Targeted Nerve Root Stimulation Alleviates Intractable Chronic Limb Pain Associated with Complex Regional Pain Syndrome - A Prospective Multi-Center Feasibility Study.

BACKGROUND: There are limited therapeutic options to treat complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). Spinal cord stimulation and dorsal root ganglion stimulation are proven therapies for treating chronic low limb pain in CRPS patients. There is limited evidence that stimulation of dorsal nerve roots can also provide relief of lower limb pain in these patients. OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate that electrical stimulation of dorsal nerve roots via epidural lead placement provides relief of chronic lower limb pain in patients suffering from CRPS. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, open label, single arm, multi-center study. SETTING: The study was performed at the Center for Interventional Pain and Spine (Exton, PA), Millennium Pain Center (Bloomington, IL), and the Carolinas Pain Center (Huntersville, NC). It was approved by the Western Institutional Review Board-Copernicus Group Institutional Review Board and is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03954080). METHODS: Sixteen patients with intractable chronic severe lower limb pain associated with CRPS were enrolled in the study. A standard trial period to evaluate a patients' response to stimulation of the dorsal nerve roots was conducted over 3 to 10-days. Patients that obtained 50% or greater pain relief during the trial period underwent permanent implantation of a neurostimulation system. The primary outcome was the evaluated pain level after 3 months of device activation, based on NRS pain score relative to baseline. Patients were followed up for 6 months after activation of the permanently implanted system. RESULTS: At the primary endpoint, patients reported a significant (P = 0.0006) reduction in pain of 3.3 points, improvement in quality of life, improved neuropathic pain characteristics, improved satisfaction, and an overall perception of improvement with the therapy. Improvements were sustained throughout the duration of the study up to the final 6-month visit. LIMITATIONS: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic occurring during patient enrollment, only 16 patients were enrolled and trialed, with 12 being permanently implanted. Nine were able to complete the end of study evaluation at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this short feasibility study confirm the functionality, effectiveness, and safety of intraspinal stimulation of dorsal nerve roots in patients with intractable chronic lower limb pain due to CRPS using commercially approved systems and conventional parameters.

Safety and Efficacy of Platelet Rich Plasma for Treatment of Lumbar Discogenic Pain: A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind Study.

BACKGROUND: Interventions for chronic discogenic spine pain are currently insufficient in lowering individual patient suffering and global disease burden. A 2016 study of platelet rich plasma (PRP) for chronic discogenic pain previously demonstrated clinically significant response among active group patients compared with controls. OBJECTIVES: To replicate the previous research to move this intervention forward as a viable option for patient care. STUDY DESIGN: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. SETTING: Multicenter private practices. METHODS: Twenty-six (12 men, 14 women) human patients, ages 25 to 71 with a diagnosis of chronic lumbar discogenic pain, were randomly assigned to active (PRP) or control (saline) groups in a ratio of 2 active to 1 control. Baseline and follow-up Oswestry Disability Index and Numeric Pain Rating Scale questionnaires were obtained to track patient outcomes at 8 weeks postoperatively. RESULTS: Within group assessment showed clinically significant improvement in 17% of PRP patients and clinically significant decline in 5% (1 patient) of the active group. Clinically significant improvement was seen in 13% of placebo group patients and no placebo patients had clinically significant decline secondary to the procedure. LIMITATIONS: Possible explanations may include a range of factors including differences in patient demographics, outcome-measure sensitivity, or misalignment of statistical analyses. CONCLUSIONS: These findings are markedly different than the highly promising results of the 2016 PRP study. This study posits necessary caution for researchers who wish to administer PRP for therapeutic benefit and may ultimately point to necessary redirection of interventional research for discogenic pain populations.

The Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC): Recommendations on Best Practices for Cervical Neurostimulation.

