Triaging Interventional Pain Procedures During COVID-19 or Related Elective Surgery Restrictions: Evidence-Informed Guidance from the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP)

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has worsened the pain and suffering of chronic pain patients due to stoppage of elective interventional pain management and office visits across the United States. The reopening of America and restarting of interventional techniques and elective surgical procedures has started. Unfortunately, with resurgence in some states, restrictions are once again being imposed. In addition, even during the Phase II and III of reopening, chronic pain patients and interventional pain physicians have faced difficulties because of the priority selection of elective surgical procedures.Chronic pain patients require high intensity care, specifically during a pandemic such as COVID-19. Consequently, it has become necessary to provide guidance for triaging interventional pain procedures, or related elective surgery restrictions during a pandemic. OBJECTIVES: The aim of these guidelines is to provide education and guidance for physicians, healthcare administrators, the public and patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our goal is to restore the opportunity to receive appropriate care for our patients who may benefit from interventional techniques. METHODS: The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) has created the COVID-19 Task Force in order to provide guidance for triaging interventional pain procedures or related elective surgery restrictions to provide appropriate access to interventional pain management (IPM) procedures in par with other elective surgical procedures. In developing the guidance, trustworthy standards and appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest were applied with a section of a panel of experts from various regions, specialties, types of practices (private practice, community hospital and academic institutes) and groups. The literature pertaining to all aspects of COVID-19, specifically related to epidemiology, risk factors, complications, morbidity and mortality, and literature related to risk mitigation and stratification was reviewed. The evidence -- informed with the incorporation of the best available research and practice knowledge was utilized, instead of a simplified evidence-based approach. Consequently, these guidelines are considered evidence-informed with the incorporation of the best available research and practice knowledge. RESULTS: The Task Force defined the medical urgency of a case and developed an IPM acuity scale for elective IPM procedures with 3 tiers. These included emergent, urgent, and elective procedures. Examples of emergent and urgent procedures included new onset or exacerbation of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), acute trauma or acute exacerbation of degenerative or neurological disease resulting in impaired mobility and inability to perform activities of daily living. Examples include painful rib fractures affecting oxygenation and post-dural puncture headaches limiting the ability to sit upright, stand and walk. In addition, urgent procedures include procedures to treat any severe or debilitating disease that prevents the patient from carrying out activities of daily living. Elective procedures were considered as any condition that is stable and can be safely managed with alternatives. LIMITATIONS: COVID-19 continues to be an ongoing pandemic. When these recommendations were developed, different stages of reopening based on geographical regulations were in process. The pandemic continues to be dynamic creating every changing evidence-based guidance. Consequently, we provided evidence-informed guidance. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented challenges in IPM creating needless suffering for pain patients. Many IPM procedures cannot be indefinitely postponed without adverse consequences. Chronic pain exacerbations are associated with marked functional declines and risks with alternative treatment modalities. They must be treated with the concern that they deserve. Clinicians must assess patients, local healthcare resources, and weigh the risks and benefits of a procedure against the risks of suffering from disabling pain and exposure to the COVID-19 virus

Hypnosis as a treatment of chronic widespread pain in general practice: A randomized controlled pilot trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Hypnosis treatment in general practice is a rather new concept. This pilot study was performed to evaluate the effect of a standardized hypnosis treatment used in general practice for patients with chronic widespread pain (CWP).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study was designed as a randomized control group-controlled study. Sixteen patients were randomized into a treatment group or a control group, each constituting eight patients. Seven patients in the treatment group completed the schedule. After the control period, five of the patients in the control group also received treatment, making a total of 12 patients having completed the treatment sessions. The intervention group went through a standardized hypnosis treatment with ten consecutive therapeutic sessions once a week, each lasting for about 30 minutes, focusing on ego-strengthening, relaxation, releasing muscular tension and increasing self-efficacy. A questionnaire was developed in order to calibrate the symptoms before and after the 10 weeks period, and the results were interpolated into a scale from 0 to 100, increasing numbers representing increasing suffering. Data were analyzed by means of T-tests.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The treatment group improved from their symptoms, (change from 62.5 to 55.4), while the control group deteriorated, (change from 37.2 to 45.1), (p = 0,045). The 12 patients who completed the treatment showed a mean improvement from 51.5 to 41.6. (p = 0,046). One year later the corresponding result was 41.3, indicating a persisting improvement.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The study indicates that hypnosis treatment may have a positive effect on pain and quality of life for patients with chronic muscular pain. Considering the limited number of patients, more studies should be conducted to confirm the results.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>The study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and released 27.08.07 Reg nr NCT00521807 Approval Number: 05032001.</p

