Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 42
Filtrar
2.
Pain Med ; 21(8): 1590-1603, 2020 08 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32803220

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic literature review of peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) for pain. DESIGN: Grade the evidence for PNS. METHODS: An international interdisciplinary work group conducted a literature search for PNS. Abstracts were reviewed to select studies for grading. Inclusion/exclusion criteria included prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with meaningful clinical outcomes that were not part of a larger or previously reported group. Excluded studies were retrospective, had less than two months of follow-up, or existed only as abstracts. Full studies were graded by two independent reviewers using the modified Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment, the Cochrane Collaborations Risk of Bias assessment, and the US Preventative Services Task Force level-of-evidence criteria. RESULTS: Peripheral nerve stimulation was studied in 14 RCTs for a variety of painful conditions (headache, shoulder, pelvic, back, extremity, and trunk pain). Moderate to strong evidence supported the use of PNS to treat pain. CONCLUSION: Peripheral nerve stimulation has moderate/strong evidence. Additional prospective trials could further refine appropriate populations and pain diagnoses.

3.
Pain Med ; 21(8): 1581-1589, 2020 08 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32803221

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic literature review of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation for pain. DESIGN: Grade the evidence for DRG stimulation. METHODS: An international, interdisciplinary work group conducted a literature search for DRG stimulation. Abstracts were reviewed to select studies for grading. General inclusion criteria were prospective trials (randomized controlled trials and observational studies) that were not part of a larger or previously reported group. Excluded studies were retrospective, too small, or existed only as abstracts. Studies were graded using the modified Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment, the Cochrane Collaborations Risk of Bias assessment, and the US Preventative Services Task Force level-of-evidence criteria. RESULTS: DRG stimulation has Level II evidence (moderate) based upon one high-quality pivotal randomized controlled trial and two lower-quality studies. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-level evidence supports DRG stimulation for treating chronic focal neuropathic pain and complex regional pain syndrome.

4.
Pain Med ; 21(7): 1415-1420, 2020 11 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32034418

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic literature review of brain neurostimulation for pain. DESIGN: Grade the evidence for deep brain neurostimulation (DBS). METHODS: An international, interdisciplinary work group conducted a literature search for brain stimulation. Abstracts were reviewed to select studies for grading. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) meeting inclusion/exclusion criteria were graded by two independent reviewers. General inclusion criteria were prospective trials (RCTs and observational) that were not part of a larger or previously reported group. Excluded studies were retrospective or existed only as abstracts. Studies were graded using the modified Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment, the Cochrane Collaborations Risk of Bias assessment, and the United States Preventative Services Task Force level-of-evidence criteria. RESULTS: Two high-quality RCTs and three observational trials supported DBS, resulting in Level II (moderate) evidence. CONCLUSION: Moderate evidence supports DBS to treat chronic pain. Additional Level I RCTs are needed to further the strength of the evidence in this important area of medicine, but the current evidence suggests that DBS should be considered as an option in treating complex pain cases.

5.
Pain Med ; 21(7): 1421-1432, 2020 11 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32034422

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic literature review of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for pain. DESIGN: Grade the evidence for SCS. METHODS: An international, interdisciplinary work group conducted literature searches, reviewed abstracts, and selected studies for grading. Inclusion/exclusion criteria included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with intractable pain of greater than one year's duration. Full studies were graded by two independent reviewers. Excluded studies were retrospective, had small numbers of subjects, or existed only as abstracts. Studies were graded using the modified Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment, the Cochrane Collaborations Risk of Bias assessment, and the US Preventative Services Task Force level-of-evidence criteria. RESULTS: SCS has Level 1 evidence (strong) for axial back/lumbar radiculopathy or neuralgia (five high-quality RCTs) and complex regional pain syndrome (one high-quality RCT). CONCLUSIONS: High-level evidence supports SCS for treating chronic pain and complex regional pain syndrome. For patients with failed back surgery syndrome, SCS was more effective than reoperation or medical management. New stimulation waveforms and frequencies may provide a greater likelihood of pain relief compared with conventional SCS for patients with axial back pain, with or without radicular pain.

