Comprehensive, Evidence-Based, Consensus Guidelines for Prescription of Opioids for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain from the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP).

BACKGROUND: Opioid prescribing in the United States is decreasing, however, the opioid epidemic is continuing at an uncontrollable rate. Available data show a significant number of opioid deaths, primarily associated with illicit fentanyl use. It is interesting to also note that the data show no clear correlation between opioid prescribing (either number of prescriptions or morphine milligram equivalent [MME] per capita), opioid hospitalizations, and deaths. Furthermore, the data suggest that the 2016 guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have resulted in notable problems including increased hospitalizations and mental health disorders due to the lack of appropriate opioid prescribing as well as inaptly rapid tapering or weaning processes. Consequently, when examined in light of other policies and complications caused by COVID-19, a fourth wave of the opioid epidemic has been emerging. OBJECTIVES: In light of this, we herein seek to provide guidance for the prescription of opioids for the management of chronic non-cancer pain. These clinical practice guidelines are based upon a systematic review of both clinical and epidemiological evidence and have been developed by a panel of multidisciplinary experts assessing the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations and offer a clear explanation of logical relationships between various care options and health outcomes. METHODS: The methods utilized included the development of objectives and key questions for the various facets of opioid prescribing practice. Also utilized were employment of trustworthy standards, and appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest(s). The literature pertaining to opioid use, abuse, effectiveness, and adverse consequences was reviewed. The recommendations were developed after the appropriate review of text and questions by a panel of multidisciplinary subject matter experts, who tabulated comments, incorporated changes, and developed focal responses to questions posed. The multidisciplinary panel finalized 20 guideline recommendations for prescription of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. Summary of the results showed over 90% agreement for the final 20 recommendations with strong consensus. The consensus guidelines included 4 sections specific to opioid therapy with 1) ten recommendations particular to initial steps of opioid therapy; 2) five recommendations for assessment of effectiveness of opioid therapy; 3) three recommendations regarding monitoring adherence and side effects; and 4) two general, final phase recommendations. LIMITATIONS: There is a continued paucity of literature of long-term opioid therapy addressing chronic non-cancer pain. Further, significant biases exist in the preparation of guidelines, which has led to highly variable rules and regulations across various states. CONCLUSION: These guidelines were developed based upon a comprehensive review of the literature, consensus among expert panelists, and in alignment with patient preferences, and shared decision-making so as to improve the long-term pain relief and function in patients with chronic non-cancer pain. Consequently, it was concluded - and herein recommended - that chronic opioid therapy should be provided in low doses with appropriate adherence monitoring and understanding of adverse events only to those patients with a proven medical necessity, and who exhibit stable improvement in both pain relief and activities of daily function, either independently or in conjunction with other modalities of treatments

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

Peripheral Nerve Stimulation in Painful Conditions of the Upper Extremity—An Overview

Our objective is to present a brief history of the evolution of peripheral nerve stimulation, the current understanding of peripheral nerve stimulation mechanisms in chronic pain, peripheral nerve stimulation applications in upper extremity chronic pain conditions, and complications of peripheral nerve stimulation. The evolution of peripheral nerve stimulation from the early ages to the current status has been facilitated by discoveries in neurobehavioral mechanisms of pain, advances in technology and percutaneous lead development, and the availability of high-quality portable ultrasound units. Peripheral nerve stimulation application in managing upper extremity pain of amputated limbs, post-stroke shoulder pain, complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), and median, ulnar, and radial neuropathies are discussed. Finally, we describe complications of peripheral nerve stimulation. The availability of ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve stimulation techniques and superior peripheral nerve stimulation technology have opened up new and minimally invasive treatment options for chronic intractable neuropathic pain of the upper extremity. Additionally, the ability to place peripheral nerve stimulation leads percutaneously without open peripheral nerve surgery expands the pool of implanting physicians, while simultaneously decreasing the risks and complications that are associated with open surgery

Role of radial endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration in the diagnosis of pulmonary nodules: Case report and literature review

The diagnosis of pulmonary nodules can be made using several methods including computed tomography (CT)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA), radial endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS)-guided sampling techniques (transbronchial lung biopsy [TBLB], transbronchial brush, bronchoalveolar lavage, or transbronchial needle aspiration [TBNA]), or occasionally with convex probe (CP) EBUS-TBNA. While CT-guided FNA is associated with a high (25%) rate of pneumothorax, the CP-EBUS cannot reach lesions beyond the interlobar region. Radial EBUS-guided TBLB and transbronchial brushing are excellent modalities in the evaluation of peripheral pulmonary lesions. However, these techniques cannot access lesions that are located adjacent to the proximal segmental bronchus, due to the presence of a cartilaginous wall. Herein, we describe a 58-year-old man, who presented with a lung nodule in the right middle lobe, wherein radial EBUS-guided TBNA proved to be the most appropriate diagnostic modality. We also discuss the current utility of radial EBUS-guided TBNA in day-to-day practice

Yield of new versus reused endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration needles: A retrospective analysis of 500 patients