Major depression, fibromyalgia and labour force participation: A population-based cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have documented an elevated frequency of depressive symptoms and disorders in fibromyalgia, but have not examined the association between this comorbidity and occupational status. The purpose of this study was to describe these epidemiological associations using a national probability sample. METHODS: Data from iteration 1.1 of the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) were used. The CCHS 1.1 was a large-scale national general health survey. The prevalence of major depression in subjects reporting that they had been diagnosed with fibromyalgia by a health professional was estimated, and then stratified by demographic variables. Logistic regression models predicting labour force participation were also examined. RESULTS: The annual prevalence of major depression was three times higher in subjects with fibromyalgia: 22.2% (95% CI 19.4 – 24.9), than in those without this condition: 7.2% (95% CI 7.0 – 7.4). The association persisted despite stratification for demographic variables. Logistic regression models predicting labour force participation indicated that both conditions had an independent (negative) effect on labour force participation. CONCLUSION: Fibromyalgia and major depression commonly co-occur and may be related to each other at a pathophysiological level. However, each syndrome is independently and negatively associated with labour force participation. A strength of this study is that it was conducted in a large probability sample from the general population. The main limitations are its cross-sectional nature, and its reliance on self-reported diagnoses of fibromyalgia

Phantom headache: pain-memory-emotion hypothesis for chronic daily headache?

The neurobiology of chronic pain, including chronic daily headache (CDH) is not completely understood. “Pain memory” hypothesis is one of the mechanisms for phantom limb pain. We reviewed the literature to delineate a relation of “pain memory” for the development of CDH. There is a direct relation of pain to memory. Patients with poor memory have less chance to develop “pain memory”, hence less possibility to develop chronic pain. Progressive memory impairment may lead to decline in headache prevalence. A similar relation of pain is also noted with emotional or psychiatric symptoms. Literature review suggests that there is marked overlap in the neural network of pain to that of memory and emotions. We speculate that pain, memory, and emotions are interrelated in triangular pattern, and each of these three is related to other two in bidirectional pattern, i.e., stimulation of one of these will stimulate other symptoms/networks and vice versa (triangular theory for chronic pain). Longstanding or recurrent noxious stimuli will strengthen this interrelation, and this may be responsible for chronicity of pain. Reduction of both chronic pain and psychological symptoms by cognitive behavioral therapy or psychological interventions further suggests a bidirectional interrelation between pain and emotion. Longitudinal studies are warranted on the prevalence of headache and other painful conditions in patients with progressive memory impairment to delineate the relation of pain to memory. Interrelation of headache to emotional symptoms should also be explored

Effectiveness of a psycho-educational program for improving quality of life of fibromyalgia patients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Most fibromyalgia patients are seen in primary care (PC). However, the effectiveness of the treatments prescribed by general practitioners is usually minimal. The main objective of the present research is to assess the efficacy of structured psycho-educational intervention, combined with relaxation, developed to improve the quality of life of patients suffering fibromyalgia (FM). The second objective is to assess the cost-effectiveness of this multimodal intervention.</p> <p>Method/Design</p> <p><it>Design</it>. Randomized controlled trial with a 12-month follow-up involving two groups, one of which is the intervention group that includes patients receiving a psychoeducational program and the other the control group consisting of patients treated for FM in the usual way.</p> <p><it>Setting</it>. Three urban PC centers in the province of Barcelona (Spain).</p> <p><it>Sample</it>. The total sample comprises 218 patients (over 18 years of age) suffering FM, selected from a database (Rheumatology service-Viladecans Hospital) of patients with this illness. Only those patients introduced in the database between the years 2005 and 2007 were included in the selection. Selected patients will be asked for written informed consent to participate in the study.</p> <p><it>Intervention</it>. Multi-component program including information about the illness, counselling about physical exercise and training in autogenic relaxation. The intervention consists of nine 2-hour sessions delivered during a two-month period. The pharmacological treatment prescribed by the physician was maintained in both groups.</p> <p><it>Main variables</it>. Sociodemographic characteristics, quality of life, use and cost of healthcare and social services.</p> <p><it>Measures</it>. Quality of life is to be measured with the FIQ and the EuroQol-5D, and the use of healthcare services with an adapted version of the Client Service Receipt Inventory (CSRI). These variables will be measured before the beginning of the program (baseline) and 1, 2, 6 and 12 months later.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This research project is an attempt to demonstrate that a psycho-educational program implemented in the context of PC can produce a significant increase in the quality of life for patients with FM, as well as a decrease in the use of healthcare and social services, compared with usual care.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>NCT00550966</p

Gender differences in self reported long term outcomes following moderate to severe traumatic brain injury

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The majority of research on health outcomes after a traumatic brain injury is focused on male participants. Information examining gender differences in health outcomes post traumatic brain injury is limited. The purpose of this study was to investigate gender differences in symptoms reported after a traumatic brain injury and to examine the degree to which these symptoms are problematic in daily functioning.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This is a secondary data analysis of a retrospective cohort study of 306 individuals who sustained a moderate to severe traumatic brain injury 8 to 24 years ago. Data were collected using the Problem Checklist (PCL) from the Head Injury Family Interview (HIFI). Using Bonferroni correction, group differences between women and men were explored using Chi-square and Wilcoxon analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Chi-square analysis by gender revealed that significantly more men reported difficulty setting realistic goals and restlessness whereas significantly more women reported headaches, dizziness and loss of confidence. Wilcoxon analysis by gender revealed that men reported sensitivity to noise and sleep disturbances as significantly more problematic than women, whereas for women, lack of initiative and needing supervision were significantly more problematic in daily functioning.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study provides insight into gender differences on outcomes after traumatic brain injury. There are significant differences between problems reported by men compared to women. This insight may facilitate health service planners and clinicians when developing programs for individuals with brain injury.</p