INTRODUCTION: The International Neuromodulation Society convened a multispecialty group of physicians based on expertise with international representation to establish evidence-based guidance on the use of neurostimulation in the cervical region to improve outcomes. This Neurostimulation Appropriateness Consensus Committee (NACC) project intends to provide evidence-based guidance for an often-overlooked area of neurostimulation practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Authors were chosen based upon their clinical expertise, familiarity with the peer-reviewed literature, research productivity, and contributions to the neuromodulation literature. Section leaders supervised literature searches of MEDLINE, BioMed Central, Current Contents Connect, Embase, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and PubMed from 2017 (when NACC last published guidelines) to the present. Identified studies were graded using the US Preventive Services Task Force criteria for evidence and certainty of net benefit. Recommendations are based on the strength of evidence or consensus when evidence was scant. RESULTS: The NACC examined the published literature and established evidence- and consensus-based recommendations to guide best practices. Additional guidance will occur as new evidence is developed in future iterations of this process. CONCLUSIONS: The NACC recommends best practices regarding the use of cervical neuromodulation to improve safety and efficacy. The evidence- and consensus-based recommendations should be utilized as a guide to assist decision making when clinically appropriate.

Pain relief and opioid usage in upper limb and neck pain patients after 10-kHz spinal cord stimulation treatment: subanalysis of USA studies.

Aim: It is argued that chronic pain patients who reduce/eliminate their opioids may have compromised pain relief. This study therefore aimed to analyze if reduced opioid consumption associated with 10-kHz spinal cord stimulation adversely affected pain relief. Methods: Post hoc analysis was performed on data from two prospective studies in subjects with upper limbs and neck pain conducted in USA. Results & conclusion: A 10-kHz spinal cord stimulation treatment was associated with reduction in mean visual analog scale scores for upper limbs and neck pain and mean daily opioid consumption. Pain scores decreased in subjects who decreased opioid use and in those who maintained/increased use. Opioid reduction and pain relief was also achieved in subjects taking >90 mg morphine equivalents of opioids at baseline.

Clinical Effectiveness and Mechanism of Action of Spinal Cord Stimulation for Treating Chronic Low Back and Lower Extremity Pain: a Systematic Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of the present systematic review is to provide a current understanding of the mechanism of action and the evidence available to support clinical decision-making. The focus is to summarize randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized or observational studies of spinal cord stimulation in chronic pain to understand clinical effectiveness and the mechanism of action. RECENT FINDINGS: Several recent studies have demonstrated the benefit of spinal cord stimulation in managing chronic pain. Until recently, the mechanism of action was founded on a central paradigm derived from gate control theory, which is the need to stimulate the dorsal column of the spinal cord to generate paresthesia. The recent development of new therapies that do not rely on paresthesia has left the field without a clear mechanism of action that could serve as a strong foundation to further improve clinical outcomes. Consequently, multiple theories have emerged to explain how electrical pulse applied to the spinal cord could alleviate pain, including activation of specific supraspinal pathways, and segmental modulation of the neurological interaction. Recent systematic reviews also have shown the clinical effectiveness of spinal cord stimulation in managing chronic spinal pain, phantom limb pain, complex regional pain syndrome, and other chronic painful conditions. Spinal cord stimulation for the treatment of chronic pain is rapidly evolving with technology at its forefront. This comprehensive focused review evaluated 11 RCTs and 7 nonrandomized/observational studies which provided levels of evidence ranging from I to II.

Prospective, Multicenter Feasibility Study to Evaluate Differential Target Multiplexed Spinal Cord Stimulation Programming in Subjects With Chronic Intractable Back Pain With or Without Leg Pain.

