Trends in non-focal neurological chief complaints and CT angiography utilization among adults in the emergency department.

Prudent imaging use is essential for cost reduction and efficient patient triage. Recent efforts have focused on head and neck CTA in patients with emergent concerns for non-focal neurological complaints, but have failed to demonstrate whether increases in utilization have resulted in better care. The objective of this study was to examine trends in head and neck CTA ordering and determine whether a correlation exists between imaging utilization and positivity rates. This is a single-center retrospective observational study at a quaternary referral center. This study includes patients presenting with headache and/or dizziness to the emergency department between January 2017 and December 2021. Patients who received a head and neck CTA were compared to those who did not. The main outcomes included annual head and neck CTA utilization and positivity rates, defined as the percent of scans with attributable acute pathologies. Among 24,892 emergency department visits, 2264 (9.1%) underwent head and neck CTA imaging. The percentage of patients who received a scan over the study period increased from 7.89% (422/5351) in 2017 to 13.24% (662/5001) in 2021, representing a 67.4% increase from baseline (OR, 1.14; 95% CI 1.11-1.18; P < .001). The positivity rate, or the percentage of scans ordered that revealed attributable acute pathology, dropped from 16.8% (71/422) in 2017 to 10.4% (69/662) in 2021 (OR, 0.86; 95% CI 0.79-0.94; P = .001), a 38% reduction in positive examinations. Throughout the study period, there was a 67.4% increase in head and neck CTA ordering with a concomitant 38.1% decrease in positivity rate.

Effectiveness of Facet Joint Nerve Blocks in Managing Chronic Axial Spinal Pain of Facet Joint Origin: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic axial spinal pain is one of the major causes of disability. Literature shows that spending on low back and neck pain and musculoskeletal disorders continues to escalate, not only with disability, but also with increasing costs, accounting for the highest amount of various disease categories. Based on the current literature utilizing controlled diagnostic blocks, facet joints, nerve root dura, and sacroiliac joints have been shown as potential sources of spinal pain. Therapeutic facet joint interventional modalities of axial spinal pain include radiofrequency neurotomy, therapeutic facet joint nerve blocks, and therapeutic intraarticular injections. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness of facet joint nerve blocks as a therapeutic modality in managing chronic axial spinal pain of facet joint origin. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. METHODS: The available literature on facet joint nerve blocks in axial spinal pain was reviewed. The quality assessment criteria utilized were the Cochrane review criteria to assess risk of bias, the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) for randomized therapeutic trials, and the Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized Studies (IPM-QRBNR) for nonrandomized studies. The evidence was graded according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) assessment criteria. The level of evidence was based on best evidence synthesis with modified grading of qualitative evidence from Level I to Level V. A comprehensive literature search of multiple databases from 1966 to July 2023, including manual searches of the bibliography of known review articles was performed. Quality assessment of the included studies and best evidence synthesis were incorporated into qualitative and quantitative evidence synthesis. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients with significant relief and functional improvement of greater than 50% of at least 3 months. Duration of relief was categorized as short-term (less than 6 months) and long-term (greater than 6 months). RESULTS: This assessment identified 8 high-quality and one moderate quality RCTs and 8 high quality and 4 moderate quality non-randomized studies with application of spinal facet joint nerve blocks as therapeutic modalities. However, based on the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) assessment, only 3 of the 21 studies showed high levels of evidence and clinical applicability, with 11 studies showing moderate levels of GRADE evidence and clinical applicability. LIMITATIONS: Despite the availability of multiple studies, the paucity of literature is considered as the major drawback. Based on Grading of Recommendations, Assessment Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) assessment, only 3 of the 21 studies showed high levels of evidence and clinical applicability. CONCLUSION: Based on the present systematic review and meta-analysis with 9 RCTs and 12 non-randomized studies, the evidence is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for therapeutic facet joint nerve blocks in managing spinal facet joint pain.

Financial Viability of the No Surprises Act Independent Dispute Resolution Process: Radiology and Other Hospital-Based Specialties.

