence derived from placebo-controlled trials and active-controlled trials showed Level I, or strong evidence, at one and 3 months and Level II at 6 and 12 months. This review once again emphasizes the importance of the allocation of studies to placebo-control and active-control groups, utilizing standards of practice with inclusion of only the studies performed under fluoroscopic guidance.

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

BACKGROUND: Chronic spinal pain is the most prevalent chronic disease with employment of multiple modes of interventional techniques including epidural interventions. Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, systematic reviews, and guidelines have been published. The recent review of the utilization patterns and expenditures show that there has been a decline in utilization of epidural injections with decrease in inflation adjusted costs from 2009 to 2018. The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) published guidelines for interventional techniques in 2013, and guidelines for facet joint interventions in 2020. Consequently, these guidelines have been prepared to update previously existing guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based guidance in performing therapeutic epidural procedures, including caudal, interlaminar in lumbar, cervical, and thoracic spinal regions, transforaminal in lumbar spine, and percutaneous adhesiolysis in the lumbar spine. METHODS: The methodology utilized included the development of objective and key questions with utilization of trustworthy standards. The literature pertaining to all aspects of epidural interventions was viewed with best evidence synthesis of available literature and  recommendations were provided. RESULTS: In preparation of the guidelines, extensive literature review was performed. In addition to review of multiple manuscripts in reference to utilization, expenditures, anatomical and pathophysiological considerations, pharmacological and harmful effects of drugs and procedures, for evidence synthesis we have included 47 systematic reviews and 43 RCTs covering all epidural interventions to meet the objectives.The evidence recommendations are as follows: Disc herniation: Based on relevant, high-quality fluoroscopically guided epidural injections, with or without steroids, and results of previous systematic reviews, the evidence is Level I for caudal epidural injections, lumbar interlaminar epidural injections, lumbar transforaminal epidural injections, and cervical interlaminar epidural injections with strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness.The evidence for percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing disc herniation based on one high-quality, placebo-controlled RCT is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement in patients nonresponsive to conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. For thoracic disc herniation, based on one relevant, high-quality RCT of thoracic epidural with fluoroscopic guidance, with or without steroids, the evidence is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness.Spinal stenosis: The evidence based on one high-quality RCT in each category the evidence is Level III to II for fluoroscopically guided caudal epidural injections with moderate to strong recommendation and Level II for fluoroscopically guided lumbar and cervical interlaminar epidural injections with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness.The evidence for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections is Level IV to III with moderate recommendation with fluoroscopically guided lumbar transforaminal epidural injections for long-term improvement. The evidence for percutaneous adhesiolysis in lumbar stenosis based on relevant, moderate to high quality RCTs, observational studies, and systematic reviews is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement after failure of conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. Axial discogenic pain: The evidence for axial discogenic pain without facet joint pain or sacroiliac joint pain in the lumbar and cervical spine with fluoroscopically guided caudal, lumbar and cervical interlaminar epidural injections, based on one relevant high quality RCT in each category is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement, with or without steroids. Post-surgery syndrome: The evidence for lumbar and cervical post-surgery syndrome based on one relevant, high-quality RCT with fluoroscopic guidance for caudal and cervical interlaminar epidural injections, with or without steroids, is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement. For percutaneous adhesiolysis, based on multiple moderate to high-quality RCTs and systematic reviews, the evidence is Level I with strong recommendation for long-term improvement after failure of conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of these guidelines include a continued paucity of high-quality studies for some techniques and various conditions including spinal stenosis, post-surgery syndrome, and discogenic pain. CONCLUSIONS: These epidural intervention guidelines including percutaneous adhesiolysis were prepared with a comprehensive review of the literature with methodologic quality assessment and determination of level of evidence with strength of recommendations.

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.

What Can Mimic Multiple Sclerosis?