OBJECTIVE: This prospective, open-label, multicenter study evaluated the feasibility of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) therapy programming for chronic low back pain that uses multiple electrical pulsed signals (Differential Target Multiplexed). METHODS: Twenty-five SCS candidates with low back pain equal to or greater than lower limb pain were enrolled at 7 sites in the United States. The subjects evaluated standard and Differential Target Multiplexed programs, each for 4 ± 1 days. A commercially available SCS trial system was used for standard SCS therapy programming. During the trialing of the multiplexed programs, implanted temporary leads were connected to an investigational external trial stimulator system. RESULTS: Twenty subjects concluded the study. The mean baseline numeric pain rating scale (NPRS) score for low back pain was 7.4, with a mean age of 62.4 years and mean pain duration of 18.0 years. Significant relief in back pain was observed for both treatments, with significantly better response with multiplexed programming. At the end of the trial period, subjects reported a reduction in their mean NPRS score from baseline to 4.2 after standard programming and to 2.4 after Differential Target Multiplexed programming. The difference between standard and multiplexed programming was significant. The responder rate for low back pain relief was 50% for standard programming and 80% for Differential Target Multiplexed programming. Eighty-five percent of subjects who evaluated both programming approaches preferred Differential Target Multiplexed SCS. CONCLUSION: In this difficult-to-treat patient population, subjects reported significant reduction in chronic back pain when using multiplexed programming. A randomized clinical trial is needed to confirm the results from this feasibility study.

Options: A Prospective, Open-Label Study of High-Dose Spinal Cord Stimulation in Patients with Chronic Back and Leg Pain.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic approaches to spinal cord stimulation (SCS) continue to evolve and improve patient outcomes in patients receiving SCS therapy secondary to failed back surgery syndrome. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate pain relief and other patient outcomes of SCS using selected high-dose programming parameters. STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective cohort study. SETTING: This study took place at 11 centers in North America. METHODS: Forty-four SCS-naive patients underwent trialing, starting with 1,000 Hz frequency, 90 µs pulse width followed by 300 Hz frequency, 800 µs pulse width, if pain relief was inadequate. Patients with 50% or greater pain relief were eligible for permanent implantation. Patient's pain rating, global impression of change, health-related quality of life, functional disability, satisfaction/recommendation, stimulation perception, device programming, and adverse events were assessed at 3 months postimplant. RESULTS: There were significant improvements from baseline in mean Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11) pain scores for overall pain (7.5 to 3.8; P < 0.01), back pain (7.2 to 3.4; P < 0.01), leg pain (7.2 to 3.1; P < 0.01), Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score (51.5 to 32.1; P < 0.01), and European Quality of Life-Five Dimensions, version 5L score (EQ-5D-5L) (0.58 to 0.74; P < 0.01). Twenty-eight of 32 patients (88%) had significant, favorable improvement in Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). Eighty-four percent of patients were "satisfied," and 78.1% would "definitely" recommend SCS. Eighteen patients (56%) used 1,000 Hz frequency and 90 µs pulse width exclusively; these patients experienced mean NRS-11 overall pain score improvement of 4.7 points. Device-, therapy-, or procedure-related adverse events were experienced in 19 patients (40%, 19 of 48), and all events resolved without reoperation and were similar to those observed with traditional SCS systems. LIMITATIONS: There was no active or sham comparator group, and therefore the reported effects may not be solely attributable to therapy effects and may be related to other, nonspecific effects of SCS. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in pain relief, PGIC, EQ-5D-5L, ODI, and patient satisfaction were all clinically relevant and statistically significant. Future studies are needed to understand how these high-dose parameters perform versus a standard comparator. KEY WORDS: Spinal cord stimulation, high-frequency electrical stimulation, failed back surgery syndrome, neurostimulation, prospective, nonrandomized study.