Background: Endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS)-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA) requires a dedicated needle for aspiration of mediastinal lesions. There is no data on reuse of these needles. Methods: This is a retrospective study of patients who underwent EBUS-TBNA with either new or reused EBUS-TBNA needles. The needles were reused after thorough cleaning with filtered water and organic cleaning solution, disinfection with 2.4% glutaraldehyde solution followed by ethylene oxide sterilization. The yield of EBUS-TBNA was compared between the two groups. Results: A total of 500 EBUS-TBNA procedures (351 new, 149 reused needles) were performed. The baseline characteristics were different in the two groups with suspected granulomatous disorders (sarcoidosis or tuberculosis) being significantly more common in the new compared to the reused needle group. Similarly, the median, interquartile range number of lymph node stations sampled, and the total number of passes were significantly higher in the new versus the reused needle group. The diagnostic yield was significantly higher with new needle as compared to reused needle (65.2% vs. 53.7%, P = 0.02). On multivariate logistic regression analysis, clinical suspicion of granulomatous disorders (odds ratio 1.86 [95% confidence interval, 1.20-2.87], P = 0.005) was the only predictor of diagnostic yield, after adjusting for the type of needle (new or reused), total number of passes and the number of lymph node stations sampled. No case of mediastinitis was encountered in either group. Conclusions: The yield of EBUS-TBNA might be similar with single reuse of needles as compared to new needles. However, reuse of needle should be performed only when absolutely necessary

Utility of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration in HIV-infected patients with undiagnosed intrathoracic lymphadenopathy

Background: Intrathoracic lymphadenopathy is a common problem in people living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLHIV). There is, however, limited literature on the utility of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) in these patients. Herein, we describe our experience with EBUS-TBNA in PLHIV. Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective study of all PLHIV who underwent EBUS-TBNA for the evaluation of intrathoracic lymphadenopathy. We also perform a systematic review of the English literature for studies reporting the yield of EBUS-TBNA in PLHIV. Results: During the study, 1733 EBUS procedures were performed. Among them, 22 (1.3%) were performed in PLHIV. The median age of the individuals (18.2% women) was 46 years. The median CD4 count was 144 cells/mm3. The common lymph node stations involved were station 7, 4R, and 11 L. On endosonographic examination, heterogeneous appearance and coagulation necrosis sign were observed in 14 (63.6%) and 11 (50%) individuals, respectively. EBUS-TBNA was diagnostic in 17 (77.3%) individuals, with tuberculosis being the most common diagnosis (68.2%). There were no major complications related to the procedure. Our systematic review yielded two studies describing the use of EBUS-TBNA in PLHIV. The mean diagnostic yield of EBUS-TBNA was 71% (95% confidence interval: 56–84). Conclusions: EBUS-TBNA is a safe and useful procedure in the evaluation of intrathoracic lymphadenopathy in PLHIV

A retrospective study comparing the ultrathin versus conventional bronchoscope for performing radial endobronchial ultrasound in the evaluation of peripheral pulmonary lesions

Background: Few studies have reported on the utility of ultrathin bronchoscopes (UTBs) for performing radial probe endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS). Herein, we describe our experience with UTB and conventional bronchoscope (CB) for performing radial EBUS. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective study comparing the diagnostic yield of a prototype UTB (external diameter 3 mm, working channel diameter 1.7 mm) versus CBs (external diameter ≥4.9 mm) in performing radial EBUS for the evaluation of peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPLs). Fluoroscopic guidance was not available. Results: A total of 121 subjects (34, UTB; 87, CB; 69.4% males) with a mean (standard deviation [SD]) age of 55.2 (14.8) years underwent radial EBUS. The mean (SD) size of PPLs on computed tomography of the thorax was 22.2 (13.7) mm. The lesions were significantly smaller in the UTB group (16.4 vs 24.7 mm, P = 0.006). Eight lesions could be visualized within the lumen of the peripheral smaller bronchi with the UTB. The overall yield of radial EBUS was 52.9% and was similar in the two groups (UTB vs. CB, 55.9% vs. 51.7%; P = 0.7). The procedure time was significantly shorter in the UTB group. On multivariate logistic regression, the yield was similar in the two groups after adjusting for the size and location of the lesion and position of the radial probe in relation to the lesion. Conclusion: Despite smaller lesions, radial EBUS performed with the UTB was found to have similar efficacy to that performed with the CB. More lesions could be visualized endobronchially using the UTB making it an attractive alternative for performing radial EBUS

Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: Techniques and challenges

Intrathoracic lymphadenopathy is a common problem encountered in clinical practice and is caused by a wide variety of diseases. Traditionally, the mediastinal lymph nodes were sampled using conventional transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA), or surgical methods such as mediastinoscopy, and thoracotomy (open or video-assisted thoracoscopy). However, surgical modalities including mediastinoscopy are invasive, expensive, and not universally available. Moreover, they are associated with considerable morbidity and mortality. Conventional TBNA although minimally invasive has a low diagnostic yield. In the last decade, endobronchial ultrasound-guided TBNA (EBUS-TBNA) has emerged as the diagnostic procedure of choice in evaluating undiagnosed intrathoracic lymphadenopathy. EBUS-TBNA is also currently the preferred modality in the mediastinal staging of lung cancer. The procedure is minimally invasive, safe, and can be performed as a day-care procedure. In the era of personalized medicine in lung cancer, optimizing the procedure, sample collection, and processing are crucial, as more tissue is required for performing a wide array of molecular tests. Despite its widespread use and acceptance, the diagnostic sensitivity of EBUS-TBNA is still low. To maximize the yield, cytologists and physicians should be aware of the technical details of the procedure. Herein, we discuss the technique of performing EBUS-TBNA, its indications, contraindications, and the processing of the samples at our bronchoscopy suite. We also highlight the challenges faced by the cytologists and clinicians while processing EBUS aspirates