Search

Background/importancePatient selection for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy is crucial and is traditionally performed with clinical selection followed by a screening trial. The factors influencing patient selection and the importance of trialing have not been systematically evaluated.ObjectiveWe report a narrative review conducted to synthesize evidence regarding patient selection and the role of SCS trials.Evidence reviewMedline, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for reports (any design) of SCS in adult patients, from their inception until March 30, 2022. Study selection and data extraction were carried out using DistillerSR. Data were organized into tables and narrative summaries, categorized by study design. Importance of patient variables and trialing was considered by looking at their influence on the long-term therapy success.FindingsAmong 7321 citations, 201 reports consisting of 60 systematic reviews, 36 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 41 observational studies (OSs), 51 registry-based reports, and 13 case reports on complications during trialing were included. Based on RCTs and OSs, the median trial success rate was 72% and 82%, and therapy success was 65% and 61% at 12 months, respectively. Although several psychological and non-psychological determinants have been investigated, studies do not report a consistent approach to patient selection. Among psychological factors, untreated depression was associated with poor long-term outcomes, but the effect of others was inconsistent. Most RCTs except for chronic angina involved trialing and only one RCT compared patient selection with or without trial. The median (range) trial duration was 10 (0–30) and 7 (0–56) days among RCTs and OSs, respectively.ConclusionsDue to lack of a consistent approach to identify responders for SCS therapy, trialing complements patient selection to exclude patients who do not find the therapy helpful and/or intolerant of the SCS system. However, more rigorous and large studies are necessary to better evaluate its role.

Background The objective was to assess changes over time in prescriptions filled for nonopioid analgesics for older postoperative patients in the immediate postdischarge period. The authors hypothesized that the number of patients who filled a nonopioid analgesic prescription increased during the study period. Methods The authors performed a population-based cohort study using linked health administrative data of 278,366 admissions aged 66 yr or older undergoing surgery between fiscal year 2013 and 2019 in Ontario, Canada. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients with new filled prescriptions for nonopioid analgesics within 7 days of discharge, and the secondary outcome was the analgesic class. The authors assessed whether patients filled prescriptions for a nonopioid only, an opioid only, both opioid and nonopioid prescriptions, or a combination opioid/nonopioid. Results Overall, 22% (n = 60,181) of patients filled no opioid prescription, 2% (n = 5,534) filled a nonopioid only, 21% (n = 59,608) filled an opioid only, and 55% (n = 153,043) filled some combination of opioid and nonopioid. The percentage of patients who filled a nonopioid prescription within 7 days postoperatively increased from 9% (n = 2,119) in 2013 to 28% (n = 13,090) in 2019, with the greatest increase for acetaminophen: 3% (n = 701) to 20% (n = 9,559). The percentage of patients who filled a combination analgesic prescription decreased from 53% (n = 12,939) in 2013 to 28% (n = 13,453) in 2019. However, the percentage who filled both an opioid and nonopioid prescription increased: 4% (n = 938) to 21% (n = 9,880) so that the overall percentage of patients who received both an opioid and a nonopioid remained constant over time 76% (n = 18,642) in 2013 to 75% (n = 35,391) in 2019. Conclusions The proportion of postoperative patients who fill prescriptions for nonopioid analgesics has increased. However, rather than a move to use of nonopioids alone for analgesia, this represents a shift away from combination medications toward separate prescriptions for opioids and nonopioids. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New

Currently, ketamine is used in treating multiple pain, mental health, and substance abuse disorders due to rapid-acting analgesic and antidepressant effects. Its limited short-term durability has motivated research into the potential synergistic actions between ketamine and psychotherapy to sustain benefits. This systematic review on ketamine-assisted psychotherapy (KAP) summarizes existing evidence regarding present-day practices. Through rigorous review, seventeen articles that included 603 participants were identified. From available KAP publications, it is apparent that combined treatments can, in specific circumstances, initiate and prolong clinically significant reductions in pain, anxiety, and depressive symptoms, while encouraging rapport and treatment engagement, and promoting abstinence in patients addicted to other substances. Despite much variance in how KAP is applied (route of ketamine administration, ketamine dosage/frequency, psychotherapy modality, overall treatment length), these findings suggest psychotherapy, provided before, during, and following ketamine sessions, can maximize and prolong benefits. Additional large-scale randomized control trials are warranted to understand better the mutually influential relationships between psychotherapy and ketamine in optimizing responsiveness and sustaining long-term benefits in patients with chronic pain. Such investigations will assist in developing standardized practices and maintenance programs.

