ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Intrathecal therapy is an important part of the pain treatment algorithm for chronic disease states. The use of this option is a viable treatment strategy, but it is inherent for pain physicians to understand risk assessment and mitigation. In this manuscript, we explore evidence and mitigating strategies to improve safety with intrathecal therapy. METHODS: A robust literature search was performed covering January 2011 to October 9, 2016, in PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Biomed Central, Google Scholar, Current Contents Connect, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts. The information was cross-referenced and compiled for evidence, analysis, and consensus review, with the intent to offer weighted recommendations and consensus statements on safety for targeted intrathecal therapy delivery. RESULTS: The Polyanalgesic Consensus Conference has made several best practice recommendations to improve care and reduce morbidity and mortality associated with intrathecal therapy through all phases of management. The United States Prevention Service Task Force evidence level and consensus strength assessments are offered for each recommendation. CONCLUSION: Intrathecal therapy is a viable and relatively safe option for the treatment of cancer- and noncancer-related pain. Continued research and expert opinion are required to improve our current pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic model of intrathecal drug delivery, as this will undoubtedly improve safety and efficacy.
Subject(s)
Analgesics/administration & dosage , Chronic Pain/drug therapy , Drug Delivery Systems/standards , Guidelines as Topic , Injections, Spinal/standards , Drug Delivery Systems/methods , Humans , Infusion Pumps, Implantable/standards , Injections, Spinal/methods , SafetyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Intrathecal (IT) drug delivery systems (IDDSs) have been valuable in managing refractory chronic cancer and noncancer pain for more than 3 decades. These devices, time tested and overall reliable, have lately been noted at this institution to cease infusing unexpectedly. If not immediately recognized and rectified, this abrupt malfunction may lead to significant patient harm. METHODS: A series of 13 patients from 1 academic center whose Medtronic SynchroMed II pumps malfunctioned from 2013 to 2015 is described. Data from the patient population with regard to variables that may increase the rate of IDDS malfunction are analyzed. The risk factors for IDDS malfunction, Medtronic-issued recalls, and current literature on IT device failure are reviewed. RESULTS: The total prevalence of device motor stall among the population of this institution is 9.03%. The incidence rate of IDDS failure is calculated at 0.04 device failures per patient per year. Increased length of time from implant was the only statistically significant (P = 0.00009) risk factor for device failure identified in this population. Dysfunction in the motor gear train was found after destructive analysis of several devices in this series. CONCLUSIONS: Higher rates of device failure are associated with the use of off-label IT drugs. However, device failure may still occur while infusing only approved medications. Implanted patients should be properly informed and educated to differentiate and recognize the critical error alarm of their device as well as the signs and symptoms of IT medication overdose and withdrawal.