This article discusses mimics of multiple sclerosis (MS). Excluded in this discussion are neuromyelitis optica and vasculitis, discussed in other articles in this journal. Covered entities include posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome, reversible vasoconstriction syndrome, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, Sussac's Syndrome, and chronic idiopathic demyelinating polyneuropathy. There are also multiple infectious entities that mimic MS including; progressive multi-focal leukoencephalopathy (PML), Toxoplasmosis, Tuberculosis, Herpes Simplex Virus, Cytomegalovirus, Varicella zoster virus, Epstein Barr virus, Cryptococcus and Human immunodeficiency virus. In addition, there are leukoencephalopathies that can present in adulthood including Adrenoleukodystrophy, Metachromatic leukodystrophy, Cerebral autosomal dominant idiopathic leukoencephalopathy, Leigh's and Alexanders disease that could be mistaken for MS.

CNS Vasculitis-An Overview of This Multiple Sclerosis Mimic: Clinical and MRI Implications.

This article discusses central nervous system vasculitis, a clinical and MRI mimic of multiple sclerosis (MS). There is a paucity of discussion of vasculitis in the radiology literature, and many MS neurologists believe that vasculitis is underdiagnosed. Therefore, the authors hope that the readers will find this paper increases their knowledge about CNS vasculitis and improves their ability to differentiate MS from vasculitis.

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.

Bone Marrow Concentrate (BMC) Therapy in Musculoskeletal Disorders: Evidence-Based Policy Position Statement of American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP).

BACKGROUND: The use of bone marrow concentrate (BMC) for treatment of musculoskeletal disorders has become increasingly popular over the last several years, as technology has improved along with the need for better solutions for these pathologies. The use of cellular tissue raises a number of issues regarding the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) regulation in classifying these treatments as a drug versus just autologous tissue transplantation. In the case of BMC in musculoskeletal and spine care, this determination will likely hinge on whether BMC is homologous to the musculoskeletal system and spine. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review is to describe the current regulatory guidelines set in place by the FDA, specifically the terminology around "minimal manipulation" and "homologous use" within Regulation 21 CFR Part 1271, and specifically how this applies to the use of BMC in interventional musculoskeletal medicine. METHODS: The methodology utilized here is similar to the methodology utilized in preparation of multiple guidelines employing the experience of a panel of experts from various medical specialties and subspecialties from differing regions of the world. The collaborators who developed these position statements have submitted their appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest. Trustworthy standards were employed in the creation of these position statements. The literature pertaining to BMC, its effectiveness, adverse consequences, FDA regulations, criteria for meeting the standards of minimal manipulation, and homologous use were comprehensively reviewed using a best evidence synthesis of the available and relevant literature. RESULTS/Summary of Evidence: In conjunction with evidence-based medicine principles, the following position statements were developed: Statement 1: Based on a review of the literature in discussing the preparation of BMC using accepted methodologies, there is strong evidence of minimal manipulation in its preparation, and moderate evidence for homologous utility for various musculoskeletal and spinal conditions qualifies for the same surgical exemption. Statement 2: Assessment of clinical effectiveness based on extensive literature shows emerging evidence for multiple musculoskeletal and spinal conditions. • The evidence is highest for knee osteoarthritis with level II evidence based on relevant systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies. There is level III evidence for knee cartilage conditions. • Based on the relevant systematic reviews, randomized trials, and nonrandomized studies, the evidence for disc injections is level III. • Based on the available literature without appropriate systematic reviews or randomized controlled trials, the evidence for all other conditions is level IV or limited for BMC injections. Statement 3: Based on an extensive review of the literature, there is strong evidence for the safety of BMC when performed by trained physicians with the appropriate precautions under image guidance utilizing a sterile technique. Statement 4: Musculoskeletal disorders and spinal disorders with related disability for economic and human toll, despite advancements with a wide array of treatment modalities. Statement 5: The 21st Century Cures Act was enacted in December 2016 with provisions to accelerate the development and translation of promising new therapies into clinical evaluation and use. Statement 6: Development of cell-based therapies is rapidly proliferating in a number of disease areas, including musculoskeletal disorders and spine. With mixed results, these therapies are greatly outpacing the evidence. The reckless publicity with unsubstantiated claims of beneficial outcomes having putative potential, and has led the FDA Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to issue multiple warnings. Thus the US FDA is considering the appropriateness of using various therapies, including BMC, for homologous use. Statement 7: Since the 1980's and the description of mesenchymal stem cells by Caplan et al, (now called medicinal signaling cells), the use of BMC in musculoskeletal and spinal disorders has been increasing in the management of pain and promoting tissue healing. Statement 8: The Public Health Service Act (PHSA) of the FDA requires minimal manipulation under same surgical procedure exemption. Homologous use of BMC in musculoskeletal and spinal disorders is provided by preclinical and clinical evidence. Statement 9: If the FDA does not accept BMC as homologous, then it will require an Investigational New Drug (IND) classification with FDA (351) cellular drug approval for use. Statement 10: This literature review and these position statements establish compliance with the FDA's intent and corroborates its present description of BMC as homologous with same surgical exemption, and exempt from IND, for use of BMC for treatment of musculoskeletal tissues, such as cartilage, bones, ligaments, muscles, tendons, and spinal discs. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the review of all available and pertinent literature, multiple position statements have been developed showing that BMC in musculoskeletal disorders meets the criteria of minimal manipulation and homologous use. KEY WORDS: Cell-based therapies, bone marrow concentrate, mesenchymal stem cells, medicinal signaling cells, Food and Drug Administration, human cells, tissues, and cellular tissue-based products, Public Health Service Act (PHSA), minimal manipulation, homologous use, same surgical procedure exemption.