IntroductionCannabis and cannabinoids continue to gain popularity as adjuncts or alternatives to opioids in pain management, with evolving evidence of effectiveness. The relationship between cannabis and opioid use has previously been investigated in smaller cohorts or ecological samples, but not yet in a nationally representative sample.MethodsA cross-sectional analysis of adults in the USA was undertaken using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data from 2009 to 2018. The primary exposure was self-reported use of at least one opioid-containing prescription medication in the 30 days prior to survey administration. The outcome of interest was self-reported cannabis use in the same period. Multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for sociodemographic and health-related covariates, and NHANES survey sample weights were included in modeling. Prescription opioid users were then subclassified as short-term users (ResultsA total 10,928 survey respondents were included in analyses, representing 110 million adults in the USA aged 18–59. In this weighted cohort, 5.6%±0.4% reported a recent opioid prescription. Among prescription opioid users, 18.4%±3.1% reported recent cannabis use, not significantly different from 17.7%±0.7% among non-users (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.36, p=0.714). After adjustment for covariates, opioid users were significantly less likely to have recently used cannabis (adjusted OR, aOR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.97, p=0.032). When opioid users were subclassified by duration of prescription, there was no detectable difference in recent cannabis use between chronic opioid users and short-term opioid users (aOR 1.11, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.78, p=0.649).ConclusionRecent prescription opioid use was associated with decreased odds of cannabis use in this cross-sectional analysis of a nationally representative cohort. These findings suggest that use of cannabis or prescription opioids may not independently promote use of the other.

Background Although cannabis is known to have cardiovascular and psychoactive effects, the implications of its use before surgery are currently unknown. The objective of the present study was to determine whether patients with an active cannabis use disorder have an elevated risk of postoperative complications. Methods The authors conducted a retrospective population-based cohort study of patients undergoing elective surgery in the United States using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2006 to 2015. A sample of 4,186,622 inpatients 18 to 65 yr of age presenting for 1 of 11 elective surgeries including total knee replacement, total hip replacement, coronary artery bypass graft, caesarian section, cholecystectomy, colectomy, hysterectomy, breast surgery, hernia repair, laminectomy, and other spine surgeries was selected. The principal exposure was an active cannabis use disorder, as defined by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnostic codes for cannabis dependence and cannabis abuse. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of in-hospital postoperative myocardial infarction, stroke, sepsis, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolus, acute kidney injury requiring dialysis, respiratory failure, and in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay, total hospital costs, and the individual components of the composite endpoint. Results The propensity-score matched-pairs cohort consisted of 27,206 patients. There was no statistically significant difference between patients with (400 of 13,603; 2.9%) and without (415 of 13,603; 3.1%) a reported active cannabis use disorder with regard to the composite perioperative outcome (unadjusted odds ratio = 1.29; 95% CI, 1.17 to 1.42; P < 0.001; Adjusted odds ratio = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.11; P = 0.63). However, the adjusted odds of postoperative myocardial infarction was 1.88 (95% CI, 1.31 to 2.69; P < 0.001) times higher for patients with a reported active cannabis use disorder (89 of 13,603; 0.7%) compared with those without (46 of 13,603; 0.3%) an active cannabis use disorder (unadjusted odds ratio = 2.88; 95% CI, 2.34 to 3.55; P < 0.001). Conclusions An active cannabis use disorder is associated with an increased perioperative risk of myocardial infarction. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New

Summary Until recently, the belief that adequate pain management was not achievable while patients remained on buprenorphine was the impetus for the perioperative discontinuation of buprenorphine. We aimed to use an expert consensus Delphi-based survey technique to 1) specify the need for perioperative guidelines in this context and 2) offer a set of recommendations for the perioperative management of these patients. The major recommendation of this practice advisory is to continue buprenorphine therapy in the perioperative period. It is rarely appropriate to reduce the buprenorphine dose irrespective of indication or formulation. If analgesia is inadequate after optimisation of adjunct analgesic therapies, we recommend initiating a full mu agonist while continuing buprenorphine at some dose. The panel believes that before operation, physicians must distinguish between buprenorphine use for chronic pain (weaning/conversion from long-term high-dose opioids) and opioid use disorder (OUD) as the primary indication for buprenorphine therapy. Patients should ideally be discharged on buprenorphine, although not necessarily at their preoperative dose. Depending on analgesic requirements, they may be discharged on a full mu agonist. Overall, long-term buprenorphine treatment retention and harm reduction must be considered during the perioperative period when OUD is a primary diagnosis. The authors recognise that inter-patient variability will require some individualisation of clinical practice advisories. Clinical practice advisories are largely based on lower classes of evidence (level 4, level 5). Further research is required in order to implement meaningful changes in practitioner behaviour for this patient group.

