Cho, David

Background Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) has emerged as a promising neurostimulation modality, yet its effectiveness and durability for chronic pain remain uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate changes in pain intensity following implantable PNS therapy. Methods Eligible studies included adults (≥18 years) with chronic pain treated with an implantable PNS system, and pain intensity was assessed at baseline and follow-up time points. The primary outcome was change in pain intensity from baseline to 6 months after PNS implantation. Secondary outcomes included changes in pain intensity at 3, 12 and 24 months after PNS implantation. Standardized mean differences (Hedges’ g ) were pooled using a random-effects model. Results A total of 106 studies comprising 9272 patients were included. PNS was associated with large, statistically significant reductions in pain intensity from baseline to all time points: 3 months (Hedges’ g 2.92; 95% CI 2.62 to 3.21), 6 months (Hedges’ g 3.08; 95% CI 2.68 to 3.48), 12 months (Hedges’ g 2.68; 95% CI 2.30 to 3.05) and 24 months (Hedges’ g 2.08; 95% CI 1.68 to 2.48) (all p<0.001). However, the certainty of evidence as assessed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria was rated as low for the primary outcome, due to pooling from observational studies, risk of bias, and heterogeneity (statistical, clinical and methodological). Subgroup analyses revealed no differences by study design or device type, while smaller effect sizes were reported in industry-funded studies and those with declared conflicts of interest. The largest effect sizes were observed in pelvic and upper extremity pain, whereas the smallest in truncal pain. Conclusion Implantable PNS provides persistent and clinically meaningful analgesia for chronic pain, with benefits sustained up to 24 months. These findings support broader clinical adoption and provide evidence to inform pay0r coverage and policy decisions.

AbstractBackgroundSome patients express concerns regarding receipt of allogeneic blood transfusions from donors potentially vaccinated against SARS‐CoV‐2 (COVID‐19). However, limited information exists about patients' expression of these concerns or how to address them during the blood transfusion consent process. In this study, we describe our experience of working collaboratively with patients with vaccine‐related transfusion concerns prior to elective surgery, summarizing treatment decisions and clinical outcomes.Study Design and MethodsThis observational descriptive study includes patients seen in our Bloodless Medicine and Surgery clinic between June 2022 and June 2024 for vaccine‐related transfusion concerns prior to elective surgery. A shared decision‐making framework was employed to foster conversation, share information, provide reassurance, reconcile conflict, and match preferences with available care options. Patient characteristics, treatment decisions, and surgical outcomes were reviewed and summarized.ResultsThirty‐five patients were included, with median (1st, 3rd quartile) age of 61 (53, 69) years. Cardiac surgery was the most common type of surgery (29%). Twelve patients (34%) were anemic preoperatively, and all received preoperative treatment. After discussion with a Bloodless Medicine specialist, 24 (68.6%) decided to consent to the use of all blood products, 5 (14.3%) accepted only red blood cells, and 6 (17.1%) declined all blood products. Among 28 patients undergoing surgery, only 4 (14%) received allogeneic transfusion perioperatively.ConclusionMany patients concerned about the vaccination status of blood donors may ultimately consent to allogeneic blood products after shared decision‐making with a Bloodless Medicine specialist, highlighting the importance of patient empowerment and collaborative care.