D’Souza, Ryan S.

Objectives On rare occasions, hiccups can cause morbidity, such as sleep deprivation, aspiration and even death. At times, palliative invasive procedures are considered. This study tested the hypothesis that invasive procedures can provide hiccup palliation with an acceptable safety profile. Methods Multi-site electronic medical data were used to assess adult patients who underwent an invasive procedure for hiccups between January 1995 and January 2022. Hiccup palliation was defined as documented improvement in severity or frequency of this sign/symptom after the procedure. Results A total of 69 patients underwent one or more invasive procedures for hiccups (144 total procedures). Fifty-nine patients (86%) were men. The most frequent initial procedure was a phrenic nerve block (n=10) followed by oesophageal dilation (n=9). Only 31 patients (45%) manifested hiccup palliation after their first procedure. Nearly half, or 32 patients (46%), underwent more than one procedure (2 underwent nine procedures). Of these subsequent procedures, 35 resulted in palliation. Five adverse events arose from 144 procedures: post-esophagectomy atrial fibrillation, haematoma after cardiac device removal, vocal cord immobility after craniotomy, vocal cord immobility after vagal nerve manipulation, and a cerebral spinal leak after vagal nerve decompression. Conclusions Invasive procedures can palliate hiccups with an acceptable safety profile. However, these procedures appear to palliate hiccups in only about half of patients and sometimes do so only transiently.

Background: The use of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) for managing severe refractory chronic pain has expanded considerably due to positive statistical evidence regarding its use; however, the statistical robustness of the underlying randomized controlled trials (RCTs) requires further scrutiny. One such tool that can be used for this purpose is the fragility index, which quantifies how many individual outcome events must be altered for an outcome to lose statistical significance. Thus the index can be used quantitatively to assess the stability and robustness of an RCT’s conclusions, with higher values indicating increased trial stability. This study assesses the fragility of pain outcomes across RCTs investigating SCS for chronic pain to better understand the quality and robustness of evidence. Methods: A systematic search was conducted for RCTs assessing SCS for any chronic pain indication. The primary outcome was an evaluation of the trial-specific fragility index for the prespecified pain primary outcomes of RCTs. Secondary outcomes included an evaluation of fragility for (1) specified indications for SCS therapy, (2) reported pain outcomes appearing in three or more RCTs, (3) the presence/absence of a conflict of interest, and (4) comparisons of SCS to conservative management or different SCS waveform modalities. Results: A total of 30 RCTs were included. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) fragility index across the primary outcome of all trials was 5.45 (3.00 to 11.45). There was no statistical difference between the (1) types of outcomes (dichotomous vs. continuous; P = 0.710), (2) primary versus secondary pain outcomes ( P = 0.771), or (3) presence versus absence of trial conflict of interest ( P = 0.753). Indications with a median (IQR) fragility score greater than three included persistent spinal pain syndrome type 2 with a score of 8.00 (2.80 to 12.60), painful diabetic neuropathy with a score of 6.00 (3.00 to 11.80), complex regional pain syndrome with a score of 7.20 (4.62 to 81.50), mixed etiologies with a score of 9.00 (3.00 to 38.00), and other etiologies with a score of 3.00 (1.00 to 8.55). Conclusions: This study suggests that the majority of RCTs investigating primary pain outcomes after SCS therapy are robust with relatively high fragility scores. Reporting the fragility of outcomes in trials can provide a more comprehensive assessment of trial robustness and can further aid clinicians in interpreting trial results and making informed treatment decisions.

Purpose of the review With the widespread integration of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) into clinical practice, understanding its ethical, economic, and patient-centered implications has become increasingly important. This review critically examines recent evidence across these domains to illuminate challenges and opportunities for advancing transparent, ethical, patient-centered, and value-based neuromodulation practice. Recent findings Recent analyses reveal persistent challenges with bias, conflicts of interest, and selective outcome reporting in neuromodulation research. Studies demonstrate significant disparities in access to SCS across racial and socioeconomic groups and highlight new ethical considerations associated with artificial intelligence–enabled and informed treatment in neuromodulation. Contemporary randomized trials support clinically meaningful improvements in pain, functionality, psychological outcomes, and other patient-centered outcomes, although durability remains inconsistent because of the potential for therapy habituation or adverse events. Despite high initial upfront costs, evaluations of SCS cost-effectiveness across healthcare systems generally favor SCS over conventional medical management when assessed over multiyear periods, with differential economic benefits observed based on the type of waveform and type of national healthcare system. Summary While current evidence supports the clinical and long-term economic benefits of SCS in defined clinical contexts and indications, gaps in research transparency, equitable access to care, economic considerations, and durability of effectiveness persist.

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.