Hallo‐Carrasco, Alejandro

AbstractMetabolic syndrome (MetS) is a prevalent comorbidity in patients with chronic pain conditions. Emerging evidence suggests that the relationship between MetS and chronic pain is bidirectional. This interplay involves complex mechanisms, including proinflammatory mediators in nociceptive modulation and pain‐induced lifestyle changes affecting metabolic function. This scoping review examines the association between MetS and chronic pain. We conducted a scoping review, including 28 studies. This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. We included observational studies (cross‐sectional, case–control, and cohort studies) from the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus. We identified studies on migraine (n = 9), spinal pain (n = 8), general chronic pain (n = 4), fibromyalgia syndrome (n = 3), carpal tunnel syndrome (n = 1), osteoarthritis (n = 1), shoulder pain (n = 1), and neuropathic pain (n = 1). Most studies used a cross‐sectional design and standard criteria to define MetS, with some exceptions. Individuals with MetS and spinal pain, fibromyalgia, or general chronic pain showed higher pain scores and increased functional limitations. MetS was common in patients with migraine, but its effect on pain severity was inconclusive. The relationship between MetS and other pain conditions requires further investigation to clarify the association and potential mechanisms. MetS is prevalent in patients with chronic pain and is associated with worse pain and functional outcomes. Health care providers should acknowledge the wide spectrum of MetS beyond obesity. This understanding may help identify those at risk for more severe chronic pain.

Objectives To identify Reddit users’ viewpoints and inquiries about spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for chronic back pain using Reddit databases. Methods We performed a qualitative analysis of public, anonymous threads and comments from targeted subreddits within the Reddit community. We used the Python Reddit API Wrapper to extract relevant data. A qualitative descriptive approach was employed, using natural language processing to identify and categorize common questions, concerns, and opinions shared by patients regarding SCS. Results Our analysis included 112 posts and 448 comments. The tone of comments was neutral (n=231), followed by negative (n=121) and positive (n=96). 13 users actively encouraged other users to try the procedure, while 25 advised against it. The main topics of discussions revolved around pain relief expectations and adverse events. Almost half of users commenting about pain relief expectations reported experiencing considerably lower improvement than anticipated. Pocket pain, lead fracture/migration, infection risk, and scars were common topics of discussion among users. Furthermore, users shared strategies to mitigate postoperative discomfort and offered insights into device selection based on MRI conditionality, reprogramming need, and charging prerequisites. Conclusion Our Reddit analysis identified potential targets for enhanced dialog between physicians and patients around anticipated pain relief, complications, and postoperative care. Reddit and other social media platforms may offer valuable opportunities for healthcare professionals to improve engagement with patients.

Introduction Epidural steroid injections and epidural blood patches commonly involve the injection of a small amount of radiocontrast media under fluoroscopy to properly identify the target tissue or anatomic space and prevent off-target or intravascular delivery of therapeutic or diagnostic drugs. Iodinated low osmolar non-ionic contrast media is the standard preparation used as it is considered safe and cost-effective, but gadolinium-based preparations have been used as an alternative for patients with an ‘iodine’-related or radiocontrast media allergy label to prevent hypersensitivity reactions. The risk of neurotoxic events when gadolinium is inadvertently injected into the intrathecal space has been reported in recent years, raising concerns when gadolinium-based contrast media is used in lieu of iodinated low osmolar non-ionic contrast media. Methods A retrospective review was conducted of patients who received gadolinium-based contrast media for procedures with risk of inadvertent intrathecal access from January 1, 2019 to May 1, 2022. Information on patient demographics, allergy label information, and procedure description was documented for all patients who received gadolinium-based contrast media for axial spine procedures (including epidural steroid injections, epidural blood patch procedures, and selective nerve root blocks), and all side effects reported within 1 month of the procedure were recorded. Saved fluoroscopy images of all procedures for which there was concern for possible gadolinium-based contrast media-related side effect were reviewed for evidence of inadvertent intrathecal gadolinium-based contrast media administration. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed using REDCap and IBM SPSS Statistics V.28. Results We identified 508 patients who received gadolinium-based contrast media during a fluoroscopically guided axial spine procedure. These patients underwent 697 epidural procedures and 23 patients were identified as experiencing an adverse event that could be consistent with possible, probable, or clear signs of exposure to intrathecal gadolinium. Our calculated adverse event rate was 3.3%. Ten patients required additional medical evaluation or treatment. Discussion Almost all patients in our cohort had an allergy label on their chart that guided the provider to switch to gadolinium-based contrast media, but most were incomplete, ill-defined, or related to allergy to iodine but not iodinated contrast media. Such practice is not recommended based on current guidelines. The current study raises concern regarding the use of gadolinium-based contrast media in axial spine procedures, with the risk of potential severe adverse events, without evidence-based need for avoiding iodinated contrast media.

