Hunt, Christine

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.

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has demonstrated effectiveness for neuropathic pain. Unfortunately, some patients report inadequate long-term pain relief. Patient selection is emphasized for this therapy; however, the prognostic capabilities and deployment strategies of existing selection techniques, including an SCS trial, have been questioned. After approval by the Board of Directors of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, a steering committee was formed to develop evidence-based guidelines for patient selection and the role of an SCS trial. Representatives of professional organizations with clinical expertize were invited to participate as committee members. A comprehensive literature review was carried out by the steering committee, and the results organized into narrative reports, which were circulated to all the committee members. Individual statements and recommendations within each of seven sections were formulated by the steering committee and circulated to members for voting. We used a modified Delphi method wherein drafts were circulated to each member in a blinded fashion for voting. Comments were incorporated in the subsequent revisions, which were recirculated for voting to achieve consensus. Seven sections with a total of 39 recommendations were approved with 100% consensus from all the members. Sections included definitions and terminology of SCS trial; benefits of SCS trial; screening for psychosocial characteristics; patient perceptions on SCS therapy and the use of trial; other patient predictors of SCS therapy; conduct of SCS trials; and evaluation of SCS trials including minimum criteria for success. Recommendations included that SCS trial should be performed before a definitive SCS implant except in anginal pain (grade B). All patients must be screened with an objective validated instrument for psychosocial factors, and this must include depression (grade B). Despite some limitations, a trial helps patient selection and provides patients with an opportunity to experience the therapy. These recommendations are expected to guide practicing physicians and other stakeholders and should not be mistaken as practice standards. Physicians should continue to make their best judgment based on individual patient considerations and preferences.

Abstract Background Neuropathic pain is a complex condition that can be refractory to conventional management and can cause persistent suffering in patients. Current pharmacologic treatments can provide temporary symptomatic relief; however, the mechanism of these therapies does not address the underlying cause of neuropathic pain. The use of injectable biologics for neuropathic pain has multiple proposed mechanisms for analgesia including attenuation of inflammatory mediated processes, arrest or delay of the degenerative process, inhibition of apoptotic pathways, and augmentation of the survival and recovery of injured and uninjured nerves. Study Design A systematic review of human studies involving the use of injectable biologics for neuropathic pain. Methods A comprehensive search of several data bases including Ovid MEDLINE ® and Epub Ahead of Print, In Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily, and Ovid Embase from inception to November 24, 2020. Results The initial search yielded 3,450 studies with an additional 6 studies identified through other resources. Twenty-seven studies were included after independent review by two of the investigators. The included studies assessed the efficacy of injectable biologics for the treatment of neuropathic pain defined as pain reduction. Secondary outcome measures included functional improvement as well as safety of the procedures. A qualitative assessment of the literature without meta-analysis was performed due to the heterogeneity of the data. Conclusion According to the GRADE criteria, there is very low certainty of evidence in support of the efficacy of injectable biologics for treatment of neuropathic pain. Future efforts should focus on creating a standardized methodology and study design with respect to preparation, dosage and route of administration of biologics. This will serve as a catalyst for higher quality randomized trials with generation of more useful data to help drive informed clinical decision making.

Abstract Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is used to treat a variety of chronic pain conditions refractory to more conservative management including refractory angina pectoris. We identified 31 patients who underwent SCS implantation for the indication of refractory angina at a single institution from 2003 through 2018. Sixteen patients were male, and 15 were female. Average age was 53.9 years. Prior to SCS implantation, all patients had at least one coronary angiogram. Ten (32.3%) patients had undergone percutaneous coronary intervention, and four (12.9%) had undergone coronary artery bypass grafting. Thirty patients (96.7%) were currently using anti-angina medications. Twenty-six patients (83.9%) were on antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents at the time of SCS evaluation. Spinal cord stimulation implanters must perform a comprehensive evaluation incorporating appropriate multidisciplinary care particularly in patients with refractory angina given their cardiovascular comorbidities. It is important to have baseline data (e.g., pain scores, nitroglycerin consumption, frequency of angina episodes, and a questionnaire, such as the Seattle Angina Questionnaire) to compare with follow-up data to help define treatment success. We report a single institution’s pre-operative experience for patients undergoing SCS for refractory angina to illustrate unique pre-operative SCS considerations in this chronic pain population.

Background The reported prevalence of chronic pain after spinal cord injury (SCI) varies widely due, in part, to differences in the taxonomy of chronic pain. A widely used classification system is available to describe subcategories of chronic pain in SCI, but the prevalence of chronic pain in SCI based on this system is unknown. Objective The primary objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine the prevalence of chronic pain after SCI based on the International Spinal Cord Injury Pain (ISCIP) classification system. Evidence review A comprehensive search of databases from January 1980 to August 2019 was conducted. The risk of bias was assessed using a modified tool developed for uncontrolled studies. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to assess certainty in prevalence estimates. Findings A total of 1305 records were screened, and 37 studies met inclusion criteria. The pooled prevalence of overall chronic pain was 68% (95% CI 63% to 73%). The pooled prevalence of neuropathic pain in 13 studies was 58% (95% CI 49% to 68%); the pooled prevalence of musculoskeletal pain in 11 studies was 56% (95% CI 41% to 70%); the pooled prevalence of visceral pain in 8 studies was 20% (95% CI 11% to 29%) and the pooled prevalence of nociceptive pain in 2 studies was 45% (95% CI 13% to 78%). Meta-regression of risk of bias (p=0.20), traumatic versus non-traumatic etiology of injury (p=0.59), and studies where pain was a primary outcome (p=0.32) demonstrated that these factors were not significant moderators of heterogeneity. Certainty in prevalence estimates was judged to be low due to unexplained heterogeneity. Conclusion This systematic review and meta-analysis extends the findings of previous studies by reporting the prevalence of chronic pain after SCI based on the ISCIP classification system, thereby reducing clinical heterogeneity in the reporting of pain prevalence related to SCI.

Abstract Background The Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) is a self-administered questionnaire used in cardiac patients to quantify angina based on five scales: physical limitation scale, anginal stability scale, anginal frequency scale, treatment satisfaction scale, and the disease perception scale. Here we report the use of the SAQ to assess angina symptoms in 18 patients who underwent spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for refractory angina pectoris (RAP) at the Mayo Clinic. Methods Electronic health records were searched to find patients who underwent SCS for the treatment of RAP at a single institution from 2003 to 2018. Eligible patients were asked to participate in a phone survey that included the SAQ. Results Out of 13 patients who still had their implant, six (46%) had minimal physical limitations. Ten patients (76.9%) had favorable anginal frequency scores, defined as minimal or mild. Out of the five patients who had their device removed, one (20%) had minimal physical limitations and three (60%) had favorable anginal frequency scores. There was a high treatment satisfaction score for both those with their implant in place and those with the device removed. Conclusion The SAQ is useful as a comprehensive measure specific to patients with RAP assessing function, pain, and satisfaction. The utilization of this tool pre- and post-operatively may provide additional information to analyze the effectiveness of SCS for RAP.