Rho, Richard H.

Abstract Purpose Peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) is a rapidly expanding field within neuromodulation; however, there is limited data on therapeutic efficacy. This study describes the indications and clinical outcomes for patients undergoing PNS for chronic pain states. Patients and Methods This is a retrospective case series of adults undergoing PNS implantation from 2004 to 2017 at an academic medical center. The primary outcomes were changes in numeric rating scale (NRS) pain scores, opioid utilization in oral morphine milligram equivalent (MME), and self‐reported patient functioning at 6 months postoperatively. Infectious and device‐related complications were also assessed. Results A total of 72 patients underwent PNS implantation, including 59 patients that received a preceding PNS trial (59/78; 76% progression rate) and 13 that did not receive a PNS trial. The most common indication for stimulation was occipital neuralgia (47%) followed by lower‐extremity neuropathies (17%). PNS implantation was associated with 6‐month reductions in pain scores (7 [6, 8] baseline vs. 4 [2, 5] 6 months; P < 0.001) and opioid utilization (eg, median 60 [31, 104] vs. 18 [0, 52] MME among those with baseline opioid use; P < 0.001). Median functional improvement was 73% (50%, 88%). Seven patients (10%) suffered a postoperative surgical site infection at a median of 50 (30, 124) days, of which five devices were removed. Conclusion Peripheral nerve stimulation was associated with reduced pain scores, lower opioid utilization, and improved patient function at 6 months. These data support PNS as a potentially effective nonopioid analgesic modality in chronic pain, though prospective multicenter evaluation is warranted to evaluate longer‐term outcomes.

AbstractBackgroundInappropriate sinus tachycardia (IST) remains a clinical challenge because patients often are highly symptomatic and not responsive to medical therapy.ObjectiveTo study the safety and efficacy of stellate ganglion (SG) block and cardiac sympathetic denervation (CSD) in patients with IST.MethodsTwelve consecutive patients who had drug‐refractory IST (10 women) were studied. According to a prospectively initiated protocol, five patients underwent an electrophysiologic study before and after SG block (electrophysiology study group). The subsequent seven patients had ambulatory Holter monitoring before and after SG block (ambulatory group). All patients underwent SG block on the right side first, and then on the left side. Selected patients who had heart rate reduction ≥15 beats per minute (bpm) were recommended to consider CSD.ResultsThe mean (SD) baseline heart rate (HR) was 106 (21) bpm. The HR significantly decreased to 93 (20) bpm (P = .02) at 10 minutes after right SG block and remained significantly slower at 97(19) bpm at 60 minutes. Left SG block reduced HR from 99 (21) to 87(16) bpm (P = .02) at 60 minutes. SG block had no significant effect on blood pressure or HR response to isoproterenol or exercise (all P > .05). Five patients underwent right (n = 4) or bilateral (n = 1) CSD. The clinical outcomes were heterogeneous: one patient had complete and two had partial symptomatic relief, and two did not have improvement.ConclusionSG blockade modestly reduces resting HR but has no significant effect on HR during exercise. Permanent CSD may have a modest role in alleviating symptoms in selected patients with IST.

AbstractIntroductionAutonomic modulation has been used as a therapy to control recurrent ventricular arrhythmia (VA). This study was to explore stellate ganglion block (SGB) effect on cardiac electrophysiologic properties and evaluate the long‐term outcome of cardiac sympathetic denervation (CSD) for patients with recurrent VA and structural heart disease (SHD).Materials and MethodsPatients who had recurrent VA due to SHD were enrolled prospectively. Electrophysiologic study and ventricular tachycardia (VT) induction were performed before and after left and right SGB. VA burden and long‐term outcomes were assessed for a separate patient group who underwent left or bilateral CSD for drug‐refractory VA due to SHD.ResultsElectrophysiologic study of nine patients showed that baseline mean (SD) corrected sinus node recovery time (cSNRT) increased from 320.4 (73.3) ms to 402.9 (114.2) ms after left and 482.4 (95.7) ms after bilateral SGB (P = .03). SGB did not significantly change P‐R, QRS, and Q‐T intervals and ventricular effective refractory period, nor did the inducibility of VA. Nineteen patients underwent left (n = 14) or bilateral (n = 5) CSD. CSD reduced VA burden and appropriate ICD therapies from a median (interquartile range) of 2.5 (0.4‐11.6) episodes weekly to 0.1 (0.0‐2.4) episodes weekly at 6‐month follow‐up (P = .002). Three‐year freedom from orthotopic heart transplant (OHT) and death was 52.6%. New York Heart Association functional class III/IV and VT rate less than 160 beats per minute were predictors of recurrent VA, OHT, and death.ConclusionSGB increased cSNRT without changing heart rate. CSD was more beneficial for patients with mild‐to‐moderate heart failure and faster VA.

Abstract Background In the past decade, opioid use in the general population of the US has increased dramatically. Concomitantly, opioid-related morbidity and mortality have also risen steeply. The causes of opioid over-prescribing are multifactorial, with pressure from medical agencies, patients, aggressive patient-directed marketing, and use of patient surveys as an evaluation tool to unduly influence medical providers' decision-making. Providers also have significant concerns regarding scrutiny from their medical board and exposure to medicolegal liability. Content To provide the basis for best practice recommendations, several aspects of modern opioid prescribing practice require review. The practicing clinician should be aware of: (a) the pervasiveness of current opioid prescribing within the US; (b) the availability and applicability of clinical tools used to assess patient risk; (c) the new guidelines designed to facilitate appropriate and safe medical use of opioids; (d) the incorporation of clinical tools and best documentation practices to reduce medicolegal exposure. Summary On completion of this review, the reader should be able to recognize the magnitude of the problem of opioid over-prescribing in the US and identify several patient risk factors for opioid misuse, abuse, and/or diversion. Specifically, better familiarity with the recently published CDC guidelines for opioid prescribing will help ensure the adoption of best-use practices that maximize therapeutic efficacy while attenuating the possibility of harm to patients. A thorough review of the legal principles and risk-mitigation strategies relevant to opioid prescribing will also lessen the clinician's exposure to medicolegal liability.

AbstractObjectiveThe goal of this study was to determine the frequency and clinical indications associated with implantation of single vs. dual percutaneous lead spinal cord stimulator (SCS) systems and to look further into how these leads are utilized for treatment.Materials and MethodsA retrospective cohort analysis of all patients undergoing SCS implantation between January 2001 and December 2013 with a minimum of 2 years of clinical follow‐up was performed. Number of trial leads and implanted leads was recorded. For patients with dual‐lead systems, it was noted if and when the second lead was used, along with the clinical indication for lead activation.ResultsIn the 259‐patient cohort, 15.8% (n = 41) patients underwent placement of a single‐lead system, 83.0% (n = 215) underwent placement of a dual‐lead system, and 1.2% (n = 3) underwent placement of 3‐lead systems. Placement of dual‐lead systems was similar among all indication groups. Of those patients with a dual‐lead system in place, 88.1% utilized both leads and average time to programming of the second lead was 2.3 months. The most common reason to activate the second lead was inadequate stimulation coverage. Five of the 41 patients with single‐lead systems underwent an additional surgery to implant a second lead due to inadequate stimulation with 1 lead.ConclusionsTo our knowledge this is the first descriptive analysis of the frequency of single‐ and dual‐lead SCS systems. This report indicates that dual‐lead systems are most often placed and both leads are required for optimal patient therapy.