Hoydonckx, Yasmine

Introduction Psychological comorbidities can negatively impact outcomes of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for chronic pain. While psychological assessment is commonly required before SCS implantation, evidence supporting its impact on outcomes is limited, and such assessments may be unnecessary for many patients and contribute to delays in care. Our center implemented a screening tool incorporating validated questionnaires and a mental health checklist to triage the need for formal psychological evaluation. This prospective, observational cohort study compared outcomes of SCS trials and implants between patients who bypassed (fast track: FT) versus those who underwent a formal assessment by a psychologist (AP). Methods Data were collected from patients undergoing SCS trials between July 2017 and December 2021. The screening tool used thresholds on validated questionnaires assessing anxiety, depression, catastrophizing, and opioid misuse risk, along with a checklist capturing significant anxiety or depression, self-harm, substance abuse, or mental-health-related hospitalization. Patients screening positive underwent an AP; others proceeded directly to trial (FT). 1 year post implantation outcomes were collected, with successful implantation defined as ≥30% pain reduction from baseline. Results Of 171 patients (114 AP, 57 FT), trial-to-implant rates were similar (72% AP vs 70% FT, p=0.811). The proportion of responders at 1 year post implant was also comparable (53% AP vs 60% FT, p=0.927). Multivariate logistic regression identified that higher baseline pain intensity (adjusted OR (aOR) 0.70, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.92, p=0.011) and use of tricyclic antidepressants (aOR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.56, p=0.005) were associated with implant failure, whereas pain duration >10 years was associated with implant success (aOR 3.09, 95% CI 1.06 to 9.02, p=0.039). Conclusions This screening tool effectively identifies patients who can bypass routine psychological assessment without compromising 1 year SCS outcomes. Implementation can streamline patient flow, reduce wait times, and reserve psychological resources for those who need formal evaluation.

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is effective for some pain syndromes, but inappropriate referrals can frustrate patients and misuse resources. This retrospective study reviewed 370 patients referred to a Neuromodulation for Pain Program (NPP) from July 2022 to June 2024. Of these, 241 were deemed appropriate for SCS. The SCS-appropriate group had higher pain intensity, more neuropathic pain, and lower opioid use. Inappropriate referrals were often from family physicians. Key factors associated with inappropriateness included low pain intensity, lack of neuropathic features, and high opioid use. Enhancing referral quality through targeted education may improve care and system efficiency.

Introduction Patients hospitalized for headache treatment pose unique challenges to the healthcare system. Currently, there is a lack of evidence-based guidance on management. This practice advisory aims to fill this critical gap by systematically reviewing the existing literature and providing comprehensive, evidence-based recommendations for managing headache patients during hospitalization. Methods In February 2023, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine approved this practice advisory proposal. The steering committee selected committee members based on clinical and research expertise in the field of headache medicine. Nine questions were formulated by the committee, and each question was assigned to a group composed of 3–4 members. A systematic literature search for each question was performed in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Web of Science on June 21, 2023. The results from each search were imported into separate Covidence projects for screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Additionally, relevant systematic reviews (SR) were screened. Each group submitted a structured narrative review along with statements and recommendations based on the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) format for grading of evidence. While the USPSTF framework was used, including the language in the recommendations, the formal USPSTF methodology, including the SR with meta-analysis and summary tables with forest plots, was not followed because of low overall evidence quality. The interim draft was shared electronically with each collaborator, who was requested to vote anonymously using two rounds of the modified Delphi approach. A consensus recommendation required >75% agreement. Results The panel generated 12 statements and 17 recommendations, along with their strength and certainty of evidence. Following two rounds of Delphi voting, a high consensus was achieved for all statements and recommendations. Most statements received a low-to-moderate level of certainty, and all but one recommendation received grade B or C, which was consistent with the lack of randomized controlled trials supporting most of the drugs in this document. Conclusions This evidence-based practice advisory provides a foundational step toward standardizing inpatient headache care and highlights existing gaps in the literature that should be addressed through rigorous prospective randomized studies.