This Consensus Statement provides recommendations on the prescription of pain medication at discharge from hospital for opioid-naïve adult patients who undergo elective surgery. It encourages health care providers (surgeons, anesthesiologists, nurses/nurse practitioners, pain teams, pharmacists, allied health professionals, and trainees) to (1) use nonopioid therapies and reduce the prescription of opioids so that fewer opioid pills are available for diversion and (2) educate patients and their families/caregivers about pain management options after surgery to optimize quality of care for postoperative pain. These recommendations apply to opioid-naïve adult patients who undergo elective surgery. This consensus statement is intended for use by health care providers involved in the management and care of surgical patients. A modified Delphi process was used to reach consensus on the recommendations. First, the authors conducted a scoping review of the literature to determine current best practices and existing guidelines. From the available literature and expertise of the authors, a draft list of recommendations was created. Second, the authors asked key stakeholders to review and provide feedback on several drafts of the document and attend an in-person consensus meeting. The modified Delphi stakeholder group included surgeons, anesthesiologists, residents, fellows, nurses, pharmacists, and patients. After multiple iterations, the document was deemed complete. The recommendations are not graded because they are mostly based on consensus rather than evidence.Cette déclaration de consensus fait des recommandations pour la prescription d'analgésiques à la sortie de l'hôpital pour les patients adultes n'ayant jamais pris d'opiacés et qui subissent une intervention chirurgicale non urgente. Elle encourage les prestataires de soins de santé (chirurgiens, anesthésiologistes, infirmières et infirmiers, infirmières et infirmiers praticiens, équipes antidouleur, pharmaciens, professionnels de la santé et stagiaires) à (1) utiliser des traitements non opiacés et à réduire la prescription d'opiacés afin de réduire le nombre de pilules opiacées pouvant être détournées; et (2) à éduquer les patients, ainsi que leurs familles et soignants, sur les options de prise en charge de la douleur après l'opération afin d'optimiser la qualité des soins pour la douleur postopératoire.Ces recommandations s'appliquent aux patients adultes n'ayant jamais pris d'opioïdes et qui subissent une intervention chirurgicale non urgente. Cette déclaration de consensus est destinée à être utilisée par les prestataires de soins de santé impliqués dans la prise en charge des patients opérés et les soins qui leur sont apportés.Un processus Delphi modifié a été utilisé pour parvenir à un consensus sur les recommandations. Tout d'abord, les auteurs ont procédé à une de la portée de la littérature afin de déterminer les pratiques exemplaires actuelles et les lignes directrices existantes. À partir de la littérature disponible et de l'expertise des auteurs, une liste provisoire de recommandations a été créée. Ensuite, les auteurs ont demandé aux principales parties prenantes d'examiner et de commenter plusieurs versions préliminaires du document et d'assister à une réunion de consensus en personne. Le groupe des parties prenantes du processus Delphi modifié comprenait des chirurgiens, des anesthésiologistes, des résidents, des fellows, des infirmières et infirmiers, des pharmaciens et des patients. Après de multiples itérations, le document a été jugé complet. Les recommandations n'ont pas été notées car elles étaient fondées sur un consensus plutôt que sur des données probantes.

Summary In many countries, liberalisation of the legislation regulating the use of cannabis has outpaced rigorous scientific studies, and a growing number of patients presenting for surgery consume cannabis regularly. Research to date suggests that cannabis can impact perioperative outcomes. We present recommendations obtained using a modified Delphi method for the perioperative care of cannabis-using patients. A steering committee was formed and a review of medical literature with respect to perioperative cannabis use was conducted. This was followed by the recruitment of a panel of 17 experts on the care of cannabis-consuming patients. Panellists were blinded to each other's participation and were provided with rater forms exploring the appropriateness of specific perioperative care elements. The completed rater forms were analysed for consensus. The expert panel was then unblinded and met to discuss the rater form analyses. Draft recommendations were then created and returned to the expert panel for further comment. The draft recommendations were also sent to four independent reviewers (a surgeon, a nurse practitioner, and two patients). The collected feedback was used to finalise the recommendations. The major recommendations obtained included emphasising the importance of eliciting a history of cannabis use, quantifying it, and ensuring contact with a cannabis authoriser (if one exists). Recommendations also included the consideration of perioperative cannabis weaning, additional postoperative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis, and additional attention to monitoring and maintaining anaesthetic depth. Postoperative recommendations included anticipating increased postoperative analgesic requirements and maintaining vigilance for cannabis withdrawal syndrome.