Responsible, Safe, and Effective Use of Biologics in the Management of Low Back Pain: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Regenerative medicine is a medical subspecialty that seeks to recruit and enhance the body's own inherent healing armamentarium in the treatment of patient pathology. This therapy's intention is to assist in the repair, and to potentially replace or restore damaged tissue through the use of autologous or allogenic biologics. This field is rising like a Phoenix from the ashes of underperforming conventional therapy midst the hopes and high expectations of patients and medical personnel alike. But, because this is a relatively new area of medicine that has yet to substantiate its outcomes, care must be taken in its public presentation and promises as well as in its use. OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance for the responsible, safe, and effective use of biologic therapy in the lumbar spine. To present a template on which to build standardized therapies using biologics. To ground potential administrators of biologics in the knowledge of the current outcome statistics and to stimulate those interested in providing biologic therapy to participate in high quality research that will ultimately promote and further advance this area of medicine. METHODS: The methodology used has included the development of objectives and key questions. A panel of experts from various medical specialties and subspecialties as well as differing regions collaborated in the formation of these guidelines and submitted (if any) their appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest. Trustworthy standards were employed in the creation of these guidelines. The literature pertaining to regenerative medicine, its effectiveness, and adverse consequences was thoroughly reviewed using a best evidence synthesis of the available literature. The grading for recommendation was provided as described by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE: Lumbar Disc Injections: Based on the available evidence regarding the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP), including one high-quality randomized controlled trial (RCT), multiple moderate-quality observational studies, a single-arm meta-analysis and evidence from a systematic review, the qualitative evidence has been assessed as Level III (on a scale of Level I through V) using a qualitative modified approach to the grading of evidence based on best-evidence synthesis. Based on the available evidence regarding the use of medicinal signaling/ mesenchymal stem cell (MSCs) with a high-quality RCT, multiple moderate-quality observational studies, a single-arm meta-analysis, and 2 systematic reviews, the qualitative evidence has been assessed as Level III (on a scale of Level I through V) using a qualitative modified approach to the grading of evidence based on best evidence synthesis. Lumbar Epidural Injections Based on one high-quality RCT, multiple relevant moderate-quality observational studies and a single-arm meta-analysis, the qualitative evidence has been assessed as Level IV (on a scale of Level I through V) using a qualitative modified approach to the grading of evidence based on best evidence synthesis. Lumbar Facet Joint Injections Based on one high-quality RCT and 2 moderate-quality observational studies, the qualitative evidence for facet joint injections with PRP has been assessed as Level IV (on a scale of Level I through V) using a qualitative modified approach to the grading of evidence based on best evidence synthesis. Sacroiliac Joint Injection Based on one high-quality RCT, one moderate-quality observational study, and one low-quality case report, the qualitative evidence has been assessed as Level IV (on a scale of Level I through V) using a qualitative modified approach to the grading of evidence based on best evidence synthesis. CONCLUSION: Based on the evidence synthesis summarized above, there is Level III evidence for intradiscal injections of PRP and MSCs, whereas the evidence is considered Level IV for lumbar facet joint, lumbar epidural, and sacroiliac joint injections of PRP, (on a scale of Level I through V) using a qualitative modified approach to the grading of evidence based on best evidence synthesis.Regenerative therapy should be provided to patients following diagnostic evidence of a need for biologic therapy, following a thorough discussion of the patient's needs and expectations, after properly educating the patient on the use and administration of biologics and in full light of the patient's medical history. Regenerative therapy may be provided independently or in conjunction with other modalities of treatment including a structured exercise program, physical therapy, behavioral therapy, and along with the appropriate conventional medical therapy as necessary. Appropriate precautions should be taken into consideration and followed prior to performing biologic therapy. Multiple guidelines from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), potential limitations in the use of biologic therapy and the appropriate requirements for compliance with the FDA have been detailed in these guidelines. KEY WORDS: Regenerative medicine, platelet-rich plasma, medicinal signaling cells, mesenchymal stem cells, stromal vascular fraction, bone marrow concentrate, chronic low back pain, discogenic pain, facet joint pain, Food and Drug Administration, minimal manipulation, evidence synthesis.