6.
Neuromodulation ; 23(5): 680-686, 2020 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31468641

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Cervical spinal cord stimulation (cSCS) is an accepted therapeutic option for radicular upper extremity pain and less commonly for cervical axial pain despite less available literature in comparison with lumbar and lower extremity applications. METHODS: This preliminary observational pilot study evaluated the efficacy of cSCS using the monophasic burst pattern in the treatment of both upper extremity radicular pain and axial neck pain. Primary outcome measures were reduction in pain scores, global pain scale (GPS) indices, and neck Oswestry disability index (nODI). RESULTS: Of the 23 subjects trialed, 15 went to implantation of cSCS using burst and were followed for 1 year prospectively. Pre- and postprimary outcome measures suggested a statistically (p < 0.05) and clinically significant 12.40 point differential in the nODI, a statistically significant reduction of the GPS from 74.60 to 56.37 (p < 0.05), and a reduction in the pain rating score from 8.13 +/- 1.0 prior to trial to 3.85 +/- 1.1 at 1 year for axial neck and with and without radicular pain (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study suggests that the use of the burst waveform applied to cSCS results in improved function and decreased pain scores in subjects with axial neck pain with and without radicular symptomatology and cervicogenic headache.

8.
Pain Physician ; 22(1S): S75-S128, 2019 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30717501

RESUMO

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.


Assuntos
Anticoagulantes/administração & dosagem , Fibrinolíticos/administração & dosagem , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Manejo da Dor/normas , Dor Crônica , Hemorragia/tratamento farmacológico , Humanos
9.
Neuromodulation ; 22(1): 1-35, 2019 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30246899

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: The Neuromodulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) is dedicated to improving the safety and efficacy of neuromodulation and thus improving the lives of patients undergoing neuromodulation therapies. With continued innovations in neuromodulation comes the need for evolving reviews of best practices. Dorsal root ganglion (DRG) stimulation has significantly improved the treatment of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), among other conditions. Through funding and organizational leadership by the International Neuromodulation Society (INS), the NACC reconvened to develop the best practices consensus document for the selection, implantation and use of DRG stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain syndromes. METHODS: The NACC performed a comprehensive literature search of articles about DRG published from 1995 through June, 2017. A total of 2538 article abstracts were then reviewed, and selected articles graded for strength of evidence based on scoring criteria established by the US Preventive Services Task Force. Graded evidence was considered along with clinical experience to create the best practices consensus and recommendations. RESULTS: The NACC achieved consensus based on peer-reviewed literature and experience to create consensus points to improve patient selection, guide surgical methods, improve post-operative care, and make recommendations for management of patients treated with DRG stimulation. CONCLUSION: The NACC recommendations are intended to improve patient care in the use of this evolving therapy for chronic pain. Clinicians who choose to follow these recommendations may improve outcomes.


Assuntos
Terapia por Estimulação Elétrica/métodos , Gânglios Espinais , Humanos
10.
Pain Pract ; 19(3): 250-274, 2019 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30369003

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) can lead to compression of neural elements and manifest as low back and leg pain. LSS has traditionally been treated with a variety of conservative (pain medications, physical therapy, epidural spinal injections) and invasive (surgical decompression) options. Recently, several minimally invasive procedures have expanded the treatment options. METHODS: The Lumbar Spinal Stenosis Consensus Group convened to evaluate the peer-reviewed literature as the basis for making minimally invasive spine treatment (MIST) recommendations. Eleven consensus points were clearly defined with evidence strength, recommendation grade, and consensus level using U.S. Preventive Services Task Force criteria. The Consensus Group also created a treatment algorithm. Literature searches yielded 9 studies (2 randomized controlled trials [RCTs]; 7 observational studies, 4 prospective and 3 retrospective) of minimally invasive spine treatments, and 1 RCT for spacers. RESULTS: The LSS treatment choice is dependent on the degree of stenosis; spinal or anatomic level; architecture of the stenosis; severity of the symptoms; failed, past, less invasive treatments; previous fusions or other open surgical approaches; and patient comorbidities. There is Level I evidence for percutaneous image-guided lumbar decompression as superior to lumbar epidural steroid injection, and 1 RCT supported spacer use in a noninferiority study comparing 2 spacer products currently available. CONCLUSIONS: MISTs should be used in a judicious and algorithmic fashion to treat LSS, based on the evidence of efficacy and safety in the peer-reviewed literature. The MIST Consensus Group recommend that these procedures be used in a multimodal fashion as part of an evidence-based decision algorithm.