Effects of Phase Polarity and Charge Balance Spinal Cord Stimulation on Behavior and Gene Expression in a Rat Model of Neuropathic Pain.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of phase polarity and charge balance of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) waveforms on pain behavior and gene expression in a neuropathic pain rodent model. We hypothesized that differing waveforms will result in diverse behavioral and transcriptomics expression due to unique mechanisms of action. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Rats were implanted with a four-contact cylindrical mini-lead and randomly assigned to two control (no-pain and pain model) and five test groups featuring monophasic, as well as charge-unbalanced and charge-balanced biphasic SCS waveforms. Mechanical and cold allodynia were assessed to measure efficacy. The ipsilateral dorsal quadrant of spinal cord adjacent to the lead was harvested post-stimulation and processed to determine gene expression via real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). Gene expression, SCS intensity (mA), and behavioral score as percent of baseline (BSPB) were statistically analyzed and used to generate correlograms using R-Studio. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS22.0, and p < 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: As expected, BSPB was significantly lower for the pain model group compared to the no-pain group. BSPB was significantly improved post-stim compared to pre-stim using cathodic, anodic, symmetric biphasic, or asymmetric biphasic 1:2 waveforms; however, BSPB was not restored to Sham levels. RT-PCR analysis showed that eight genes demonstrated a significant difference between the pain model and SCS waveforms and between waveforms. Correlograms reveal a linear correlation between regulation of expression of a given gene in relation to mA, BSPB, or other genes. CONCLUSIONS: Our results exhibit that specific SCS waveforms differentially modulate several key transcriptional pathways that are relevant in chronic pain conditions. These results have significant implications for SCS: whether to move beyond traditional paradigm of neuronal activation to focus also on modulating immune-driven processes.

High-Frequency Spinal Cord Stimulation at 10 kHz for the Treatment of Combined Neck and Arm Pain: Results From a Prospective Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: Intractable neck and upper limb pain has historically been challenging to treat with conventional spinal cord stimulation (SCS) being limited by obtaining effective paresthesia coverage. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and effectiveness of the 10-kHz SCS system, a paresthesia-independent therapy, in the treatment of neck and upper limb pain. METHODS: Subjects with chronic, intractable neck and/or upper limb pain of ≥5 cm (on a 0-10 cm visual analog scale [VAS]) were enrolled in 6 US centers following an investigational device exemption from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and institutional review board approval. Each subject was implanted with 2 epidural leads spanning C2-C6 vertebral bodies. Subjects with successful trial stimulation were implanted with a Senza® system (Nevro Corp) and included in the evaluation of the primary safety and effectiveness endpoints. RESULTS: In the per protocol population, the primary endpoint (≥50% pain relief at 3 mo) was achieved in 86.7% (n = 39/45) subjects. Compared to baseline, subjects reported a significant reduction (P < .001) in their mean (± standard error of the mean) VAS scores at 12-mo assessment for neck pain (7.6 ± 0.2 cm, n = 42 vs 1.5 ± 0.3 cm, n = 37) and upper limb pain (7.1 ± 0.3 cm, n = 24 vs 1.0 ± 0.2 cm, n = 20). At 12-mo assessment, 89.2% of subjects with neck pain and 95.0% with upper limb pain had ≥50% pain relief from baseline, 95.0% reported to be "satisfied/very satisfied" and 30.0% either eliminated or reduced their opioid intake. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, 10-kHz SCS can treat intractable neck and upper limb pain with stable long-term outcomes.

Electrical Stimulation of C6 Glia-Precursor Cells In Vitro Differentially Modulates Gene Expression Related to Chronic Pain Pathways.

Glial cells comprise the majority of cells in the central nervous system and exhibit diverse functions including the development of persistent neuropathic pain. While earlier theories have proposed that the applied electric field specifically affects neurons, it has been demonstrated that electrical stimulation (ES) of neural tissue modulates gene expression of the glial cells. This study examines the effect of ES on the expression of eight genes related to oxidative stress and neuroprotection in cultured rodent glioma cells. Concentric bipolar electrodes under seven different ES types were used to stimulate cells for 30 min in the presence and absence of extracellular glutamate. ES consisted of rectangular pulses at 50 Hz in varying proportions of anodic and cathodic phases. Real-time reverse-transcribed quantitative polymerase chain reaction was used to determine gene expression using the ∆∆Cq method. The results demonstrate that glutamate has a significant effect on gene expression in both stimulated and non-stimulated groups. Furthermore, stimulation parameters have differential effects on gene expression, both in the presence and absence of glutamate. ES has an effect on glial cell gene expression that is dependent on waveform composition. Optimization of ES therapy for chronic pain applications can be enhanced by this understanding.

Glia to neuron ratio in the posterior aspect of the human spinal cord at thoracic segments relevant to spinal cord stimulation.

Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) applied between T8 and T11 segments has been shown to be effective for the treatment of chronic pain of the lower back and limbs. However, the mechanism of the analgesic effect at these medullary levels remains unclear. Numerous studies relate glial cells with development and maintenance of chronic neuropathic pain. Glial cells are electrically excitable, which makes them a potential therapeutic target using SCS. The aim of this study is to report glia to neuron ratio in thoracic segments relevant to SCS, as well as to characterize the glia cell population at these levels. Dissections from gray and white matter of posterior spinal cord segments (T8, T9, intersection T9/T10, T10 and T11) were obtained from 11 human cadavers for histological analyses. Neuronal bodies and glial cells (microglia, astrocytes and oligodendrocytes) were immunostained, microphotographed and counted using image analysis software. Statistical analyses were carried out to establish significant differences of neuronal and glial populations among the selected segments, between the glial cells in a segment, and glial cells in white and gray matter. Results show that glia to neuron ratio in the posterior gray matter of the human spinal cord within the T8-T11 vertebral region is in the range 11 : 1 to 13 : 1, although not significantly different among vertebral segments. Glia cells are more abundant in gray matter than in white matter, whereas astrocytes and oligodendrocytes are more abundant than microglia (40 : 40 : 20). Interestingly, the population of oligodendrocytes in the T9/T10 intersection is significantly larger than in any other segment. In conclusion, glial cells are the predominant bodies in the posterior gray and white matter of the T8-T11 segments of the human spinal cord. Given the crucial role of glial cells in the development and maintenance of neuropathic pain, and their electrophysiological characteristics, anatomical determination of the ratio of different cell populations in spinal segments commonly exposed to SCS is fundamental to understand fully the biological effects observed with this therapy.

Responsible, Safe, and Effective Use of Biologics in the Management of Low Back Pain: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Regenerative medicine is a medical subspecialty that seeks to recruit and enhance the body's own inherent healing armamentarium in the treatment of patient pathology. This therapy's intention is to assist in the repair, and to potentially replace or restore damaged tissue through the use of autologous or allogenic biologics. This field is rising like a Phoenix from the ashes of underperforming conventional therapy midst the hopes and high expectations of patients and medical personnel alike. But, because this is a relatively new area of medicine that has yet to substantiate its outcomes, care must be taken in its public presentation and promises as well as in its use. OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance for the responsible, safe, and effective use of biologic therapy in the lumbar spine. To present a template on which to build standardized therapies using biologics. To ground potential administrators of biologics in the knowledge of the current outcome statistics and to stimulate those interested in providing biologic therapy to participate in high quality research that will ultimately promote and further advance this area of medicine. METHODS: The methodology used has included the development of objectives and key questions. A panel of experts from various medical specialties and subspecialties as well as differing regions collaborated in the formation of these guidelines and submitted (if any) their appropriate disclosures of conflicts of interest. Trustworthy standards were employed in the creation of these guidelines. The literature pertaining to regenerative medicine, its effectiveness, and adverse consequences was thoroughly reviewed using a best evidence synthesis of the available literature. The grading for recommendation was provided as described by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE: Lumbar Disc Injections: Based on the available evidence regarding the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP), including one high-quality randomized controlled trial (RCT), multiple moderate-quality observational studies, a single-arm meta-analysis and evidence from a systematic review, the qualitative evidence has been assessed as Level III (on a scale of Level I through V) using a qualitative modified approach to the grading of evidence based on best-evidence synthesis. Based on the available evidence regarding the use of medicinal signaling/ mesenchymal stem cell (MSCs) with a high-quality RCT, multiple moderate-quality observational studies, a single-arm meta-analysis, and 2 systematic reviews, the qualitative evidence has been assessed as Level III (on a scale of Level I through V) using a qualitative modified approach to the grading of evidence based on best evidence synthesis. Lumbar Epidural Injections Based on one high-quality RCT, multiple relevant moderate-quality observational studies and a single-arm meta-analysis, the qualitative evidence has been assessed as Level IV (on a scale of Level I through V) using a qualitative modified approach to the grading of evidence based on best evidence synthesis. Lumbar Facet Joint Injections Based on one high-quality RCT and 2 moderate-quality observational studies, the qualitative evidence for facet joint injections with PRP has been assessed as Level IV (on a scale of Level I through V) using a qualitative modified approach to the grading of evidence based on best evidence synthesis. Sacroiliac Joint Injection Based on one high-quality RCT, one moderate-quality observational study, and one low-quality case report, the qualitative evidence has been assessed as Level IV (on a scale of Level I through V) using a qualitative modified approach to the grading of evidence based on best evidence synthesis. CONCLUSION: Based on the evidence synthesis summarized above, there is Level III evidence for intradiscal injections of PRP and MSCs, whereas the evidence is considered Level IV for lumbar facet joint, lumbar epidural, and sacroiliac joint injections of PRP, (on a scale of Level I through V) using a qualitative modified approach to the grading of evidence based on best evidence synthesis.Regenerative therapy should be provided to patients following diagnostic evidence of a need for biologic therapy, following a thorough discussion of the patient's needs and expectations, after properly educating the patient on the use and administration of biologics and in full light of the patient's medical history. Regenerative therapy may be provided independently or in conjunction with other modalities of treatment including a structured exercise program, physical therapy, behavioral therapy, and along with the appropriate conventional medical therapy as necessary. Appropriate precautions should be taken into consideration and followed prior to performing biologic therapy. Multiple guidelines from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), potential limitations in the use of biologic therapy and the appropriate requirements for compliance with the FDA have been detailed in these guidelines. KEY WORDS: Regenerative medicine, platelet-rich plasma, medicinal signaling cells, mesenchymal stem cells, stromal vascular fraction, bone marrow concentrate, chronic low back pain, discogenic pain, facet joint pain, Food and Drug Administration, minimal manipulation, evidence synthesis.

