Search

Numerous combination intrathecal drug therapy (CIDT) strategies exist and are utilized for varying pain syndromes, typically when monotherapy dose escalation or medication alternation is deemed untenable or unfeasible. Unfortunately, the supportive evidence basis for the use of these strategies and specific drug combinations is generally lacking and unclear, with many medications being used for off-label indications.In this manuscript, we provide a robust exploration and analysis of the literature to provide an evidence-based narrative for the use of CIDT strategies in regard to clinical indications, pharmacologic parameters, specific drug combinations, safety profiles, and future directions.Narrative review.This was an evidence based narrative performed after extensive review of the literature.Variances in intrathecal pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics are utilized advantageously with CIDT strategies to achieve improved analgesic benefit; however, appropriate use may be limited by increased or compounded risk of adverse effects. The supportive evidence for CIDT use for chronic pain conditions is largely lacking and limited to small, uncontrolled, observational studies, with many having various confounding factors, including a lack of standardized dosing. The most evidenced CIDT strategies include polyanalgesia with morphine-ziconotide, opioid-clonidine, and morphine-bupivacaine. Notably, in addition to pain relief, morphine-bupivacaine has been shown to decrease early opioid escalation requirements.The supportive evidence for CIDT use for chronic pain conditions is largely lacking and limited to small, uncontrolled, observational studies, with many having various confounding factors including a lack of standardized dosing.CIDT strategies and polyanalgesia combinations can be effective for treating various patient populations with chronic pain. The appropriate use of these strategies may be limited by increased or compounded risk of adverse effects, both of which are highly patient and scenario dependent. Therefore, practitioners should maintain a particularly low threshold of suspicion for adverse effects in patients with CIDT such that safety profiles associated with this therapy can be favorably maintained.

Background Epidural steroid injections (ESI) are commonly used to treat refractory radicular spinal pain. Although evidence suggests that an increasing cumulative dose of exogenous corticosteroid may be harmful, knowledge of current practice patterns is limited regarding the choice of dose and frequency of epidural steroid injections (ESIs). Objective Describe current practice trends in the dose selection and frequency of administration of transforaminal ESIs (TFESIs) and interlaminar ESIs (ILESIs). Design Cross-sectional survey study. Setting Not applicable. Participants Three hundred fourteen physician members of the Spine Intervention Society (SIS). From May to June 2018, an online survey was distributed to 5907 physician members of the SIS. Interventions Not applicable. Main outcome measures Corticosteroid dose used by practitioners and the number of annual ESIs administered per patient. Results Three hundred fourteen physicians responded to the survey. For single cervical or lumbar injections of dexamethasone, most physicians (56.0%) reported using 10 mg; 17% of physicians reported use of doses greater than 10 mg, with 6% using a dose of 20 mg per injection level. The most common particulate corticosteroid dose used during both cervical and lumbar ILESIs was 80 mg (cervical = 55.4%, lumbar = 54.7%). During cervical and lumbar ILESIs, 17% and 12.7% of physicians reported using doses greater than 80 mg, respectively. Almost 10% of physicians reported performing cervical TFESIs with particulate steroids. Forty percent of physicians reported allowing four ESIs at a given spinal segmental level per year (cervical/thoracic/lumbosacral). A small percentage of physicians reported allowing more than six ESIs annually (6%) and >10 injections annually (1%). Conclusions There is considerable variability among this large cohort of interventionists with regard to corticosteroid dose selection and epidural steroid injection frequency. A small proportion of respondents reported Mulitsociety Pain Workgroup guideline-discordant use of particulate steroids during cervical TFESIs. These findings demonstrate a need for additional research regarding both the reasons for such variation in care and the reasons for guideline-discordant practice in a subset of physicians. Level of evidence IV.

This paper aims to review common sympathetic nerve blocks to treat visceral pain. Extensive reviews exist exploring the approach to care for those with visceral pain due to malignancy. These often include interventional pain procedures. Research demonstrates these procedures may reduce opioid use. Research is ongoing to assess the efficacy when treating non-malignant source of visceral pain. Recently, several case reports and small-scale studies demonstrate benefits for non-painful entities, such as improved cardiac function after such procedures. The management of visceral algesia is complex. The approach to visceral pain should recognize the benefit of early discussions for the use of sympathetic blocks. Additionally, since most procedures have multiple techniques, analgesia can be achieved even in the setting of distorted anatomy due to tumor mass effects or post-radiation fibrosis, among other etiologies.

BackgroundEpidural steroid injections (ESIs) are a frequently used treatment for refractory radicular spinal pain. ESIs, particularly transforaminal epidural steroid injections (TFESI), may provide pain relief and delay the need for surgery. Corticosteroid agent and diluent choices are known to impact the safety of ESIs. In particular, the risk of embolization with particulate corticosteroids has led to recommendations for non-particulate steroid use by the Multisociety Pain Workgroup. Additionally, there is in vitro evidence that ropivacaine can crystalize in the presence of dexamethasone, potentially creating a particulate-like injectate. Despite widespread use and known risk mitigation strategies, current practice trends related to steroid and diluent choices are unknown.ObjectiveIdentify the use of particulate versus non-particulate corticosteroids for epidural steroid injections in the cervical and lumbar spine, as well as local anesthetics commonly used as diluents during these procedures.MethodsCross-sectional survey study of 314 physician members of the Spine Interventional Society.Results41% and 9% of providers reported using particulate corticosteroids during lumbar TFESIs and cervical TFESI, respectively. Four per cent of providers reported the use of ropivacaine in cervical TFESIs. Forty-four per cent of respondents reported using anesthetic in cervical interlaminar ESIs. 21% of providers report using high volumes (> 4.5 mL) during cervical interlaminar ESIs.ConclusionCurrent trends, as assessed by this survey study, indicate substantial variability in steroid and diluent choice for ESIs. Patterns were identified that may impact patient safety including the continued use of particulate corticosteroids for TFESIs and the use of ropivacaine during TFESIs by a subset of respondents.