Responsible, Safe, and Effective Use of Antithrombotics and Anticoagulants in Patients Undergoing Interventional Techniques: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Interventional pain management involves diagnosis and treatment of chronic pain. This specialty utilizes minimally invasive procedures to target therapeutics to the central nervous system and the spinal column. A subset of patients encountered in interventional pain are medicated using anticoagulant or antithrombotic drugs to mitigate thrombosis risk. Since these drugs target the clotting system, bleeding risk is a consideration accompanying interventional procedures. Importantly, discontinuation of anticoagulant or antithrombotic drugs exposes underlying thrombosis risk, which can lead to significant morbidity and mortality especially in those with coronary artery or cerebrovascular disease. This review summarizes the literature and provides guidelines based on best evidence for patients receiving anti-clotting therapy during interventional pain procedures. STUDY DESIGN: Best evidence synthesis. OBJECTIVE: To provide a current and concise appraisal of the literature regarding an assessment of the bleeding risk during interventional techniques for patients taking anticoagulant and/or antithrombotic medications. METHODS: A review of the available literature published on bleeding risk during interventional pain procedures, practice patterns and perioperative management of anticoagulant and antithrombotic therapy was conducted. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of EMBASE and PubMed from 1966 through August 2018 and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. RESULTS: 1. There is good evidence for risk stratification by categorizing multiple interventional techniques into low-risk, moderate-risk, and high-risk. Also, their risk should be upgraded based on other risk factors.2. There is good evidence for the risk of thromboembolic events in patients who interrupt antithrombotic therapy. 3. There is good evidence supporting discontinuation of low dose aspirin for high risk and moderate risk procedures for at least 3 days, and there is moderate evidence that these may be continued for low risk or some intermediate risk procedures.4. There is good evidence that discontinuation of anticoagulant therapy with warfarin, heparin, dabigatran (Pradaxa®), argatroban (Acova®), bivalirudin (Angiomax®), lepirudin (Refludan®), desirudin (Iprivask®), hirudin, apixaban (Eliquis®), rivaroxaban (Xarelto®), edoxaban (Savaysa®, Lixiana®), Betrixaban(Bevyxxa®), fondaparinux (Arixtra®) prior to interventional techniques with individual consideration of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the drugs and individual risk factors increases safety.5. There is good evidence that diagnosis of epidural hematoma is based on severe pain at the site of the injection, rapid neurological deterioration, and MRI with surgical decompression with progressive neurological dysfunction to avoid neurological sequelae.6. There is good evidence that if thromboembolic risk is high, low molecular weight heparin bridge therapy can be instituted during cessation of the anticoagulant, and the low molecular weight heparin can be discontinued 24 hours before the pain procedure.7. There is fair evidence that the risk of thromboembolic events is higher than that of epidural hematoma formation with the interruption of antiplatelet therapy preceding interventional techniques, though both risks are significant.8. There is fair evidence that multiple variables including anatomic pathology with spinal stenosis and ankylosing spondylitis; high risk procedures and moderate risk procedures combined with anatomic risk factors; bleeding observed during the procedure, and multiple attempts during the procedures increase the risk for bleeding complications and epidural hematoma.9. There is fair evidence that discontinuation of phosphodiesterase inhibitors is optional (dipyridamole [Persantine], cilostazol [Pletal]. However, there is also fair evidence to discontinue Aggrenox [dipyridamole plus aspirin]) 3 days prior to undergoing interventional techniques of moderate and high risk. 10. There is fair evidence to make shared decision making between the patient and the treating physicians with the treating physician and to consider all the appropriate risks associated with continuation or discontinuation of antithrombotic or anticoagulant therapy.11. There is fair evidence that if thromboembolic risk is high antithrombotic therapy may be resumed 12 hours after the interventional procedure is performed.12. There is limited evidence that discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel [Plavix®], ticlopidine [Ticlid®], Ticagrelor [Brilinta®] and prasugrel [Effient®]) avoids complications of significant bleeding and epidural hematomas.13. There is very limited evidence supporting the continuation or discontinuation of most NSAIDs, excluding aspirin, for 1 to 2 days and some 4 to 10 days, since these are utilized for pain management without cardiac or cerebral protective effect. LIMITATIONS: The continued paucity of the literature with discordant recommendations. CONCLUSION: Based on the survey of current literature, and published clinical guidelines, recommendations for patients presenting with ongoing antithrombotic therapy prior to interventional techniques are variable, and are based on comprehensive analysis of each patient and the risk-benefit analysis of intervention. KEY WORDS: Perioperative bleeding, bleeding risk, practice patterns, anticoagulant therapy, antithrombotic therapy, interventional techniques, safety precautions, pain.