Responsible, Safe, and Effective Use of Antithrombotics and Anticoagulants in Patients Undergoing Interventional Techniques: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Interventional pain management involves diagnosis and treatment of chronic pain. This specialty utilizes minimally invasive procedures to target therapeutics to the central nervous system and the spinal column. A subset of patients encountered in interventional pain are medicated using anticoagulant or antithrombotic drugs to mitigate thrombosis risk. Since these drugs target the clotting system, bleeding risk is a consideration accompanying interventional procedures. Importantly, discontinuation of anticoagulant or antithrombotic drugs exposes underlying thrombosis risk, which can lead to significant morbidity and mortality especially in those with coronary artery or cerebrovascular disease. This review summarizes the literature and provides guidelines based on best evidence for patients receiving anti-clotting therapy during interventional pain procedures. STUDY DESIGN: Best evidence synthesis. OBJECTIVE: To provide a current and concise appraisal of the literature regarding an assessment of the bleeding risk during interventional techniques for patients taking anticoagulant and/or antithrombotic medications. METHODS: A review of the available literature published on bleeding risk during interventional pain procedures, practice patterns and perioperative management of anticoagulant and antithrombotic therapy was conducted. Data sources included relevant literature identified through searches of EMBASE and PubMed from 1966 through August 2018 and manual searches of the bibliographies of known primary and review articles. RESULTS: 1. There is good evidence for risk stratification by categorizing multiple interventional techniques into low-risk, moderate-risk, and high-risk. Also, their risk should be upgraded based on other risk factors.2. There is good evidence for the risk of thromboembolic events in patients who interrupt antithrombotic therapy. 3. There is good evidence supporting discontinuation of low dose aspirin for high risk and moderate risk procedures for at least 3 days, and there is moderate evidence that these may be continued for low risk or some intermediate risk procedures.4. There is good evidence that discontinuation of anticoagulant therapy with warfarin, heparin, dabigatran (Pradaxa®), argatroban (Acova®), bivalirudin (Angiomax®), lepirudin (Refludan®), desirudin (Iprivask®), hirudin, apixaban (Eliquis®), rivaroxaban (Xarelto®), edoxaban (Savaysa®, Lixiana®), Betrixaban(Bevyxxa®), fondaparinux (Arixtra®) prior to interventional techniques with individual consideration of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the drugs and individual risk factors increases safety.5. There is good evidence that diagnosis of epidural hematoma is based on severe pain at the site of the injection, rapid neurological deterioration, and MRI with surgical decompression with progressive neurological dysfunction to avoid neurological sequelae.6. There is good evidence that if thromboembolic risk is high, low molecular weight heparin bridge therapy can be instituted during cessation of the anticoagulant, and the low molecular weight heparin can be discontinued 24 hours before the pain procedure.7. There is fair evidence that the risk of thromboembolic events is higher than that of epidural hematoma formation with the interruption of antiplatelet therapy preceding interventional techniques, though both risks are significant.8. There is fair evidence that multiple variables including anatomic pathology with spinal stenosis and ankylosing spondylitis; high risk procedures and moderate risk procedures combined with anatomic risk factors; bleeding observed during the procedure, and multiple attempts during the procedures increase the risk for bleeding complications and epidural hematoma.9. There is fair evidence that discontinuation of phosphodiesterase inhibitors is optional (dipyridamole [Persantine], cilostazol [Pletal]. However, there is also fair evidence to discontinue Aggrenox [dipyridamole plus aspirin]) 3 days prior to undergoing interventional techniques of moderate and high risk. 10. There is fair evidence to make shared decision making between the patient and the treating physicians with the treating physician and to consider all the appropriate risks associated with continuation or discontinuation of antithrombotic or anticoagulant therapy.11. There is fair evidence that if thromboembolic risk is high antithrombotic therapy may be resumed 12 hours after the interventional procedure is performed.12. There is limited evidence that discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy (clopidogrel [Plavix®], ticlopidine [Ticlid®], Ticagrelor [Brilinta®] and prasugrel [Effient®]) avoids complications of significant bleeding and epidural hematomas.13. There is very limited evidence supporting the continuation or discontinuation of most NSAIDs, excluding aspirin, for 1 to 2 days and some 4 to 10 days, since these are utilized for pain management without cardiac or cerebral protective effect. LIMITATIONS: The continued paucity of the literature with discordant recommendations. CONCLUSION: Based on the survey of current literature, and published clinical guidelines, recommendations for patients presenting with ongoing antithrombotic therapy prior to interventional techniques are variable, and are based on comprehensive analysis of each patient and the risk-benefit analysis of intervention. KEY WORDS: Perioperative bleeding, bleeding risk, practice patterns, anticoagulant therapy, antithrombotic therapy, interventional techniques, safety precautions, pain.