AbstractPersistent chest pain (PCP) following acute COVID‐19 infection is a commonly reported symptom with an unclear etiology, making its management challenging. This scoping review aims to address the knowledge gap surrounding the characteristics of PCP following COVID‐19, its causes, and potential treatments. This is a scoping review of 64 studies, including observational (prospective, retrospective, cross‐sectional, case series, and case–control) and one quasi‐experimental study, from databases including Embase, PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Google Scholar, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus. Studies on patients with PCP following mild, moderate, and severe COVID‐19 infection were included. Studies with patients of any age, with chest pain that persisted following acute COVID‐19 disease, irrespective of etiology or duration were included. A total of 35 studies reported PCP symptoms following COVID‐19 (0.24%–76.6%) at an average follow‐up of 3 months or longer, 12 studies at 1–3 months and 17 studies at less than 1‐month follow‐up or not specified. PCP was common following mild—severe COVID‐19 infection, and etiology was mostly not reported. Fourteen studies proposed potential etiologies including endothelial dysfunction, cardiac ischemia, vasospasm, myocarditis, cardiac arrhythmia, pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, postural tachycardia syndrome, or noted cardiac MRI (cMRI) changes. Evaluation methods included common cardiopulmonary tests, as well as less common tests such as flow‐mediated dilatation, cMRI, single‐photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging, and cardiopulmonary exercise testing. Only one study reported a specific treatment (sulodexide). PCP is a prevalent symptom following COVID‐19 infection, with various proposed etiologies. Further research is needed to establish a better understanding of the causes and to develop targeted treatments for PCP following COVID‐19.

Brachial plexus avulsion injuries result in permanent motor and sensory deficits, leading to debilitating symptoms. We report the case of a 25-year-old man with chronic pain following right-sided C5-T1 nerve root avulsion without evidence of peripheral nerve injury. His pain was recalcitrant to medical and neurosurgical interventions. However, he experienced substantial (>70%) pain relief with peripheral nerve stimulation targeting the median nerve. These results agree with data suggesting collateral sprouting of sensory nerves occurs following a brachial plexus injury. Further study is needed if we are to understand the mechanisms of the peripheral nerve stimulator as a treatment option.

Abstract Purpose Surgical patients with a penicillin allergy label (PAL) are less likely to receive β-lactams for surgical site infection (SSI) prophylaxis and more likely to receive second-line antibiotics, which may increase the risk of SSI, drug toxicities, and associated costs. We assessed the impact of implementing a pharmacist-led quality improvement project to increase the use of cefazolin as a first-line agent in this population. Summary After implementation of a pilot project in December 2021, all patients with a PAL and orders for preoperative antibiotics were risk stratified into high- or low-risk categories by a pharmacist. For the low-risk group, cefazolin was recommended. For the high-risk group, cefazolin was avoided and a second-line agent was administered. Our analysis compared 422 preintervention patients (August 15 to November 15, 2021) to 492 postintervention patients (December 15 to March 15, 2022). During the postintervention period, β-lactam usage increased (from 12.6% to 37.8%, P < 0.001), while usage of vancomycin (45.5% vs 29.5%, P < 0.001) and other second-line antibiotics (87.4% vs 62.2%, P < 0.001) declined. There were no adverse reactions reported in the preintervention cohort, with 2 potential adverse reactions reported after the intervention (0% vs 0.4%, P = 0.190). Medication costs based on claims data were 50% to 80% lower for patients receiving cefazolin. Conclusion In our cohort, a pharmacy-led antibiotic selection algorithm for patients with a PAL receiving perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis resulted in increased use of β-lactam antibiotics, decreased use of second-line antibiotics, and decreased costs without a significant change in the incidence of adverse reactions.