Imaging the Cervical Vasculature.

There are many ways to image the cervical vasculature. Each of the imaging techniques will be discussed in detail, including the method of performance, the quality of the images, the advantages and disadvantages compared to other techniques, and the potential complications. The disease entities will be discussed and illustrated with pathologically and clinically proven case material.

Ectopic Acromegaly Arising from a Pituitary Adenoma within the Bony Intersphenoid Septum of a Patient with Empty Sella Syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the work-up and treatment of rare ectopic acromegaly caused by a biopsy-proven somatotroph pituitary adenoma located within the bony intersphenoid septum of a patient with empty sella syndrome (ESS). METHODS: We report the presentation, clinical course, diagnostic work-up, and lesion localization and treatment challenges encountered in a 55-year-old patient, with a brief review of relevant literature. RESULTS: A 55-year-old African-American man presented with acromegaly and ESS. Attempts to definitively localize the causative tumor were unsuccessful, though petrosal sinus sampling supported central growth hormone production and imaging suggested bone-enclosed subsellar pituitary tissue. Endoscopic endonasal transphenoidal exploration was undertaken with resection of a somatotroph pituitary microadenoma, and subsequent clinical improvement and biochemical remission. Retrospective review revealed the patient's pituitary to have been located ectopically within a unique bony intersphenoid septum. CONCLUSION: This report describes the first known case of an ectopic pituitary adenoma located within the midline bony intersphenoid septum, which we postulate to have resulted from anomalous embryological pituitary migration. Intra-intersphenoid septal tumors should be considered in cases of apparent central acromegaly with ESS or absence of tumor tissue within the paranasal sinuses or other peripheral locations. INDEXING: Acromegaly, ESS, pituitary adenoma, sphenoid sinus septum.

Initial clinical use of a novel mechanical thrombectomy device, XCOILTM, in hemodialysis graft and fistula declot procedures.

PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a novel catheter-based mechanical thrombectomy device, XCOILTM, as a first line therapy to restore patency of thrombosed dialysis grafts and fistulae. METHODS: In 2010, 18 consecutive/sequential patients (11 male, 7 female; median age, 52 years; age range, 32-69 years) with occluded arteriovenous grafts (n=15) or fistulae (n=3) were treated with XCOILTM (NexGen Medical Systems Inc.) without adjunctive thrombolytic drugs. XCOILTM was advanced distal to the thrombus within the outflow vein as well as distal to the arterial inflow platelet thrombin plug, using a 4F angiographic catheter. The percentage of thrombus cleared, primary patency, procedure time, and XCOILTM performance were documented. RESULTS: Thrombosis occurred 1-30 days prior to the procedure. Thrombosed segments of graft/fistula measured 10-50 cm. Pre- and postprocedure angiography demonstrated that in 15 of 18 cases (83%) XCOILTM removed 80%-100% of the venous outflow thrombus. In 11 of 14 cases (79%), the platelet thrombin plug was also removed. Thrombectomy procedure time averaged 8 min, with one to three passes with the XCOILTM required. No evidence of distal embolization or graft/vessel injury was found on angiography following clot removal. In four cases in whom patency was not restored with XCOILTM, subsequent use of other clot removal devices also failed to restore patency. In one case with severe venous stenosis, the device failed to deploy and the thrombus was not captured. No intraprocedural complications related to XCOILTM use occurred. CONCLUSION: XCOILTM is an effective and safe first-line therapy option for the treatment of thrombosed hemodialysis grafts/fistulae. Rapid removal of intact thrombus and platelet thrombin plug can be achieved without adjunctive thrombolytics.

Temporal evolution on MRI of successful treatment of rabies.

Rabies is a nearly uniformly fatal disease for individuals who develop clinical symptoms. We report a case of a patient with paralytic rabies who survived after being treated with what is now known as Milwaukee protocol. This is only the third known case of rabies survival after being treated with the protocol. We present sequential magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings of the brain and lumbar spine throughout the course of her treatment. In doing so, we provide insight into the temporal evolution of MRI findings in the brain and lumbar spine.

Antegrade rheolytic thrombectomy and thrombolysis for superior sagittal sinus thrombosis using burr hole access.

Superior sagittal sinus (SSS) thrombosis has high morbidity and mortality, and urgent recanalization is critical for severe cases. Standard endovascular techniques for thrombolysis and thrombectomy use retrograde venous access, an approach that may be unsuccessful in cases with extensive firm clot burden involving the dural sinuses distal to the SSS. An anterior open transcranial approach to the SSS for catheter sheath placement to facilitate antegrade mechanical thrombectomy and thrombolysis of the SSS and more distal sinuses has not been previously described. Here we describe a case in which multiple unsuccessful attempts at retrograde endovascular access were attempted. Thus, a burr hole over the anterior SSS was performed for daily endovascular antegrade procedures using the Angiojet rheolytic catheter device and chemical thrombolysis. Near-complete recanalization of the SSS was achieved with venous outflow via dilated left transverse and left sigmoid sinuses, along with significant collateral flow in multiple cerebral veins.

Antegrade rheolytic thrombectomy and thrombolysis for superior sagittal sinus thrombosis using burr hole access.

Superior sagittal sinus (SSS) thrombosis has high morbidity and mortality, and urgent recanalization is critical for severe cases. Standard endovascular techniques for thrombolysis and thrombectomy use retrograde venous access, an approach that may be unsuccessful in cases with extensive firm clot burden involving the dural sinuses distal to the SSS. An anterior open transcranial approach to the SSS for catheter sheath placement to facilitate antegrade mechanical thrombectomy and thrombolysis of the SSS and more distal sinuses has not been previously described. Here we describe a case in which multiple unsuccessful attempts at retrograde endovascular access were attempted. Thus, a burr hole over the anterior SSS was performed for daily endovascular antegrade procedures using the Angiojet rheolytic catheter device and chemical thrombolysis. Near-complete recanalization of the SSS was achieved with venous outflow via dilated left transverse and left sigmoid sinuses, along with significant collateral flow in multiple cerebral veins.

Gadobutrol in the central nervous system at three doses: results from a phase II, randomized, multicenter trial.