Assuntos
Estenose Espinal/terapia , Consenso , Descompressão Cirúrgica/métodos , Descompressão Cirúrgica/normas , Humanos , Injeções Epidurais , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Minimamente Invasivos/métodos , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Minimamente Invasivos/normas , Estenose Espinal/diagnóstico por imagem , Estenose Espinal/tratamento farmacológico , Estenose Espinal/cirurgia , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto
11.
Pain Physician ; 20(4): 319-329, 2017 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28535554

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Patients with implanted spinal cord stimulators (SCS) present to the anesthesia care team for management at many different points along the care continuum. Currently, the literature is sparse on the perioperative management. What is available is confusing; monopolar electrocautery is contraindicated but often used, full body magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is safe with particular systems but with other manufactures only head and specific extremities exams are safe. Moreover, there are anesthetizing locations outside of the operating room where implanted SCS can interact with surrounding medical equipment and pose significant risk to patient and device. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to present relevant known literature about the safe management of SCS in the perioperative period and to begin to develop recommendations. STUDY DESIGN: A review of current literature and each manufacturers' labeling was performed to assess risk of interference and patient harm between SCS and technology used in and around typical anesthetizing locations. METHODS: A systematic search of the literature was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. A computerized search was conducted for English articles in print up to April 2016 via PubMed www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed; EMBASE www.embase.com; and Cochrane Library www.thecochranelibrary.com. Search terms included "spinal cord stimulator AND MRI," "spinal cord stimulator AND ECG," "spinal cord stimulator AND implanted cardiac device," "spinal cord stimulator AND electrocautery," and "spinal cord stimulator AND obstetrics." In addition, a search of Google and Google Scholar was performed. Websites of SCS manufactures were reviewed. RESULTS: Generalized recommendations include turning the amplitude of the SCS to the lowest possible SETTING and turning off prior to any procedure. Monopolar electrocautery is contraindicated but is still often utilized; placing grounding pads as far away from the device can reduce the risk to device and patient. Bipolar cautery is favored. Implanted cardiac devices can interfere with SCS, but risks can be minimized. Neuraxial anesthesia can be attempted in a patient with implanted SCS, provided the device is not in the expected path. MRI labeling differences present the biggest difference among SCS manufactures. Medtronic's SureScan SCS, Boston Scientific's Precision system, St. Jude's Proclaim, and Stimwave's Freedome SCS are full body MRI compatible under specific conditions, while other manufacturers have labeling that restricts exams of the trunk and certain extremities. LIMITATIONS: This review was intended to be a comprehensive, cumulative review of recommendations for perioperative SCS management; however, the limitations of a review of this nature is the complete reliance on previously published research and the availability of these studies using the methods outlined. CONCLUSIONS: SCS is being used earlier in the treatment algorithm for patients with chronic pain. The anesthesia care team needs working knowledge of where the device resides in the neuraxial space and what risks different medical technologies pose to the patient and device. This understanding will lead to appropriate perioperative management which can reduce risk and improve patient outcomes.


Assuntos
Anestesiologia/métodos , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Assistência Perioperatória , Estimulação da Medula Espinal/instrumentação , Anestésicos , Dor Crônica/terapia , Humanos , Medula Espinal
12.
Pain Physician ; 20(2S): S3-S92, 2017 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28226332