Epidural Interventions in the Management of Chronic Spinal Pain: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) Comprehensive Evidence-Based Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Chronic spinal pain is the most prevalent chronic disease with employment of multiple modes of interventional techniques including epidural interventions. Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, systematic reviews, and guidelines have been published. The recent review of the utilization patterns and expenditures show that there has been a decline in utilization of epidural injections with decrease in inflation adjusted costs from 2009 to 2018. The American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) published guidelines for interventional techniques in 2013, and guidelines for facet joint interventions in 2020. Consequently, these guidelines have been prepared to update previously existing guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To provide evidence-based guidance in performing therapeutic epidural procedures, including caudal, interlaminar in lumbar, cervical, and thoracic spinal regions, transforaminal in lumbar spine, and percutaneous adhesiolysis in the lumbar spine. METHODS: The methodology utilized included the development of objective and key questions with utilization of trustworthy standards. The literature pertaining to all aspects of epidural interventions was viewed with best evidence synthesis of available literature and recommendations were provided. RESULTS: In preparation of the guidelines, extensive literature review was performed. In addition to review of multiple manuscripts in reference to utilization, expenditures, anatomical and pathophysiological considerations, pharmacological and harmful effects of drugs and procedures, for evidence synthesis we have included 47 systematic reviews and 43 RCTs covering all epidural interventions to meet the objectives.The evidence recommendations are as follows: Disc herniation: Based on relevant, high-quality fluoroscopically guided epidural injections, with or without steroids, and results of previous systematic reviews, the evidence is Level I for caudal epidural injections, lumbar interlaminar epidural injections, lumbar transforaminal epidural injections, and cervical interlaminar epidural injections with strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness.The evidence for percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing disc herniation based on one high-quality, placebo-controlled RCT is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement in patients nonresponsive to conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. For thoracic disc herniation, based on one relevant, high-quality RCT of thoracic epidural with fluoroscopic guidance, with or without steroids, the evidence is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness.Spinal stenosis: The evidence based on one high-quality RCT in each category the evidence is Level III to II for fluoroscopically guided caudal epidural injections with moderate to strong recommendation and Level II for fluoroscopically guided lumbar and cervical interlaminar epidural injections with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term effectiveness.The evidence for lumbar transforaminal epidural injections is Level IV to III with moderate recommendation with fluoroscopically guided lumbar transforaminal epidural injections for long-term improvement. The evidence for percutaneous adhesiolysis in lumbar stenosis based on relevant, moderate to high quality RCTs, observational studies, and systematic reviews is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement after failure of conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. Axial discogenic pain: The evidence for axial discogenic pain without facet joint pain or sacroiliac joint pain in the lumbar and cervical spine with fluoroscopically guided caudal, lumbar and cervical interlaminar epidural injections, based on one relevant high quality RCT in each category is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement, with or without steroids. Post-surgery syndrome: The evidence for lumbar and cervical post-surgery syndrome based on one relevant, high-quality RCT with fluoroscopic guidance for caudal and cervical interlaminar epidural injections, with or without steroids, is Level II with moderate to strong recommendation for long-term improvement. For percutaneous adhesiolysis, based on multiple moderate to high-quality RCTs and systematic reviews, the evidence is Level I with strong recommendation for long-term improvement after failure of conservative management and fluoroscopically guided epidural injections. LIMITATIONS: The limitations of these guidelines include a continued paucity of high-quality studies for some techniques and various conditions including spinal stenosis, post-surgery syndrome, and discogenic pain. CONCLUSIONS: These epidural intervention guidelines including percutaneous adhesiolysis were prepared with a comprehensive review of the literature with methodologic quality assessment and determination of level of evidence with strength of recommendations

The provocative lumbar facet joint

Low back pain is the most common pain symptom experienced by American adults and is the second most common reason for primary care physician visits. There are many structures in the lumbar spine that can serve as pain generators and often the etiology of low back pain is multifactorial. However, the facet joint has been increasingly recognized as an important cause of low back pain. Facet joint pain can be diagnosed with local anesthetic blocks of the medial branches or of the facet joints themselves. Subsequent radiofrequency lesioning of the medial branches can provide more long-term pain relief. Despite some of the pitfalls associated with facet joint blocks, they have been shown to be valid, safe, and reliable as a diagnostic tool. Medial branch denervation has shown some promise for the sustained control of lumbar facet joint-mediated pain, but at this time, there is insufficient evidence that it is a wholly efficacious treatment option. Developing a universal algorithm for evaluating facet joint-mediated pain and standard procedural techniques may facilitate the performance of larger outcome studies. This review article provides an overview of the anatomy, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of facet joint-mediated pain