BACKGROUND. The federal No Surprises Act (NSA), designed to eliminate surprise medical billing for out-of-network (OON) care for circumstances beyond patients' control, established the independent dispute resolution (IDR) process to settle clinician-payer payment disputes for OON care. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to assess the fraction of OON claims for which radiologists and other hospital-based specialists can expect to at least break even when challenging payer-determined payments through the NSA IDR process, as a measure of the process's financial viability. METHODS. This retrospective study extracted claims from a national commercial database (Optum's deidentified Clinformatics Data Mart) for hospital-based specialties occurring on the same day as in-network emergency department (ED) visits or inpatient stays from January 2017 to December 2021. OON claims were identified. OON claims batching was simulated using IDR rules. Maximum potential recovered payments from the IDR process were estimated as the difference between the charges and the allowed amount. The percentages of claims for which the maximum potential payment and one-quarter of this amount (a more realistic payment recovery estimate) would exceed IDR fees were determined, using US$150 and US$450 fee thresholds to approximate the range of final 2024 IDR fees. These values represented the percentage of OON claims that would be financially viable candidates for IDR submission. RESULTS. Among 76,221,264 claims for hospital-based specialties associated with in-network ED visits or inpatient stays, 1,482,973 (1.9%) were OON. The maximum potential payment exceeded fee thresholds of US$150 and US$450 for 55.0% and 32.1%, respectively, of batched OON claims for radiologists and 76.8% and 61.3% of batched OON claims for all other hospital-based specialties combined. At payment of one-quarter of that amount, these values were 26.9% and 10.6%, respectively, for radiologists and 56.6% and 38.4% for all other hospital-based specialties combined. CONCLUSION. The IDR process would be financially unviable for a substantial fraction of OON claims for hospital-based specialists (more so for radiology than for other such specialties). CLINICAL IMPACT. Although the NSA enacted important patient protections, IDR fees limit clinicians' opportunities to dispute payer-determined payments and potentially undermine their bargaining power in contract negotiations. Therefore, IDR rulemaking may negatively impact patient access to in-network care.

Informed consent practices for acute stroke therapy: principles, challenges and emerging opportunities.

IMPORTANCE: Informed consent (IC) plays a crucial yet underexplored role in acute stroke treatment, particularly in the context of intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) and endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). This narrative review examines data on current IC practices in acute ischemic stroke management, specifically for patients treated with IVT or EVT, with the aim of identifying areas for improvement and strategies to enhance the IC process. OBSERVATIONS: IC practices for IVT vary significantly among hospitals and physicians with the frequency of always requiring consent ranging from 21 to 37%. Factors influencing IC for IVT include patient decision-making capacity, standard of care, time sensitive nature of treatments, legal and moral obligations, risk of complications, physician age and speciality, treatment delays, and hospital size. Consent requirements tend to be stricter for patients presenting within the 3-4.5-h window. The content and style of information shared as part of the IC process revealed discrepancies in the disclosure of stroke diagnosis, IVT mechanism, benefits, and risks. Research on IC practices for EVT is scarce, highlighting a concerning gap in the available evidence base. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This review underscores the significant variability and knowledge gaps in IC for EVT and IVT. Challenges related to decision-making capacity assessment and the absence of standardised guidance substantially contributes to these gaps. Future initiatives should focus on simplifying information delivery to patients, developing formal tools for assessing capacity, standardising ethical frameworks to guide physicians when patients lack capacity and harmonizing IC standards across sites. The ultimate goal is to enhance IC practices and uphold patient autonomy, while ensuring timely treatment initiation.

Comprehensive, Evidence-Based, Consensus Guidelines for Prescription of Opioids for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain from the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP).