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Opioid use, abuse, and adverse consequences, including death, have escalated at an alarming rate since the 1990s. In an attempt to control opioid abuse, numerous regulations and guidelines for responsible opioid prescribing have been developed by various organizations. However, the US opioid epidemic is continuing and drug dose deaths tripled during 1999 to 2015. Recent data show a continuing increase in deaths due to natural and semisynthetic opioids, a decline in methadone deaths, and an explosive increase in the rates of deaths involving other opioids, specifically heroin and illicit synthetic fentanyl. Contrary to scientific evidence of efficacy and negative recommendations, a significant proportion of physicians and patients (92%) believe that opioids reduce pain and a smaller proportion (57%) report better quality of life. In preparation of the current guidelines, we have focused on the means to reduce the abuse and diversion of opioids without jeopardizing access for those patients suffering from non-cancer pain who have an appropriate medical indication for opioid use. OBJECTIVES: To provide guidance for the prescription of opioids for the management of chronic non-cancer pain, to develop a consistent philosophy among the many diverse groups with an interest in opioid use as to how appropriately prescribe opioids, to improve the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain and to reduce the likelihood of drug abuse and diversion. These guidelines are intended to provide a systematic and standardized approach to this complex and difficult arena of practice, while recognizing that every clinical situation is unique. METHODS: The methodology utilized included the development of objectives and key questions. The methodology also utilized trustworthy standards, appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest, as well as a panel of experts from various specialties and groups. The literature pertaining to opioid use, abuse, effectiveness, and adverse consequences was reviewed, with a best evidence synthesis of the available literature, and utilized grading for recommendation as described by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).Summary of Recommendations:i. Initial Steps of Opioid Therapy 1. Comprehensive assessment and documentation. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 2. Screening for opioid abuse to identify opioid abusers. (Evidence: Level II-III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 3. Utilization of prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs). (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate to strong) 4. Utilization of urine drug testing (UDT). (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 5. Establish appropriate physical diagnosis and psychological diagnosis if available. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 6. Consider appropriate imaging, physical diagnosis, and psychological status to collaborate with subjective complaints. (Evidence: Level III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 7. Establish medical necessity based on average moderate to severe (≥ 4 on a scale of 0 - 10) pain and/or disability. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 8. Stratify patients based on risk. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 9. Establish treatment goals of opioid therapy with regard to pain relief and improvement in function. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 10. Obtain a robust opioid agreement, which is followed by all parties. (Evidence: Level III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate)ii. Assessment of Effectiveness of Long-Term Opioid Therapy 11. Initiate opioid therapy with low dose, short-acting drugs, with appropriate monitoring. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 12. Consider up to 40 morphine milligram equivalent (MME) as low dose, 41 to 90 MME as a moderate dose, and greater than 91 MME as high dose. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 13. Avoid long-acting opioids for the initiation of opioid therapy. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 14. Recommend methadone only for use after failure of other opioid therapy and only by clinicians with specific training in its risks and uses, within FDA recommended doses. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 15. Understand and educate the patients of the effectiveness and adverse consequences. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong) 16. Similar effectiveness for long-acting and short-acting opioids with increased adverse consequences of long-acting opioids. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of recommendation: Moderate to strong) 17. Periodically assess pain relief and/or functional status improvement of ≥ 30% without adverse consequences. (Evidence: Level II; Strength of recommendation: Moderate) 18. Recommend long-acting or high dose opioids only in specific circumstances with severe intractable pain. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong)iii. Monitoring for Adherence and Side Effects 19. Monitor for adherence, abuse, and noncompliance by UDT and PDMPs. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate to strong) 20. Monitor patients on methadone with an electrocardiogram periodically. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong). 21. Monitor for side effects including constipation and manage them appropriately, including discontinuation of opioids when indicated. (Evidence: Level I; Strength of Recommendation: Strong)iv. Final Phase 22. May continue with monitoring with continued medical necessity, with appropriate outcomes. (Evidence: Level I-II; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) 23. Discontinue opioid therapy for lack of response, adverse consequences, and abuse with rehabilitation. (Evidence: Level III; Strength of Recommendation: Moderate) CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines were developed based on comprehensive review of the literature, consensus among the panelists, in consonance with patient preferences, shared decision-making, and practice patterns with limited evidence, based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to improve pain and function in chronic non-cancer pain on a long-term basis. Consequently, chronic opioid therapy should be provided only to patients with proven medical necessity and stability with improvement in pain and function, independently or in conjunction with other modalities of treatments in low doses with appropriate adherence monitoring and understanding of adverse events.Key words: Chronic pain, persistent pain, non-cancer pain, controlled substances, substance abuse, prescription drug abuse, dependency, opioids, prescription monitoring, drug testing, adherence monitoring, diversionDisclaimer: The guidelines are based on the best available evidence and do not constitute inflexible treatment recommendations. Due to the changing body of evidence, this document is not intended to be a "standard of care."