PURPOSE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of three doses of gadobutrol and determine the minimum effective dose for contrast-enhanced MRI of the central nervous system (CNS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a Phase II, multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group controlled study in subjects referred for contrast-enhanced MRI of the CNS. Subjects were randomized to receive gadobutrol 0.03, 0.1, or 0.3 mmol/kg body weight, and underwent unenhanced, gadobutrol-enhanced, and comparator-enhanced MRI scans. Three blinded readers assessed the images. Primary efficacy variables were number of lesions detected, border delineation, contrast enhancement, and internal morphology. RESULTS: Of the 229 randomized subjects, 173 were evaluated for efficacy. Clinically meaningful improvements in lesion border delineation, contrast enhancement, and internal morphology were observed for 0.1 mmol/kg gadobutrol. Pair-wise comparisons of a composite score of the four primary variables showed the 0.1 mmol/kg dose to be statistically superior to the 0.03 mmol/kg dose (P = 0.003). The 0.3 mmol/kg dose showed no statistically significant difference with the 0.1 mmol/kg dose. Twenty-two (9.8%) subjects reported at least one treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). No TEAE was reported at an incidence >3.5%. CONCLUSION: The 0.1 mmol/kg dose of gadobutrol was effective and well tolerated for contrast-enhanced MRI of the CNS.

Formation and function of acute stroke-ready hospitals within a stroke system of care recommendations from the brain attack coalition.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Many patients with an acute stroke live in areas without ready access to a Primary or Comprehensive Stroke Center. The formation of care facilities that meet the needs of these patients might improve their care and outcomes and guide them and emergency responders to such centers within a stroke system of care. METHODS: The Brain Attack Coalition conducted an electronic search of the English medical literature from January 2000 to December 2012 to identify care elements and processes shown to be beneficial for acute stroke care. We used evidence grading and consensus paradigms to synthesize recommendations for Acute Stroke-Ready Hospitals (ASRHs). RESULTS: Several key elements for an ASRH were identified, including acute stroke teams, written care protocols, involvement of emergency medical services and emergency department, and rapid laboratory and neuroimaging testing. Unique aspects include the use of telemedicine, hospital transfer protocols, and drip and ship therapies. Emergent therapies include the use of intravenous tissue-type plasminogen activator and the reversal of coagulopathies. Although many of the care elements are similar to those of a Primary Stroke Center, compliance rates of ≥67% are suggested in recognition of the staffing, logistical, and financial challenges faced by rural facilities. CONCLUSIONS: ASRHs will form the foundation for acute stroke care in many settings. Recommended elements of an ASRH build on those proven to improve care and outcomes at Primary Stroke Centers. The ASRH will be a key component for patient care within an evolving stroke system of care.

Anomalous vertebral artery injured during anterior cervical discectomy: a case report.

STUDY DESIGN: Case report. OBJECTIVE: To describe treatment and injury prevention from discectomy with a newly described vertebral artery anomaly. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cervical segment vertebral artery (VA) anomalies of various types are described with the least common type involving erosion into the vertebral body medial to the uncinate process. The morphology of these includes return to the lateral position at the disc level where they have been immune to anterior cervical discectomy surgery. This case report demonstrates the first published account of a medial vertebral artery adjacent to a disc and injured by discectomy alone.VA injury is a serious complication with a significant percentage of neurological injury and death. The lesion was missed by a neuroradiologist reading the thin slice preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) study. Subsequently, 6 additional specialists blinded to the study all missed the diagnosis. The difficulty of diagnosis is similar to another study where 6 neuroradiologists missed 100% of diagnosis of similar lesions on 49 MRI studies. METHODS: A 55-year-old female with left-sided weakness in the neck and shoulder and C5-C6 stenosis underwent anterior cervical microdiskectomy. When a fine-tipped drill bit was used to smoothen a slight convexity on the C6 endplate, high pressure and volume hemorrhage started. After tamponade, the patient was brought directly to angiography and CT scanning. Several days later, the patient underwent endovascular evaluation and stenting for a pseudoaneurysm. RESULTS: No neurological deficits occurred from the complication. Cervical discomfort and headache symptoms partially improved. CONCLUSION: A previously undescribed medial vertebral artery anomaly involving the cervical disc level is documented with near disastrous hemorrhage from simple anterior discectomy. The rate of preoperative diagnosis from MRI scans is dismal. Preoperative studies should be scrutinized with suspicion and any questionable area studied further regardless of a negative diagnosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.