An increasing number of patients with opioid use disorder (OUD) are treated with opioid agonist-antagonists such as buprenorphine/naloxone. Perioperative management of patients on buprenorphine/naloxone is inconsistent and remains a controversial topic with mismanagement posing a significant risk to the long-term health of these patients. We performed a systematic literature search involving Medline, Medline In-Process, Embase, Cochrane Central, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycINFO, Web of Science (Clarivate), Scopus (Elsevier), CINAHL (EbscoHosst), and PubMed (NLM). Eighteen studies were included in the final sample, including one controlled study and four observational studies . Neither the controlled study nor the observational studies assessed addiction treatment retention, harm reduction, or long-term mortality rates as primary or secondary outcomes. Of the observational studies, authors showed equivalent peri- and postoperative pain control among buprenorphine continued patients. All but one authors described adequate analgesia among the case reports in which buprenorphine ≤ 16 mg sublingually (SL) daily was continued during the perioperative period. Long-term harm reduction was not reported with only three case reports including any long-term abstinence or relapse rates. The current understanding of the risks and benefits of continuing or stopping buprenorphine perioperatively is limited by a lack of high-quality evidence. Observational studies and case reports indicate no evidence against continuing buprenorphine perioperatively, especially when the dose is < 16 mg SL daily. In patients with significant potential for relapse, such as those with a recent history of OUD, the discontinuation of buprenorphine should have a strong rationale supported by patient and surgical preferences. Future studies require standardized reporting of median doses, details on the route of delivery, dosing schedules and any dosing changes, and rates of addiction relapse, including long-term morbidity and mortality where possible.

Perioperative diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) has important resource implications as screening questionnaires are overly sensitive, and sleep studies are expensive and time-consuming. Ultrasound (US) is a portable, noninvasive tool potentially useful for airway evaluation and OSA screening in the perioperative period. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the correlation of surface US with OSA diagnosis and to determine whether a point-of-care ultrasound (PoCUS) for OSA screening may help with improved screening in perioperative period.A search of all electronic databases including Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was conducted from database inception to September 2017. Inclusion criteria were observational cohort studies and randomized controlled trials of known or suspected OSA patients undergoing surface US assessment. Article screening, data extraction, and summarization were conducted by 2 independent reviewers with ability to resolve conflict with supervising authors. Diagnostic properties and association between US parameters (index test) and OSA diagnosis using sleep study (reference standard) were evaluated. The US parameters were divided into airway and nonairway parameters. A random-effects meta-analysis was planned, wherever applicable.Of the initial 3865 screened articles, 21 studies (7 airway and 14 nonairway) evaluating 3339 patients were included. Majority of studies were conducted in the general population (49%), respirology (23%), and sleep clinics (12%). No study evaluated the use of US for OSA in perioperative setting. Majority of included studies had low risk of bias for reference standard and flow and timing. Airway US parameters having moderate-good correlation with moderate-severe OSA were distance between lingual arteries (DLAs30 mm; sensitivity, 0.67; specificity, 0.59; 1 study/66 patients); mean resting tongue thickness (60 mm; sensitivity, 0.85; specificity, 0.59; 1 study/66 patients); tongue base thickness during Muller maneuver (MM; sensitivity, 0.59; specificity, 0.78; 1 study/66 patients); and a combination of neck circumference and retropalatal (RP) diameter shortening during MM (sensitivity, 1.0; specificity, 0.65; 1 study/104 patients). Nonairway US parameters having a low-moderate correlation with moderate-severe OSA were carotid intimal thickness (pooled correlation coefficient, 0.444; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.320-0.553; P value = .000, 8 studies/727 patients) and plaque presence (sensitivity, 0.24-0.75; specificity, 0.13-1.0; 4 studies/1183 patients).We found that a number of airway and nonairway parameters were identified with moderate to good correlation with OSA diagnosis in the general population. In future studies, it remains to be seen whether PoCUS screening for a combination of these parameters can address the pitfalls of OSA screening questionnaires.