Assuntos
Analgésicos Opioides/uso terapêutico , Dor Crônica/tratamento farmacológico , Prescrições de Medicamentos , Dor/tratamento farmacológico , Dor Crônica/psicologia , Prescrições de Medicamentos/normas , Humanos , Dor/psicologia , Qualidade de Vida , Estados Unidos
13.
Neuromodulation ; 20(2): 96-132, 2017 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28042904

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Pain treatment is best performed when a patient-centric, safety-based philosophy is used to determine an algorithmic process to guide care. Since 2007, the International Neuromodulation Society has organized a group of experts to evaluate evidence and create a Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC) to guide practice. METHODS: The current PACC update was designed to address the deficiencies and innovations emerging since the previous PACC publication of 2012. An extensive literature search identified publications between January 15, 2007 and November 22, 2015 and authors contributed additional relevant sources. After reviewing the literature, the panel convened to determine evidence levels and degrees of recommendations for intrathecal therapy. This meeting served as the basis for consensus development, which was ranked as strong, moderate or weak. Algorithms were developed for intrathecal medication choices to treat nociceptive and neuropathic pain for patients with cancer, terminal illness, and noncancer pain, with either localized or diffuse pain. RESULTS: The PACC has developed an algorithmic process for several aspects of intrathecal drug delivery to promote safe and efficacious evidence-based care. Consensus opinion, based on expertise, was used to fill gaps in evidence. Thirty-one consensus points emerged from the panel considerations. CONCLUSION: New algorithms and guidance have been established to improve care with the use of intrathecal drug delivery.


Assuntos
Analgésicos/administração & dosagem , Consenso , Sistemas de Liberação de Medicamentos/normas , Injeções Espinhais/normas , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Sistemas de Liberação de Medicamentos/métodos , Humanos , Dor/tratamento farmacológico
14.
Neuromodulation ; 20(2): 133-154, 2017 Feb.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28042906

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Intrathecal (IT) drug infusion is an appropriate and necessary tool in the algorithm to treat refractory cancer and noncancer pain. The decision-making steps/methodology for selecting appropriate patients for implanted targeted drug delivery systems is controversial and complicated. Therefore, a consensus on best practices for determining appropriate use of IT drug infusion may involve testing/trialing this therapy before implantation. METHODS: This current Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference (PACC) update was designed to address the deficiencies and emerging innovations since the previous PACC convened in 2012. A literature search identified publications available since the previous PACC publications in 2014, and relevant sources were contributed by the PACC members. After reviewing the literature, the panel determined the evidence levels and degrees of recommendations. The developed consensus was ranked as strong (>80%), moderate (50-79%), or weak (<49%). RESULTS: The trialing for IT drug delivery systems (IDDS) remains an area of continued controversy. The PACC recommendations for trialing are presented in 34 consensus points and cover trialing for morphine, ziconotide, and medication admixtures; starting doses and titration practices; measurements of success; trial settings and monitoring; management of systemic opioids during trialing; and the role of psychological evaluation. Finally, the PACC describes clinical scenarios in which IT trialing is required or not required. CONCLUSION: The PACC provides consensus guidance on best practices of trialing for IDDS implants. In addition, the PACC recommends that no trial may be required in certain patient populations.


Assuntos
Analgésicos/administração & dosagem , Sistemas de Liberação de Medicamentos/normas , Injeções Espinhais/normas , Dor/tratamento farmacológico , Humanos , Injeções Espinhais/métodos
15.
Neuromodulation ; 20(2): 155-176, 2017 Feb.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28042914

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Intrathecal therapy is an important part of the pain treatment algorithm for chronic disease states. The use of this option is a viable treatment strategy, but it is inherent for pain physicians to understand risk assessment and mitigation. In this manuscript, we explore evidence and mitigating strategies to improve safety with intrathecal therapy. METHODS: A robust literature search was performed covering January 2011 to October 9, 2016, in PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Biomed Central, Google Scholar, Current Contents Connect, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts. The information was cross-referenced and compiled for evidence, analysis, and consensus review, with the intent to offer weighted recommendations and consensus statements on safety for targeted intrathecal therapy delivery. RESULTS: The Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference has made several best practice recommendations to improve care and reduce morbidity and mortality associated with intrathecal therapy through all phases of management. The United States Prevention Service Task Force evidence level and consensus strength assessments are offered for each recommendation. CONCLUSION: Intrathecal therapy is a viable and relatively safe option for the treatment of cancer- and noncancer-related pain. Continued research and expert opinion are required to improve our current pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic model of intrathecal drug delivery, as this will undoubtedly improve safety and efficacy.