Interspinous process decompression is associated with a reduction in opioid analgesia in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) causes significant pain and functional impairment, and medical management has increasingly included the prescription of opioid-based analgesics. Interspinous process decompression (IPD) provides a minimally-invasive treatment option for LSS. METHODS: This study estimated the type, dosage, and duration of opioid medications through 5 years of follow-up after IPD with the Superion Indirect Decompression System (Vertiflex Inc., Carlsbad, CA USA). Data were obtained from the Superion-treatment arm of a randomized controlled noninferiority trial. The prevalence of subjects using opiates was determined at baseline through 60 months. Primary analysis included all 190 patients randomized to receive the Superion device. In a subgroup of 98 subjects, we determined opioid-medication prevalence among subjects with a history of opioid use. RESULTS: At baseline, almost 50% (94 of 190) of subjects were using opioid medication. Thereafter, there was a sharp decrease in opioid-medication prevalence from 25.2% (41 of 163) at 12 months to 13.3% (20 of 150) at 24 months to 7.5% (8 of 107) at 60 months. Between baseline and 5 years, there was an 85% decrease in the proportion of subjects using opioids. A similar pattern was also observed among subjects with a history of opiates prior to entering the trial. CONCLUSION: Stand-alone IPD is associated with a marked decrease in the need for opioid medications to manage symptoms related to LSS. In light of the current opiate epidemic, such alternatives as IPD may provide effective pain relief in patients with LSS without the need for opioid therapy.