BACKGROUND: Opioid prescribing in the United States is decreasing, however, the opioid epidemic is continuing at an uncontrollable rate. Available data show a significant number of opioid deaths, primarily associated with illicit fentanyl use. It is interesting to also note that the data show no clear correlation between opioid prescribing (either number of prescriptions or morphine milligram equivalent [MME] per capita), opioid hospitalizations, and deaths. Furthermore, the data suggest that the 2016 guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have resulted in notable problems including increased hospitalizations and mental health disorders due to the lack of appropriate opioid prescribing as well as inaptly rapid tapering or weaning processes. Consequently, when examined in light of other policies and complications caused by COVID-19, a fourth wave of the opioid epidemic has been emerging. OBJECTIVES: In light of this, we herein seek to provide guidance for the prescription of opioids for the management of chronic non-cancer pain. These clinical practice guidelines are based upon a systematic review of both clinical and epidemiological evidence and have been developed by a panel of multidisciplinary experts assessing the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations and offer a clear explanation of logical relationships between various care options and health outcomes. METHODS: The methods utilized included the development of objectives and key questions for the various facets of opioid prescribing practice. Also utilized were employment of trustworthy standards, and appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest(s). The literature pertaining to opioid use, abuse, effectiveness, and adverse consequences was reviewed. The recommendations were developed after the appropriate review of text and questions by a panel of multidisciplinary subject matter experts, who tabulated comments, incorporated changes, and developed focal responses to questions posed. The multidisciplinary panel finalized 20 guideline recommendations for prescription of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. Summary of the results showed over 90% agreement for the final 20 recommendations with strong consensus. The consensus guidelines included 4 sections specific to opioid therapy with 1) ten recommendations particular to initial steps of opioid therapy; 2) five recommendations for assessment of effectiveness of opioid therapy; 3) three recommendations regarding monitoring adherence and side effects; and 4) two general, final phase recommendations. LIMITATIONS: There is a continued paucity of literature of long-term opioid therapy addressing chronic non-cancer pain. Further, significant biases exist in the preparation of guidelines, which has led to highly variable rules and regulations across various states. CONCLUSION: These guidelines were developed based upon a comprehensive review of the literature, consensus among expert panelists, and in alignment with patient preferences, and shared decision-making so as to improve the long-term pain relief and function in patients with chronic non-cancer pain. Consequently, it was concluded - and herein recommended - that chronic opioid therapy should be provided in low doses with appropriate adherence monitoring and understanding of adverse events only to those patients with a proven medical necessity, and who exhibit stable improvement in both pain relief and activities of daily function, either independently or in conjunction with other modalities of treatments.

Comprehensive, evidence-based, consensus guidelines for prescription of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain from the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP)

Opioid prescribing in the United States is decreasing, however, the opioid epidemic is continuing at an uncontrollable rate. Available data show a significant number of opioid deaths, primarily associated with illicit fentanyl use. It is interesting to also note that the data show no clear correlation between opioid prescribing (either number of prescriptions or morphine milligram equivalent [MME] per capita), opioid hospitalizations, and deaths. Furthermore, the data suggest that the 2016 guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have resulted in notable problems including increased hospitalizations and mental health disorders due to the lack of appropriate opioid prescribing as well as inaptly rapid tapering or weaning processes. Consequently, when examined in light of other policies and complications caused by COVID-19, a fourth wave of the opioid epidemic has been emerging. In light of this, we herein seek to provide guidance for the prescription of opioids for the management of chronic non-cancer pain. These clinical practice guidelines are based upon a systematic review of both clinical and epidemiological evidence and have been developed by a panel of multidisciplinary experts assessing the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations and offer a clear explanation of logical relationships between various care options and health outcomes. The methods utilized included the development of objectives and key questions for the various facets of opioid prescribing practice. Also utilized were employment of trustworthy standards, and appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest(s). The literature pertaining to opioid use, abuse, effectiveness, and adverse consequences was reviewed. The recommendations were developed after the appropriate review of text and questions by a panel of multidisciplinary subject matter experts, who tabulated comments, incorporated changes, and developed focal responses to questions posed

Compliance and Documentation for Evaluation and Management Services in Interventional Pain Management Practice.

Evaluation of new and established patients is an integral part of interventional pain management. Over the last 3 decades, there has been significant confusion over the proper documentation for evaluation and management (E/M) services in general and for interventional pain management in particular. Interventional pain physicians have learned how to evaluate patients presenting with pain on the basis of their specialty training. Although modern training programs are introducing residents and fellows to the intricacies of E/M services and federal regulations, this has not always been the case. Multiple textbooks about pain management, physiatry, and neurology, and numerous journal articles have described the evaluation of pain patients, but they have not been specific to chronic pain patients and may not meet the regulatory perspective.A multitude of these issues led to the development of guidelines in 1995 and 1997, which were highly complicated and difficult to follow. These also led to significant criticism from clinicians. Consequently, further guidance was developed to be effective January 2021.The crucial concept in the present system of coding for E/M services is medical decision making, which includes 3 elements since 2021: 1.The number and complexity of problems addressed. 2. Amount or complexity of data to be reviewed and analyzed. 3. Risk of complications and/or morbidity or mortality of patient management. In order to select a level of E/M service, 2 of the 3 elements of medical decision making (MDM) must be met or exceeded. This is in contrast to prior guidelines wherein for new patients, all 3 elements with history, physical examination and MDM , and for established patients have been met. For ease of appreciation, an algorithmic approach created by the American Medical Association (AMA), and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) approved a new MDM table outlining all of the appropriate criteria.This review systematically describes the changes and provides an algorithmic approach for application in interventional pain management practices.