Assuntos
Analgésicos/administração & dosagem , Dor Crônica/tratamento farmacológico , Sistemas de Liberação de Medicamentos/normas , Guias como Assunto , Injeções Espinhais/normas , Sistemas de Liberação de Medicamentos/métodos , Humanos , Bombas de Infusão Implantáveis/normas , Injeções Espinhais/métodos , Segurança
16.
Pain Physician ; 19(1): E33-54, 2016 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26752493

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Chronic neuropathic pain has been recognized as contributing to a significant proportion of chronic pain globally. Among these, spinal pain is of significance with failed back surgery syndrome (FBSS), generating considerable expense for the health care systems with increasing prevalence and health impact. OBJECTIVE: To assess the role and effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) in chronic spinal pain. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SCS in chronic spinal pain. METHODS: The available literature on SCS was reviewed. The quality assessment criteria utilized were Cochrane review criteria to assess sources of risk of bias and Interventional Pain Management Techniques - Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM - QRB) criteria for randomized trials.The level of evidence was based on a best evidence synthesis with modified grading of qualitative evidence from Level I to Level V.Data sources included relevant literature published from 1966 through March 2015 that were identified through searches of PubMed and EMBASE, manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles, and all other sources. OUTCOME MEASURES: RCTs of efficacy with a minimum 12-month follow-up were considered for inclusion. For trials of adaptive stimulation, high frequency stimulation, and burst stimulation, shorter follow-up periods were considered. RESULTS: Results showed 6 RCTs with 3 efficacy trials and 3 stimulation trials. There were also 2 cost effectiveness studies available. Based on a best evidence synthesis with 3 high quality RCTs, the evidence of efficacy for SCS in lumbar FBSS is Level I to II. The evidence for high frequency stimulation based on one high quality RCT is Level II to III. Based on a lack of high quality studies demonstrating the efficacy of adaptive stimulation or burst stimulation, evidence is limited for these 2 modalities. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of this systematic review continue to require future studies illustrating effectiveness and also the superiority of high frequency stimulation and potentially burst stimulation. CONCLUSION: There is significant (Level I to II) evidence of the efficacy of spinal cord stimulation in lumbar FBSS; whereas, there is moderate (Level II to III) evidence for high frequency stimulation; there is limited evidence for adaptive stimulation and burst stimulation.


Assuntos
Dor Crônica/terapia , Dor Lombar/terapia , Neuralgia/terapia , Estimulação da Medula Espinal/métodos , Dor Crônica/diagnóstico , Síndrome Pós-Laminectomia/diagnóstico , Síndrome Pós-Laminectomia/terapia , Humanos , Dor Lombar/diagnóstico , Neuralgia/diagnóstico , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/métodos , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Resultado do Tratamento
17.
Neuromodulation ; 19(2): 206-19, 2016 Feb.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26477685

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate low-dose intrathecal opioid trialing and maintenance with regard to analgesia and psychometric functional capacity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective cohort of subjects offered, trialed and maintained using low-dose opioid therapy via an intrathecal drug delivery system. Analgesia, measured by visual analog scale and the Global Pain Scale, and function, measured by Multidimensional Pain Inventory and Global Pain Scale, are evaluated. Population analysis by age, gender, oral opioid dose, diagnosis, and pain type is reported. RESULTS: Fifty-eight subjects enrolled in the 36-month evaluation period with mean opioid intrathecal opioid dose less than 350 µg per day of morphine equivalent utilized. Primary nociceptive pain type were associated with lower intrathecal opioid doses and improved visual analog scale pain rating and improved pain severity and interference on the Multidimensional Pain Inventory. CONCLUSIONS: This study adds to the growing body of literature suggesting that low-dose intrathecal analgesia without oral opioid supplementation can be efficacious. It appears that this approach may achieve analgesia with lower doses in those with primary nociceptive pain type.


Assuntos
Analgésicos Opioides/administração & dosagem , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Adulto , Idoso , Dor Crônica/terapia , Feminino , Humanos , Bombas de Infusão Implantáveis , Injeções Espinhais , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Medição da Dor , Estudos Prospectivos , Resultado do Tratamento
18.
Pain Physician ; 18(4): E535-82, 2015.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26218948