Reframing Medicare Physician Payment Policy for 2019: A Look at Proposed Policy.

On July 12, 2018, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released the proposed 2019 Medicare physician fee schedule and quality payment program, combining these 2 rules for the first time. This occurred in a milieu of changing regulations that have been challenging for interventional pain management specialists. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) continuous to be amended by multiple administrative changes. This July 12th rule proposes substantial payment changes for evaluation and management (E&M) services, with documentation requirements, and blending of Level II to V CPT codes for E&M into a single payment. In addition, various changes in the quality payment program with liberalization of some metrics have been published. Recognizing that there are differing impacts based on specialty and practice type, as a whole interventional pain management specialists would likely see favorable reimbursement trends for E&M services as a result of this proposal. Moreover, in comparison with recent CMS final ruling, this proposed rule has relatively limited changes in procedural reimbursement performed in a facility or in-office setting.CMS, in the new rule, has proposed an overhaul of the E&M documentation and coding system ostensibly to reduce the amount of time physicians are required to spend inputting information into patients' records. The new proposed rule blends Level II to V codes for E&M services into a single payment of $93 for office outpatient visits for established patients and $135 for new patient visits. This will also have an effect with blended payments for services provided in hospital outpatients. CMS also has provided additional codes to increase the reimbursement when prolonged services are provided with total reimbursement coming to Level V payments. Interventional pain management-centered care has been identified as a specialty with complexity inherent to E&M associated with these services. Among the procedural payments, there exist significant discrepancies for the services performed in hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), and offices. A particularly egregious example is peripheral neurolytic blocks, which is reimbursed at 1,800% higher in hospital outpatient department (HOPD) settings as compared with procedures done in the office. The majority of hospital based procedures have faced relatively small cuts as compared with office based practice. The only significant change noted is for spinal cord stimulator implant leads when performed in office setting with 19.2% increase. However, epidural codes, which have been initiated with a lower payment, continue to face small reductions for physician portion.This review describes the effects of the proposed policy on interventional pain management reimbursement for E&M services, procedural services by physicians and procedures performed in office settings. KEY WORDS: Physician payment policy, physician fee schedule, Medicare, Merit-Based Incentive Payment System, interventional pain management, regulatory tsunami, Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015.

Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression Procedure for the Treatment of Lumbar Spinal Stenosis With Neurogenic Claudication: 2-Year Results of MiDAS ENCORE.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the long-term durability of the minimally invasive lumbar decompression (MILD) procedure in terms of functional improvement and pain reduction for patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and neurogenic claudication due to hypertrophic ligamentum flavum. This is a report of 2-year follow-up for MILD study patients. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical study compared outcomes for 143 patients treated with MILD versus 131 treated with epidural steroid injections. Follow-up occurred at 6 months and at 1 year for the randomized phase and at 2 years for MILD subjects only. Oswestry Disability Index, Numeric Pain Rating Scale, and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire were used to evaluate function and pain. Safety was evaluated by assessing incidence of device-/procedure-related adverse events. RESULTS: All outcome measures demonstrated clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement from baseline through 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year follow-ups. At 2 years, Oswestry Disability Index improved by 22.7 points, Numeric Pain Rating Scale improved by 3.6 points, and Zurich Claudication Questionnaire symptom severity and physical function domains improved by 1.0 and 0.8 points, respectively. There were no serious device-/procedure-related adverse events, and 1.3% experienced a device-/procedure-related adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: MILD showed excellent long-term durability, and there was no evidence of spinal instability through 2-year follow-up. Reoperation and spinal fracture rates are lower, and safety is higher for MILD versus other lumbar spine interventions, including interspinous spacers, surgical decompression, and spinal fusion. Given the minimally invasive nature of this procedure, its robust success rate, and durability of outcomes, MILD is an excellent choice for first-line therapy for select patients with central spinal stenosis suffering from neurogenic claudication symptoms with hypertrophic ligamentum flavum. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02093520.