Assessment of Radiation Exposure with Mandatory Two Fluoroscopic Views for Epidural Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Various regulations and practice patterns develop on the basis of Local Coverage Determination (LCD), which are variably perceived as guidelines and/or mandated polices/ regulations. LCDs developed in 2021 and effective since December 2021 mandated a minimum of 2 views for final needle placement with contrast injection which includes both anteroposterior (AP) and lateral or oblique view. Radiation safety has been a major concern for pain physicians and multiple tools have been developed to reduce radiation dose, along with improvement in technologies to limit radiation exposure while performing fluoroscopically guided interventional procedures, with implementation of principles of As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA). The mandated 2 views of epidural injections have caused concern among some physicians, because of the potential of increased exposure to ionizing radiation, despite application of various principles to minimize radiation exposure. Others, including policymakers are of the opinion that it reduces potential abuse and improves safety. OBJECTIVE: To assess variations in the performance of epidural procedures prior to the implementation of the new LCD compared with after the implementation of the new LCD by comparing time and dosage for all types of epidural procedures. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective, case controlled, comparative evaluation of radiation exposure during epidural procedures in interventional pain management. SETTING: An interventional pain management practice and a specialty referral center in a private practice setting in the United States. METHODS: The study was performed using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) criteria. The main outcome measure was radiation exposure time measured in seconds and dose measured in mGy-kG2 (milligray to kilogray squared per procedure). RESULTS: Changes in exposure and dose varied by procedural type and location. Exposure time in seconds increased overall by 21%, whereas radiation dose mGy-kG increased 133%. Fluoroscopy time increased most for lumbar interlaminar epidural injections of 43%, followed by 29% for cervical interlaminar epidural injections, 20% for caudal epidural injections, and 14% for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections. In contrast, highest increases were observed in the radiation dose mGy of 191% for caudal epidural injections, followed by 173% for lumbar interlaminar epidural injections, 113% for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections, and the lowest being cervical interlaminar epidural injections of 94%. This study also shows lesser increases for cervical interlaminar epidural injections because an oblique view is utilized rather than a lateral view resulting in a radiation dosage increase of 94% compared to overall increase of 133%, whereas the duration of time of 29% was higher than the overall combined duration of all procedures which only increased by 21%. LIMITATIONS: A retrospective evaluation utilizing the experience of a single physician. CONCLUSION: The results of this study showed significant increases in radiation exposure time and dosage; however, increase of dosage was overall 21% median Interquartile Range (IQR) compared to 133% of radiation dose median IQR. In addition, the results also showed variations for procedure, overall showing highest increases for lumbar interlaminar epidural injections for time (43%) and caudal epidural injections for dosage (191%).

Efficacy and safety of percutaneous cement discoplasty in the management of degenerative spinal diseases: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous cement discoplasty (PCD) is a minimally invasive procedure. We aim to explore the efficacy and indication(s) of PCD in patients with degenerative disc disease (DDD). METHODS: The search was conducted across Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and PubMed. Data on study design, patient demographics, pre- and post-procedure Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scores, and complications were extracted. Inclusion criteria focused on adult patients with degenerative spinal diseases treated with cement discoplasty. The overall effect size was evaluated using a forest plot, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic and chi-squared test. RESULTS: The search strategy yielded six studies, which included 336 patients (73.8% female, 26.2% male) with a mean average age of 74.6 years. VAS scores were reported in all studies, showing a significant difference between pre- and post-PCD pain scores (Weighted Mean Difference [WMD]: -3.45; 95% CI: -3.83, -3.08; I2 = 15%; P < .001). ODI scores were reported in 83% of studies, with a significant difference between pre- and post-PCD scores (WMD: -22.22; 95% CI: -25.54, -18.89; I2 = 61%; p < .001). Complications reported included infections, thrombophlebitis, vertebral fractures, disc extrusion, and the need for further operations. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis showed clinically significant improvements in pain and functional disability based on VAS and ODI scores. However, due to methodological limitations and a high risk of bias, the validity and generalizability of the findings are uncertain. Despite these issues, the results provide preliminary insights into PCD's potential efficacy and can guide future research to address current limitations.