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The therapeutic spinal facet joint interventions generally used for the treatment of axial spinal pain of facet joint origin are intraarticular facet joint injections, facet joint nerve blocks, and radiofrequency neurotomy. Despite interventional procedures being common as treatment strategies for facet joint pathology, there is a paucity of literature investigating these therapeutic approaches. Systematic reviews assessing the effectiveness of various therapeutic facet joint interventions have shown there to be variable evidence based on the region and the modality of treatment utilized. Overall, the evidence ranges from limited to moderate. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and update the clinical utility of therapeutic lumbar, cervical, and thoracic facet joint interventions in managing chronic spinal pain. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of therapeutic lumbar, cervical, and thoracic facet joint interventions for the treatment of chronic spinal pain. METHODS: The available literature on lumbar, cervical, and thoracic facet joint interventions in managing chronic spinal pain was reviewed. The quality assessment criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria and Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment (IPM-QRB) for randomized trials and Interventional Pain Management Techniques-Quality Appraisal of Reliability and Risk of Bias Assessment for Nonrandomized Studies (IPM-QRBNR) for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified at 5 levels from Level I to Level V. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches on PubMed and EMBASE from 1966 through March 2015, and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was pain relief (short-term relief = up to 6 months and long-term > 6 months). Secondary outcome measures were improvement in functional status, psychological status, return to work, and reduction in opioid intake consumption. RESULTS: A total of 21 randomized controlled trials meeting appropriate inclusion criteria were assessed in this evaluation. A total of 5 observational studies were assessed. In the lumbar spine, for long-term effectiveness, there is Level II evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy and lumbar facet joint nerve blocks, whereas the evidence is Level III for lumbosacral intraarticular injections. In the cervical spine, for long-term improvement, there is Level II evidence for cervical radiofrequency neurotomy and cervical facet joint nerve blocks, and Level IV evidence for cervical intraarticular injections. In the thoracic spine there is Level II evidence for thoracic facet joint nerve blocks and Level IV evidence for radiofrequency neurotomy for long-term improvement. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of this systematic review include an overall paucity of high quality studies and more specifically the lack of investigations related to thoracic facet joint injections. CONCLUSION: Based on the present assessment for the management of spinal facet joint pain, the evidence for long-term improvement is Level II for lumbar and cervical radiofrequency neurotomy, and therapeutic facet joint nerve blocks in the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine; Level III for lumbar intraarticular injections; and Level IV for cervical intraarticular injections and thoracic radiofrequency neurotomy.


Assuntos
Dor Lombar/cirurgia , Manejo da Dor/métodos , Articulação Zigapofisária/cirurgia , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Humanos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Resultado do Tratamento
20.
Pain Physician ; 18(2): 109-30, 2015.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25794199

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Cervicogenic headache is a secondary headache that has a source in the upper cervical spine. There is a small but growing body of evidence to establish effectiveness of radiofrequency (RF) neurotomy, and the pulsed RF (PRF) procedure for management of cervicogenic headache. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical utility of RF neurotomy, and PRF ablation for the management of cervicogenic headache. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: The review included relevant literature identified through searches of PubMed, Cochrane, Clinical trials, U.S. National Guideline Clearinghouse and EMBASE from 1960 to January 2014.The quality assessment and clinical relevance criteria utilized were the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group criteria for randomized control trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale criteria for observational studies. The level of evidence was classified as good, fair, and poor based on the quality of evidence. OUTCOMES MEASURED: The primary outcome measures were reduction in pain scores and improvement in quality of life. RESULTS: The primary outcome measures were headache relief and improved quality of life. Twenty five studies were identified for full text review of these, 9 studies met inclusion criteria. There were 5 non-randomized, among them 4/5 were of moderate quality, 3/5 showed RF ablation and 1/5 showed PRF as an effective intervention for cervicogenic headache. There were 4 randomized trials among them 2/4 were of high quality, 3/4 investigated RF ablation as an intervention for CHA, 1/4 investigated PRF ablation as an intervention for CHA and none of the randomized studies showed strong evidence for RF and PRF ablation as an effective intervention for CHA. LIMITATIONS: In the selected studies there were inconsistencies between randomized trials, flaws in trial design, and gaps in the chain of evidence. CONCLUSION: There is limited evidence to support RF ablation for management of CHA as there are no high quality RCTs and/ or multiple consistent non-RCTs without methodological flaws. There is poor evidence to support PRF for CHA as there are no high quality RCTs or Non-RCTs.


Assuntos
Ablação por Cateter/métodos , Gerenciamento Clínico , Cefaleia Pós-Traumática/terapia , Tratamento por Radiofrequência Pulsada/métodos , Humanos , Cefaleia Pós-Traumática/diagnóstico , Cefaleia Pós-Traumática/psicologia , Qualidade de Vida/psicologia , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/métodos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...