Cervical epidural analgesia (CEA) is an analgesic technique, potentially useful for surgeries involving the upper body. Despite the inherent technical risks and systemic changes, it has been used for various surgeries. There have been no previously published systematic reviews aimed at assessing its clinical utility. This systematic review was performed to explore the perioperative benefits of CEA. The review was also aimed at identifying the rationale of its use, reported surgical indications and the method of use. We performed a literature search involving PubMed and Embase databases, to identify studies using CEA for surgical indications. Out of 467 potentially relevant articles, 73 articles were selected. Two independent investigators extracted data involving 5 randomized controlled trials, 17 observational comparative trials, and 51 case reports (series). The outcomes studied in most comparative studies were on effects of local anaesthetics and other agents, systemic effects, and feasibility of CEA. In one randomized controlled study, CEA was observed to decrease the resting pain scores after pharyngo-laryngeal surgeries. In a retrospective study, CEA was shown to decrease the cancer recurrence after pharyngeal-hypopharyngeal surgeries. The limited evidence, small studies, and the chosen outcomes do not allow for any specific recommendations based on the relative benefit or harm of CEA. Considering the potential for significant harm, in the face of better alternatives, its use must have a strong rationale mostly supported by unique patient and surgical demands. Future studies must aim to assess analgesic comparator effectiveness for clinically relevant outcomes.

Study objective To explore how pushing during labor and body mass index affect the development of postdural puncture headache in parturients who experienced dural puncture with Tuohy needles. Design Retrospective cohort. Setting Obstetric ward and operating rooms at a university-affiliated hospital. Patients One hundred ninety parturients who had witnessed dural puncture with 17 or 18 gauge Tuohy needles from 1999-2014. Interventions Patients were categorized by pushing status and body mass index (kg/m 2 ): nonobese Measurements Headache, number of days of headache, maximum headache score, and epidural blood patch placement. Main results Compared with women who did not push, women who pushed during labor had increased risk of postdural puncture headache (odds ratio [OR], 2.1 [1.1-4.0]; P =.02), more days of headache ( P =.02), and increased epidural blood patch placement ( P =.02). Super obese patients were less likely to develop headache compared with nonobese (OR, 0.33 [0.13-0.85]; P =.02), obese (OR, 0.37 [0.14-0.98]; P =.045], and morbidly obese patients (OR, 0.20 [0.05-0.68]; P P =.096) and super obesity (OR, 0.41 [0.16-1.02]; P =.056] were no longer significantly associated with reduced risk of postdural puncture headache. Conclusions Parturients who did not push before delivery and parturients with body mass index ≥50kg/m 2 were less likely to develop postdural puncture headache in a univariate analysis. Similar trends were demonstrated in a multivariate model, but were no longer statistically significant.

Current labour analgesia practices are evidence-based; however, such evidence often originates in controlled trials, the results of which may not be readily applicable in the context of day-to-day clinical practice. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of and maternal satisfaction with the neuraxial labour analgesia regimen provided at a tertiary care teaching hospital.All women with a viable pregnancy who requested neuraxial analgesia for labour during November 2011 at our institution were approached to participate in this prospective study. Patients were managed as per departmental routine based on a patient-controlled epidural analgesia regimen with a maintenance solution of 0.0625% bupivacaine and fentanyl 2 μg·mL(-1). Demographic and obstetric data, characteristics of the neuraxial analgesia, pain scores, side effects, and complications were recorded. After delivery, patients completed a satisfaction questionnaire.All 332 eligible women were approached, and 294 completed the study. Most women received epidural analgesia and considered its placement comfortable. A large number of women reported having experienced pain during the first or second stages of labour (38% and 26%, respectively). Although 24.4% of women required top-ups both by nurses and physicians, adjustment in the local anesthetic maintenance concentration was made in only 7.8% of the cases. Most women (92%) were satisfied with the quality of analgesia. Unintentional dural puncture occurred in three (1%) cases, and there were no cases of intravascular catheter insertion or systemic local anesthetic toxicity. Overweight women (body mass index 25-30 kg·m(-2)) (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.56; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1 to 5.97), those undergoing induced labour (AOR = 2.4; 95% CI: 1.2 to 5.2), and those requiring top-ups by the anesthesiologist (AOR = 5.08; 95% CI: 2.31 to 11.11) were associated with more dissatisfaction with pain control during the first stage of labour.Although our technique with dilute local anesthetic-opioid infusion was considered effective in previous randomized clinical trials, it did not provide sufficient labour analgesia for a large proportion of women. Nevertheless, most women were satisfied with their pain management and childbirth experience. Strategies to individualize care for labour and delivery should be readily available while providing labour analgesia.