Results of an International Survey on Spinal Imaging by the ASNR/ASSR/ESNR/ESSR "Nomenclature 3.0" Working Group.

Our goal was to determine if "Nomenclature 2.0," the classification of lumbar disk pathology consensus, should be updated. We conducted a social media and e-mail-based survey on preferences regarding the use of classification on magnetic resonance spine reporting. Members of the European Society of Neuroradiology, European Society of Musculoskeletal Radiology, American Society of Neuroradiology, and American Society of Spine Radiology received a 15-question online survey between February and March 2022. A total of 600 responses were received from 63 countries. The largest number of responses came from Italy and the United States. We found that 71.28% of respondents used Nomenclature 2.0, Classification of Lumbar Disk Pathology. But classification on stenosis is used less often: 53.94% and 60% of respondents do not use any classification of spinal canal stenosis and foraminal stenosis, respectively. When queried about which part of Nomenclature needs improving, most respondents asked for a Structured Reporting Template (SRT), even though 58.85% of respondents do not currently use any template and 54% routinely use a clinical information questionnaire. These results highlight the importance of an updated Nomenclature 3.0 version that integrates the classifications of lumbar disk disease and spinal canal and foraminal stenosis. Further attention should also be directed toward developing a robust endorsed SRT.

Budget Neutrality and Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Reimbursement Trends for Radiologists, 2005 to 2021.

PURPOSE: The Medicare program, by law, must remain budget neutral. Increases in volume or relative value units (RVUs) for individual services necessitate declines in either the conversion factor or assigned RVUs for other services for budget neutrality. This study aimed to assess the contribution of budget neutrality on reimbursement trends per Medicare fee-for-service beneficiary for services provided by radiologists. METHODS: The study used aggregated 100% of Medicare Part B claims from 2005 to 2021. We computed the percentage change in reimbursement per beneficiary, actual and inflation adjusted, to radiologists. These trends were then adjusted by separately holding constant RVUs per beneficiary and the conversion factor to demonstrate the impact of budget neutrality. RESULTS: Unadjusted reimbursement to radiologists per beneficiary increased 4.2% between 2005 and 2021, but when adjusted for inflation, it declined 24.9%. Over this period, the conversion factor declined 7.9%. Without this decline, the reimbursement per beneficiary would have been 9 percentage points higher in 2021 compared with actual. RVUs per beneficiary performed by radiologists increased 13.1%. Keeping RVUs per beneficiary at 2005 levels, reimbursement per beneficiary would have been 12.1 percentage points lower than observed in 2021. CONCLUSIONS: Given budget neutrality, a substantial decline has occurred in inflation-adjusted reimbursement to radiologists per Medicare beneficiary. Decreases due to both inflation and the decline in conversion factor are only partially offset by increased RVUs per beneficiary, meaning more services per patient with less overall pay, an equation likely to heighten access challenges for Medicare beneficiaries and shortages of radiologists.

Posterior circulation cerebral infarction: A review of clinical, imaging features, management, and outcomes.

Objective: This narrative review discusses posterior circulation cerebral infarcts (PCCI) and provides an update given recent randomized trials in the management of basilar artery occlusion (BAO). We examine clinical characteristics, imaging protocols, management updates, and outcomes of PCCI. Methods: The following databases were searched: MEDLINE, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science for articles on PCCI. We included randomized trials and observational studies in humans. We also reviewed relevant references from the literature identified. Results: PCCI and BAO is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Early assessment and accurate diagnosis of PCCI remains a clinical challenge. Neuroimaging advances have improved early detection, but barriers remain due to costs and availability. Recent randomized trials provide new insights for BAO patients and support the efficacy of endovascular thrombectomy. Discussion: PCCI requires specific diagnostic and management that is distinct from anterior circulation stroke. While further studies are needed in varied populations and in the subset of BAO patients presenting with milder deficits, growing randomized data support the treatment of BAO patients with endovascular thrombectomy.